Dear Editor,
The recent remarks by the Hon. Mr. Juan Edghill, Minister of Public Works, threatening to withhold payments from contractors for substandard roadworks, purport to signal a renewed commitment to accountability. In truth, however, they function as a rhetorical sleight of hand diverting attention from the entrenched institutional failures and political opportunism that have, for years, undermined the integrity of Guyana’s infrastructure development.
What is now being sold to the public as a principled crackdown on inefficiency is, in reality, a performative gesture intended to sanitize the government’s role in cultivating the very conditions that now produce these outcomes. The crisis in road construction is not primarily the fault of small contractors; it is a symptom of the systemic politicization of procurement and project planning. When contracts are awarded based not on technical competence or operational capacity but on political loyalty and vote-buying considerations, the result is inevitable: delays, substandard workmanship, and public frustration.
Politicisation and Structural Mismanagement:
The parallels with the recent GOAL-ISDC scholarship debacle are too striking to ignore. In both cases, state partnerships were entered into without sufficient due diligence, driven more by optics and expediency than by adherence to institutional best practices. With ISDC, students were left in academic limbo. With the Public Works Ministry, the public is left navigating crumbling roads, incomplete projects, and the stifling irony of a Minister now feigning surprise at a crisis he and his government largely engineered.
The evidence is increasingly undeniable: contractors have been selected not for their demonstrable capabilities, but for their perceived political utility. Prior to election cycles, we witnessed hastily organized gatherings, informally dubbed “sugar cake convention centers”, where untrained individuals, some without secondary education or technical background, were converted into overnight contractors. This was never about sustainable development or empowering local enterprise; it was about consolidating electoral support under the guise of inclusion.
Chaotic Execution and Absence of Construction Logic:
To compound matters, the sequencing of work sites has been nothing short of illogical. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a road is divided into four sections:
- Plot A:60 meters (approx. 197 feet).
- Plot B:120 meters (approx. 394 feet)
- Plot C:180 meters (approx. 591 feet)
- Plot D:240 meters (approx. 787 feet)
Under standard civil engineering practice, these sections should be executed sequentially. Yet, we frequently see intermediate sections (e.g., Plot C) initiated before preceding sections (Plots A and B), requiring crews to traverse unfinished or uncured concrete to access their work zones. Such decisions lead not only to technical failure but to premature degradation of the newly laid infrastructure, undermining both quality and lifespan. This is not merely poor planning; it is symptomatic of political interference and operational incoherence.
Overburdened Engineers and Delayed Payments:
Compounding these issues is the chronic underinvestment in engineering capacity. A significant number of engineers tasked with supervising national projects are either insufficiently trained, lack specialized field experience, or are still at early stages in their professional development. They are often deployed into supervisory roles without the adequate mentorship, upskilling, or certification required by international standards for public infrastructure oversight.
Worse still, these engineers are overtasked, expected to supervise an unmanageable portfolio of projects across geographically dispersed areas. In many instances, their schedules conflict, leading to lapses in oversight, delayed inspections, and incomplete documentation. The inevitable result is compromised guidance, diminished supervision, and, ultimately, diminished project quality. A system that expects a relative, handful of engineers to simultaneously oversee dozens of roads and ensure conformity with technical specifications is not merely overambitious, it is institutionally negligent and recklessess.
Moreover, inefficiencies in fund disbursement further exacerbate the situation. Contractors are required to wait 28 days after pouring concrete for it to cure before testing can even begin. Following this, they face delays due to laboratory bottlenecks and engineer scheduling limitations, frequently extending testing timelines by another 28 days or more. Even after a satisfactory test result, the wait for payment can stretch into months.
Equally debilitating are the delays in preliminary and milestone-based payments, such as mobilization and blinding payments which are critical to project mobilization, procurement of materials, and labor engagement. These early disbursements are not auxiliary; they are foundational. When such payments are withheld or delayed due to bureaucratic gridlock, contractors are often forced to initiate works without the liquidity required to ensure quality. This not only compromises execution but breeds a climate of risk aversion, where corners are cut not out of malice but of necessity. In aggregate, these payment bottlenecks erode morale, destabilize cash flow, and create cascading inefficiencies that ultimately threaten the timely and effective delivery of public works.
And herein lies another layer of injustice: the Ministry is fully aware that many of these small contractors lack the resources, liquidity, or institutional support to withstand such extended delays. It is therefore unconscionable to assign blame to these individuals without acknowledging the burdens imposed by a deeply dysfunctional administrative system.
Accountability and the Role of Ready-Mix Providers:
A further dimension of concern involves the selective privileging of certain ready-mix concrete providers. Anecdotal evidence and industry complaints suggest a troubling pattern whereby contractors who source materials from non-preferred suppliers face harsher scrutiny or outright rejection of their road sections, regardless of the concrete’s quality. Such practices undermine not only the principles of competitive fairness but also the technical integrity of the process.
In any modern infrastructure environment, the quality assurance burden must rest with the certified supplier, not the contractor. Ready-mix providers should be required to supply detailed quality guarantees, third-party certifications, and insurance as a precondition for engagement on public projects. This aligns with best practices globally, including guidelines from the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), which emphasize the clear delineation of responsibility between supplier, contractor, and client to avoid accountability gaps and reduce project risk.
Pathways to Reform:
If Minister Edghill is truly committed to infrastructural improvement, then his Ministry must undertake structural reforms not media spectacles. These should include:
- Merit-Based Procurement:Contracts must be awarded on the basis of demonstrable capacity, with objective criteria related to experience, financial standing, and technical expertise.
- Logical Project Sequencing:Road segments should be executed in accordance with engineering principles not political whim. Poor sequencing leads to avoidable damage and waste.
- Enhanced Engineering Supervision:The state must invest in developing its engineering corps through formal training, workload balancing, and modern supervisory tools to ensure professional oversight from start to finish.
- Efficient Payment Protocols:A 60- to 90-day payment cycle post-completion is both unreasonable and counterproductive. Streamlined payment processes should be implemented including timely release of mobilization and blinding payments to support small contractors’ viability.
- Concrete Supplier Regulation:Ready-mix providers must meet strict quality and accountability benchmarks, including third-party testing, performance bonds, and liability insurance.
- Depoliticisation of Infrastructure Delivery:The execution of national infrastructure cannot continue to serve as a political patronage tool. Institutions must be insulated from electoral manipulation if the country is to see lasting development.
Conclusion:
It is not merely unfair, it is profoundly unethical for the state to create a problem through politicized procurement, then castigate those it set up to fail. Contractors, many of whom were hastily mobilized as political props, now find themselves vilified by the very institutions that empowered them. This is not policy. It is scapegoating masquerading as governance.
The Guyanese people deserve more than failures, filled with press releases and deflection. They deserve a public infrastructure system anchored in transparency, technical excellence, and a genuine commitment to long-term national development.
Yours truly,
Coretta McDonald, A.A., MBA, BBA.
