The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune. 

GRAND Bahama’s concrete war has exposed a hole in Bahamian law that no amount of public argument or accusation can fill.

In back-to-back reports this week, set out two irreconcilable accounts of Grand Bahama’s concrete market with Bahamian producers demanded an urgent probe, warning that a US-owned rival could “smash us to pieces”. By the following day that rival hit back, with a manager describing the complaints as a call for “socialism rather than competition”.

It’s true, both sides may believe what they say. However neither can prove it. And no authority in The Bahamas has the power to find out who is right.

 Glennett Fowler, founder of the Heroic Group, and Washington Smith, president of Smith Construction, both say Del Zotto Products of The Bahamas, formerly Gold Rock, has sold blocks up to a third below its rivals since returning to the market. All producers buy cement and aggregate from the same suppliers, they say, so they cannot see how the price is sustainable without hidden concessions or subsidy from the company’s other businesses.

The toll, they say, is already heavy. Heroic, already investing $8.2 million in its plant and Mr Smith says he sold a single load of concrete in a week and is using personal savings to meet payroll.

Del Zotto manager Jamal Gomez however rejects every charge. He says customers choose his company for quality and service, not price alone, and that driving rivals out would make no sense. The company sells blocks at $2.10 each and ready-mix at $192 a yard.

Yet each side made a telling admission. Ms Fowler conceded there might be a legitimate reason for Del Zotto’s prices; she simply wants to know it, and to receive the same terms if they are concessions. Mr Gomez conceded he does not know his rivals’ margins, and so cannot say whether he is undercutting them.

Both, in other words, agree the answer lies in figures neither can see, only assume. 

 Who is lost in the school yard tussle is the party who matters most, the consumer. 

The contractor pouring a foundation and the family building a home do not care whose profits survive. They care what concrete costs, whether it is sound quality, and whether it will be there when they need it. The supplier’s margin is its own concern.

On the price, the consumer’s interest is plain. No one should pay more simply to keep a competitor in business. Considering Mr Smith’s suggestion that all producers charge roughly the same price would, under any modern competition law, be illegal price-fixing.

On quality, the stakes are higher still. Concrete is not like other goods. Weak blocks or under-strength ready-mix can fail when another hurricane arrives, and it is the homeowner, not the supplier, who pays. Mr Gomez is right that quality should decide this contest. Every supplier, local or foreign, should meet published strength and testing standards, with results available to buyers.

On reliability, Grand Bahama has hard its share of hard experience. When Gold Rock abruptly shut down in 2022 after a dispute over aggregate access, over 100 jobs were put at risk and the island lost its main local supplier. An island served by one producer is at the mercy of that producer.

So the consumer has no stake in who wins the argument, only in how it ends. 

If Del Zotto offers better concrete for less, consumers should keep winning. The danger arises only if today’s low price is the down payment on tomorrow’s monopoly. Therefore competition should be encouraged. 

 In our sister countries Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, a complaint like Heroic or Smith’s would go to a fair trading commission. Investigators would first define the market, then ask whether Del Zotto is dominant. 

 Then comes the real test: price against cost. Selling below the cost of production is generally presumed abusive. Selling above it, however cheaply, is usually considered just good business. Evidence of intent, such as pursuing rivals’ signed customers, and the ability to raise prices once rivals leave, would weigh heavily. Del Zotto would be free to show genuine efficiencies.

A commission could also examine inputs. If any producer enjoys preferential access to aggregate or other concessions from licensing authorities, that is a matter of equal treatment, and a fair question to ask.

None of this can happen in The Bahamas today. Ms Fowler has written to the Grand Bahama Port Authority, but it is unclear whether it has any power to act. There is no commission, no power to compel and no remedy.

 However, it need not be this way. A draft Competition Bill was prepared in 2007. The Bahamas committed to competition legislation in its 2008 Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union. A revised Fair Competition Bill, creating a Fair-Trading Commission, went out for public consultation in 2018, then went back on the shelf. The governing party’s 2026 election manifesto pledged once more to ban price-fixing and penalise abuse of market dominance.

Meanwhile, Jamaica has had a Fair Competition Act since 1993, and Barbados since 2002.

What can we do today? 

 Parliament must pass a Fair Competition Act. The 2018 draft should be finished with an independent commission; a clear predatory pricing test; a firm ban on price-fixing; power to compel data and run market studies; and equal treatment of local and foreign firms on inputs and concessions. Its rules should be sized for a small economy, drawing on the experience of our Caribbean neighbors.

In the meantime, we must replace accusation with evidence until we have legislation. 

To the consumers, the true kings of this market: demand it law that protects competition because ultimately supplier competitiveness protects you.

TAMAR MOSS,

LLM, LEC 

Nassau,

November 5, 2026.