A nearly $571 million offshore energy infrastructure contract, set to be awarded by Trinidad and Tobago’s state-linked Heritage Petroleum Co. Ltd. via a closed limited bidding process, has become the center of growing scrutiny from seasoned energy industry insiders, who question the compliance and fairness of the procurement strategy.
The contract in question covers the delivery of a specialized offshore production and compression facility, designed to process hydrocarbons from the company’s West/Southwest Soldado fields. Rather than opening bidding to all qualified suppliers globally, Heritage has opted for a limited process that excludes international vendors entirely, granting pre-qualification to just three local companies: TOSL Engineering, Namalco Construction Services Limited, and Anti-Corrosion Technical Services Limited (ACTS).
Internal company documents obtained by the Sunday Express confirm the total contract value is pegged at $570,611,800, with a tender submission deadline set for the end of May 2026. Per the internal document outlining procurement strategy, Heritage plans to enter a five-year lease agreement for the facility, aligning with the firm’s long-term strategy of outsourcing core operational capacity instead of building in-house capabilities. TOSL Engineering already holds an existing contract with Heritage for a Mobile Offshore Production Unit (MOPU) at the same fields, a deal that has been extended twice and is currently set to expire in March 2026; the company is now seeking an additional one-year extension to March 2027 while a new provider is finalized.
Industry observers have raised multiple red flags about the process, starting with its deviation from standard open bidding requirements outlined in local public procurement law. Section 5.1 of Trinidad and Tobago’s Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Regulations mandates that open bidding must be used by public bodies unless the complexity of the project or specific market conditions make an alternative method more likely to deliver best value for money. Insiders argue no such compelling justification has been made public for this half-billion-dollar contract.
Critics also point to unusually fast pre-qualification approvals that deviate from standard industry timelines. One insider noted that one pre-qualified applicant had its submission approved just one hour and 28 minutes after it was received, while a second was approved within seven days. Standard evaluations that assess financial stability, technical capability, and health, safety and environment (HSE) compliance typically take four to six weeks to complete, leading to questions about whether the required due diligence was actually conducted.
Further concerns center around the lack of experience of two of the pre-qualified local firms, ACTS and Namalco, which insiders say have no proven track record of delivering large-scale offshore production and compression facilities. More critically, industry sources say Heritage artificially narrowed the eligible supplier pool by excluding major international vendors that have documented expertise in this specialized sector. Market research compiled by observers identifies multiple global firms, including Canada’s Compass Energy, Singapore’s Grander Energy and Aurora Maritime, and the UK’s Aquaterra Energy, all of which have the capability to deliver the project. These international companies were not invited to participate at all.
Insiders question whether Heritage properly conducted global market soundings to identify all capable suppliers before restricting the bid list to three local entities. For a contract of this size and strategic importance, observers say the decision to limit bidding runs counter to the legislative mandate that prioritizes open competition to secure the best value for public funds.
“For a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars over five years, a legitimate question arises: Why were only three local companies invited when the offshore production and compression market is demonstrably international?” one senior insider noted. “That question becomes even more pressing if there is no evidence that only three suppliers worldwide were capable of performing the work.”
Many industry experts argue that a far more appropriate and legally compliant approach would have been open bidding paired with a pre-qualification process to shortlist only technically and financially capable vendors. This model would preserve broad competition, ensure transparency, and deliver the best value for money, which is the core requirement of public procurement law in the country. Without a robust, documented justification for restricting competition, insiders warn the current procurement process violates Heritage’s legal obligations to conduct bidding in a transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory manner, leaving the entire award vulnerable to formal legal challenge under the 2015 Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act, as amended. Heritage has so far defended its decision to use limited bidding, but has not released a public justification for excluding international suppliers or for deviating from the open bidding requirement.