Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved its position in favour of awarding a contract to SES-Intégration inc. (Darspec) for work on water backflow-prevention devices in City buildings. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The goal is to maintain these devices, which help protect buildings’ drinking-water systems from contamination.
- The proposed contract covers 33 months, from May 1, 2026, to January 31, 2029, with two 12-month extension options.
- The work includes preventive inspection and maintenance, regular and emergency service calls, corrective work, and repairs, replacements, upgrades or improvements requested by the City.
- The City’s public call for tenders received one bid, which was compliant. The proposed base contract price is $218,124.82, taxes included, with $43,624.96, taxes included, set aside for contingencies.
- City staff say the work covers about 163 devices in 80 City buildings.
What it means for you#
- City operations: If the agglomeration council approves the position, the City would have a contractor to maintain and test these devices in its buildings. City staff say delaying the contract could put drinking-water protection at risk.
- Residents and businesses: The decision does not directly change rules, fees or services for residents or businesses. The work described is for City buildings.
Money#
The proposed base-term spending is $261,749.79, taxes included; the decision also identifies who would fund it.
- The resolution sets out $218,124.82 for the bid and $43,624.96 for contingencies. Those figures add to $261,749.78, one cent less than the stated total.
- City staff say the expense would come from the operating budget of the Service de la gestion et de la planification des immeubles. The stated shares are 80.37% for the agglomeration, 4.91% for the central city and 14.72% for boroughs.
- The staff summary lists extension-option costs of $88,669 and $90,442, but does not clearly say whether these are included in the stated total.
What is unclear#
- The agglomeration council’s final decision is not in the materials.
- It is unclear whether the listed option costs are included in the $261,749.79 total or would be additional spending if the options are used.
- The documents do not explain why the second company that obtained the tender documents did not submit a bid.
Case for#
- City staff say the work helps protect drinking-water systems in City buildings and that delaying it could create a risk of contamination.
- The only bid was 16.36% below the City’s estimate, including contingencies, according to the staff summary.
- The proposed contract covers preventive checks as well as urgent calls and repairs.
Case against#
- Only one bid was submitted, so the materials provide limited evidence about how the price compares with other offers.
- The extension options could add spending beyond the stated base-term amount; the materials do not make that relationship clear.
- The stated total differs by one cent from the sum of the bid and contingency amounts.