City extends road-signalling contracts for 12 months

Summary#

Montréal’s city council unanimously set its position in favour of using the first 12-month extension of existing road-signalling service agreements with GardaWorld s.e.n.c., Teltech Signalisation inc. and Béton Brunet ltée - Division Signalisation. The extension would run from February 20, 2026, to February 19, 2027, with no increase to the agreements’ existing amount. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.

  • The agreements cover on-demand road-signalling work for boroughs and City business units, including traffic detours during road work or emergencies.
  • The City would keep ordering services as needed; it is not required to buy a set quantity.
  • The agreements’ prices will be indexed on their anniversary during the extension.
  • The agreements came from a 2024 public call for tenders that received three bids. The materials do not say whether these were the lowest compliant bids.

What it means for you#

  • City departments and boroughs: They would continue to order services from these suppliers as needs arise. Each purchase order must receive credit approval.
  • Residents and road users: The agreements provide services for traffic detours and other road-signalling needs. They do not directly change road rules or create a new public service.
  • Taxpayers: City staff say spending would be charged to the budgets of the units ordering the work, rather than committed in advance for a set quantity.

Money#

The extension adds no amount to the agreements’ existing contract value, but actual spending will depend on orders placed.

  • The agreements’ maintained amount is $4,521,468.22, taxes included. The staff summary gives a further $678,220.23, taxes included, for possible quantity variations, making the total estimated amount $5,199,688.45, taxes included.
  • City staff say the spending is shared 40% by the central cities, 20% by boroughs and 40% by the agglomeration, due to the water service’s use of the agreements. The resolution says orders are charged to the budgets of the boroughs and City units concerned.
  • Staff say the agreements do not have a budget charge in advance; each order is subject to credit approval.

What is unclear#

  • The materials do not give the expected number or value of orders during the extension.
  • The agreements’ prices will be indexed, but the materials do not state the resulting prices.
  • The materials do not explain how spending will be divided among individual boroughs and City units.

Case for#

  • City staff say extending the agreements avoids repeated tendering and keeps suppliers available for work ordered as needed.
  • Staff report that 2025 prices were 30% below initial estimates and 20% below the market average, and that prices stayed firm during the initial term.
  • Staff say extending the agreements may help avoid the risk of renegotiating amid rising and volatile prices.

Case against#

  • One concern is that anniversary indexing could raise prices during the extension; the materials do not state the indexed rates.
  • The agreements preserve a possible $678,220.23, taxes-included allowance for quantity changes, but the materials do not show how much of it will be used.
  • The staff summary describes expected savings and price advantages, but the materials do not provide a comparison of the extension’s final costs with the cost of a new tender.