Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on three framework agreements for general work in City buildings. It supports agreements with Roland Grenier Construction ltée and Mécanicaction inc. for 36 months, with two optional 12-month extensions. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- Roland Grenier would handle work in heritage buildings; Mécanicaction would handle work on administrative spaces and on housing development intended to address homelessness.
- The work would be ordered as needed, not done on a fixed schedule. It can include demolition, repairs, construction, building systems and finishing work.
- The proposed agreement amounts total $7,990,795.78, taxes included. The resolution also authorizes $1,598,159.15 for contingencies (unplanned work); the decision summary’s lot-by-lot figures add to $1,598,159.16.
What it means for you#
- City and taxpayers: The decision sets the City’s position in favour of these agreements. It does not itself confirm the final award; that decision rests with the agglomeration council.
- City buildings and services: Work could be ordered across different City buildings, including heritage buildings, administrative spaces and housing intended to address homelessness. The decision does not identify specific buildings or guarantee that any particular work will be done.
- Companies: The City would assess both firms’ performance at the end of the agreements.
Money#
The proposed agreements and contingencies total about $9.59 million, taxes included; no separate cost estimate is given for the optional extensions.
- The proposed agreement amounts are $2,966,441.83 for Roland Grenier and $1,152,054.97 and $3,872,298.98 for Mécanicaction.
- The resolution authorizes $1,598,159.15 for contingencies. The decision summary lists contingency amounts by lot that total one cent more.
- The public call for tenders received three bids for each lot. Roland Grenier was the lowest compliant bidder for Lot 1; Mécanicaction was the lowest compliant bidder for Lots 2 and 3. The summary says all three Lot 1 bids were compliant; one bid each for Lots 2 and 3 was rejected as administratively non-compliant.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not explain how the City would decide which jobs to order, or how much work each firm would receive.
- It is not clear whether the stated amounts include work under both optional extensions.
- The resolution’s contingency amount differs by one cent from the sum of the lot-by-lot figures in the decision summary.
Case for#
- The decision summary says the selected firms submitted the lowest compliant bids for their lots.
- The work would be ordered as needs arise, which could let the City use the agreements for different kinds of work across its buildings.
- The summary says each lowest compliant bid was below the City’s latest estimate for that lot.
Case against#
- The agreements could last up to five years, but the materials do not show how work would be divided between the firms over that time.
- The City would authorize substantial contingency funds, while the amount and nature of future work are not specified.
- The one-cent difference in contingency totals leaves a small but unresolved discrepancy in the stated amounts.