Questions surround a canceled tender, changes to bidding rules, contract prices, and equipment scores, as a letter warns that more than 40 jobs could be affected.
PHILIPSBURG: --- A letter prepared on behalf of concerned waste collection companies and haulers calls for an independent investigation into St. Maarten’s 2026–2029 waste management tender, raising questions about the cancellation of the original process, changes introduced during rebidding, and the reported awards of six garbage collection parcels.
Dated October 27, 2026, and addressed to Minister Gumbs at the Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI), the letter requests detailed explanations of the decisions, preservation of procurement records, and consideration of a legally permissible pause in finalizing or implementing the awards while the concerns are reviewed.
The document also warns of possible consequences for established haulers and their employees, citing information that more than 40 workers could lose their jobs. It explicitly acknowledges that the employment figure has not been independently verified.
The Governor, Government, and Members of Parliament are listed as intended copy recipients. However, SMN News also received a copy.
At the center of the document is a demand for records showing whether all bidders received fair treatment under consistently applied requirements.
“We recognize that participation in a tender does not create an entitlement to an award and that unsuccessful bids are an ordinary possibility in a competitive procurement process,” the letter states.
“Our concern is whether all participants were treated fairly, whether the published requirements were applied consistently, and whether the circumstances surrounding this tender can be adequately explained on the basis of the applicable procurement rules and records.”
Four of six parcels reportedly awarded to two companies
According to the letter, VROMI informed participating haulers of the reported results on October 27. Limitless Construction and Leonard Enterprises reportedly received two parcels each, while Quality Sweeper and Q&A received one each.
The document asks VROMI to confirm the official results and explain the reasons supporting every award.
A principal concern involves the reported change in the number of parcels a single company could receive. The original tender reportedly limited each company to one parcel, while the rebidding process allowed a company to receive two.
Limitless Construction and Leonard Enterprises subsequently emerged as the reported recipients of two parcels each.
The letter requests the reasons for canceling the original tender, the errors or deficiencies involved, and how each issue was addressed before bids were invited again.
It also seeks a complete account of changes between the original tender and the subsequent process, particularly the decision to increase the maximum allocation from one parcel to two. The haulers want to know who recommended and approved that change and when they made the decision.
According to the document, participating in haulers did not identify material changes to the principal service requirements, the manner in which the services would be performed, or the stated budget.
If those provisions remain unchanged, the letter asks why the process was reopened to new participants. It acknowledges that applicable procurement rules may have permitted new bidders but requests the legal and administrative basis for that decision.
Access to earlier prices questioned
The letter raises concerns that prices or other financial information submitted during the original tender may have been available when the process reopened.
It asks whether that information affected fair competition, particularly if new participants could use earlier bidders’ figures to prepare their offers.
Limitless Construction reportedly did not participate in the first tender but entered the subsequent process and received two parcels. The document also states that its submitted prices were understood to be close to the stated budget figures.
The letter requests clarification on which budget figures and original bid prices were disclosed, when, and to whom.
It further asks whether all participants had equal access to the same information, what safeguards prevented an unfair advantage, and whether the Ministry assessed the procurement implications of disclosing earlier prices before proceeding.
Experience and company scores under scrutiny
Some established garbage haulers reportedly submitted relevant waste-collection experience and competitive financial proposals but received no award, including, in some cases, for a parcel they currently service.
The letter says these accounts should be verified against the tender records.
It also reports that Limitless Construction, described in the document as primarily a construction business, received higher scores in certain categories involving experience and company profile.
The requested explanation includes the evaluation criteria, supporting evidence, and scoring methodology, particularly how construction experience was distinguished from, or compared with, direct waste collection experience.
The document seeks disclosure of the scoring categories and their respective weights, along with a breakdown of each bidder’s scores, subject to applicable confidentiality and legal restrictions.
Questions across all six parcels
The letter presents reported bid figures for each parcel and requests explanations addressing both higher-priced winning offers and unusually low bids.
The amounts below are reproduced as stated in the document. The letter explicitly identifies XCG when discussing competing bids for Parcel 6 but does not consistently specify a currency alongside the other figures.
Parcel 1: Quality Sweeper reportedly won with a bid of approximately 800,000, while other bids were approximately 1.1 million. Garden Boyz reportedly bid 1,154,937.00.
The letter requests confirmation of whether a minimum price, cost-reasonableness assessment, price-realism test, or other threshold applied. It also asks whether Quality Sweeper’s ability to perform the required services at that price was verified.
The document acknowledges that the price difference alone does not establish an irregularity.
Parcel 2: Limitless Construction reportedly won with 1,121,472.00. Other reported bids included Meadowlands at 1,083,049.00, KMD at 1,092,618.00, Washington Construction at 1,076,124.60, Infinity Construction at 1,075,109.00, and Garden Boyz at 1,294,355.16.
Waste Solution reportedly submitted the lowest offer, 1,000,104.00, and is described as having several years of garbage collection experience. Meadowlands is also described as having more directly relevant experience.
