Sentinel Security company defends itself

Jun 03, 2016 Letters

I have scanned an editorial in your KN edition of Friday May 27, 2016, (pg. 5) captioned ‘This Tendering Process is Suspect’ and would also like to crave your indulgence to publish this response to the concerned Bidder as specified hereunder:
Sentinel Security was duly registered in December, 2005 and provided security services since 2007 at the ICC World Cup at the National Stadium, separate and apart from Cops. Hence, Sentinel cannot be ‘formerly COPS’ as highlighted by the writer and is not a ‘new kid on the block’
If Sentinel chose not to Bid on 18th November, 2015 to provide security services for the Regional Democratic Council Region No. 1 it was Sentinel’s choice. In fact, Sentinel did not respond to other invitations to Bid during 2015 also. In the same light, if Sentinel responded to Invitations to Bid during 2016 then it was also Sentinel’s choice. These decisions lie with Sentinel.
Region 1 was amongst other BIDS tendered by Sentinel in 2016, so it is baffling to determine why the furor with this particular Bid: Invitation was sent out and Sentinel responded.
Like the writer, Sentinel and other Companies have been experiencing the outcome of the processes which are ‘creeping at a snail’s gallop.’ However, while in agreement that this pace is frustrating; there is utmost disagreement with casting any aspersions on the Tender Board, its Management and processes as the writer has taken the liberty to do.
For the records, Sentinel cannot be associated with poor service, late wages/salaries payments and picking up vagrants and dressing them in uniform to meet service demands.
In conclusion, it is hoped that the writer now understands that Sentinel cannot be referred to as formerly COPS and that Sentinel is free to respond to invitations to Bids as it so desires.
Another Concerned Bidder

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News