Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position asking the agglomeration council to authorize an additional $87,640.27, taxes included, for LabVantage Solutions France. This would raise the contract total to $186,965.91, taxes included. City staff say the goal is to finish upgrading and moving the City’s laboratory information system, LIMS.
- The extra work is to upgrade LIMS to version 8.9 and complete its configuration for the City’s needs.
- The contract was awarded directly to LabVantage; it was not a call for tenders. City staff cite exclusive software rights and specialized maintenance as the basis for using a direct award.
- The proposed added expense is capital spending for the Service des technologies de l’information (Information Technology Service). The agglomeration would pay 100%.
- The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The Montréal city council’s vote alone does not authorize the added spending.
What it means for you#
- City water and environment laboratories: The work concerns the LIMS system used by City laboratories, including those of the Service de l’eau and Service de l’environnement. The decision does not change residents’ eligibility for services or create a new public service.
- Agglomeration: If the agglomeration council approves the request, it would pay the added cost through the borrowing bylaw RCG 24-032.
- LabVantage: The firm would receive the added work under its existing direct-award contract. The decision authorizes the director of the relevant IT division to sign related documents for the City.
Money#
The requested additional expense is $87,640.27, taxes included ($80,027.25 net of taxes); the agglomeration would pay it in full.
- The original contract was $99,325.64, taxes included. With the proposed addition, the total would be $186,965.91, taxes included.
- The added expense is to be charged to the agglomeration’s 2026–2035 capital program and financed through borrowing bylaw RCG 24-032.
- No estimate of future savings or operating costs is provided.
What is unclear#
- The materials give no completion date or detailed schedule for the upgrade.
- They do not give a breakdown of the extra work or explain how its price was assessed.
- The materials do not describe acceptance checks, performance measures, or reporting after the work is completed.
Case for#
- City staff say the existing system was on outdated infrastructure, and that moving from version 8.2 to 8.9 revealed additional bugs and a need to adjust customized reports.
- Completing the upgrade and configuration could address the specific work needed to make the system operate on the City’s corporate infrastructure.
- Staff say the newer version is intended to extend the system’s useful life and support security, reliability, and future upgrades.
Case against#
- One concern is the size of the increase: the extra amount is nearly as large as the original contract.
- The direct award means there was no competitive call for tenders for this added work; the materials do not compare its price with alternatives.
- The initial scope planned an upgrade to version 8.8, but the work now targets version 8.9. The materials explain the reason, but do not set out a detailed cost breakdown or completion measures.