Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved its position on a contract to supply eight pumps for the McTavish pumping station. It supports awarding the contract to KSB Pumps inc.; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the purchase is intended to support the station’s upgrade and keep later construction work on schedule.
- The proposed contract covers the pumps, testing, storage, delivery, installation checks, start-up assistance and staff training. It runs for nine years, with two one-year extension options.
- KSB was the lowest compliant bidder under the adjusted-price method, which counted estimated 25-year electricity costs and any project-funded handling equipment—not just the submitted price.
- The city’s position also authorizes contingency and incidental budgets, and an evaluation of KSB’s performance.
- The director of the Major Projects Department of the Water Service could extend the contract for the two one-year options on the same terms, without additional spending.
What it means for you#
- Water users: City staff say the station supplies drinking water to about 1.25 million people. The pumps are for its ongoing upgrade; the decision does not itself guarantee a particular service result.
- Taxpayers: The proposed contract involves public spending of up to the authorized total below. The materials do not identify a separate charge to residents.
- City staff: The contract includes training for city operations and maintenance staff. City council’s position also calls for an evaluation of KSB’s performance.
Money#
The proposed total expenditure is $16,072,956.61, taxes included.
- This comprises the $14,350,854.12 base price, $1,435,085.41 in contingencies and $287,017.08 for incidental costs.
- KSB’s adjusted price for ranking bids was $43,323,387.73, taxes included. That is not the contract expenditure: it includes projected electricity costs over 25 years. The other compliant bid had a lower base price but a higher adjusted price.
- The decision says the two one-year extensions would involve no additional spending. City staff say the contingency budget includes costs of the extension options as well as unforeseen costs.
- The McTavish upgrade has an earlier $250.8 million borrowing bylaw. The materials do not say how much of that borrowing would fund this contract.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a schedule for pump delivery or installation, or say when the nine-year contract period begins beyond referring to the contract terms.
- The materials do not explain how the city will assess KSB’s performance or what results would trigger a delivery delay or other contract remedies.
- Two bids were received from 11 firms that obtained the tender documents. City staff report that some firms cited technical or contractual requirements, representation or distribution limits, or lack of preparation time; the materials do not show whether changes to the tender could have attracted more bids.
Case for#
- City staff say the pumps are needed for later construction lots, which cannot proceed without them, and that a delay in buying them would affect the project schedule.
- KSB ranked first after the city counted projected energy costs and project-funded handling equipment. Its solution required no additional handling equipment funded by the project.
- The contract includes testing, delivery, installation assistance, training, performance guarantees and penalties for certain delays or defects.
Case against#
- Only two bids were received, and city staff report that some potential bidders found requirements restrictive or lacked time to prepare bids. Limited competition may make it harder to know whether the city obtained the best available terms.
- KSB’s base bid was higher than the other compliant bid. Its lower adjusted ranking depends on projected energy costs and the other bidder’s need for handling equipment.
- The total includes contingency and incidental budgets; the materials do not say how much of those amounts will ultimately be spent.