Summary#
Montréal city council approved an additional $66,758.51, taxes included, under the existing professional-services contract for the Guy-Lafleur Bridge project in L’Île-Bizard–Sainte-Geneviève borough. The contract with SNC Lavalin (now AtkinsRéalis) and Provencher Roy + Associés Architectes is now capped at $4,118,154.43, taxes included. City staff say the added work is to produce final “as-built” plans for future work and maintenance.
- The added work is for the final plans of the bridge as it was built.
- The extra amount raises the contract by 1.6% from its April 2023 total; the overall increase since 2019 is 8.6%.
- The council approved the expense on June 15, 2026.
What it means for you#
- Montréal residents: The city will pay for the added professional services. The decision does not change residents’ rights or create a new service.
- The city and the firms: The firms must produce the final plans under the contract. The city says it will pay for this work under protest, without admitting responsibility and while reserving its rights.
- The decision does not award a new bridge-construction contract.
Money#
The approved additional expense is $66,758.51, taxes included.
- Up to $60,959.42, net of tax rebates, will be financed through local borrowing bylaw 16-030 for the Pont Jacques-Bizard project.
- The city says the project’s 2026–2035 capital budget envelope is sufficient and that the expense is fully borne by the central city.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say whether or how the city may recover this payment through its court case against the firms.
- The planned date for producing the final plans is summer 2026; the materials do not give a more specific deadline.
Case for#
- City staff say the final plans are needed for future work and maintenance on the bridge.
- Staff say only the original designers can produce them, so a new call for tenders is not an option.
Case against#
- The city is paying the firms for extra work while pursuing a court claim against them over alleged errors, omissions and faults in their earlier services.
- The added work was not put out to tender. The decision summary says why staff consider that impractical, but gives no alternative way to test the price.