City extends secure networks contract

Summary#

Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of using the second 12-month extension option in the existing contract with Bell Canada for telecommunications equipment and support. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting. City staff say the goal is to support network upgrades and continuity of municipal services.

  • The extension would run from March 24, 2026, to March 23, 2027, on the original contract’s terms and conditions.
  • It covers equipment for encryption and network switching, with support.
  • It would not increase the original contract’s authorized maximum of $2,479,422.68, taxes included. Purchases would be made as needs arise, within that existing amount.
  • The original contract followed public call for tenders 21-18742. The materials do not state how many bids were received or whether Bell’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.

What it means for you#

  • City services and boroughs: City staff say the equipment is intended to support secure network connections and continuity at municipal sites. The decision does not guarantee a particular service improvement.
  • Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ rights, services, taxes, or fees.
  • City administration: The City may continue buying equipment and support from Bell during the extension, within the original contract’s authorized amount. Future spending approvals and how costs are shared will be assessed as specific needs arise.

Money#

The extension allows purchases within the original contract amount, with no additional amount authorized.

  • The original contract’s maximum was $2,479,422.68, taxes included.
  • City staff say actual purchases were below initial forecasts, leaving room for the extension within that authorized amount.
  • The total remaining amount available and the expected purchases during the extension are not stated. Costs may be charged to the City’s capital program and/or the IT operating budget, and may include agglomeration expenses.

What is unclear#

  • The available materials do not state how many bids were received for the original contract or whether Bell submitted the lowest compliant bid.
  • They do not give the remaining balance under the original contract or an estimate of spending during the extension.
  • The cost-sharing between the City and the agglomeration will be assessed for each initiative; the materials do not give a breakdown.

Case for#

  • City staff say the equipment is needed for secure network connections and continuity at municipal sites.
  • Staff say the extension would allow gradual replacement of equipment that is obsolete or no longer supported, and meet needs from building upgrades and new municipal sites.
  • Using the existing contract would allow purchases as needs arise without raising its authorized maximum.

Case against#

  • The extension continues purchases from Bell without a new tender described in these materials; the materials also do not provide the original bid count or comparison.
  • The extension has no additional authorized amount, but the expected spending and remaining contract balance are not stated.
  • Costs may be shared with the agglomeration, but how much each level of government would pay is to be assessed later for specific purchases.