Major garbage haulers not returning, Ombudsman complaint expected from others

GREAT BAY--Three of St. Maarten's established garbage collection companies, All Waste in Place, Meadowlands and West Indies Landscaping Company, will not be returning as solid waste (garbage) haulers, while other dissatisfied bidders are preparing to approach the Ombudsman over what some has termed "a corrupt process."

Much of the aggravation of other companies who were not awarded bids centers on (but not limited to) changes allowing companies to receive two collection parcels instead of one, no clarity about why the entire process was retendered, lack of justification in decisions made, all changes between the first tender and the second, who approved the changes, questions about the financial sustainability of bids and whether the selected contractors will have sufficient equipment and manpower to execute the work.

Ironically the three aforementioned companies are those with the most garbage collection and disposal equipment, compared to the reported new haulers, some of whom does not own a single garbage truck and will more than likely have to resort to leasing.

According to well-placed sources, Limitless and Leonard Enterprises are each expected to receive two parcels, while Quality Sweepers and Q&A are reportedly in line to receive one parcel each. Quality Sweepers is understood to be taking over responsibility for the Philipsburg collection area. Sources also indicate that some dissatisfied contractors intend to submit a formal complaint to the Ombudsman on Wednesday, October 28, raising concerns about the retendering process and the criteria used to determine the outcome.

The reported results would represent a significant change in the composition of St. Maarten's garbage collection sector, particularly with the possible departure of All Waste in Place, Meadowlands, two established operators with substantial equipment and experience in the industry. Their exclusion, along with West Indies Landscaping, would create an opening for other companies to assume responsibility for collection areas that have been serviced by familiar operators for several years. However, the reported allocation remains subject to the government's formal evaluation and confirmation, and the information available does not establish that contracts have already been finalized.

Government confirms scoring, but evaluation continues

In a statement issued Tuesday, government confirmed that all bidders participating in the solid waste tender had received the results generated through the Mercell electronic procurement scoring system. Each company was provided with information allowing it to compare its score with those of other businesses competing for the same parcels. Government emphasized that the next stage involves verification by the evaluation committee to determine whether bidders satisfy the established eligibility requirements and qualify for an award.

This clarification is important because a favorable score does not automatically mean that a company has secured a final contract. The evaluation committee must still establish whether the bidders meet the conditions required to execute the work, including the operational and administrative standards set out in the tender documents. Government maintained that it remains committed to a fair, open and accountable tender process as it seeks to improve solid waste collection services across St. Maarten.

Why were two parcels allowed?

One of the central questions surrounding the latest tender concerns the decision to allow individual companies to receive a maximum of two collection parcels rather than limiting contractors to one. The original tender, for which bids were submitted in January 2026, expressly restricted contractors to one parcel each, a condition previously reported by The People's Tribune in March. The revised arrangement has raised questions about the Ministry's reasoning, particularly given the operational difficulties experienced in previous years when contractors were responsible for more than one collection area.

The reported distribution would place four of the six parcels in the hands of just two companies, leaving the remaining two parcels to separate operators. This has prompted questions about why the Ministry did not maintain a distribution involving six individual contractors, particularly since several companies participated in the bidding process. While awarding two parcels to one company is not necessarily improper when the tender rules permit it, the decision raises legitimate questions about operational capacity, competition and the safeguards government intends to apply to prevent service interruptions.

There is also relevant background in statements previously made by Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs concerning the limitations of the garbage collection system. During an April presentation to Parliament, Gumbs explained that government had encountered difficulties reassigning a garbage collection parcel because the next eligible contractor was already managing the maximum recommended number of parcels and was unwilling to assume another. Another contractor was also unavailable, forcing the Ministry to seek an alternative arrangement outside the existing contract list to maintain collection services.

That explanation demonstrated some of the operational challenges government had already encountered when collection responsibilities were concentrated among contractors managing multiple areas. It also makes the decision to permit two parcels per company in the latest tender particularly relevant, especially considering previous problems involving labor shortages and the ability of contractors to maintain consistent collection schedules. The Ministry has not yet publicly provided a detailed explanation of the change or identified the measures introduced to address the potential risks associated with contractors managing two parcels simultaneously.

Manpower and equipment could prove decisive

Beyond the scoring system, the ability of the reported successful bidders to execute their contracts will be an important consideration before the new arrangements take effect. According to information concerning the tender requirements, contractors awarded two parcels must have access to at least four garbage trucks, along with contingency vehicles to ensure that collection can continue when equipment is unavailable. Requirements for individual and smaller parcels vary according to the size and workload of the collection areas, with some requiring two vehicles and others one, supported by contingency arrangements.

The tender reportedly allows companies that do not own all the necessary equipment to demonstrate that they have entered into agreements or arrangements with other operators willing to lease the required vehicles. This means that bidders were not necessarily required to own every truck at the time of submission, provided they could satisfy the applicable conditions and demonstrate the availability of equipment before operations begin. An inspection by VROMI is expected to form part of the next steps, allowing government to verify whether contractors possess or have secured the resources required to execute the work.

For Limitless, which sources describe as a relatively new entrant to the garbage collection industry, the reported allocation of two parcels raises questions about how the company intends to organize its workforce, collection routes, equipment and daily operations. Those questions do not establish that the company lacks the necessary capacity, but they highlight the importance of the verification process before any final award is made. The same standards should apply to every successful bidder, particularly where a company is expected to manage more than one collection area.

Manpower could prove just as important as equipment, considering the labor-intensive nature of garbage collection and the difficulties some contractors have experienced in maintaining sufficient personnel. However, the potential departure of All Waste in Place, Meadowlands and West Indies Landscaping could also create opportunities for incoming contractors to recruit experienced drivers, loaders and other workers already familiar with the industry. The availability of experienced personnel could assist with the transition, although that will depend on employment arrangements and the willingness of workers to move between companies.

