The Office of Procurement Regulation’s (OPR) Annual Report Volume 2 for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 exposes a public procurement ecosystem characterised by vast public expenditure alongside persistent administrative non-compliance.
Public entities reported $15.97 billion in total procurement awards across 141,479 transactions. However, underlying metrics highlight structural weaknesses, severe non-responsiveness from key ministries, heavy reliance on micro-procurements, and millions lost in unfulfilled contracts and variations.
In evaluating these findings, Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry (JCC) president Fazir Khan underscored the distinct roles, boundaries and legal responsibilities separating civil society advocacy from statutory state enforcement.
While civil society maintains public pressure, statutory oversight remains the legal duty of the OPR, Parliament, and individual accounting officers.
High-value entities and expenditure concentration
The quantitative findings under Section 24 of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act reinforced a foundational principle long advocated by the JCC: procurement oversight must be strictly proportionate to financial risk and expenditure scale.
The data reveals that a minimal selection of State enterprise giants consumed the vast majority of public procurement dollars.
National Petroleum Marketing Company T&T Ltd reported $5.78 billion across 2,310 transactions, representing 36.19 per cent of all reported national spending.
When combined with the Water and Sewerage Authority ($2.19 billion) and Heritage Petroleum Company Ltd ($1.40 billion), those three entities accounted for 58.65 per cent of total national procurement expenditure.
Other high-spending bodies include the T&T Electricity Commission ($505.72 million), Telecommunications Services of T&T Ltd ($490.94 million), and Trinidad Generation Unlimited ($386.79 million).
Given the top-ranked public entities account for the vast majority of contract values, the Business Guardian asked Khan what targeted advocacy or oversight measures does the JCC recommend to ensure these major spenders maintain strict adherence to procurement guidelines.
He explained, “The figures cited in the OPR report reinforce a point long made by the JCC: procurement oversight should be proportionate to risk and expenditure. Where a relatively small number of entities account for the majority of public procurement expenditure, it is sensible for the OPR to deploy focussed, risk-based monitoring of those entities as a priority.
“The JCC can continue to advocate publicly for this approach and draw attention to the importance of transparent procurement planning, tendering, contract administration, reporting and disclosure by the largest spenders. Indeed, the JCC previously observed that a small proportion of public bodies account for the great majority of public procurement expenditure and urged the OPR to concentrate scarce oversight resources accordingly.”
However, he stressed it is for the OPR—not the JCC—to determine its regulatory programme, undertake audits and inspections, issue directives where warranted, and report its findings to Parliament.
It is also for the relevant accounting officers, boards and line ministries to ensure that their entities comply with the law.
Non-submission of compliance assessment checklists
The OPR’s Compliance Assessment Checklist (CAC) metrics for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 reflect widespread institutional non-responsiveness across central government.
Out of 190 public bodies surveyed in Trinidad, only 30 submitted complete checklist responses—a low response rate of 15.8 per cent.
Major non-responding bodies included crucial state institutions such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health, Ministry of National Security, Ministry of Works and Transport, the Judiciary, and key municipal corporations.
In Tobago, response rates were higher at 60.9 per cent (14 out of 23 entities), though key divisions such as the Office of the Prime Minister - Central Administrative Services Tobago and THA Divisions for Education, Finance, and Tourism failed to submit.
Addressing how does the JCC propose to address systemic non-compliance and encourage these bodies to fulfil their statutory reporting duties, Khan clarified that non-submission by public bodies is not a matter the JCC could remedy through enforcement.
“The JCC can publicly identify the governance concern, advocate for compliance and call for accountability by the relevant institutions. That is part of the proper role of civil society.
“But the legal follow-up must come from the OPR and, where necessary, Parliament and the responsible executive authorities. The CAC is an OPR instrument intended to assist public bodies to assess compliance with the Act, Regulations, handbooks and related operational requirements. A public body’s non-response or non-compliance should therefore trigger the OPR’s established monitoring, engagement, inspection, audit and directive mechanisms, as appropriate,” he stated.
Legal follow-up must originate from the OPR, Parliament, and executive authorities.
Khan further explained that the OPR’s annual reporting framework exists precisely so that Parliament and the public could see which bodies are complying, which are not, what deficiencies exist, and what corrective action is recommended. Section 24 requires the annual report to identify, among other matters, public bodies that have failed to comply with the act and recommendations requiring action by procuring entities.
