Dear Editor,
The Guyana Oil Company Limited (Guyoil) notes the article published on Sunday October 13, 2019 in Kaieteur Newspaper “No Kickback, no contracts – Women tells harrowing tale of how Guyoil terminated contracts” and submits the following facts:
1. Invitations for bids were publicly advertised on February 2, 2019 for the supply of one (1) canter truck and the supply, fabrication and erection of two (2) 10,000 gals tanks.
2. On February 17, 2019 an invitation for bids was advertised for the supply of one (1) Rigid Tank Wagon (RTW).
3. Tenders for all three contracts were opened on February 25, 2019.
4. There were four respondents for the supply of one canter truck and four respondents for supply, fabrication and erection of two 10,000 gals tanks which included Commissiong & Company Ltd. While there were two respondents for the supply of one Rigid Tank Wagon (RTW).
5. As per Guyoil’s Tender Policy, the bids were evaluated by the company’s Evaluation Committee. The CEO of the company is not part of the evaluation committee.
6. Evaluation of the supply, fabrication and erection of two 10,000 gals tanks was conducted on February 7, 2019 while the evaluations for the supply of one canter truck and one Rigid Tank Wagon (RTW) were conducted on March 2, 2019.
7. Commissiong & Company Ltd. was the most responsive bidder for the supply, fabrication and erection of two 10,000 gals tanks. Therefore, the Evaluation Committee recommended Commissiong & Company Ltd. be awarded this contract to the Board’s Tender Committee. The Board’s Tender Committee is a sub-committee of the Board.
8. Included in Commissiong & Company Ltd’s bid documents was a bid security from Furness Anchorage General Insurance Limited (Trinidad & Tobago Firm). The Board’s Tender Committee made the recommendation to the Board of Directors for the award of the contract to Commissiong & Company Ltd. and this was ratified and approved by the Board.
9. Notification of award and acceptance requires a Performance Bond submission. Commissiong & Company Ltd. submitted a Performance Bond from Furness Anchorage General Insurance Limited. Following this a contract was signed with Guyoil on May 24, 2019.
10. Tenders for the supply of one canter truck and one Rigid Tank Wagon (RTW) were evaluated on March 2, 2019. In both cases all bidders were deemed non-responsive. As such, in the interest of time, the company invited bids using the restricted tender process on March 11, 2019. Bids were received on March 18, 2019. All bids were evaluated by the Evaluation Committee on April 10, 2019.
11. Guyoil received three bids for the supply of one canter truck and two bids for the supply of one Rigid Tank Wagon (RTW), in which Commissiong & Company Ltd. were included for both submissions.
12. Commissiong & Company Ltd. was deemed the most responsive bidder for both tenders. Included in their bid documents, the company submitted local insurance bonds for both the bid security and the performance bonds.
13. After the signing of all contracts, an advance payment security is required. As per contract, the company was required to submit an Unconditional Bank Guarantee in a form and by a bank acceptable to Guyoil, in amounts equal to the advance payments.
14. Guyoil’s Finance, Audit and Administration Committee (FAAC) (a sub-committee of the Board) recommended to the Board that the acceptable form for all Unconditional Bank Guarantees must be from a local entity. The Board approved the recommendation made by the FAAC.
15. Following the Board’s decision this was communicated to Commissiong & Company Ltd. on July 18, 2019 via email by Guyoil’s Facilities Manager (ag).
16. Commissiong & Company Ltd. subsequently responded on July 29, 2019 via their attorney stating that Guyoil had accepted international bonds for the bid security and performance for all the contracts they were awarded.
17. Guyoil on August 30, in response, pointed out that an the advance security is required after the signing of the contracts and the contract clearly stipulates that the contractor must provide “an Unconditional Bank Guarantee in a form and by a bank acceptable to the employer in amounts equal to the advance payment”.
Therefore, the provision of international bonds will not be an acceptable form of advance security from Commissiong & Company Ltd. after the signing of the three contracts.
18. There was no response from Commissiong & Company Ltd. After which, a second notification was sent on September 10, 2019 giving the company 14 days to submit their local advance security.
19. Commissiong & Company Ltd., through their attorney, responded on September 11, 2019 and stated it is incorporated in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and all of its assets are based in Trinidad and therefore, they are unable to provide local advance security.
20. Commissiong & Company Ltd., in their letter, requested that Guyoil issue the advance payments within 14 days for all three projects. This was despite their failure to submit the requisite advance security to Guyoil.

21. As a result, the Board at its statutory meeting on October 2, 2019 took the decision to terminate all three contracts. The contracts were terminated in keeping with clause 10.1 (a) of contracts. Commissiong has failed to perform its obligation as per clause SCC 6.1. This clauses states that an advance amount is required to be paid upon the submission of a “…simple receipt and a bank guarantee for the equivalent amount and in the form provided in the bid documents or another form acceptable to the purchaser”.

In keeping with clause 59.4 of contract, it was no longer convenient for Guyoil to engage in this contract as Commissiong has failed to meet its obligation as provided in clause 51.1. This clause states inter alia that Commissiong was required to provide “an Unconditional Bank Guarantee in a form and by a bank acceptable to the employer in amounts equal to the advance payment”.

In light of the facts outlined above, Guyoil categorically rejects the malicious and slanderous report by Kaieteur News.

Guyoil further wishes to state that all tenders are recommended by the Board’s Tender Committee and approved by the Board of Directors. The CEO does not have any influence over this process and denies that she was ever in contact with anyone from Commissiong & Company Ltd.

Guyoil therefore views the reports by Commissiong & Company Ltd. as presumptuous, malicious and slanderous. Guyoil rejects their attempts to discredit the company’s procurement system. Guyoil prides itself on transparency and integrity in its operations. As the largest petroleum distributor in Guyana, we remain committed to serving the nation with integrity and dedication and subscribing to GUYOIL’s objective in providing excellence in service.

All for your information and Guidance.
Regards,
Management & Board of Directors