Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved a position for the agglomeration council to exercise the second 12-month extension of the contract with 9119-5867 Québec inc. (Entretien Avangardiste inc.) for annual deep cleaning at Montréal fire stations and washing garages at some fire-service buildings. The goal, according to city staff, is to continue that cleaning service from May 1, 2026, to April 30, 2027. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed extension covers 12 months, the second of two 12-month options in the contract.
- The resolution authorizes $151,561.87 for the service and $15,156.19 for contingencies, both taxes included.
- The contractor must provide the labour and materials. The work includes cleaning rooms, mechanical equipment, exposed pipes and fixed furniture, as well as washing some garages.
- The original contract was awarded after a public call for tenders that received three bids. The materials do not say whether the chosen bid was the lowest compliant one.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision concerns an existing service contract. It does not directly change residents’ rights, taxes, or access to fire services.
- Montréal’s agglomeration: If the agglomeration council approves the position, its operating budget would fund the extension because fire services are an agglomeration responsibility.
- Fire-service buildings: The contractor would continue the specified cleaning work for one more year.
Money#
The decision summary estimates a total extension cost of $166,718.05, taxes and contingencies included.
- The resolution lists $151,561.87 for the service and $15,156.19 for contingencies. Those amounts add up to $166,718.06, one cent more than the stated total.
- City staff say the extension prices include a 2% increase over the previous year. The cost would be fully paid from the agglomeration’s operating budget.
What is unclear#
- The materials give conflicting contract totals. The official title says the total would become $796,040.83, taxes included. But the previous total in the decision summary was $644,181.78; adding the stated extension cost of $166,718.05 gives $810,899.83.
- The resolution and decision summary differ by one cent on the extension’s total cost.
- The materials do not say whether the contractor’s original bid was the lowest compliant bid.
Case for#
- City staff say the contractor’s service has been satisfactory and that continuing the contract would maintain the cleaning service.
- Staff say refusing the extension could harm building cleanliness and operations, and that temporary services from a specialized firm could cost more.
Case against#
- The contract and extension totals do not reconcile in the supplied materials, making the full amount to be authorized unclear.
- The extension uses an existing contract option rather than a new call for tenders. The materials do not provide a comparison with other suppliers’ current prices.