Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of two framework agreements for on-demand concrete and non-shrink backfill. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The stated aim is to keep these supplies available for city work, especially road and sidewalk repairs.
- Béton Provincial ltée would supply ready-mixed concrete for up to $3,943,251.59, and Amrize Canada inc. would supply non-shrink backfill for up to $716,098.79; both amounts include taxes.
- Each agreement would run for 24 months, with three optional 12-month extensions. The total estimated amount is $4,659,350.38, taxes included.
- The agreements would be available to all City of Montréal business units. The city would order supplies as needed and charge spending to borough and corporate-service budgets; the listed quantities do not commit the city to buy any particular amount.
- The public call for tenders received two bids overall: two for concrete and one for backfill. The selected firms were the lowest compliant bidders for their respective lots.
- The tender requires glass powder in the concrete and recycled aggregate in the backfill.
What it means for you#
- City departments and boroughs: They could order these materials for city work, including sidewalk repairs and filling road trenches. Spending would depend on need and available budgets.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, taxes, or services. City staff say the supplies are mainly for road and sidewalk work.
- Suppliers: The proposed agreements set out prices for the initial period. Prices would be adjusted annually when an agreement is renewed, based on an industrial price index.
Money#
The proposed agreements have a combined maximum amount of $4,659,350.38, taxes included.
- The city is not committed to buy the estimated quantities. Spending would be charged to borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
- City staff estimate the concrete lot at $376,156.81 (10.54%) above their estimate. For the backfill lot, the supplied material gives no comparison with an estimate.
- No separate total cost for staffing or administration is provided.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not set out how much the city is likely to order or spend during the initial term or any extensions.
- The agreements allow annual price adjustments on renewal, but the material does not give future prices.
- The city council’s orientation is not the final decision on the agreements.
Case for#
- City staff say the agreements would make supply more consistent and easier to arrange, while supporting product quality.
- The updated tender documents address ambiguity in the previous agreements about winter delivery, which staff say could reduce the risk of disputes or claims.
- The call for tenders allowed competition for concrete, with two bids; the selected supplier was the lowest compliant bidder for each lot.
Case against#
- The backfill lot received only one bid, so there was no competing bid for that product.
- The concrete bid was 10.54% above the city’s estimate, and 35.04% below the other compliant bid. The cost estimate was based on past prices and included a 5% increase.
- Because the city is not committed to buy stated quantities and prices may rise at renewal, the total eventual spending is uncertain.