Summary#
On April 20, 2026, Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position to extend Baulne inc.’s building heating, ventilation and air-conditioning maintenance contracts for 12 months and authorize added spending. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the extension is intended to keep maintenance services running in city buildings.
- The extension would run from May 22, 2026, to May 21, 2027, covering planned and on-request maintenance.
- The proposed added spending is $1,657,862.33, taxes included: $1,381,551.95 for services and $276,310.38 for contingencies.
- It would raise the total value of the contracts to $8,667,920.97, taxes included.
- Baulne must be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to respond to service calls.
- The contracts followed a 2022 public call for tenders that received three bids. The materials do not say whether Baulne’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.
What it means for you#
- People who use city buildings: The decision concerns HVAC maintenance in various city buildings. It does not directly change residents’ rights, fees or eligibility for city services.
- Taxpayers: The contracts would be funded from the operating budget of the city’s Service de la gestion et de la planification des immeubles. The agglomeration would cover 55.47% of the expense because the work relates to public safety.
- The city and Baulne: The extension would continue an existing contract rather than award a new one through a tender for this 12-month period.
Money#
The proposed additional expense is $1,657,862.33, taxes included.
- This includes $276,310.38 in contingencies, described as 20% of the contract costs.
- City staff say the contract’s corrective-work costs were adjusted by 2.45% based on the consumer price index.
- The city’s operating budget for building management would fund the expense; the agglomeration would bear 55.47%.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not explain how or when the contingency money may be used.
- They do not give a comparison with the cost of a new tender for the same period.
- The city council’s adopted position is not the agglomeration council’s final decision.
Case for#
- The extension would continue planned and on-request maintenance without a gap between contracts.
- City staff say the current service is satisfactory and Baulne has accepted the extension.
- City staff say not extending could affect building cleanliness and operations, and that temporary services from another firm would cost more.
Case against#
- The added spending is substantial, and the materials do not compare it with bids for a new contract.
- The $276,310.38 contingency adds to the authorized amount, but the materials do not specify how it would be released or reported.