Dear Editor,
Freshly released cabinet documents have raised serious questions about the management of public contracts at Guyana’s National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA), particularly the decision to seek substantial increases to contracts that had already been awarded through competitive procurement.
The documents point to two separate contracts in Region No. 6, Berbice, for which significant additional sums were subsequently requested. Taken together, the increases disclosed in the documents amount to G$450,044,827. 00. Some analysts suggest G$600 am is sought.
The first case concerns the maintenance and servicing of NDIA drainage and irrigation pumps awarded to D Sawh Mechanical Workshop for G$396,290,876 for the 2026 contract year. According to the document, the NDIA subsequently requested an additional G$300 million, which would bring the contract to G$696,290,876.
The stated justification was that the original contract had been exhausted after six months because of extensive works allegedly required following severe weather, as well as an increase in the number of pumps in Region No. 6. The document says that completed invoices for April and May amounted to G$230,365,380, with projected July works estimated at G$69,634,620.
Those explanations, however, demand scrutiny. If the additional expenditure is being justified on the basis of an increased number of pumps, the public should be told precisely how many additional pumps were deployed, where they were installed, when they became operational, and what additional maintenance obligations they created.
The second contract concerns the construction of the Letter Kenny Pump Station in Corentyne, Region No. 6, awarded to Quality Deliverer at G$784,875,787.
A July 15, 2026 request sought a further G$150,044,827, taking the proposed revised contract value to G$934,920,614.
The justification in this case is particularly important because the additional cost relates to three items involving steel sheet piles. The tender-board document shows that these items were originally competitively bid at specified contract rates. The revised rates, however, are substantially higher.
For example, one item involving 3,600 units was originally priced at G$16,000 each, producing a contract amount of G$57.6 million. The revised rate is shown as G$61,898, producing a revised amount of G$222,832,800.
The document attributes the increased cost to higher production and international shipping costs arising from global conflicts, supply-chain disruptions and unforeseen market conditions. It also states that G$37,375,037 of the contract contingency would be used, leaving a net variation of G$150,044,827.
That explanation may warrant examination, but it also raises a fundamental procurement question: when a contractor wins a competitive tender at a particular rate, under what circumstances can that rate subsequently be substantially increased?
A variation is not automatically evidence of wrongdoing. Construction contracts can legitimately require variations when circumstances change. But where prices submitted during competitive bidding are later replaced by dramatically higher prices, the public has a right to know whether the applicable procurement rules were followed, whether the variation was independently assessed, and whether the original competitive process remains meaningful.
There is another issue that deserves clarification: who had the authority to initiate and approve these requests?
The documents identify NDIA Chairman Lionel Wordsworth as seeking approval for the increase to the pump-maintenance contract. If the chairman’s statutory or administrative authority does not extend to making such a request independently, that should be clearly explained by the NDIA, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB), and the responsible ministry.
This is not a minor procedural question. Public procurement depends on clear lines of authority. Every variation of a major government contract must have an identifiable legal and administrative basis, particularly where hundreds of millions of dollars in additional public expenditure are involved.
The documents also create an obvious need for transparency regarding the companies benefiting from these variations. Any suggestion that a contractor has political, familial or personal connections to senior government officials should not be treated as proof of corruption without evidence. But such allegations make disclosure even more important.
The government should therefore publish the relevant tender evaluations, contracts, variation orders, approvals, engineering assessments, invoices and evidence supporting the additional expenditure.
The same standard should apply to claims that additional pumps were deployed in Berbice. If the justification for the G$300 million increase is that the number of pumps increased to mitigate flooding, the NDIA should provide the records that demonstrate that increase.
Public money cannot be protected by assurances alone. It is protected when the documents can withstand independent examination.
There are also allegations circulating that funds associated with these contracts could ultimately be connected to the replacement of cattle previously imported from Brazil. Those claims require documentary evidence and should not be presented as established fact. If such allegations are being made, the appropriate response is not speculation but disclosure of the relevant expenditure records, procurement documents and government accounts.
For the Opposition, the issue presents an opportunity to demand accountability through Parliament.
The Opposition Leader can require the government to explain why these contracts were increased, what work justified the additional expenditure, who authorised the variations, whether NPTAB approved them in accordance with the law, and what independent verification was conducted before the increases were sought.
The government should also explain why the public should have confidence that the additional G$450 million-plus being sought across these two contracts represents genuine additional work and legitimate market costs rather than weaknesses in the original procurement and contract-management process.Fourfold increase in price; not even an increase in steel and shipping can justify the large increase. And at any rate, price didn’t increase much for materials or goods or shipping for the contract. This is a fourfold increase, a highway robbery.
The beneficiary of the more than $400M variation increase was overheard saying that he was instructed that it is to be used to purchase replacement cattle for those that came under scrutiny in Ebini for a farm in Soesdyke and had to be diverted; Many of those 300 cattle died of starvation, thirst, heat, and neglect. Those that survived had to be diverted to shift attention from the farm linked to corruption.
The central issue over the $400M is not whether every contract variation constitutes corruption. It does not.
The issue is whether Guyanese taxpayers can see a transparent, independently verifiable and legally compliant chain of evidence showing why hundreds of millions of additional dollars are being added to contracts that were already competitively awarded.
Until those questions are answered, the NDIA contract increases will continue to raise legitimate concerns about procurement, accountability and the protection of public funds.
Yours truly
Nathan Barton
