Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously set its position in favour of using both 12-month renewal options in the contract with Groupe de sécurité Garda s.e.n.c. The contract covers security and related services at facilities of the Service des affaires juridiques (Legal Affairs Department); the stated goal is to maintain security at those sites. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The renewals would run from October 1, 2026, to September 30, 2028.
- The proposed added spending is $5,810,406.78, taxes included, bringing the contract total to $15,440,955.57, taxes included.
- Services include surveillance, access control and patrols at the municipal courthouse and its four service points, among other department facilities.
- The original contract was awarded through public call for tenders 23-19998, which received two compliant bids. The materials do not say whether Garda’s bid was the lowest compliant bid.
What it means for you#
- People using or working at the covered facilities: If the renewals are approved, Garda would continue providing security services there for two more years.
- The public budget: City staff say the spending would be fully paid by the agglomeration because the municipal court is an agglomeration responsibility.
- Residents and businesses generally: The decision does not directly change taxes, fines, eligibility for services or rules for the public.
Money#
The proposed additional spending is $5,810,406.78, taxes included, for the two renewal years.
- Each 12-month renewal is estimated at $2,905,203.39, taxes included.
- The contract amount includes annual price indexation. City staff say no extra contingency is needed because the contract includes a forecast bank of 400 hours per year.
- City staff say the cost would come from the Security Division’s operating budget and be fully borne by the agglomeration.
What is unclear#
- The materials do not provide a cost breakdown comparing these renewals with a new tender or other options.
- City staff say using a different agency through a direct-award contract would cost more, but give no estimate.
- The materials do not explain what services, if any, would change if the 400-hour annual bank were used.
Case for#
- City staff say the courthouse and its four service points are sensitive, strategic buildings that provide essential services, and that security staff help respond quickly to incidents.
- Keeping the current provider may avoid a gap in service and retain its knowledge of the sites.
- The original public tender received two compliant bids, and the contract already included these two renewal options.
Case against#
- The extensions add more than $5.8 million in spending, and the materials do not give a comparison showing whether the price remains competitive.
- The price includes annual indexation, but the materials do not explain the indexation method or its effect on costs.
- City staff’s claim that another agency would cost more is not supported with figures in the supplied materials.