Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position to exercise the first 12-month extension of its Internet and DDoS cyberattack-protection contracts with Beanfield Technologies inc. (lot 1) and Bell Canada (lot 2). It also supports authorizing an additional $306,585.33, taxes included, bringing the total to $1,205,311.15, taxes included. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension continues Internet service and protection against Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks.
- The additional spending would come from the operating budget of the city’s Information Technology Service, as needs arise.
- The original contracts were awarded after a public call for tenders: lot 1 had three bids; lot 2 had two, with one compliant bid. The materials do not say whether the winning bids were the lowest compliant bids.
What it means for you#
- Residents and municipal services: The decision concerns the city’s Internet connections and cyberattack protection. City staff say these services support municipal operations and public services; the decision does not directly change residents’ rights, fees, or access to a service.
- City administration: The proposed extension keeps Beanfield and Bell as separate providers for primary and secondary connections. The decision does not exercise the second 12-month extension option.
Money#
The proposed additional spending is capped at $306,585.33, taxes included.
- Of that, $268,306.94, taxes included ($245,000 net of tax rebates), is for current needs; up to $38,278.39, taxes included, is for purchases under framework agreements as needs arise.
- The amount would be charged to the Information Technology Service’s operating budget, with monthly payments. City staff say the required credits were already considered in that budget; some costs could be assigned to the agglomeration budget.
What is unclear#
- The decision summary describes the extension as 12 months but gives a service period of February 23, 2026, to January 22, 2027. The materials do not explain this difference.
- The materials do not break down the additional amount by the two providers beyond the lot-level figures, or say how much of the amount will actually be spent.
Case for#
- City staff say using two providers reduces reliance on a single supplier and supports service continuity and protection against DDoS attacks.
- The extension uses an option already included in the contracts, rather than seeking a new contract for these services.
Case against#
- The extension authorizes up to $306,585.33 in additional spending, but the materials do not explain how much will be used or how the costs will be divided between providers.
- The stated extension dates do not appear to cover 12 months, leaving the contract period unclear.