Summary#
Montréal city council adopted decision CM26 1000, increasing contingency funding for Construction Di Paolo inc.’s air-conditioning and dehumidification work at the Auditorium de Verdun. The stated goal is to cover unforeseen work and finish the project.
- Council approved an additional $552,100, taxes included, and transferred $200,000, taxes included, from incidental expenses to contingencies.
- The combined $752,100 increase brings the contract’s maximum spending to $8,949,867.62, taxes included.
- The original contract was awarded to Construction Di Paolo inc. through a public call for tenders with five bids. The materials do not say whether it was the lowest compliant bid.
What it means for you#
- City and Verdun taxpayers: The city and borough of Verdun will fund the increase. The work is intended to strengthen the roof structure for the cooling equipment and complete the project.
- People using the facility: This decision does not directly change access or services. City staff estimate the project schedule has been affected by about six months, with work expected to resume in October 2026 and finish in April 2027.
Money#
The decision raises the maximum contract spending to $8,949,867.62, taxes included.
- The $752,100 increase is $686,767.55 net of tax rebates. It includes $552,100 in new contingency funding and the $200,000 transfer from incidentals.
- For the new $552,100, the city’s Service de la gestion et de la planification des immeubles pays $471,382.98, taxes included; Verdun pays $80,717.02.
- For the transferred $200,000, $170,760 is funded through the city’s 2026–2035 capital program, and Verdun pays $29,240. The materials say spending is expected to be 35% in 2026 and 65% in 2027.
What is unclear#
- The decision summary gives two different figures for the original contract: $8,607,656 and $8,197,767.62. The latter is the starting total in its cost table.
- The materials do not give separate cost amounts for each listed type of extra work or explain how each contingency charge will be tracked.
- The summary says there were five bids, but gives no information about whether the original award went to the lowest compliant bidder.
Case for#
- City staff say lead contamination was discovered in the roof structure, requiring protective measures and a changed work method. They say the existing contingency budget was exhausted and more funding is needed to complete the work.
- Staff also identify extra site time, price increases linked to the lead-related constraints, roof-structure preparation, and changes to duct supports as reasons for the added funds.
Case against#
- The contingency amount rises from 20% to 31% of the contract’s stated value. That is a substantial increase, while the materials do not show the cost of each extra task.
- The project is already reported to be about six months behind schedule. The added funding allows work to continue, but does not guarantee the stated completion date will be met.