The Government has defended its G$245 million purchase of 1,000 pregnant heifers from Brazil by insisting the contract was awarded through a competitive procurement process. Yet the most basic evidence of that process—the public tender advertisement and supporting procurement records—remains absent from the public domain, fuelling fresh questions about transparency and accountability.
According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) awarded the contract to Brazilian company Cooaperr Agri Supply Inc. after receiving four bids—one local and three international. The Ministry has stated that the contract was awarded at G$245,000 per pregnant heifer as part of the Government’s National Herd Expansion Programme, an initiative intended to increase Guyana’s beef and dairy production.
However, questions have emerged over the identity of the entity that ultimately supplied the cattle. While the Government says the contract was awarded to the Brazilian company Coopera, information circulating publicly suggests that a company with a similar name, reportedly incorporated in Guyana earlier this year and whose board includes Brazilian nationals, may have been involved in supplying the animals.
If that is the case, the Government should explain the relationship, if any, between the Brazilian company identified as the successful bidder and the Guyana-incorporated entity. The release of the signed contract and related procurement records would clarify which legal entity was awarded the contract, which entity supplied the heifers, and whether the two companies are affiliated. Until then, the uncertainty is likely to fuel speculation rather than public confidence.
Under Guyana’s procurement framework, contracts of this nature are ordinarily preceded by a publicly advertised Invitation for Bids (IFB), setting out the scope of the procurement, eligibility requirements, technical specifications, submission deadlines and bid opening details. The process typically produces an auditable trail that includes bid opening minutes, evaluation reports, recommendations and the final contract, allowing the public to scrutinise how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Despite Government’s assurances that the procurement was competitive, searches of publicly accessible procurement records have failed to locate the Invitation for Bids or other documents relating to the cattle purchase. No advertisement has been found among publicly available NPTAB notices, Ministry of Agriculture publications or searchable procurement archives.
While it is possible that the notice was published in print or in a document that is no longer publicly indexed, its apparent absence from publicly accessible records has raised legitimate questions about whether the procurement process has been sufficiently transparent.
Public interest in the transaction intensified after Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed intercepted trucks transporting the Brazilian heifers along the Lethem corridor and publicly questioned the transparency of the importation, the health protocols governing the movement of the livestock, and whether local cattle farmers were being placed at a disadvantage.
The controversy deepened after Mohamed alleged that approximately 15 heifers died during the operation. He released photographs and videos which, he contends, show more than the three cattle deaths acknowledged by the Government. The Guyana Livestock Development Authority (GLDA) has maintained that only three animals died and has stated that the supplier is contractually obligated to replace any animals that fail to arrive alive at the Ebini Livestock Facility at no additional cost to the Government. However, the contract containing that provision has not been made public.
The conflicting accounts have heightened calls for greater disclosure, particularly given the value of the contract and the public funds involved.
To restore confidence in the procurement and the Government’s handling of the transaction, the relevant documents should be released without delay. These include the Invitation for Bids advertisement, the NPTAB bid opening minutes, the bid evaluation report, the NPTAB recommendation and award decision, the signed contract with Cooperra, the technical specifications governing the procurement, any Cabinet no-objection where applicable, and the GLDA’s import permits and veterinary certification records.
Those records would answer several questions that remain unresolved, including who submitted the four bids, how each proposal was evaluated, whether Cooperra was the lowest evaluated responsive bidder, the technical standards required for the imported livestock, and the contractual obligations governing transport, mortality, quarantine and veterinary compliance. They would also establish precisely which legal entity entered into the contract with the Government and which entity supplied the cattle.
The release of these records would not only verify the Government’s claim that the procurement complied with the law but would also demonstrate that the contract was awarded fairly, competitively and in the best interest of taxpayers. Until then, the Brazilian heifers transaction is likely to remain the subject of public scrutiny. In a matter involving approximately G$245 million in public funds, transparency demands more than official assurances—it requires documentary proof.
