Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted an orientation to award six security-service contracts to Axia services and Groupe de sécurité Garda s.e.n.c. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to protect people and property and maintain order in municipal buildings.
- The proposed awards are $2,619,500.77 to Axia for lots 1 and 2, and $4,452,592.67 to Garda for lots 3 to 6. Both amounts include taxes but exclude contingencies, quantity changes and related impacts.
- The contracts would run for 36 months, with two optional 12-month extensions.
- The work covers guarding and related services, including patrols and patrol vehicles. The resolution also requires an evaluation of both firms’ performance.
- The six lots cover the Cité des Hospitalières and marché Bonsecours; the Claude-Robillard sports complex and Service de sécurité incendie de Montréal headquarters; vehicle-service and workshop sites and parks; supplier visits in SPVM buildings; tender-site visits and unplanned guarding; and emergency measures, including floods and emergency shelters.
What it means for you#
- Residents and facility users: The contracts would provide security services at the listed city sites. City staff estimate the work at 67,352 hours a year; this is an estimate, not a guarantee of hours at any one site.
- Taxpayers: The listed contract amounts are municipal spending. The decision does not set a tax or fee, or create a new public service or agency.
- The city: If the agglomeration council approves the awards, the city would contract with the two firms and evaluate their performance. The materials do not set out how that evaluation will work.
Money#
The proposed awards total $7,072,093.44, taxes included, for the 36-month contracts with two optional 12-month extensions.
- The listed amounts exclude contingencies, changes in quantities and related impacts. The materials do not give a separate cost for those items or a breakdown by contract year or extension.
- The decision says to charge the spending according to the financial information in the file, but that detail is not included in the supplied material.
What is unclear#
- Whether the agglomeration council will approve the awards, and when the contracts would start, are not stated in the supplied material.
- The material does not specify how often the city will evaluate performance or what happens if a firm performs poorly.
- The selection criteria are described as pre-set, but the supplied material does not give their full details.
- The decision summary provided is incomplete, so it does not show bid and estimate details for all six lots.
Case for#
- City staff say the services are intended to protect people, property and municipal sites, and to maintain order in the buildings.
- Splitting the work into six lots lets the city assign different kinds of guarding and related work to firms selected for each lot.
- For lots 1 and 2, the decision summary says the awarded bids were below the city’s estimates.
Case against#
- The contracts could last up to five years if both extension options are used, but the supplied material does not explain how the city will decide whether to extend them.
- The listed totals exclude contingencies and quantity changes, so the final spending could differ from the amounts shown.
- The supplied material does not show the bid competition or cost comparisons for all lots, making it hard to assess the overall value of the awards.