Summary#
On January 26, 2026, Montréal city council awarded a professional-services contract to Sid Lee Architecture inc., Projet Paysage inc., L2C Experts-Conseils inc. and Ponton Guillot inc. for the planned Jarry aquatic centre in Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension borough. The goal is to bring the park’s pool and wading pool together in a new facility; this decision funds design and related professional services, not construction.
- The contract is for up to $1,675,754.88, taxes included. The firms will provide architecture and engineering services, including plans, cost estimates, bid documents, construction supervision and warranty-period services.
- Council also authorized $335,150.98, taxes included, for contingencies and a separate $335,150.98, taxes included, for additional impacts and specialist services.
- The firms were selected through a public call for tenders. Nine bids were submitted; five met the required quality score, and this group received the highest final score. It was not selected as the lowest compliant bid.
- The resolution requires the City to evaluate the firms’ performance.
What it means for you#
- People who use Jarry Park: City staff describe a planned pool, wading pool, beach area, seasonal swimmers’ pavilion and year-round welcome pavilion. This contract is for professional services to develop the project; it does not approve or fund construction.
- City taxpayers: The City has authorized up to $2,346,056.84, taxes included for the contract and its two additional budgets. City staff say the planned site is in the park’s north end, in an area now used for parking.
- The four firms: They are responsible for the contracted professional services. The resolution does not state a contract length.
Money#
The City authorized up to $2,346,056.84, taxes included, or $2,142,262.60 net of tax rebates, for this contract.
- The contract itself is capped at $1,675,754.88, taxes included. The contingency and additional-impact budgets are each $335,150.98, taxes included.
- The additional-impact budget includes specialist consulting, construction-cost estimating, further geotechnical work, laboratory tests and aquatic-system expertise. The contingency budget may cover unforeseen needs and changes during construction.
- The materials do not give a construction budget.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not state the contract’s schedule or length.
- The final design, construction cost and timing of any construction are not set out here.
- The decision authorizes the two additional budgets but does not detail how each expense will be approved or tracked.
Case for#
- City staff say the existing pool has cracks, water loss and insufficient filtration, while the wading pool has water-quality problems and closes often. Replacing them with a combined facility could address those stated problems.
- The planned project includes accessible and energy-efficient facilities, and space for both swimming and year-round park services.
- The selected group had the highest final score. Its bid was well below the City’s estimate; the second-highest-scoring group’s bid was 10.91% higher.
Case against#
- The selected bid was 46.57% below the City’s estimate. City staff attribute the estimate gap to factors such as inflation, labour shortages and project complexity, and say they will closely monitor the services. The size of the gap leaves uncertainty about whether the contracted work can be delivered as expected.
- The two additional budgets together equal $670,301.96, taxes included. Their authorization raises the total well above the firms’ base contract price.
- This decision pays for professional services, not construction. The materials do not establish the total cost to build the planned facility.