Dear Editor,
Given the large budgetary vote for road maintenance in this year’s budget it may be useful to make available to readers some information which hitherto has remained unknown.
In the Government of Guyana’s tender documents for the Routine Maintenance Programme under the heading: “Section VII. Evaluation Criteria,” sub clause 4 (Experience), item 4.2 “Average Annual Construction Turnover” the requirement is:
“Applicant’s minimum average annual construction turnover 25 million Guyana dollars calculated as total certified payments received for contracts under execution or completed for at least the last (3) three years prior.”
Item 4.3: “Specific Construction Experience”:
“Applicant participation as contractor, or subcontractor, in at least one (1) three (3) year, routine maintenance contract that have [sic] been successfully or are [sic] substantially completed and that are [sic] similar to the proposed works…”
Editor, my sources tell me that, in 2006, the following contracts are among those awarded even though the contractors failed to meet the provisions quoted above:
1. Soesdyke Linden Highway
2. West Coast Demerara
3. East Bank Demerara
4. West Bank Demerara
5. East Coast Demerara
6. Essequibo Coast
Each of the foregoing Routine Maintenance Programme contracts was issued by the Works Services Group and was for three years duration. I am advised that they all came under IDB funded projects.
I am reliably informed that the funders became unhappy upon realising that unqualified contractors were awarded at the expense of qualified bidders. Funding was consequently withdrawn in the course of the first year of these contracts. The government, therefore, was forced to carry the can to save face.
Editor, the foregoing together with interventions by a certain senior government official helps to cause frustration to contractors who bid for such projects. It should be noted that this official has no formal connection with the Ministry of Works but uses undue influence to ensure that certain contractors receive favourable consideration while others do not. I add that I have raised this particular issue with the Minister of Works.
It may now be clear, if it was not before, why the government insists that persons who are interested in contract details should purchase the tender documents. There is clearly much to hide.
Yours faithfully,
Mervyn Williams, MP
