City awards $10M wastewater oversight contract

Summary#

Montréal city council adopted an orientation to award a five-year professional-services contract to the AtkinsRéalis Canada inc. and Atelier SENS architecture fondamentale inc. group for construction oversight at the Jean-R.-Marcotte wastewater treatment plant. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the wider ozone-disinfection project aims to improve wastewater treatment and reduce microbiological contamination of the St. Lawrence River.

  • The contract covers engineering and architecture services to oversee construction of the plant’s oxygen-production unit, including work in lots 8a and 8b.
  • The contract amount is $9,535,338.38, taxes included, with $476,766.92, taxes included, set aside for contingencies. The total is $10,012,105.30, taxes included.
  • The city would evaluate the firms’ performance. The contract would last up to five years from the start of work, or until its budget is used up; there is no renewal option.
  • The contract followed a public call for tenders. Two bids were received; only the AtkinsRéalis–Atelier SENS bid met the requirements and passed the selection criteria.

What it means for you#

  • Residents and taxpayers: This decision concerns professional oversight of construction, not the construction contract itself or a direct change to household water or sewer services.
  • City administration: The project already has an in-house team that will oversee some work on site. The contracted firms would oversee a significant part of the site work and all office-based oversight.
  • People served by the plant: The staff report says the wider ozone project is intended to improve treatment. This contract alone does not ensure that result.

Money#

The contract and contingency budget total $10,012,105.30, taxes included.

  • The contract itself is $9,535,338.38, taxes included; the contingency budget is $476,766.92, taxes included.
  • The staff report says the contract amount is 5.25% above the city’s estimate. It attributes the difference mainly to higher hourly rates for key and senior staff, and the bidder’s allowance for annual price adjustments.
  • The supplied material does not state the funding source or give a separate estimate of the city’s staffing costs.

What is unclear#

  • The decision does not detail exactly which tasks the city’s in-house team will handle and which the firms will handle.
  • The contract’s start date is not given. It would end after five years or when its budget is exhausted, whichever comes first.
  • The material does not explain how the contingency budget would be used or how much of it will be spent.

Case for#

  • City staff say the project’s size, complexity and range of required expertise make outside professional support necessary.
  • The contract would add to the city’s own on-site oversight team and provide office-based support across the relevant disciplines.
  • The selected group was the only bidder that met the requirements and passed the pre-set selection criteria.

Case against#

  • Only one of the two bids received was compliant, so there was no second compliant bid to compare with the selected offer.
  • The total is above the city’s estimate, and the contract includes a contingency budget and price adjustments.
  • The staff report says the contract has no bonuses or penalties for delays, and the supplied material does not set out other performance milestones.