In a recent Stabroek News article (August 10, 2025), Dr. Goolsarran alleges that Guyana Power and Light’s (GPL) planned award of a consultancy to a Dominican Republic firm violates the Procurement Act. Yet, he fails to cite a single section of the Act that was allegedly breached.
The Procurement Act (Cap. 73:05) explicitly permits single-source procurement under specific conditions. Section 49 states:
“The procuring entity may engage in single source procurement where the services to be procured require that a particular consultant be selected due to the consultant’s unique qualifications or where it is necessary to continue a project with the same consultant.”
GPL lawfully invoked this provision.
Moreover, the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board’s (NPTAB) recommendation is not binding. Section 40 of the Procurement Act establishes the authority upon which a procuring entity may reject all tenders. Section 40(1) states:
“Subject to approval by the National Board, if so specified in the solicitation documents, the appropriate board may reject all tenders at any time prior to the acceptance of a tender. The appropriate board shall upon request, communicate to any supplier or contractor that submitted a tender the grounds for its rejection of all tenders, but is not required to justify those grounds.”
In a subsequent response (Stabroek News, August 13, 2025), Method4 claims that its website lists projects as evidence of its experience. But that is marketing—not substantiation. The Request for Proposal (RFP) requires documentary evidence of past contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity. Without such documentation, any claim of “experience” collapses. GPL does not only reserve the right to reject bids that fail to meet these minimum thresholds—it is obligated to do so, especially for a project of this nature.
Dr. Goolsarran’s casual assertion that there was “evidence” of Method4’s or other bidders having the requisite experience is deeply troubling. How could he make such a claim without reviewing the actual bid submissions and technical evaluation reports? Evidence is not a matter of assumption—it is a matter of record. The evaluation process requires bidders to submit documentary proof of past contracts demonstrating similar size, scope, and complexity—not just a list of projects on a website. Method4’s public statements have not addressed whether they satisfied this requirement. Moreover, bidders must meet the minimum technical thresholds set out in the RFP, which form part of the evaluation process. Is Dr. Goolsarran now an engineer as well as an auditor underpinning such determinations without access to the documentation? Or is he relying on speculation and theatrics rather than facts?
It is worth reminding that while Dr. Goolsarran grandstands with his incredibly unsubstantiated assertion of a procurement violation—he himself was entangled in a controversial procurement debacle under the APNU+AFC government.
By his own publicly documented admission, under the previous APNU+AFC administration, he was the beneficiary of highly questionable procurement practices in relation to a number of “forensic audits” he was contracted to perform. In his Stabroek News column dated July 29, 2024, he admitted:
“In May 2015, I returned to Guyana, having been attached to the Afghanistan National Audit Office in Kabul as an International Audit Expert. I met briefly with the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Winston Jordan, who indicated to me that the new Administration had decided to conduct forensic audits of State institutions and that, given my experience and training, he would like me to be involved…Upon examination of the terms of reference for the audits, I told the Minister that the use of the term ‘forensic’ might not be appropriate since there were no allegations of fraud or mismanagement…While he agreed with me, the Minister stated that the Government had already used the term in its various public statements.”
There are two fundamental professional ethical violations that Dr. Goolsarran has implicitly admitted to:
1. Misuse of the Term “Forensic Audit”: He acknowledged that the term “forensic audits” was inappropriate, given the absence of allegations of fraud or embezzlement. Despite this, he proceeded with the labeling after being directed not to challenge the public narrative. His compliance therewith—evident in the publicly available audit reports under his hand, all of which found no evidence of fraud—raises serious concerns about his ethical conduct and professional integrity therefor.
2. Legitimization of a False Political Narrative: By labeling these audits as “forensic,” he lent credibility to the insinuation that the previous PPP/C administration was involved in financial misconduct. This is despite the absence of any such findings in his own audit reports. His actions contributed to the propagation of a politically motivated narrative, violating the ethical standards governing the auditing profession. As a former Auditor General, his role should have been to uphold objectivity and independence. Instead, his acquiescence undermines the credibility of the audits and casts doubt on his professional judgment.
Furthermore, the Minister of Finance has no authority to initiate any form of external audits on the public accounts. This authority rests exclusively with the Auditor General pursuant to Article 224 of the Constitution and the Audit Act. Article 224(5) of the Constitution further states:
“The Public Accounts Committee may exercise general supervision over the functioning of the office of the Auditor General in accordance with the rules, policies and procedures manual for the functioning of the Auditor General as prepared by the Auditor General and approved by the Public Accounts Committee.”
Accordingly, to properly initiate an audit review or forensic audit, the Finance Minister has no such legal authority. That authority rests with either (a) the Public Accounts Committee or (b) the Auditor General’s office.
Accountability should be rooted in consistency, legality, and ethical standards. It is important to uphold these principles not only in critique but also in practice. Integrity is best demonstrated through adherence to the law and professional norms—not through selective interpretation or public posturing. One cannot credibly advocate for accountability while overlooking past procedural missteps. True integrity requires a balanced and lawful approach, not selective outrage.