Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on a contract to rehabilitate a sewer collector under rue Saint-Antoine in Ville-Marie. It supports awarding the contract to Les Excavations Lafontaine inc. and authorizing total spending of $8,134,265.78, taxes included. The stated goal, according to city staff, is to reduce the risk of failure and keep the sewer service working. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The contract would cover rehabilitation of about 622 metres of collector pipes and work on three inspection chambers, using pipe liners and sprayed concrete.
- Les Excavations Lafontaine inc. was the lowest compliant bidder in a public call for tenders. Four compliant bids were received.
- The contract is planned to last 305 calendar days. The resolution also calls for an evaluation of the contractor’s performance.
What it means for you#
- People who use or travel through the area: The work includes managing traffic, redirecting wastewater during construction, and restoring the site. The materials do not give a start date or say what specific traffic changes residents will face.
- City taxpayers: The adopted orientation supports spending up to the stated total on the contract and related costs. It does not directly change taxes or create a new service.
- The contractor: If the agglomeration council approves the award, Les Excavations Lafontaine inc. would do the work under the tender documents. Delay penalties would apply under the contract terms.
Money#
The adopted orientation supports total spending of $8,134,265.78, taxes included; the materials provide no separate amount net of tax rebates.
- The contract amount is $6,893,445.57, with $1,034,016.84 for contingencies and $206,803.37 for incidental expenses.
- The contractor’s bid, including contingencies and taxes, is 23.84% below the city’s estimate. It is 21.71% below the second-lowest compliant bid.
- City staff say the incidental expenses include materials testing. The resolution gives no breakdown of the full incidental-expense amount.
What is unclear#
- The materials give no construction start date or detailed schedule beyond the planned 305-day contract length.
- The contingency budget is authorized for unexpected work, but the materials do not say how much, if any, will be used.
- The bid prices differ substantially. City staff attribute this to different bidding strategies, suppliers and construction methods, but the materials do not explain the differences in detail.
Case for#
- City staff say inspections found serious structural damage in a collector built in 1864 and 1878, making repair necessary in the short term.
- Staff say the work is intended to strengthen the collector, improve its capacity, stop leaks and extend its useful life.
- The lowest compliant bid is below the city’s estimate, and four compliant bids were received through a public call for tenders.
Case against#
- The winning bid is substantially lower than both the city estimate and the next-lowest compliant bid. Although staff offer reasons for the gap, the materials do not provide enough detail to assess the differences in the bids.
- The approved contingency and incidental-expense budgets add $1,240,820.21 to the contract price. The materials do not say how much of that extra amount will be spent.