Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a position to approve and ratify a direct-award contract with Dyplex Communications ltée for support and maintenance of the SPVM’s surveillance and location system. The contract would cover August 1, 2026, to July 31, 2027, for $150,014.55, taxes included. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The proposed contract covers technical support, maintenance, software updates and security patches for the system.
- The city’s position is that the contract should go to Dyplex without a new call for tenders because staff say Dyplex is the exclusive provider of support, maintenance, updates and related licences.
- The city council authorized the director of the relevant IT and public-safety division to sign contract documents if the contract is approved.
What it means for you#
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights or require them to take action. It would fund continued support for a system used by the SPVM.
- SPVM: If approved, the contract would maintain support and software updates for licences covering 35 users, 75 location devices and 50 video-management-system (VMS) camera integrations.
- Taxpayers: The cost is assigned to the agglomeration, not the city’s own financial framework, according to the staff summary.
Money#
The proposed contract costs $150,014.55, taxes included; the staff summary also gives $136,983.28 net of taxes.
- The expense would come from the IT department’s operating budget and be fully borne by the agglomeration.
- The summary says the required budget credits are already included in the IT department’s budget.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not describe how the system is used in specific cases, or what rules govern access to, storage of or oversight of information it handles.
- The contract’s full terms and any reporting requirements are not included in the materials.
- The summary says Dyplex is the exclusive provider, but does not explain what alternatives were considered for replacing or changing the system.
Case for#
- City staff say support and security updates are needed to keep the existing system available, secure and compatible.
- Continuing with the provider of the system could preserve access to specialized support and avoid disruption to the SPVM’s use of it.
Case against#
- The contract would be awarded directly, without a new competitive process. The materials explain the claimed exclusivity but provide little detail about alternatives.
- The materials do not explain the system’s privacy safeguards or oversight, leaving readers unable to assess those aspects of its continued operation.