Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously adopted its position on the decision to exercise the second 12-month extension of its framework agreements with Bell Canada. It supports an additional maximum spend of $4,694,063.56, taxes included, bringing the agreements’ total maximum to $22,988,387.68, taxes included. City staff say the extension is intended to keep telephone services available for the agglomeration’s operations. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The extension would cover October 27, 2026, to October 26, 2027, for telephone services, communication devices and related professional services under lots 1 and 2.
- The agreements cover IP services in lot 1 and analog, digital or IP telephone services in lot 2.
- Of the additional amount, $3,446,411.20 is for regular operating-budget spending; up to $1,247,652.36 is for equipment or professional services ordered as needs arise.
What it means for you#
- Municipal services and boroughs: If the agglomeration council approves the extension, they could continue using the covered phone services and related equipment and services.
- Residents: The decision does not directly change residents’ phone bills, taxes, or eligibility for city services. City staff say the services support municipal operations, including public-facing services and emergency phone numbers.
- Taxpayers: The City would pay for the extension from existing operating and investment budgets, according to the decision summary. The summary says the required credits were already considered in the relevant budgets.
Money#
The proposed additional maximum is $4,694,063.56, taxes included; the materials do not give a separate estimate of the total cost actually expected to be used.
- $3,446,411.20, taxes included ($3,147,032.79 net of tax rebates) would be paid monthly from the IT Service operating budget.
- Up to $1,247,652.36, taxes included ($1,139,272.90 net of tax rebates) would be spent on equipment or professional services as needs arise. Each purchase requires a separate spending authorization.
- City staff say the extension amount includes a 2.63% increase based on the consumer price index and the contract terms.
- The original agreements followed public call for tenders 22-19277 in 2022. The supplied materials do not state how many bids were received.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not say how much of the on-demand spending will actually be used.
- They do not provide a comparison with other suppliers or explain whether alternatives to extending the agreements were considered.
- The final decision on the extension is for the agglomeration council.
Case for#
- City staff say telephone services support municipal operations, including public services, emergency numbers, external communications, and building security systems.
- Extending the existing agreements could maintain continuity while the City continues using its current telephone services and equipment.
Case against#
- The extension adds up to $4.69 million in spending, but the materials do not show how the expected usage or costs compare with other options.
- The amount includes an increase based on the consumer price index; the materials do not explain how the 2.63% figure compares with the City’s other costs.