Garbage haulers furious after learning through media their bids were rejected

GREAT BAY--Garbage haulers reacted angrily on Wednesday after learning through media reports that all bids submitted for the new garbage collection contracts were deemed non-compliant, following a public announcement by Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs during the Council of Ministers press briefing.

The haulers said they were stunned to hear through the press, rather than through direct official communication, that every bid had been rejected. They argued that they did not submit bids through the media and described it as unethical that such a serious determination was first made public without the affected parties being formally informed.

“We did not bid through the press, so it is unethical to learn through the press that all bids were non-compliant because of discrepancies,” contractors said, expressing deep frustration with the manner in which the matter was disclosed. "We had heard about a few being immediately rejected, but all?"

At the press briefing, Gumbs announced that the garbage collection contracts would have to be retendered after all 17 bids were knocked out during the evaluation process. According to the minister, the first 11 bids were excluded for failing to follow proper procedures, while the remaining six did not comply with the terms of reference in the tender documents. He said legal advice was sought, but the discrepancies in the submitted information meant the bids could not be fairly considered.

The Minister further stated that a third party has been contracted to evaluate how the first tender failed, and that an interim arrangement of three months is now being prepared while government works toward a new tender process. He also maintained that the failed process was not the result of government error and was unrelated to the absence of an approved 2026 budget.

The haulers, however, say the minister now has a responsibility to explain publicly exactly how the bids were found to be non-compliant, especially for contractors who were already carrying out the work and believed they had submitted in good faith.

“Since the Minister spoke publicly, now the Minister has the responsibility to say publicly in what ways they were not compliant,” they said. “There are too many questions around this bid and it is time now for answers. This makes us vex. People put in their time and work into this only to hear through the media that they are non-compliant. How?”

The contractors also questioned how the process can now be fairly retendered when pricing information and bid figures are already known, raising concerns about the integrity of any future round. In their view, the problem lies not only with bidders, but also with the terms of reference and the way the process was planned and managed.

“The problem is the TOR and government’s poor planning of this TOR should not be absolved and the contractors blamed for such,” the haulers said.

“This Minister and his party spoke about the former Minister, but this is worse,” the contractors said. “This is shady and it needs investigating and it’s time it moves to a different level. What exactly is Parliament doing?”

Their comments come amid growing political pressure on Gumbs, who was sharply criticized in Parliament by MPs over what they described as inaction, poor responsiveness, and broader failures within the Ministry of VROMI. During parliamentary notifications, MPs raised concerns about the state of the roads, landfill management, unanswered questions to Parliament, and the handling of district cleaning and waste-related contracts. One MP went as far as to say that a former VROMI minister faced a motion of disapproval for far less than what is now taking place.

Adding to the frustration, Gumbs did not remain at the Council of Ministers press briefing to take questions from the media, citing previous engagement. He asked the media to forward any questions to his Cabinet PR for clarity. The Peoples' Tribune requested answers the following initial questions:

1. 17 bids were disqualified for discrepancies or failure to meet the terms of reference, what were the most common deficiencies, and do they point to a broader problem in how the tender requirements were understood by bidders?

2. Since every bid was knocked out, what safeguards will be added to the retendered process to ensure the same outcome is not repeated, both on the side of bidders and in the structure of the tender itself?

3. The Minister stated  this was not a government error, yet a third party is being brought in to evaluate how the first tender failed. What exactly will that review examine?

4. You mentioned broader restructuring of the waste sector, including a waste authority, changes to the payment structure, and a new framework for future contracts. How does this failed tender affect that reform timeline, and should the public expect a different long-term model for solid waste management after the retendering process?

‍