Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to authorize the transfer of two existing professional-services framework agreements from Affleck de la Riva s.e.n.c. to Studio Affleck de la Riva inc., and to approve a draft transfer agreement. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to keep services going; the transfer would keep the agreements’ existing terms.
- The agreements cover architecture and engineering services for projects managed by the city’s Direction de la gestion des projets immobiliers.
- The transfer moves Affleck de la Riva s.e.n.c.’s rights, obligations and responsibilities under both agreements to Studio Affleck de la Riva inc.
- The agreements were originally awarded through public call for tenders 23-20147 to a group including Affleck de la Riva architectes s.e.n.c., DWB Consultants and EFEL Experts-conseils inc. There were two bids for Lot 1 and one for Lot 2; the materials do not say whether the selected bids were the lowest compliant bids.
- Each agreement is for four years, with an option to extend by 12 months.
What it means for you#
- City and taxpayers: This is a transfer of existing agreements, not a new procurement or a change to their terms. City staff say the new firm will continue with the same personnel, assets and ongoing operations.
- The firms: Studio Affleck de la Riva inc. would take over Affleck de la Riva s.e.n.c.’s rights and responsibilities under both agreements. Staff say the transfer is needed because Affleck de la Riva s.e.n.c. is in the process of dissolving.
- The public: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, services or fees.
Money#
City staff say the transfer has no budget impact because the same contract terms would apply.
- Lot 1’s initial value was $2 948 142,96, taxes included; its approximate remaining value was $1 786 479,91, taxes included, on May 12, 2026.
- Lot 2’s initial value was $2 753 544,90, taxes included; its approximate remaining value was $2 031 370,30, taxes included, on May 12, 2026.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a separate cost estimate for preparing or administering the transfer.
- They do not explain how the city would address any later change in the new firm’s ability to deliver the services.
Case for#
- City staff say the transfer would preserve service continuity while the original firm dissolves.
- The agreements would keep the same terms, and staff report that the work would continue with the same personnel, assets and ongoing operations.
Case against#
No clear concern available from the supplied material.