ATTORNEY GENERAL and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC., has announced sweeping plans to review Guyana’s public procurement framework and standard government contracts.
The move signals a major policy shift aimed at strengthening accountability and aligning the country with internationally recognised standards.
“We have to review them to bring them in compliance with and in sync with the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) models, which are being used across the globe,” Nandlall said during his weekly programme, Issues in the News, setting the tone for what he described as a comprehensive reform process.
The Attorney General explained that the review will target several key areas, including public procurement procedures, the Public Procurement Act, and the standard-form contracts currently used across government agencies.
“We’ll soon begin a review of procurement processes, public procurement processes, the Public Procurement Act, as well as the standard-form contracts that are being used in government, in the public sector,” he stated.
According to Nandlall, the existing contractual framework is outdated and no longer reflects modern best practices.
“These contracts that are being used are not the most modern model contracts available,” he noted, adding that Guyana must now transition to globally accepted standards, particularly those developed by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers.
He stressed that many countries already rely on FIDIC-based contracts, making it necessary for Guyana to modernise its systems to remain competitive and ensure greater efficiency in public sector projects.
“Contracts now are being done in accordance with that regime, and we have to upgrade our contracts to bring them in compliance with the latest version of the FIDIC regime,” he said.
A central component of the planned reforms will be tightening contractual provisions to ensure stricter oversight of contractors.
“One of the primary focus of the review, will centre around making provisions of these contracts more stringent so that the contractors are held more accountable for the conduct of the contractual obligations,” Nandlall explained.
In addition to strengthening contractual terms, the Attorney General indicated that the government will also re-examine the remedies available when breaches occur.
He said, “We will review the regime of remedies that flow when there is a breach, and we will strengthen the regime of remedies so as to offer to the state greater protection when there are breaches or non-compliance.”
Another critical issue flagged by Nandlall is the role of engineers and supervisors who are tasked with overseeing government contracts. He expressed concern that, in many instances, these professionals are failing to act in the best interest of the state.
“Significantly, the review will also be focused on the role of the engineer or supervisor of these contracts,” he said, noting that such individuals are “paid huge sums of money to monitor and evaluate the performance of the contract for and on behalf of the state.”
He emphasised that these officials are expected to “police the contracts, monitor and evaluate the contracts, and ensure that when there are breaches, these breaches are reported and are remedied under the terms of the contract.”
However, Nandlall pointed to what he described as a troubling pattern.
“Unfortunately, invariably, these engineers and or supervisors tend to align their interests more with the contractor than the employer, the employer being the state agency, the ministry, or the government department, as the case may be,” he asserted.
Providing an example, he explained that supervisors often support variations to contracts that lead to increased costs. “Instead of preventing and resisting attempts at variations in contracts that would inevitably result in an upward movement of the contract price, the engineers and or supervisors support the contractor’s request for an extension,” he said.
While he stopped short of making definitive accusations, Nandlall suggested that financial incentives may be influencing this behaviour.
“Well, I can’t say why, but the engineer and or supervisor are paid based upon that increase. Their remuneration package is tied to a variation that necessarily increases the contract price and perhaps that is an incentive to give support,” he stated.
He added that such arrangements create a system that rewards rather than discourages cost overruns. “We have to ensure that that is reviewed, that state of affairs that I just outlined, a state of affairs that seems to reward rather than penalise a contractor for a variation,” he said.
Nandlall underscored that the responsibility of engineers and supervisors should be to prevent unnecessary variations, not facilitate them.
“The responsibility of that engineer or that supervisor is to prevent that variation from taking place. Instead, the facts will show, the evidence will disclose that invariably they stand in support,” he said.
He further noted that contract extensions often result in additional earnings for supervisors.
“One of the reasons that may be influencing that posture is a financial one, because when the variation is granted, the supervisor’s contract or the engineer’s contract is also extended. So, they receive remuneration that is commensurate with an extension of the contract. That must be looked at,” he explained.
Beyond contractual and supervisory reforms, the Attorney General also revealed that a recent ruling by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has added urgency to the review process.
“And the other reason why we have to review our public procurement process is because of a decision handed down by the Caribbean Court of Justice, our highest court, in the case of Cara Investments Limited against Christopher Ram and the Bank of Nova Scotia,” he said.
Nandlall noted that the decision, which was delivered recently, could have significant implications for Guyana’s procurement framework, although he did not elaborate on its full impact during the programme.
