Five Garbage haulers demand Independent Investigation, calls for pause of contract awarding

GREAT BAY--Five garbage collection companies are demanding an independent investigation into the government's 2026-2029 solid waste tender, raising questions about the scoring of bids, the decision to award two parcels to individual companies, differences in bid prices and the evaluation of equipment and experience. The companies are also requesting that government consider suspending the finalization or implementation of the contracts, where legally permissible, until their concerns have been independently examined.

In an eight-page letter dated October 27, addressed to Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI) Patrice Gumbs, the companies requested a detailed explanation of the cancellation of the original tender, the subsequent retendering process and the reported selection of four contractors to manage the island's six garbage collection parcels.

The document was copied to Governor Ajamu Baly, the Council of Ministers and Members of Parliament. Signatories include Waste Solution B.V., Garden Boyz, Infinity Trucking & Cleaning Services B.V. and Meadowlands N.V. and KMD Cleaning Services.

Two companies reportedly receive four parcels

According to the reported results cited in the letter, Limitless Construction and Leonard Enterprises are each expected to receive two parcels, while Quality Sweeper and Q&A would receive one each. The companies are requesting official confirmation of those results and the reasons supporting each selection. Government has not formally confirmed the final contract awards.

One of their principal concerns is the change from the original tender, which limited contractors to one parcel, to the revised process permitting companies to receive two. The signatories argue that the principal service requirements and budget appeared largely unchanged and question why the maximum number of parcels was increased.

They are requesting the identity of the person or body that recommended and approved the change, the date of that decision and the administrative justification. They also want to know why the tender was reopened to additional participants if the principal requirements remained substantially the same.

Minister Gumbs previously explained that the original January tender failed because none of the participating companies satisfied all applicable requirements. He told Parliament that 11 of the 17 submissions were eliminated because of procedural deficiencies, while the remaining six failed to meet the Terms of Reference. Government subsequently extended existing contracts and launched the revised tender in August.

Questions about disclosed prices

The companies also question whether financial information from the cancelled tender may have influenced competition during the second exercise.

Their letter raises concerns that bid prices and budget information from the original process may have become available before the retender, potentially giving new participants information that could assist them in preparing their offers.

Limitless Construction is specifically identified as a company that reportedly did not participate in the original tender but subsequently entered the revised process and received high scores. The signatories are requesting confirmation of which financial figures were disclosed, when they were made available and whether every bidder had equal access to the information.

They also want to know whether the Ministry examined the procurement implications of disclosing earlier prices before reopening the tender. The letter does not establish that any company received privileged information or obtained an improper advantage.

Specific bid comparisons questioned

The complaint identifies several parcel-level comparisons that the signatories believe require explanation.

For Parcel 1, Quality Sweeper reportedly submitted a winning bid of approximately XCG 800,000, compared with competing offers of around XCG 1.1 million. Garden Boyz reportedly submitted XCG 1,154,937. The companies question whether the lower bid underwent an assessment to establish that the contractor could deliver the required services at that price.

Parcel 2 attracted particular scrutiny because Limitless Construction reportedly received the leading score with a bid of XCG 1,121,472, although several companies submitted lower offers. Waste Solution reportedly bid XCG 1,000,104, Meadowlands XCG 1,083,049, and Infinity Construction XCG 1,075,109. The signatories want an explanation of how price, experience and other evaluation categories were weighted in determining the outcome.

For Parcel 3, Q&A reportedly submitted the lowest bid of XCG 833,000 and was identified as the successful bidder. The companies requested confirmation that the bid was evaluated according to the published criteria and that the proposed price was sufficient to sustain operations.

Parcel 4 presented a different concern, with Leonard Enterprises reportedly receiving the highest score despite submitting the highest bid of XCG 1,115,765. Competing offers included XCG 1,040,531 from Meadowlands, XCG 1,050,473 from KMD and XCG 1,039,999 from Infinity Construction. The companies want to know which non-price factors justified selecting the higher offer.

For Parcel 5, Limitless Construction reportedly submitted XCG 905,532, compared with XCG 778,309.80 from KMD, XCG 769,195 from Meadowlands and XCG 758,000 from Q&A. The signatories question why the higher bid received the leading score and whether experience and equipment availability were evaluated consistently.

Parcel 6 raises the opposite concern. Leonard Enterprises reportedly submitted the lowest bid of XCG 1,094,508, while competing offers exceeded XCG 1.5 million. The companies are requesting confirmation that government assessed whether the price was financially realistic and sufficient to cover the required services throughout the three-year period.

The figures are presented in the complaint as reported bid amounts and have not been independently verified against the Ministry's official tender records. The signatories acknowledge that differences in prices and scores do not, by themselves, establish wrongdoing.

Equipment scoring and contractor experience

Another major concern involves the equipment and fleet scores reportedly awarded to Limitless Construction.

The companies state that concerns have been raised about whether Limitless possessed the required garbage collection fleet during the original tender process and when it subsequently began acquiring equipment. They want an independent examination of purchase orders, invoices, lease agreements and delivery records to establish when vehicles and other equipment were secured.

The signatories also request clarification of whether equipment that was still being purchased or arranged for future delivery was scored differently from vehicles already owned or available to established contractors.

They emphasize that acquiring equipment before a tender is issued is not evidence of misconduct. Their concern is whether all participating companies were evaluated under the same equipment and operational readiness standards.

More than 40 jobs reportedly at risk

The companies also warn that changes in the garbage collection contracts could have significant consequences for workers and their families.

According to information presented in the letter, more than 40 employees could lose their jobs as established contractors are replaced. The signatories acknowledge that this figure has not been independently verified and request that VROMI assess the potential employment impact and any arrangements for an orderly transition.

They also want government to explain how the successful bidders' ability to provide uninterrupted collection services was evaluated, particularly for companies expected to manage two parcels.

Call for independent review and possible suspension

The companies are requesting preservation and independent examination of the tender records, evaluation sheets, communications, approval documents and equipment information. They also want disclosure of the scoring criteria, the weighting assigned to price and experience, applicable budget thresholds and the reasons unsuccessful bidders were not selected.

Importantly, the signatories are not demanding that contracts be awarded to companies simply because they previously provided garbage collection services. Their stated objective is to establish whether every bidder was assessed fairly and whether the decisions can withstand independent examination.

Government announced Tuesday that bidders had received their Mercell scoring results and that the evaluation committee would proceed with verifying whether participants meet the established requirements for award. The Ministry maintained its commitment to a fair and accountable procurement process.

The companies are requesting an urgent written response from Gumbs and consideration of pausing the awards while their concerns are addressed. Whether an independent investigation will be initiated or the tender process suspended remains to be determined.

‍