“The JCC’s role is to insist that these findings are not ignored once published,” he added.
Procurement planning and ASPPA Publication
A central vulnerability highlighted in the OPR report is the limited publication of Annual Schedules of Planned Procurement Activities (ASPPAs).
Among responding entities in Trinidad, ASPPA publication compliance reached just 66.7 percent, dropping further to 57.1 per cent in Tobago.
Khan points out that failing to publish ASPPAs damages both transparency and market development saying, “The limited publication of Annual Schedules of Planned Procurement Activities is a serious transparency and market-development issue.
Proper procurement planning enables public bodies to align procurement with approved budgets and project priorities; it also allows contractors, consultants, suppliers and manufacturers to anticipate opportunities, prepare properly, form partnerships where necessary, and compete fairly.”
Khan stressed that the JCC continues to champion consistent ASPPA publication, particularly within the construction and infrastructure sectors, aligning with its commitment to transparency, integrity, and value for money.
Nevertheless, mandatory planning and publishing obligations cannot be legally enforced by civil society bodies.
Under the established regulatory framework, public entities must draft their annual procurement plans and ASPPAs within six weeks of national budget approval, obtain formal accounting officer authorisation, and publish their schedules via ProcureTT or official electronic portals.
Moving forward, the necessary recourse requires:
• ↓Public bodies to strictly fulfil their planning and publishing mandates;
• ↓The OPR to track defaults and exercise statutory oversight powers;
• ↓Parliament to scrutinise regulatory findings;
• ↓The JCC and civil society organisations to maintain public pressure for timely implementation.
Contract variations and financial risk management
The financial volume indicated contract variations and unfulfilled procurements represented a major risk to public financial management.
The OPR reported 2,911 contract variations costing $822.40 million, alongside 3,236 unfulfilled procurements valued at over $3.91 billion. Micro-procurements dominated transaction volume (124,909 awards worth $1.23 billion), while purchase orders ($8.91 billion across 12,986 transactions) heavily outpaced formal contract awards ($5.83 billion across 3,584 transactions).
Khan noted that excessive contract variations are a matter of grave concern, particularly within infrastructure.
Avoidable claims, time extensions, and severe cost escalations frequently stem from inadequate feasibility work, incomplete designs, deficient bills of quantities, delayed decision-making, poor site investigations, improper risk allocation, and ineffective contract management.
JCC advocates for the OPR to publish complete project data, including the number and value of variations, scope changes, unfulfilled contracts, incurred costs and lessons learned.
To systematically curb cost overruns, the JCC offers technical recommendations drawn from industry practice, advocating for:
• ↓Comprehensive project definitions, site investigations, and completed engineering designs prior to tender invitation;
• ↓Realistic cost estimation, risk contingency allowances, and tailored procurement strategies;
• ↓Rigorous independent review of major project scopes and tender documentation;
• ↓Explicit delegated authority levels and documented justifications for any scope variation;
• ↓Prompt publication of material variations, revised contract sums, and updated completion timelines;
• ↓Improved administrative record-keeping, site supervision, and performance tracking.
• ↓Focused contract administration training for project managers, quantity surveyors, engineers and procurement officers.
Disposal committees and institutional capacity
The report highlights severe operational gaps in internal governance structures, including Procurement and Disposal Advisory Committees (PDACs) and Disposal Committees.
While responding entities achieved 100 per cent compliance for maintaining procedural handbooks, institutional capacity building scored poorly—reaching only 64.2 per cent compliance in Trinidad and 48.2 per cent in Tobago.
Khan stresses that procurement reform extends far beyond the initial tendering process. The retention and disposal of public assets are equal safeguards against financial leakage, waste, and loss.
The JCC actively supports professional development by encouraging contractors, consultants, and practitioners to participate in awareness sessions and share field experience. Furthermore, the JCC advocates for proper resourcing of the OPR and urges public bodies to treat property disposal as a core governance responsibility.
However, executing a national compliance and capacity-building initiative cannot be delegated to an unfunded civil society organisation.
The Procurement Act assigns responsibility for setting training standards, competency thresholds, and certification requirements directly to the OPR, while accounting officers remain legally obligated to establish internal governance structures, appoint PDAC members, and publish annual procurement plans.
Strong statutory enforcement and administrative commitment remain the essential requirements for meaningful reform.
