Summary#
Montréal city council approved framework agreements with Tacel ltée and Éco-Compteur inc. to supply traffic-signal equipment on request. The agreements run for 24 months, with an option to extend for 12 months; the stated goal is to support the city’s collection and use of mobility data.
- Tacel gets lots 1 and 3; Éco-Compteur gets lot 2. The maximum amounts for the three lots total $2,357,780.83, taxes included.
- The city also approved $235,778.08, taxes included, for contingencies, bringing the total to $2,593,558.91, taxes included.
- The city will buy equipment as needs arise, using corporate-service and borough budgets. The agreements do not require the city to order all the equipment listed.
- The public call for tenders received three compliant bids. Tacel was the only compliant bidder for lots 1 and 3; Éco-Compteur was the lowest compliant bidder for lot 2. The city negotiated Tacel’s price for lot 1.
- The resolution requires performance evaluations of Tacel and Éco-Compteur for lots 1 and 2, respectively.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision does not directly change traffic rules or create a new service for residents. City staff say the equipment can collect information about vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian traffic, including counts, classifications and speeds.
- City departments and boroughs: They may obtain equipment from the city’s distribution centre for projects or maintenance of traffic-signal systems. Orders depend on need and available budgets.
- Taxpayers: The city may spend up to the approved contract and contingency amounts. The resolution does not give a separate cost for each department or borough.
Money#
The approved maximum is $2,593,558.91, taxes included, including a contingency budget.
- The three lot amounts are: Tacel lot 1, $1,642,808.79; Éco-Compteur lot 2, $559,755.79; Tacel lot 3, $155,216.25. Each amount includes taxes.
- Contingencies are $235,778.08, taxes included. The city may use them for changes or added features, or changes in quantities.
- The initial contract prices are firm. If the city uses the 12-month extension option, prices may increase by up to 3%.
- The resolution says spending will come from corporate-service and borough budgets as needs arise. No estimate of actual orders or total spending is given.
What is unclear#
- The agreements set maximum amounts, but the materials do not say how much equipment the city expects to order or how orders will be divided among departments and boroughs.
- The materials do not explain how the city will decide whether to use the extension option.
- Tacel was the only compliant bidder for lots 1 and 3. The available material gives details of price negotiation for lot 1, but not lot 3.
- The resolution specifies performance evaluations for lots 1 and 2, but does not mention an evaluation for Tacel’s lot 3.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the decision is that shared supply agreements let city departments and boroughs obtain equipment when needed, without requiring them to buy all listed quantities at once.
- City staff say the equipment can provide consistent mobility data to support planning and day-to-day network management.
- City staff report that lot 2’s winning bid was 31% below the estimate. The lot 1 bid was negotiated down, reducing its gap with the estimate from 17% to 6%.
Case against#
- One concern is that there was only one compliant bid for lots 1 and 3, which gives the city fewer compliant offers to compare for those items.
- The total authorized amount includes contingencies, and the materials do not say how much of that amount will ultimately be spent.
- The city can extend the agreements for 12 months, with prices allowed to rise by up to 3%; the decision does not say whether it will use that option.