Questions are being raised over the handling of more than $610.6 million in fertilizer contracts awarded by the Ministry of Agriculture, after two companies identified as successful bidders say they were not allowed to execute the contracts for which they had been awarded lots.
Documents and procurement records show that AR Total Logistics Solutions Inc. was identified as the successful bidder for Lot 6, valued at $558.125 million, while Impeccable Construction & General Supplies Inc. was identified as the successful bidder for four other lots with a combined value of $52.5 million.
Kiskadee Watch contacted Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha yesterday for comment but was unsuccessful.
The companies are now seeking answers about what happened to the contracts after the awards were published, including whether the lots were subsequently reassigned and, if so, who authorised such action and under what authority.
The concerns arise from a procurement exercise for the supply and delivery of granular urea and 15:15:15 NPK fertilizers for Regions One to 10, undertaken following the government’s announcement of a $2 billion fertilizer subsidy programme for farmers.
The tender document provided by the companies identifies the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) under the Ministry of Agriculture as the procuring entity and specifies the supply of 13,750 metric tonnes of granular urea and 2,000 metric tonnes of 15:15:15 NPK fertiliser for Lots 1 to 10.
According to the documents, the tender closed on January 21, 2025, and the awards were subsequently published on the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board’s website on November 21, 2025.
AR Total Logistics Solutions Inc. says it submitted bids for all 10 lots and was subsequently identified as the successful bidder for Lot 6, valued at $558,125,000.
The company says that after learning of the published award, one of its directors contacted the Ministry of Agriculture to find out when the contract would be made available for signing and when the company could begin fulfilling its obligations.
Additional
According to the company, it was told that additional funding had to be released to the Ministry by the National Assembly before the process could proceed. The company says it was advised that it would be contacted once the necessary funds became available and the contract was ready for execution.
In anticipation of the contract being executed, AR Total Logistics says it engaged suppliers and transportation providers and made other logistical arrangements based on the quantities and delivery requirements associated with Lot 6.
The company says the continued absence of a signed contract has resulted in financial uncertainty and loss of a business opportunity, including profits it had anticipated from the $558.125 million award.
It is now seeking answers on whether the Lot 6 award remains valid, whether the additional funding was released, why the contract was not executed and what, if any, further requirements must be met before it can proceed.
A similar issue has been raised by Impeccable Construction & General Supplies Inc., which participated in the same tender and submitted bids for all 10 lots.
The company says it was awarded Lots 1, 7, 8 and 10, with the individual contract values listed as: Lot 1 — $12.8 million, Lot 7 — $19.95 million, Lot 8 — $6.65 million, and Lot 10 — $13.1 million. The four awards total $52.5 million.
However, the company says it was never presented with the contracts for signature. The company secretary repeatedly contacted the Ministry, at least twice monthly, to determine when the contracts would be ready. The company says the Head of Procurement at NAREI repeatedly indicated that the Ministry was awaiting approval and release of funds and that successful companies would be contacted once the funds became available.
The company eventually submitted a formal letter in July 2026 seeking clarification from the Minister’s Department, the Permanent Secretary, the General Manager of NAREI and the NAREI Procurement Department. It says it received no formal acknowledgement or response.
The matter took another turn on August 20 when a director of Impeccable again followed up with the Ministry and was referred to NAREI CEO Jagnarine Singh, who said that to the best of his knowledge, the contracts had already been executed.
However, the company says he did not identify which of the four companies that had been awarded the various lots had ultimately executed all 10 lots.
The director then questioned why the companies that had been identified as successful bidders were not permitted to execute the contracts awarded to them. The company says Singh indicated that he could not make such a decision and, to his understanding, such a decision could only be made by Cabinet.
Singh said he was familiar with Impeccable’s name and had come across the contracts, but could not explain why the company had never been contacted to execute Lots 1, 7, 8 and 10. The company further says Singh indicated that he was under the impression that Impeccable was the company that had delivered the fertilizer.
That claim has prompted the company to seek clarification on whether another company or companies were subsequently allowed to execute the works or supply covered by the original tender.
Impeccable is seeking clarification on whether the awarded lots were reassigned, who authorised any reassignment and the legal or procurement basis on which such decisions were made. The company says it had incurred expenses preparing its tender and, after the awards were published, made additional commitments to suppliers and transportation providers in anticipation of fulfilling the contracts. It is also seeking an explanation for the financial losses and lost business opportunity it says resulted from being unable to execute the contracts it had been awarded.
Both companies maintain that they remain prepared to engage with the Ministry and provide whatever documentation is required. Impeccable has requested a formal meeting with its directors and officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and NAREI to establish what happened to the four contracts and why they were not presented for execution.
Discussion