Cancelling Public Procurement Does Not Necessarily End OPR Scrutiny Afterwards

Recent decisions highlighted by Opposition Senator Dr Margaret Rose indicate that cancelling a public procurement exercise does not necessarily prevent the Office of Procurement Regulation from examining what happened before the cancellation.

Rose highlighted the development during the Opposition’s September 10 press conference while discussing three 2026 challenge proceedings involving Amalgamated Security Services Limited and Paria.

According to Rose, three challenges were filed on March 25, 2026, under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act.

She said the procurement exercises were cancelled the following day.

Rose said arguments were subsequently raised that because the exercises had been cancelled, there was nothing remaining for the OPR to investigate.

However, according to Rose’s account of the decisions, the OPR determined in all three matters that it retained jurisdiction.

She said one proceeding subsequently resulted in findings of breaches and non-compliance, while the evidence did not establish the alleged breaches in the other two.

Rose described the decisions as an important development for public accountability because cancellation cannot automatically be used to prevent scrutiny of conduct occurring before a procurement exercise was stopped.

She summarised the principle simply: “Cancellation is not a cure.”