Dear Editor,
The lowest bid is not the only criterion for awarding a contract, particularly when the company offering the lowest bid has absolutely no experience in building roads and bridges and on the scale required by the contract. It is no wonder the company with no expertise in road building will offer the lowest bid. Synergy will sub-contract all or the significant majority of this work because it lacks the experience, equipment and skills to do the work. Synergy also has to make a profit so the lowest bidder might conceivably pay even less to its sub-contractors. If this were to be the case, it would open the possibility that quality could suffer and eventually the people of Guyana might have to pay more for maintenance and replacement.
This is a primary network of roads and bridges for a major project with massive heavy-duty equipment using this infrastructure on a regular basis for four years. Did the Government of Guyana reject marginally higher bids from companies in Guyana that have actually built roads? It would be ironic if Synergy ended up hiring one or more of the bidders to perform the job at a price these bidders explicitly confirmed could not be accomplished. This is ultimately an issue of quality. The contract is time sensitive. Synergy has no experience, equipment, expertise and systems of its own, so it must find sub-contractors to complete these tasks on time at a low price.
The Request for Proposals (RFP) explicitly required the following: (1) large scale project experience in the past five years (2) references and credentials (3) details of equipment/machinery owned and needed (4) sub-contracting of the use of equipment and machinery requires an agreement (5) contractor’s financial and human resource capability to undertake the project (6) resumes of principals (7) contractor’s past experience and capacity to effectively manage a range of impacts on similar large projects consistent with World Bank Standards. Synergy does not meet condition 1. It lacks credentials as required by condition 2. It does not own road or bridge-building machinery as per condition 3. Based on the wording, this contract was targeted to a company that could build these roads. This is evident in condition 4, which does not cover sub-contracting of the project but only of machinery and equipment and assumes the contractor is capable of performing the work itself. Synergy has not established proof sufficient to comply with condition 5 because it seems to be a one-man company with a declared share capital worth US$100,000 or $150,000. It certainly cannot meet condition 7. Yet the Government of Guyana gave this contract to Synergy.
Finally, Synergy obtained the licence to operate and build the Amaila dam. Why would the Government of Guyana allow Synergy to bid on ancillary projects when Synergy will be involved in the main project? Why not give local companies the opportunity to employ some locals on the ancillary projects without having to pay Synergy a premium? At every turn, this company is benefiting despite its profound lack of expertise and experience. It is time the people of Guyana dig deeply on this one. This project is too big for this nation to sit idly by and suffer the consequences. I have no problem with it being built or a licence being granted but it has to be done properly, competently and by proven entities and qualified personnel. Synergy has question marks hovering. In a prior response to me, Mr Motilall pointed out that Synergy has completed real estate developments in the USA totalling over $50 million in the past 8 years. As recently as 2009, Mr Motilall was listed as delinquent for failure to pay West Palm Beach Coun-ty real estate taxes on a timely manner. Yet this company controls a major ecological and financial project worth US$500 to $600 million in Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Maxwell
