Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position on two maintenance contracts for Baulne inc. The city is asking the agglomeration council to approve the contracts; that council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The stated aim is to maintain industrial air compressors in city buildings.
- The proposed contracts cover preventive and corrective service for 85 compressors in 60 city buildings, in the east and west of Montréal.
- The 35-month term is May 1, 2026, to March 31, 2029. Each contract includes two optional 12-month extensions.
- The work includes preventive maintenance, regular and urgent service calls (with urgent calls available 24/7), and repairs, replacements, upgrades or improvements requested by the City.
- Baulne was the only firm to bid. Its submissions for both lots were compliant.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, services or fees. City staff say the compressors serve municipal workshops and some buildings with air-based climate controls.
- City operations: The contracts would continue private-company maintenance, with city staff overseeing the work. The City would have a budget for unforeseen work; that does not mean the full amount must be spent.
Money#
The proposed 35-month contracts and contingency budgets total $442,566.11, taxes included.
- The contract prices are $368,805.09, with a further $73,761.02 authorized for contingencies.
- The full cost is to come from the operating budget of the Service de la gestion et de la planification des immeubles. City staff say 38.82% would be paid by the agglomeration because the work relates to public safety.
- The two extension options are listed separately: $75,044.15 and $76,545.03 for Lot 1; $50,349.58 and $51,356.57 for Lot 2. The materials do not separately state whether these option amounts include taxes.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say whether either extension option will be used.
- They do not say how much of the contingency budget is expected to be spent.
- The materials give no details about how the City would assess the contractor’s performance during the contracts.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the contracts is that regular maintenance and urgent repairs could help keep equipment in working order across 60 buildings.
- Baulne’s bids were below city staff’s estimates: by 13.87% for Lot 1 and 9.37% for Lot 2.
- The contracts include 24/7 availability for urgent service calls.
Case against#
- One firm submitted bids, so the City had limited competition to compare.
- The contingency budgets add 20% to each lot’s bid price, and the materials do not say how much of that extra amount is likely to be used.
- City staff judged the contract risk not significant and therefore will not evaluate Baulne’s performance under the stated administrative process.