Public Procurement: Can a Tender Be Cancelled Simply Because Its Specifications Need Clarification?
- 8 minutes ago
- 3 min read
A recent decision of the Public Contracts Review Board (“PCRB”) has provided useful guidance on when a Contracting Authority may cancel a public procurement procedure because of concerns regarding the clarity of its technical specifications.
In Case 2251 – CT2231/2025, decided on 19 June 2026, the PCRB considered a challenge brought by a supplier (the "Objector"), represented by Attard Montalto & Aquilina Advocates, following the cancellation of a tender for the supply of Anti-Haemophilia Factor VIII to the hospital.
The Case
The Objector had submitted the only offer in response to the tender.
After the tender had closed and the offer of the Objector was made public, the evaluation committee raised concerns that two technical specifications were insufficiently clear. The Contracting Authority cancelled the procedure under clause 18.3(b) of the General Rules Governing Tenders, which permits cancellation where the economic or technical parameters of the project have been altered.
The Objector challenged the cancellation before the PCRB, arguing principally that the Contracting Authority had not adequately explained the alleged alteration to the project, that no substantive alteration was being proposed, and that cancellation after the opening of its sole offer was contrary to fundamental principles of public procurement.
The Obligation to give Reasons for Cancellation
The PCRB held the Contracting Authority has an obligation to provide reasons for cancellation, and that such reasons were to be given upon the cancellation of the tender.
Merely referring to clause 18.3(b) and stating that the tender will be re-issued with new specifications, without explaining how the economic or technical parameters had actually changed, was insufficient.
The Grounds upon which a Tender may be Cancelled and the Obligation to Prove the Ground Claimed
The Board affirmed that the grounds of cancellation enumerated in Regulation 15 and clause 18.3 are exceptional in character and must be construed having regard to their purpose.
Given that the Contracting Authority cancelled with reference to clause 18.3(b), it is upon that ground alone that the cancellation falls to be assessed by the Board, and the onus of proving it rests upon the Contracting Authority.
What Constitutes an Alteration of the Economic or Technical Parameters of the Product
The Board held that clause 18.3(b) requires a genuine alteration of the parameters of the project, that is to say, a material change in the subject-matter to be procured, or in the economic or technical envelope within which it is to be procured. This is to be distinguished from a clarification or more precise re-formulation of existing specifications describing one and the same product.
The evidence in the case showed that the Contracting Authority would be seeking to re-issue the tender to acquire the same product. The proposed changes were intended to make the specifications clearer, rather than to change the subject-matter of the procurement.
The Board also considered it relevant that the same specifications had been used successfully in a number of previous procurement procedures for the same product, without preventing their evaluation or award. This indicated that the specifications were sufficiently clear “to enable all interested parties to understand properly the terms and conditions of the process” in terms of Regulation 38(1) of the Public Procurement Regulations.
Equal Treatment and Fair Competition
The PCRB held that cancelling the procedure and subsequently reissuing a substantially identical tender would create a risk to equal treatment and fair competition, since competitors who had not participated in the original procedure would be allowed to participate in the new procedure with the benefit of knowing the Objector's price.
The Board also noted that less intrusive mechanisms, such as clarification notes or corrigenda, were available to address genuine ambiguities before the tender deadline. Cancelling the tender after the opening of the sole offer and in respect of specifications which had occasioned no difficulty in previous tenders, was not a proportionate response.
The decision
The PCRB upheld the objection, revoked the cancellation of the tender and ordered that the procurement procedure continue.
