Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a four-year framework agreement with Groupe de Construction DePiedmont inc. for on-demand work to secure and repair road structures. The agreement has a maximum of $1,668,717.42, taxes included, and ends when that amount is used or after four years, whichever comes first. City staff say the goal is to allow timely work when inspections or unexpected events show repairs are needed.
- The city must request and pay for work as needs arise; the agreement does not require the city to use the full amount.
- The agreement covers work such as removing loose concrete, repairing sidewalks and retaining walls, and fixing bridge drainage and safety barriers.
- DePiedmont was the lowest compliant bidder in a public call for tenders that received four bids. The city must evaluate the company’s performance.
- The spending will come from the central city’s operating budget for the Service des infrastructures du réseau routier.
What it means for you#
- People using roads and bridges: City staff say the agreement will help the city respond to urgent safety and repair needs. It does not guarantee a particular repair or result.
- City residents and taxpayers: The city may spend up to the agreement’s maximum on requested work. The decision does not directly change taxes or create a new service for residents.
- The city: It can request covered work as needs arise, rather than award a separate contract for each job.
Money#
The maximum is $1,668,717.42, taxes included, or $1,523,761.43 net of federal and provincial tax rebates.
- The city expects to spread spending evenly over four years: $417,179.36 a year, taxes included, or $380,940.36 net of rebates. Actual spending may vary with needs.
- The city will pay for work after checking invoices. No amount is set aside for contingencies or other additional costs.
- DePiedmont’s bid was 44.58% below the city’s estimate of $3,010,838.83. The next-lowest compliant bid was $4,545,776.35.
What is unclear#
- The decision does not identify which structures will need work or how much of the maximum the city will use.
- It does not set out a schedule for individual jobs. The agreement ends when the maximum is spent or four years pass; no renewal option is stated.
- The city says it will evaluate DePiedmont’s performance, but the materials do not give the evaluation results or explain what action would follow poor performance.
Case for#
- City staff say urgent damage can arise without warning, including from vehicle collisions or severe weather. Having an agreement in place may let the city order work sooner than arranging a separate contract for each need.
- The agreement covers a range of repairs and safety work on road structures.
- DePiedmont was the lowest compliant bidder, and its bid was substantially below the city’s estimate.
Case against#
- One concern is the large price gap: DePiedmont’s bid was 44.58% below the estimate and the next-lowest compliant bid was 172.41% higher than DePiedmont’s. City staff reviewed the differences and offered possible explanations, but the materials cannot show how costs or delivery will compare once work is ordered.
- The maximum is a spending limit, not a forecast of the city’s actual needs. The amount and timing of work remain uncertain.