Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved an 18-month, direct-award contract with PBSC Solutions Urbaines inc. for BIXI equipment, up to $4,815,802.61, taxes included. It also ordered an assessment of the company’s performance. The decision’s stated purpose is to maintain and expand the city’s BIXI service.
- The order covers 75 regular bikes, 235 electric-assist bikes, 10 station terminals, and thousands of docking components and related supplies.
- PBSC was treated as the sole supplier able to provide equipment fully compatible with the existing system; the contract was not awarded through a public call for tenders.
- City staff say PBSC holds the relevant source code, patents and intellectual property.
- The city owns the BIXI fleet; BIXI Montréal operates it, according to city staff.
What it means for you#
- BIXI users: The purchase adds equipment to the system. The decision does not set delivery or installation dates, or say where equipment will be placed.
- Residents and taxpayers: The city is taking on the contract expense, with funding also reported from a provincial active-transportation program. The decision does not directly change fares or create a new service right.
- Potential suppliers: The contract went to PBSC without a public tender because the city treated it as the only compatible supplier.
Money#
The maximum contract cost is $4,815,802.61, taxes included.
- The reported net expense is $4,397,469.68, to be financed through local borrowing bylaw 25-011; the budget is available in the city’s 2026–2035 capital program.
- The materials say the TAPU active-transportation program will fund 50% and that the expense is borne entirely by the central city. They do not explain how those funding statements fit together.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not give delivery, installation or deployment dates, or identify locations for the equipment.
- It orders a performance assessment but does not explain its method or when its results will be available.
- The materials do not state the dollar amount or detailed terms of the 50% program funding.
Case for#
- City staff say only PBSC can supply equipment fully compatible with the existing BIXI system. A direct award could avoid buying equipment that does not work with that system.
- Staff compared prices with PBSC’s 2025 submissions and reported no notable overall increase; listed item changes ranged from a 5.4% decrease to a 2.2% increase.
Case against#
- The city received no competing bids through a public tender. That limits the available evidence that the price is the best obtainable.
- Staff’s price comparison was with the same supplier’s earlier submissions, not competing offers. The decision does not provide an independent price comparison.