Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position recommending that the agglomeration council award a maintenance contract to ESI Technologies de l'information inc. The contract would cover existing storage equipment and software from November 1, 2026, to November 30, 2027, for up to $1,465,997.38, taxes included. The stated goal is to maintain the reliability, security and performance of the City’s storage systems. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- ESI would provide technical support, software updates and security fixes, and replace defective parts at no extra charge.
- The contract was awarded through public call for tenders 26-21447. Two bids were received; ESI was the lowest compliant bidder.
- The resolution also requires an evaluation of ESI’s performance.
What it means for you#
- Residents: City staff say the storage systems support services and applications used by residents, including Montréal.ca, Info-neige and sports, recreation and library services. The contract is intended to maintain those systems; it does not guarantee any particular service outcome.
- City operations: If the agglomeration council approves the recommended position, the City would have access to the maintenance services for its existing storage equipment and software during the contract period.
Money#
The recommended contract has a maximum cost of $1,465,997.38, taxes included.
- The City’s Information Technology Service would pay up to $1,377,918.81 from its operating budget ($1,258,223.54 net of taxes).
- The Water Service’s drinking-water branch would pay up to $88,078.57 from its operating budget ($80,427.47 net of taxes); the amount would be borne entirely by the agglomeration.
- The lowest compliant bid was 26.9% below the City’s estimate of $2,006,773.88.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not set out how the agglomeration council will decide whether to approve the recommended contract.
- City staff say one bidder cited the limited number of integrators for the equipment brand as a reason not to bid. The materials do not explain whether that limits future competition.
Case for#
- The contract would provide support, updates, security fixes and replacement parts for storage systems that city staff say support many City services.
- ESI’s bid was the lowest compliant bid and was below the City’s estimate.
Case against#
- Only two bids were received. One potential bidder reportedly said the equipment brand limited the number of integrators able to compete.
- The second bid was 21.1% higher than ESI’s. City staff could not confirm why; they said different manufacturer discounts may explain the gap.