Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted a position on a proposed framework agreement with MLC Associés inc. for architecture and engineering services on demolition projects. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the agreement is intended to provide professional support for several demolition projects.
- If approved, the agreement would run for 60 months, with two options to extend it by 12 months each.
- MLC would provide services on request, from project planning and design through construction supervision and final acceptance.
- The city could choose which planned projects to proceed with, substitute projects, or call on MLC for other demolition projects.
- The award followed a public call for tenders with four bids. MLC received the highest final score under the selection criteria; it was not described as the lowest compliant bid.
- The resolution also requires an evaluation of MLC’s performance.
What it means for you#
- City departments and boroughs: Their budgets would pay for assignments as needs arise. The agreement does not mean every listed demolition project will go ahead.
- Residents and organizations: The decision does not itself approve demolition of a specific building or create a new housing program. City staff say the demolition work can support social-housing projects led by non-profit organizations.
- General public: This is a contract for professional services, not a direct service or benefit for residents.
Money#
The framework agreement is estimated at $758,655.64, taxes included.
- The maximum amount for MLC’s services is $632,213.03, taxes included; the resolution separately authorizes $126,442.61, taxes included, for contingencies.
- The total would be charged to borough and corporate-service budgets as needs arise.
- Four bids were submitted; one did not meet the required passing score. MLC’s total was 70.43% below the city’s latest estimate, according to the decision summary. Staff say they checked that the required basic services were included.
What is unclear#
- The resolution does not state how many projects or assignments will be given to MLC, or how the city will choose each assignment. No publicly available information.
- The supplied materials do not give a start date or explain how the city would use either extension option. No publicly available information.
- The agreement allows the city to substitute projects or request services for other demolition projects, but the materials do not list all possible projects or say how much work that could involve.
Case for#
- A framework agreement could give the city access to architecture and engineering services for several projects without holding a separate selection for each one.
- City staff say multiple priority projects are expected to proceed at the same time and require dedicated professional support.
- MLC had the highest final score, and staff report that its offer included the required basic services despite being well below the estimate.
Case against#
- The city can choose which planned projects to proceed with and may request work on other demolition projects, so the agreement’s actual workload is not clear from the resolution.
- The large gap between MLC’s price and the city’s estimate raises a reasonable question about whether the estimate or expected workload was too high. Staff say they sought clarifications and confirmed the required services were included.
- The agreement and contingency would use borough and city-service budgets, but the materials do not show how those costs will be divided among them.