Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of a 12-month extension of two engineering-services framework agreements. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. The stated aim is to let ongoing projects continue.
- The extension would cover WSP Canada inc. (lot 1) and Les Services EXP inc. (lot 3), from May 1, 2026, to May 1, 2027.
- It would not extend the agreement with SNC-Lavalin inc. (lot 2).
- The agreements support engineering work for projects of the Service des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports (Parks, Mount Royal and Sports Department). City staff say the extension would allow 12 ongoing mandates in lot 1 and eight in lot 3 to be completed.
- The resolution says to charge the costs to the department’s budgets as needs arise, with no additional expense.
What it means for you#
- Residents and park users: The decision does not directly change public access, services, or eligibility. It would keep the two engineering agreements available for ongoing park, sports, and other projects.
- The city department: It would continue using WSP and EXP for work under the existing agreements for another year. The materials do not identify new mandates beyond the ongoing work.
- Taxpayers: The resolution adds no spending to the agreements. It does not say what the remaining amounts in the agreements are.
Money#
The extension is described as having no additional expense; no separate cost estimate is provided.
- The resolution directs the department to charge costs to its budgets as needs arise. City staff say the amounts needed to complete the projects are already available in the agreements, and that each existing project order had credit approval.
- The original three agreements had a total authorized expenditure of $20,709,043.01, taxes included. That is the original total, not the stated cost of this extension.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give the remaining amount available under each agreement or how much the ongoing mandates are expected to use.
- They do not explain what happens to any ongoing work if the agglomeration council does not approve the extension.
Case for#
- City staff say the extension is needed to complete ongoing projects and provide support during project close-out.
- Keeping the agreements in place could avoid interruptions to work already assigned. Staff say refusing the extension could put construction oversight and services during project warranty periods at risk.
Case against#
- The decision gives no updated spending estimate or remaining balance for either agreement, making it hard to assess the likely use of the available funds.
- The materials explain why staff recommend extending the agreements but do not compare that option with alternatives for completing the work.