The letter requests a specific explanation of why Waste Solutions did not receive the award and how the successful bidder's qualifications and scores were assessed against its lower price and experience. It also asks how experience and price were weighted.
Parcel 3: Q&A reportedly won with 833,000.00, described as the lowest price and as competitive within the range of the other bids.
The letter asks the Ministry to confirm that the award followed the published criteria and that the price was assessed as reasonable and sufficient to perform the services.
Parcel 4: Leonard Enterprises reportedly won with what the letter describes as the highest bid, 1,115,765.00.
Other reported offers were Meadowlands at 1,040,531.00, KMD at 1,050,473.00, Infinity Construction at 1,039,999.00, Washington Construction at 1,041,200.78, Q&A at 1,097,000.00, and Waste Solution at 1,042,430.00.
Infinity Construction is the lowest bidder, while Meadowlands has relevant experience. The letter requests a detailed explanation of why Leonard Enterprises was selected despite several materially lower offers.
Parcel 5: Limitless Construction reportedly won with a bid of 905,532.00, compared with KMD’s 778,309.80, Meadowlands’ 769,195.00, and Q&A’s 758,000.04.
The document asks how the non-price scores justified selecting Limitless over substantially lower offers, including bids from experienced haulers.
Parcel 6: Leonard Enterprises reportedly won with the lowest bid, 1,094,508.00, while the other bids reportedly exceeded 1.5 million XCG.
The letter requests confirmation of the applicable threshold and an explanation of the due diligence used to determine whether the company could provide the required services at that price. It also questions whether the offer was realistic and financially sustainable.
“These matters do not, without further evidence, establish wrongdoing or improper conduct,” the letter states. “They do, however, justify a detailed, parcel-specific explanation.”
Disclosure of budgets and evaluation thresholds sought
The concerned haulers request disclosure of the maximum budget or threshold for every parcel, including any price ceiling, minimum threshold, price-realism test, or evaluation threshold.
They also want to know how those limits were established, whether they were disclosed equally to all bidders, and how differences between competing offers affected the awards.
The letter requests an explanation of how the company evaluated price alongside experience, company profile, equipment, and other requirements. It asks why experienced haulers with competitive or lower prices were unsuccessful and why Limitless Construction and Leonard Enterprises each received two parcels.
It also seeks confirmation that the committee reviewed unusually low or high bids for financial capacity, possible underbidding, and risks to uninterrupted garbage collection.
Equipment purchases and fleet scores questioned
The document raises additional concerns about Limitless Construction’s reported high equipment and fleet score.
According to the letter, the company did not have the required garbage collection fleet at the time of the original tender and began ordering or purchasing equipment after the tender was canceled but before the next tender was issued.
The document expressly acknowledges that buying or ordering equipment before a tender is issued does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing or demonstrate advance knowledge of the outcome.
Nevertheless, it requests independent verification of the timing and the basis for the scores.
That review would establish when trucks, bins, and other equipment were ordered, purchased, leased, or otherwise secured; what documentation established ownership or access; and whether the equipment was available during evaluation or expected through future delivery.
The letter also asks how those arrangements were scored compared with equipment already owned or available to competing bidders, and whether the same requirements were applied consistently.
It requests that an independent investigator examine purchase orders, invoices, lease agreements, delivery records, and other supporting documents. Findings should be disclosed subject to applicable confidentiality and legal restrictions, the document says.
More than 40 jobs potentially affected
The letter warns that the reported outcome could significantly affect established haulers, employees, and their families.
It asks the Ministry to clarify the anticipated employment impact, including the unverified estimate that more than 40 workers may lose their jobs, and whether any employment transition arrangements have been considered.
The document also seeks an explanation of how VROMI assessed the successful bidders’ ability to maintain reliable and uninterrupted collection throughout the 2026–2029 contract period.
Independent review and possible pause requested
The formal requests include an independent and impartial investigation into the cancellation, rebidding, evaluation, and award process.
The letter calls for preserving and reviewing all relevant tender records, evaluation sheets, communications, approval documents, and equipment documentation.
It also seeks written explanations of the scoring and selection decisions, disclosure of parcel budgets and how they were applied, and an explanation of the procedures used to assess underbidding, unusually high offers, and potentially unsustainable prices.
The document states that unsuccessful bidders should receive a meaningful debriefing and an opportunity to raise concerns about the evaluation of their submissions.
The letter further requests consideration of pausing finalization or implementation of the awards, to the extent legally permissible, pending review and resolution of the concerns.
“We are not requesting that contracts be awarded solely because a company previously held them,” it states. “We are requesting a procurement process in which each bidder is assessed fairly against the same published requirements and in which the reasons for the decisions are adequately documented and capable of independent review.”
The document requests acknowledgment and an urgent written response identifying the Ministry’s intended next steps, citing the potential impact on workers, businesses, and continuity of garbage collection.
The materials supplied to SMN News do not include official award notices, evaluation records, or responses from VROMI and the companies named. The reported awards, bid figures, and concerns remain attributed to the letter rather than independently established findings.
