Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position to award a contract to 9140-2594 Québec inc. (Construction Arcade) for upgrades to the Île-Bizard water booster station. It is an orientation for the agglomeration council, which makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to improve the reliability and capacity of the drinking-water system.
- The planned contract is for a maximum of $4,772,277.67, taxes included. The project also includes contingency and related costs, bringing the total to $5,726,733.20, taxes included.
- The work includes building a new station with four pump units, connecting it to utility networks, and demolishing and decontaminating the existing station.
- The contract was awarded through a public call for tenders. Construction Arcade was the only bidder and submitted the only compliant bid.
- The contractor must finish within 550 calendar days after the order to start. Unjustified delays carry a penalty of 0.1% of the contract price per day, with a minimum of $1,000 per day.
- The city must evaluate the contractor’s performance.
What it means for you#
- People who rely on Île-Bizard’s water system: City staff say the work is intended to address aging equipment and capacity limits, including during peak demand and fires. The decision does not promise a particular service improvement or set a construction start date.
- Agglomeration taxpayers: The agglomeration will bear the full project cost. The materials do not specify a change to taxes or water fees.
- Construction Arcade: If the agglomeration council approves the award, the company must do the work and meet the deadline and contract conditions.
Money#
The planned total is $5,726,733.20, taxes included, or $5,229,270.74 net of federal and provincial tax rebates.
- This includes $4,772,277.67 for the contract, $715,841.65 for contingencies, and $238,613.88 for related costs.
- The expense is to be financed under borrowing bylaw RCG 20-029 and paid entirely by the agglomeration.
- The revised bid was $57,487.50 below the company’s initial bid. City staff say the revised bid was 16.39% above the consultant’s estimate, but judge the price acceptable, partly because the estimate included a margin for uncertainty.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not give a construction start date or say how the work may affect water service while it is underway.
- The contingency and related-cost budgets are authorized amounts; the materials do not say how much will actually be spent.
- Only one compliant bid was received. City staff cite the specialized work, administrative requirements, schedule and contractors’ other commitments as reasons some firms did not bid.
Case for#
- City staff say the existing station, in service since 1980, has aging equipment and cannot adequately meet current and growing needs, including fire protection.
- Staff say building a new station before demolishing the old one was the most advantageous option in their comparison, and that delaying the contract could risk losing the bid and needing a new tender.
- The contract includes a deadline, a delay penalty and a required performance evaluation.
Case against#
- One compliant bid means there was no competing compliant price to compare with the award.
- The bid is substantially above the consultant’s estimate before accounting for the estimate’s uncertainty margin. The project also has contingency and related-cost budgets, so the final amount spent may vary.
- The materials explain why staff consider the price reasonable, but do not show what the project would cost under other options or give a detailed account of how construction will affect residents’ water service.