GTE contractors can be debarred under Guyana’s procurement laws over ‘hidden info’, checking off substandard work

Jul 15, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Two of the key contractors entrusted by the government of Guyana (GoG) to develop the nation’s first Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project, which is expected to transform the country’s energy landscape, omitted key details in bid documents and reportedly missed major structural defects in the project that can potentially cause the companies to be debarred.

Over the past weeks, Kaieteur News have reported a series of articles exposing the questionable procurement process, business practices and operational activities of the Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) firm, Lindsayca Guyana Inc as well as the consultant, Engineers India Limited (EIL).

Based on these disclosures, advocates are calling for an administrative review under Guyana’s Procurement Act 2003 (Cap 73:05) and the Procurement (Suspension and Debarment) Regulations 2019.

The 2019 Regulations outline non-discretionary grounds for vendor suspension and debarment. Under Regulation 3(1)(h), a contractor can be debarred for misrepresenting any fact during procurement.

In April this year, Kaieteur News reported on the company’s financials between 2016 and 2019. These documents revealed that Lindsayca was drowning in debt to the tune of millions of US-dollars. Importantly, the bidders must demonstrate financial capacity in accordance with Section 5(1)(iii) of the 2003 Procurement Act.

According to that section of the law: “Every supplier or contractor wanting to participate in procurement proceedings must qualify by… it is not insolvent, in receivership, bankrupt or being wound up, its affairs are not being administered by a court or a judicial officer, its business activities have not been suspended, and it is not the subject of legal proceedings for any of the foregoing.”

Be that as it may, Lindsayca’s pre-qualification submissions showed high debt and a qualified 2018 audit opinion where auditors could not verify material revenues.

Research by this newspaper also uncovered a trail of foreign litigations which Lindsayca may have omitted from its bid to the state to grab the lucrative deal. At the time it participated in the procurement process in Guyana for the Wales project, Lindsayca had ongoing overseas lawsuits including Adversary Proceeding No. 22-03125 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (Southern District of Texas) alleging corporate financial misrepresentation, and a $8.7 million contract dispute with Gazprom in Venezuela.

Section 5 (vi) of the 2003 Procurement Act also requires past performance to be substantiated by documentary evidence, yet this newspaper found that the integrity of key personnel attached to Lindsayca was questionable.

It was reported that Project Director Ruben Figuera previously had $5.3 million in assets frozen by Andorran authorities investigating funds linked to Venezuelan state pipeline contracts.

Perhaps more importantly, the project’s protracted delays provide a statutory basis for review under Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Procurement (Suspension and Debarment) Regulations 2019, which authorises sanctions for a direct contravention of the Procurement Act.

By failing to meet critical execution timelines, the contractor is arguably in breach of Section 5(1)(i) of the Procurement Act 2003, which mandates that a vendor must possess the requisite technical competence, managerial capability, and reliability to perform the contract. Lindsayca and its partner CH4 were initially expected to deliver the Wales project in December 2024, but the 300 megawatt (MW) facility remains incomplete as of mid-2026, pushing simple-cycle and combined-cycle operations well into 2026 and 2027 respectively.

In the meantime, this newspaper has revealed the use of private luxury jets for travel by company executives and even transportation of cargo that was costing Guyana millions weekly.

This raises sharp questions about the group’s local performance and whether Guyana hired the best company for the job.

These concerns however are not limited to Lindsayca but overlap to the government’s consultant as well.

It was reported that Engineers India Limited (EIL) as supervisor of the 3,000-pile foundation phase oversaw concrete pours for the heavy turbine mounts. Subsequent structural cracking and foundation disputes in these turbine zones have led critics to argue that certifying compromised pours constitutes lack of technical competence as required by 5(1)(i) of the 2003 Procurement Act.

Beyond corporate titles stand the giant in the room, the head and heart of the GTE project, the Taskforce head and consultant, Winston Brassington. His firm, WB Consulting Group LLC was hired by the government to lead the project.

Brassington, like the two foreign contractors hold equal responsibility in the delayed mega-project which continues to cost Guyanese million daily.

As lead negotiator, Brassington’s team cleared Lindsayca’s qualified audits and failed to address active litigation involving the firm. This oversight constitutes a direct failure of due diligence under the general provisions of Section 5 of the Procurement Act 2003, which explicitly requires procuring entities to verify that suppliers possess the legal capacity, financial reliability, and lack of disqualifying legal proceedings necessary to execute a contract. By neglecting these statutory evaluation standards, the team compromised the safeguards operationalised by the Procurement (Suspension and Debarment) Regulations 2019. Furthermore, the negotiators reportedly accepted lopsided liquidated damages clauses, disproportionately exposing the government to severe delay-related financial risks.

Research shows that in 2021 the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) ruled that public tenders are strictly bound by the Procurement Act 2003. In the BK International Inc. v. GGMC [2021] CCJ 13 AJ (GY), the Court established that state entities lack the administrative discretion to waive mandatory pre-qualification criteria.

This therefore questions the contract award to Lindsayca with glaring red flags plastered on the company during the bidding process.

Additionally, in Cara Investments Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia & Christopher Ram [2026] CCJ 5 (AJ) GY, the CCJ formally recognised the “process contract” (Contract A) doctrine within Guyanese procurement law. Entering a public bidding process creates a binding contract requiring the state to act with “honesty, fairness, good faith, and transparency.” Failing to evaluate material legal liabilities and corporate restructurings breaches this standard, granting prejudiced bidders grounds for legal challenge.

In October 2019, Guyana moved to enforce Regulation 3(2), blacklisting 13 non-compliant firms including China Railway First Group.

---

• gas-to-energy, GTE contractors, procurement laws, substandard work

---