Vidéotron wins direct cable burial

Summary#

Montréal city council awarded Vidéotron ltée a direct-award contract for work on its aerial cable network along rue Notre-Dame Ouest in Lachine, between 6e and 20e avenues. The maximum authorized expense is $919,007.93, taxes included. City staff say the work is part of a project to bury cable networks.

  • The Commission des services électriques de Montréal (CSEM) manages the contract for the city. Its president is authorized to sign the required documents.
  • Vidéotron’s work is to bury its own aerial cable network on the specified street segment.
  • The city will pay the actual costs shown on invoices, up to the authorized maximum.

What it means for you#

  • Residents and businesses in Lachine: The decision concerns cable work on this street segment. City staff expect engineering to begin around February 2026, with civil works from spring 2026 through the end of 2027. They expect aerial cable removal by the end of the first quarter of 2030 and pole removal by the end of the third quarter of 2030.
  • Taxpayers: The expense is assigned entirely to the central city. The decision does not specify a direct charge to residents or businesses.

Money#

The city authorized spending of up to $919,007.93, taxes included.

  • Payment is based on actual costs, supported by invoices, and the city’s credits are allocated to the “Enfouissement des réseaux câblés” project.
  • City staff say the CSEM checked Vidéotron’s estimate against similar projects and checked the amounts of cable and equipment to be removed.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not give a breakdown of the contract costs or say what the final amount is expected to be.
  • The materials do not give details about how residents or businesses will be affected during construction.

Case for#

  • City staff say Vidéotron must do the work on its own network, making a direct award suitable for this exclusive work.
  • The CSEM checked the estimate against similar projects and the quantities of equipment involved.

Case against#

  • The contract was awarded without a competitive call for tenders, so the materials do not show competing prices.
  • The cost check is described, but the comparison figures and the basis for the maximum amount are not provided.