The absence of the Public Procurement Commission — Jonathan Subrian — Opinion

The absence of the Public Procurement Commission

August 31, 2026·1 min read

Dear Editor,

It is with profound disappointment that I address the continuing failure to reconstitute the Public Procurement Commission (PPC)^[1], an integral cog in the machinery of governance. The PPC’s term ended in July 2025, and Guyana remains without this crucial oversight body. This is not an administrative oversight; it is a reckless abdication of duty.

Editor, the PPC is no mere bureaucracy—it is the constitutional watchdog mandated to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent fairly, transparently, and in the best interest of all Guyanese. Without its independent oversight, Guyana is left with a recipe for collusion, nepotism, and outright chicanery. When billions are being awarded without proper scrutiny, the door is left wide open for abuse.

Editor, Guyana already witnessed multiple negative consequences of a toothless or absent system. Investigations into projects like the Belle Vue Pump Station and Goed Fortuin contracts^[2] have revealed glaring violations of procurement law, yet not a single official has been held accountable. The PPC can investigate and recommend, but without a functioning commission to process complaints and conduct reviews, aggrieved or sidelined contractors have nowhere to turn for redress. This erodes public confidence and unmistakably signals that the law is secondary to political convenience.

This must end.

The president and the National Assembly must act with urgency to reconstitute the PPC immediately. Our nation’s hard-earned resources and the integrity of our governance demand nothing less. The Guyanese tax payers have/ are investing a hefty sum in the formation of the PPC and are expecting an optimal return on their investment ( ROI). Mr. President, the “ONE GUYANA” slogan is, seemingly, further tarnished by the paucity.

Respectfully,
Jonathan Subrian Esq.

References

public procurement commission of guyana — linkedin.com ↩
The PPC summary report on the award of the contract for the construction of a sluice pump station at Belle Vue - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩

Source

The absence of the Public Procurement Commission in Kaieteur News, August 31, 2026

In our article of 9 October 2023, we discussed the award of the contract for the construction of a sluice pump station at Belle Vue, West Bank Demerara, to Tepui Group Inc. in the sum of $865.5 million. This was in the light of Member of Parliament, David Patterson, requesting the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to investigate whether the award of the contract was above board. Mr. Patterson contended that the company was not eligible for the award since it did not have the requisite experience stipulated in the bid documents, that is, successful completion of projects similar in nature and size within the last three years. Tepui Group was formed in August 2022, while the invitation to tender for the works was advertised in May 2023. ... We examined the issue and after careful analysis, we concluded that has been a violation of Sections 39 (2), 39 (5)(a) and 39 (6)(a) of the Procurement Act for the following reasons: ... Mr. Patterson enquired from the Commission whether an instruction was issued to NPTAB, to place the contract on hold. This was to prevent Tepui Group from ‘benefitting from taxpayers monies due to an illegally awarded contract’, if the PPC determines that the tender was incorrectly awarded. The Commission responded by referring to Section 53(5) of the Act dealing with administrative review. That section relates to a bidder who has filed a protest with the procuring entity and requires the final contract award to be suspended during the period of the review. The protest must be lodged within five business days of the publication of the contract award decision. According to the PPC, Mr. Patterson was not a bidder and therefore this course of action is not provided for under the Act. However, by Section 52 (1), if the procuring entity fails to respond to a complaint from an aggrieved bidder within the five business, the bidder may refer the matter to the Commission in which case, final contract award is suspended during the period of investigation. ... According to the bidding documents, the tenderer must ‘demonstrate specific construction experience by providing copies of contracts with previous clients that show the bidder has completed one (1) project of similar nature within the past five (5) years. (Similar projects shall include pump stations, sluices and drainage structures)’. ... NPTAB argued that: (i) there were similarities between the construction of sluice and pump station at Bell Vue, and those of the two projects undertaken by Tepui Group; and (ii) the decisions regarding bid evaluation were consistent with past practices, where ‘leniency was extended to bidders lacking direct pump station construction experience but demonstrating proficiency in similar projects’. It provided two examples in support of its argument: the construction of pump station at Devonshire Castle, Region 2 and similar works undertaken at Den Amstel, Region 3. NPTAB further stated that similar leniency was given to the successful bidders for the other three pump stations that were advertised at the same time since they lacked prior experience specifically in pump station construction. ... nature” is dependent on the terms of the evaluation criteria. So, while there may be precedent for the exercise of such professional judgment and or discretion, an Evaluation Committee should not assume such discretion onto itself but ensure that it is acting within the terms of the evaluation criteria for the specific tender being evaluated. Similarly, the procuring entity in setting the evaluation criteria should ensure that the criteria is [sic] ... And what of the procuring entity, NDIA? By Section 39 (3), if the procuring entity does not agree with the Evaluation Committee’s determination as to the lowest evaluated bid, it is required to issue an advisory recommendation to the Evaluation Committee regarding which bidder should be the lowest evaluated bidder, which recommendation the Evaluation Committee must observe.