Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on a proposed increase to the framework agreement with Groupe Intervia inc. for professional services to maintain and manage mobility during water-network projects. It supports authorizing an additional $994,227.15, taxes included, bringing the agreement to $2,485,567.88, taxes included. The stated goal is to keep planned infrastructure projects moving; the agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The agreement covers design and delivery services related to mobility for water-network projects, including projects run by other city units and, sometimes, linked municipalities.
- The original three-year agreement was awarded after a public call for tenders with four bids. The materials do not say whether Intervia submitted the lowest compliant bid.
- The agreement includes two possible 12-month extensions. Staff report that 87% of its authorized amount has been used.
- If authorized, the added spending would be charged to borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision does not directly change water service, mobility rules, or residents’ rights. It concerns professional services for managing mobility during infrastructure work.
- City units and boroughs: They would draw on the agreement for services as needed, with spending charged to their budgets under the city council’s direction.
- Taxpayers: Public funds would cover the added amount if the agglomeration council authorizes it.
Money#
The proposed additional expenditure is $994,227.15, taxes included; city staff give its net cost as $946,995.74.
- The agreement’s total would rise from $1,491,340.73 to $2,485,567.88, taxes included.
- Staff say the spending would come from budgets already assigned to projects; the resolution directs charges to borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not detail the extra assignments or explain how the additional amount was calculated.
- They do not say whether the original bids included a price or process for this increase.
- Staff describe the agreement as running from March 2025 to March 2028, while the calendar says it ends in February 2028 or when authorized funds run out, whichever comes first.
Case for#
- City staff say demand for these services and the number of active and planned projects have used the original funds faster than expected.
- Adding funds could help maintain the planned schedule for water-network projects and continuity of mobility services during construction.
Case against#
- The increase would add about two-thirds of the original agreement’s value, but the materials do not explain the specific extra work or how its cost was set.
- The materials do not say whether the original contract was awarded to the lowest compliant bidder, or explain why a new tender was not used for the added amount.