Gumbs says no contracts awarded, but garbage haulers already notified of intended contracts

GREAT BAY--In a short video statement posted to the Government's Facebook page, Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI) Patrice Gumbs has assured the public that no contracts have yet been awarded under the controversial 2026–2029 solid waste collection tender.

While that statement may be technically accurate, the process has advanced beyond the publication of bidding scores, with top-ranked haulers already notified by the Ministry of VROMI, through the Mercell system, that they have ranked 1st (in scoring) for particular parcels and that the intention is to award them the contracts for those parcels.

Haulers have also been invited to meetings to "discuss the contracting process", raising questions about how much remains undecided and what circumstances could realistically change the anticipated outcome.

In a public message issued Thursday, October 29, following mounting criticism of the tender results, Gumbs acknowledged the importance of maintaining a clean and healthy country and the role private contractors play in providing garbage collection services. Referring to the publication of results through the Mercell procurement platform, the Minister emphasized that the tender process remains underway and that the evaluation committee must be allowed to complete its work. "This publication is one step of the process, and as such, no contracts have been awarded as yet," Gumbs stated.

The Minister asked the public to allow the evaluation committee to continue its work and said he would provide further information once the process is completed, including discussions about the evaluation. His message followed concerns raised by dissatisfied garbage collection companies about the scoring of bids, the allocation of two parcels to individual companies, differences in submitted prices and the assessment of equipment and experience. Five companies have also requested an independent investigation into the tender and consideration of suspending its finalization, where legally permissible, until their concerns are examined.

That winning haulers have received communication concerning the intention to award those parcels to them, with meetings arranged to discuss the next steps in contracting, suggests that the Ministry has clearly identified the companies it expects to contract.

Equipment inspections and outstanding requirements

According to information concerning the tender's Terms of Reference (TOR), a critical part of the remaining process involves verifying that the intended contractors can present the equipment and supporting documentation required to carry out the garbage collection services. This includes the vehicles and other operational resources required for the assigned parcels, together with applicable insurance and related documentation. Under the process described, a company that cannot demonstrate compliance during its scheduled inspection would not qualify to receive the final contract.

The significance of this stage must also be considered alongside the documentation companies were required to provide when submitting their bids. According to the tender requirements, companies that did not already possess all the necessary equipment were required to provide evidence of arrangements or understandings with equipment owners or suppliers to demonstrate how the missing resources would be obtained, including through leasing. Without such supporting arrangements, those bidders would not have satisfied the relevant submission requirements in the first place.

As such, this raises an important practical question about the likelihood of the first-ranked companies failing the upcoming inspection. If the relevant bidders have already submitted acceptable documentation demonstrating access to the equipment they need, there is reason to expect that at least some of those arrangements will be fulfilled when the physical verification takes place. Nevertheless, a lease agreement or undertaking does not automatically establish that equipment will be available, properly insured and compliant at inspection, and the outcome of that stage cannot be treated as guaranteed.

The remaining verification process therefore has significance, but the public also deserves to know precisely what could cause an intended award to be withheld or reconsidered. Clarification is needed on whether inspections and supporting documents are the only outstanding conditions or whether other aspects of the evaluation, including questions raised by unsuccessful bidders, could still affect the final decisions.

What happens if a first-ranked company fails inspection?

Another unanswered question concerns the procedure Government would follow if a company identified as the intended recipient of a parcel fails to satisfy the final requirements. Would the parcel automatically be offered to the bidder ranked second, or would the Ministry have discretion to consider other factors before selecting a replacement? The answer is particularly relevant because an earlier garbage collection contract was reassigned to a company that had not finished second in the original tender.

In August 2025, Minister Gumbs announced the termination of the garbage collection contract held by Avyanna Clean Up & Construction for Parcel 5 following what Government described as repeated failures to meet contractual obligations. The Ministry subsequently assigned the parcel to All Waste in Place, which Gumbs identified as the third-ranked company from the original tender. At the time, the Minister explained that the second-ranked company, Meadowlands, already held three other parcels, and the decision to proceed to the third-ranked bidder was intended to maintain a more balanced distribution of garbage collection contracts.

Greater clarity needed on how final results can change

The current controversy has developed against the backdrop of concerns raised by unsuccessful bidders about the fairness and consistency of the 2026–2029 tender process. Questions have been raised about the decision to allow individual companies to receive two parcels, the evaluation of experience and equipment, and the differences between some successful and unsuccessful financial offers. These concerns do not, by themselves, establish that the tender was improperly conducted, but they have prompted calls for a detailed explanation of how the outcomes were determined.

The Minister's assurance that contracts have not yet been awarded is relevant, particularly because the evaluation process has not formally concluded. However, the additional information concerning first-place notifications, intended awards and meetings about the contracting process provides important context that was not addressed in his public message.

‍