Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set its position on extending Bell Canada’s WiFi equipment contract. It supports using the second 12-month extension, from January 27, 2026, to January 26, 2027, without increasing the contract’s authorized spending; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension covers WiFi equipment and accessories in lot 3 of the existing framework agreement.
- The agreement was originally awarded to Bell Canada for three years, with two 12-month extension options. The first option was used for 2025–26.
- Purchases would continue as needs arise and would use credits already available under the original contract.
What it means for you#
- City services and boroughs: The City’s IT department would retain the option to buy WiFi equipment for municipal needs during the extension period. This decision does not itself require any particular purchase or change WiFi service for residents.
- Taxpayers: The extension does not add to the contract’s authorized spending, but purchases would still use public funds already set aside.
- The City: The original agreement was awarded to Bell Canada after public call for tenders 21-18875. The materials do not state the number of bids or whether Bell’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.
Money#
The extension adds no spending to the original contract authorization; the materials do not give the remaining amount available.
- The original agreement’s maximum amount was $5,925,021.05, taxes included. This is the original contract ceiling, not a stated estimate of spending during the extension.
- Purchases will be made as needs arise, using existing credits. The materials say future spending and its allocation will be assessed when purchases are authorized; costs may be shared as agglomeration expenses under bylaw RCG 06-054.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not state how much of the original contract ceiling remains available, or how much equipment the City expects to buy during the extension.
- They do not state the number of bids received in the original tender or identify the lowest compliant bid.
- The file records city council’s position, not the agglomeration council’s final decision.
Case for#
- City staff say the extension would let the City continue buying WiFi equipment for planned initiatives and municipal needs without increasing the original spending authorization.
- Staff say equipment use was slower than expected because of fewer large projects, supply delays, and shortages of some professional services. An extension could provide more time to use the existing agreement.
Case against#
- The City bought equipment more slowly than expected. A concern is that the materials do not explain how much of the remaining authorization is likely to be used or why a full 12-month extension is needed.
- Although there is no added spending authorization, the extension allows further purchases using existing credits. The materials do not give a forecast of those purchases.