Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position on an additional expense for the City’s maintenance, support and use rights for CA software. It directs the City to support adding $199,477, taxes included, to its existing contract through the Centre d’acquisitions gouvernementales (CAG), bringing the total to $2,652,757.48, taxes included. City staff say the aim is to keep critical City systems supported and operating.
- The added expense covers the City’s participation in the CAG contract with La Compagnie CA du Canada inc. (CA).
- The City would use the contract’s budget for quantity variations as a contingency budget.
- The director of the City’s Information Technology Infrastructure and Operations division would be authorized to sign related documents.
This is the City’s position for the agglomeration council, which makes the final decision at a later meeting.
What it means for you#
- Residents and City staff: The contract supports CA software used for systems including STOP+ (penal-offence management), GESCOUR (municipal court management), and police and IT service systems. The decision does not directly change services or create a new public service.
- City administration: The added expense is for the existing contract, which runs from March 31, 2024, to March 30, 2027. The City’s 2024 estimate was lower than the cost after CA’s prices rose.
Money#
The proposed additional expense is $199,477, taxes included ($182,149.09 net of tax rebates).
- City staff say it would be charged to the Information Technology Service’s operating budget for March 31, 2026, to March 30, 2027. The required credits were considered in the budget rate charged to the agglomeration budget.
- The decision uses the existing quantity-variation budget as a contingency budget. The materials give no separate estimate of staffing or administration costs.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not explain how the contingency budget will be used or whether the full additional amount will be spent.
- They do not give the CAG contract’s bidding details or compare other suppliers.
Case for#
- City staff say CA is the exclusive rights-holder and only provider able to supply the manufacturer’s warranty for these products.
- The added expense would maintain access to support, updates and security fixes for software used by critical City systems.
Case against#
- The City’s original estimate assumed fixed prices, but staff say CA’s rates rose by 20% each year. The added expense shows the original contract estimate did not account for those increases.
- The materials do not provide bidding details or explain whether there were alternatives to continuing with CA.