Equipment may also become available if established contractors no longer require their existing fleets for government collection work. Both All Waste in Place and Meadowlands have operated multiple garbage trucks, creating the possibility that vehicles could be leased to incoming operators seeking to satisfy the tender requirements. Whether such arrangements will materialize remains unclear, but the availability of equipment and experienced personnel could influence how smoothly the new collection contracts are implemented.

Low bids and financial sustainability

The financial sustainability of the new contracts is another concern, particularly because garbage collection involves substantial recurring expenses for salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance and replacement equipment. Contractors must be able to meet those obligations throughout the three-year contract period, rather than simply offer a price that places them favorably within the tender scoring system. If the amounts awarded are insufficient to cover operating costs, contractors could face financial pressures that ultimately affect their ability to provide reliable collection services. Along with monthly operational obligations, acquiring a truck for example, while leasing others, within a three-year financial window, could prove to be extremely challenging.  

Minister Gumbs has previously acknowledged that St. Maarten's garbage collection model is underfunded and inefficient, while also highlighting substantial differences between bids submitted under the original January tender. In February, he disclosed that bids for Parcel 1 ranged from ANG 684,000 to more than ANG 3.3 million, while Parcel 2 attracted bids ranging from approximately ANG 1.08 million to ANG 5.86 million. Parcel 3 produced bids ranging from approximately ANG 827,000 to ANG 3.27 million, while Parcel 4 ranged from approximately ANG 1.07 million to ANG 5.04 million.

Those figures related to the original January tender and should not be confused with the amounts submitted during the latest procurement exercise. Nevertheless, they demonstrated the considerable differences in how contractors assessed the financial requirements of providing garbage collection services in the same areas. The wide variation also raises questions about how government determines whether a proposed contract price is realistic and whether a company's bid adequately accounts for the resources necessary to maintain the service.

Gumbs previously confirmed that Grant Thornton had been engaged to review the failed tender process, including whether the available government budget and proposed contract arrangements reflected actual market and operational conditions. That review is relevant to the latest exercise because government must balance the objective of obtaining value for public money with the need to ensure that contractors can deliver the services for which they are being paid. The prices submitted by the companies reportedly leading the latest tender have not been officially disclosed, making it impossible at this stage to determine whether those bids are financially sustainable or how they compare with the concerns identified earlier in the year.

Second tender follows failure of January process

The latest controversy follows an earlier procurement exercise that ended without any successful awards, forcing government to extend existing contracts and begin the process again. The original 2026-2029 solid waste tender was launched in December 2025, with companies submitting their bids on January 28, 2026. Seventeen companies participated, but Minister Gumbs subsequently told Parliament that 11 bids were eliminated during the initial evaluation because of procedural deficiencies, while the remaining six failed to satisfy the Terms of Reference.

Among the deficiencies identified were unsigned documents, missing social insurance registration, inadequate business licenses, failure to initial required forms, outdated rate submissions and failure to incorporate amendments to the tender requirements. Gumbs maintained that the Ministry could not selectively allow bidders to correct their submissions after the deadline without changing the rules during the evaluation process. He argued that permitting such corrections could compromise fairness and expose government to accusations of unequal treatment.

On March 18, the Minister announced that the tender had failed, and government subsequently extended the existing garbage collection contracts for six months while preparing a revised procurement exercise. The Ministry also apologized after complaints emerged that some contractors had learned about the failed tender through public announcements before receiving formal notification. The revised tender opened on August 17, with submissions due through the Mercell platform on September 25, introducing the framework under which companies could reportedly qualify for more than one parcel.

The previous failure makes transparency in the current process particularly important because government has already emphasized that tender rules must be applied consistently and without preferential treatment. Contractors participating in the retender are entitled to understand how their submissions were evaluated and why the final distribution of parcels differs from the original procurement framework. At the same time, the Ministry must ensure that bidders are judged according to the published requirements of the revised tender rather than criteria introduced after the submission deadline.

Previous Ombudsman findings add importance to complaint

The anticipated complaint to the Ombudsman also comes against the background of earlier concerns about the transparency and administration of government garbage collection contracts. In its investigation of the 2021-2026 tender and awarding process, the Ombudsman identified shortcomings involving procurement procedures, evaluation criteria, transparency and the treatment of participating contractors. The investigation highlighted the importance of clearer Terms of Reference, consistent decision-making, stronger procurement policies and improved communication with companies participating in government tenders.

Minister Gumbs referenced those findings during his explanation of the failed January tender, emphasizing the importance of applying eligibility requirements equally to all bidders. The expected complaint concerning the latest retender would therefore bring renewed attention to whether government has addressed the weaknesses previously identified and whether the revised process satisfies the applicable standards. However, dissatisfaction with the outcome of a tender does not automatically establish irregularities, and any formal complaint would have to be examined on its merits.

Several questions remain unanswered, including why the Ministry changed the maximum number of parcels permitted per company, whether the reported successful bidders have the necessary equipment and personnel, and whether their contract amounts can sustain operations over the full three-year period. It also remains unclear when the final awards will be announced, when equipment inspections will take place and how much time incoming contractors will have to prepare before assuming responsibility. Those details will be particularly important if established haulers are being replaced by companies taking over unfamiliar collection areas or expanding their operations.

For residents, the ultimate concern will be whether the new contracts produce consistent garbage collection and fewer service interruptions across St. Maarten. The procurement process must not only satisfy the necessary legal and administrative requirements but also result in contractors capable of delivering the services for which public funds are allocated. Until government completes its verification process and formally announces the successful bidders and their parcels, the reported results remain unconfirmed, while questions about the tender's structure, financial sustainability and operational readiness continue.

‍