Public Procurement Alert - August 2026

On July 19, 2026, Law No. 32732 (the “Law”) was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, amending the First Final Supplementary Provision of Law No. 32069, the General Public Procurement Law (the “LGCP”). The legislative amendment establishes the primacy of the LGCP over general administrative procedure rules, as well as public and private law provisions, which also encompasses the regulation of administrative sanctioning proceedings (“PAS”) conducted by the Public Procurement Tribunal (the “TCP”).

Accordingly, the Ministry of Economy and Finance is authorized to amend the LGCP Regulations within a maximum period of sixty (60) business days.

Evidently, this represents an inexplicable return to the regulatory framework of repealed Law No. 30225, the Public Procurement Law, which contained the same rule establishing its primacy over Law No. 27444, the General Administrative Procedure Law (“LPAG”).

According to the Law’s Statement of Reasons, the amendment is intended to expedite PAS conducted by the TCP, since the separation between the investigative body and the adjudicating body, which was implemented and has only been in force since April 1, 2026, would result in an estimated increase in the resolution period from ninety-six (96) to one hundred sixty-six (166) business days. This longer duration would reduce “the timeliness and effectiveness of sanctioning authority” by allowing “alleged infringing suppliers to remain in the market while their proceedings are still pending.”

It is noteworthy that, after only three (3) months of the separation model being in force, categorical conclusions have been reached regarding the alleged increase in the duration of PAS, particularly when no reference is made to the possibility that such “delays” may stem from administrative deficiencies or delays, or from a lack of resources at the TCP.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Articles 92 and 93 of the LGCP reaffirm that rules governing the determination and proportionality of sanctions, grounds for exemption from liability, expiration, statute of limitations, among others, are established within the framework of the LPAG. Since these provisions have not been amended, it is expected that the regulatory amendment will leave these safeguards in force.

In any event, it is concerning to invoke alleged “expediency” as a valid justification for dispensing with the minimum safeguards inherent to due process, as enshrined in the LPAG, which govern the lawful exercise of the State’s sanctioning authority.