-Auditor General’s report says after three years `no significant works have been completed’
The 2025 Auditor General’s report tabled in Parliament yesterday said that three years after an $870m contract was awarded to Mikhail Rodrigues better known as `Guyanese Critic’ for the Bellevue Pump Station “no significant works have been completed” and the new completion date is May 31st next year.
Awarding of the contract to Rodrigues – a prominent friend of the PPP/C government – by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB) has been held up as evidence of corruption in the government tender system as Rodrigues’ company Tepui Inc had never undertaken a major construction project before.
After major delays in the project, Rodrigues handed the project over to local company GAICO but based on the Auditor General’s report there has still been no significant progress.
“Our physical verification on 2nd September 2026 revealed that the structure was still incomplete and the works were being undertaken by the assigned contracting firm”. The Auditor General’s report did not name the firm so it is unclear if it was referring to Tepui Inc or to GAICO.
The report said that examination of the work programme submitted indicated that an extended approved completion date of June 16, 2026 but this date had also passed without conclusion. It was at this point that the report revealed that the new completion date was May 31st, 2027. There had been no announcement by the government or the Ministry of Agriculture about this new date.
The original date for completion of the project had been March 2025. The contract had been signed on September 22, 2023 with a duration of 18 months.
“At the time of our verifications, three years had already elapsed since the contract was signed and still no significant works have been completed, with excavation and earthworks in progress along with the driving of timber piles for the foundation slab of the sluice structure”, the report said.
It said that the foundation for the northern pump station was the only component completed while construction of the concrete retaining wall to the required height was in progress.
Further, the report said that the Advance Payment bond which expired since March 21st 2025 was never renewed and as of September, 2026 the outstanding sum of $121.716m or 93.7% of the mobilization advance payment was still to be retrieved.
“This is a fundamental breach of contract and should not be tolerated by the Ministry”, the report added.
The performance bond was also not extended and does not give the required period of coverage indicated in the contract. “This situation also is a fundamental breach of contract and should not be tolerated by the Ministry”, the report asserted.
The Auditor General’s report added that as of September 2026 “work progress continues at an unacceptably slow pace and no further payments were made, with the project still at the foundation stage, while the contractor (again not named) was seeking a further extension of time to complete the works”.
The Ministry of Agriculture’s response to the Auditor General’s report via the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) was that the project was 33% completed and that “multi-year approval was requested and approved” by the Ministry of Finance for the project.
NDIA said that by letter of April 13, 2026 it requested that the contractor renew and extend both the advance payment bond and the performance bond. The Auditor General’s report said this had not been done as of September this year.
In reply to the NDIA, the Audit Office recommended improved supervision to ensure that the contractor fulfills all administrative requirements. It added that if the contractor is liable for delays, liquidated damages should be considered. It is unclear why there has been no recommendation for the termination of the contract given the delays.
The Auditor General’s report pointed out that an examination of Tepui’s bid in 2023 had revealed that it failed to satisfy nine out of 18 requirements set out in the evaluation criteria. Observers have pointed out that despite these deficiencies it was awarded the contract over much better qualified firms. A complaint had been lodged with the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) over the award of this contract. That complaint did not result in any material action by the PPC.
Discussion