Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved a position supporting a contract with Paysagiste Solarco inc.; it has not itself awarded the contract. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The goal, according to city staff, is to maintain winter access to the Grand parc de l’Ouest.
- The proposed contract covers snow clearing on service roads and in parking lots in the Anse-à-l’Orme, Bois-de-la-Roche and Cap-Saint-Jacques sectors.
- It would run for 18 months, covering two winter seasons: November 1, 2026 to April 30, 2027, and November 1, 2027 to April 30, 2028. There is no extension option.
- Paysagiste Solarco was the lowest compliant bidder in a public call for tenders that received four bids. The proposed maximum is $178,330.82, taxes included.
- The resolution also calls for an evaluation of the company’s performance during the contract.
What it means for you#
- Park users: If the agglomeration council awards the contract, it would cover snow clearing, abrasive spreading and route marking across 59,200 m² of roads and parking areas in the three named sectors.
- Taxpayers: The agglomeration would pay the full cost from the operating budget of the city’s Service Espace pour la vie, grands parcs et Mont-Royal. The decision does not directly change taxes, fees or park access rules.
Money#
The proposed contract costs $178,330.82, taxes included, or $162,839.81 net of tax rebates.
- The contract has no contingency or allowance for quantity changes.
- The four compliant bids ranged from $178,330.82 to $912,280.64. Solarco’s bid was 37.62% below the city’s estimate and 54.96% below the second-lowest bid.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say what measures or standards will be used to evaluate the company’s performance.
Case for#
- City staff say the contract would continue snow clearing and help maintain safe access to park facilities in winter. Solarco held the previous contract for these sectors, which staff say may give it knowledge of the area.
- All four bids were found compliant, and Solarco’s bid was below the city’s estimate.
Case against#
- Solarco’s bid was substantially lower than both the city’s estimate and the next-lowest bid. That price difference may warrant attention during performance checks, though the materials do not say it signals a delivery problem.