Montreal approves three-year engineering framework

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously approved an orientation asking the agglomeration council to enter a three-year framework agreement with Groupe Conseil CHG inc. for building structural engineering services, with an option to extend it by 12 months. The stated goal is to provide outside expertise when needed, including for urgent or specialized work. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The proposed agreement sets a maximum of $517,387.50, taxes included. The firm would provide services on request, paid at hourly rates.
  • Services may include design, analysis, diagnosis and intervention, covering areas such as steel, concrete and timber structures, seismic work, and concrete inspection.
  • The resolution assigns spending to borough, corporate-service and linked-municipality budgets as needs arise.
  • The resolution requires an evaluation of the firm’s performance.

What it means for you#

  • City departments and boroughs: They could request the firm’s services for projects. Each assignment would need its own spending authorization; the agreement does not require the city to use the full maximum.
  • Residents and taxpayers: The decision does not create a direct application process, benefit, fee or new service for residents. Any spending would come from the budgets named in the resolution.
  • The selected firm: Groupe Conseil CHG inc. would receive work only when requested, under the agreement’s terms.

Money#

The agreement would allow spending up to $517,387.50, taxes included; the materials give no estimate of actual spending.

  • The city staff report says each assignment would be authorized by a purchase order and paid at hourly rates.
  • The amount is 32.19% below the city’s latest estimate of $763,007.52, taxes included.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not give the hourly rates or say how many assignments the city expects to make.
  • They do not say how much of the maximum each budget holder would pay.
  • The agreement’s start was expected in February 2026; the materials do not confirm a start date.

Case for#

  • City staff say the agreement could provide expertise not available internally and help meet urgent or temporary workload needs.
  • The agreement would let the city request different kinds of structural engineering work without committing to spend the full maximum upfront.
  • The firm had the highest final score under the call’s evaluation process; nine firms submitted bids.

Case against#

  • The staff report says the selected firm scored relatively low on the experience of its proposed staff and project lead. The resolution requires a performance evaluation, but the materials do not describe how concerns would be handled.
  • The proposed amount is substantially below the city’s estimate. City staff suggest possible reasons, but the materials do not establish why the bids differed.