City approves bollards procurement framework

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on two framework agreements for bollards, delineators and accessories. It asks the agglomeration council to approve agreements with Trafic Innovation inc. and Develotech inc.; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to make supply more consistent and improve procurement.

  • The proposed agreements cover 24 months, with three optional 12-month extensions.
  • Trafic Innovation would supply lot 1, and Develotech would supply lot 2, on the City’s request.
  • The City would authorize up to $197,377.92, taxes included, for changes in quantities, and require an evaluation of Trafic Innovation’s performance.
  • The public call for tenders received four bids. Each named supplier was the only compliant bidder for its lot.

What it means for you#

  • City departments and boroughs: If the agglomeration council approves the agreements, City units could order these products under the negotiated terms. The listed quantities are estimates only; the City would not have to order any particular quantity.
  • Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, fees or obligations. City staff say the products are used to mark routes and work areas and to help protect pedestrian and cycling areas.
  • Suppliers: The agreements would set out the terms for supplying the products when the City orders them. Prices would be adjusted annually using an industrial price index for plastic and rubber products.

Money#

The proposed maximum total is $1,513,230.69, taxes included.

  • The lot 1 agreement with Trafic Innovation is $1,194,122.99; the lot 2 agreement with Develotech is $121,729.78.
  • The separate quantity-variation budget is $197,377.92. The City would charge spending to borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
  • The agreements do not commit the City to order the estimated quantities. The available material gives no forecast of actual orders or final spending.

What is unclear#

  • The agglomeration council’s final decision is not included in the materials.
  • The City does not say how much it expects to order, or how often it will use the extension options.
  • The materials do not estimate how annual price adjustments would affect total spending.

Case for#

  • City staff say purchases were previously made mainly through direct awards, with uneven product quality and durability. A shared procurement could make products and supply terms more consistent.
  • The agreements would let City units order as needed, while the City would not be bound to buy set quantities.
  • The prices were below the City’s estimates: staff report a 33.17% difference for lot 1 and 3.75% for lot 2.

Case against#

  • Only one compliant bidder was identified for each lot, limiting competition among eligible bids for those lots.
  • The City could use the agreements for up to five years, and annual price adjustments could change costs over that period.
  • Because the City does not commit to quantities, the total amount is a ceiling, not a prediction of what it will spend.