Misleading statements | STM claims 4.5 million from Bell Canada

Société de Transport de Montréal (STM) is claiming $4.5 million from Bell Canada and another company engaged in digital transformation due to the failed implementation of its human resource management software package. The operator in particular accuses them of making “false, inaccurate and misleading” statements.

Posted at 5:56 p.m.

Henry Owlette Vezina

Henry Owlette Vezina

You have to go back to November 2016 to fully understand this issue. At the time, the carrier was looking to acquire “talent management” software, in the context of which its systems in place were outdated and did not allow for the integration of new technologies. The situation then calls for an update of the systems, especially since “massive” retirements are expected in 2019.

So a call for bids was launched as appropriate, which was won by Bell Canada and CEGID Inc. Management Software Builder – As of early 2017, as the only suppliers deemed ‘compliant’.

Several design and implementation problems — ranging from difficulties with software training modules to incomplete tasks or problems with the overall operation of the program — but delayed the project from this point on, according to the lawsuit. However, in the fall of 2017, the program was still not meeting requests, according to the STM, which then says it expects a delay “of eight to ten months in relation to the initially agreed schedule,” either towards the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019. .

And as problems pile up, keep track of expenses, too. In October 2018, the carrier estimated that it had already spent more than 4.4 million only “in realizing the project”, and this is “without beneficial ends”. In December of the same year, the estimated costs of the project jumped from 6.9 million to 11 million. At this time, the “partial” delivery of the project is scheduled for a later date, at the end of 2019.

See also  Hexo's restructuring will cut 450 jobs

Finalement, devant “l’incapacité” des deux entreprises à “livrer une solution”, la STM annonce son intention de mettre fin au contrat en janvier 2019. Bell nie alors “toute responsabilité” quant à la faillite du projet, lit-on dans persecution.

“false declarations”

In its original application a few days ago to the Supreme Court, the Montreal organization asserts that “the project’s bankruptcy is attributable to false, inaccurate and misleading representations” of Bell Canada and CEGID Inc. “With regard to the existing features in the standard version of the proposed software package, and its inability to deliver the developments required to overcome deficiencies to resolve them within a reasonable time frame.”

Worse, even when the scope of the project was scaled back to allow for it [entreprises] To carry out the partial deployment, even of late, of the proposed solution, it is clear that it does not meet the minimum requirements to be operational and meet the business needs of the STM,” accuses the company’s lawyers, Larochelle Avocats.

The STM, which considers that it “paid for the failure of this incorporation attempt by seeing the projected costs of allocating internal and external resources to the project explode without being able to reap any benefit from it”, is thus a claim by Bell Canada and CEGID Inc. in the amount of US$500,000 to pay for the preparations required for the initial call for bids.

It’s also asking for a whopping $3.8 million to make up for what the project cost, even if it never materialized, at least not under this agreement. Finally, the operator wants $200,000 to cover the “costs of a replacement” that he will have to find in the future. Total 4.5 million.

See also  Answers to your questions about ECPs and taxes

Via email, a company spokesperson, Philip Deere, confirms that “the main purpose of the action is to recover the sums invested by STM for an IT project that did not materialize as planned.” But he continues, “We will not comment further because the file is under court.”

join Journalism On Monday, Bell Canada did not wish to comment on its part for the same reasons. “We do not comment on this court case,” he limited to responding to spokeswoman Vanessa Damha.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.