And from a dispute over rice, to a fight over new vehicles, our next story is an unusual one: the outline is that the Belize Estate Company- which is the agent for Ford vehicles, is complaining that the US Embassy unfairly bypassed them in a bid for vehicles for the Belize Police Department.
Now, it's - at best - a commercial dispute and not the kind the generally makes the news.
But the management at Belize Estate is especially aggrieved because the imported a Ford Ranger outfitted just for law enforcement purposes - it's called a light tactical vehicle.
The police independently test drove the pickup and said they liked it, but apparently the US Embassy didn't; an email sent to Belize Estate today informed the company that quote, "we determined that your proposal was not the most advantageous to the Government."
Usually, that's the end of it, but not so in this case, where the Sales and Marketing Manager publicly called out the US Embassy to say they weren't playing fair:
Daedra Haylock - Marketing/Sales Manager, Belize Estates Company
"They asked specifically for fuel capacity. They asked specifically for its suspension, and its ability to maneuver in all terrains. And they were very specific in their documentation making reference to the Belize National Police. So we, with that, knew that we had the perfect solution, not only the perfect solution for the Belize National Police, but also a vehicle that is very familiar to the US Government, because it's something they use for their military. We were very specific as well to them, that we realize that they are procuring this vehicle for the police department. We have allowed the vehicle to be test-driven by the police, and we want them to see that. They never responded to it; they never clarified it. Now, in hindsight, they're saying to us, 'You're assuming wrong by assuming that the vehicle was for the police department.' Number 2, if that is the case, then you're procuring for a flawed procurement purpose because if you're conducting an official procurement process, you should not include information that is not relevant to the specific procurement that you're undertaking. Our response met every single feature that they were responding for. And that is now what they seem, to me, to end up procuring."
Jules Vasquez
"You are making an assumption, or a number of assumptions that 1, such a vehicle was not available at a competing dealership that they eventually made the deal, 2 that it seems to be based on the pre-supposition that you made a risk of an investment, and you expect to have a return on it, third, you're talking about the US Embassy, which has no obligation to compete in this market."
Daedra Haylock
"Number 1, we made an investment. We didn't expect the US Embassy to buy. That's number 1; we made an investment to demonstrate to our local police department, what we can supply to them. The US Embassy requested something very specific, and in their documentation, specifically stated what they wanted, and called our Belize National Police Department by name. If I assumed that it was for the police department, it's at their flawed procurement process, for supplying that information. Number 2, I am assuming that my competitor can't match what I have to offer? Yes I am; you know why? Because what I offer, is what the US Government has bought 4 times over to put their soldiers in Afghanistan. So I know that my product tried, proven, and tested by the US Government no less. Number 3, my product is not Asian. It's made by an American-made company, and you and I well know that America loves to talk about buying American. The US Embassy, when they give donor funds, there is always a stipulation about where the vehicle is manufactured to benefit their local market, and their local manufacturers. So all three assumptions, if I'm assuming, and I know what they say about assuming, they're well-grounded."
The bid was won by competing local dealerships.
We tried, but we could not get any comment from the US Embassy today...
