The Procurement Tribunal: inaccuracy alone is sufficient to disqualify bids

The Public Procurement Tribunal (TCP), the resolving body of the Specialized Agency for Efficient Public Procurement (OECE), ruled by majority that the mere accreditation of inaccurate information in a bid is sufficient to order its non-admission, disqualification, or the loss of the award, without the need to prove that such information resulted in a concrete advantage or benefit. This criterion is contained in Full Chamber Agreement No. 004-2026/TCP, approved in Session No. 004-2026/TCP on October 16, 2026, and published this Monday, October 26, 2026, in the official newspaper El Peruano, in the Binding Precedents section (Year XXXV, No. 1317). The agreement enters into force the day after its publication, that is, from October 27, 2026.

A precedent of mandatory compliance

The Tribunal based its competence on literal d) of numeral 16.1 of article 16 of Law No. 32069, General Public Procurement Law, which empowers it to issue precedents of mandatory compliance through agreements adopted in Full Chamber. The trigger was the detection of discrepant criteria among the Tribunal’s own chambers regarding the treatment of bid documents that differ from reality.

The doubt was concrete: whether the mere presence of information discordant with reality is sufficient to exclude the bid, or if it must also be verified that it influenced the obtaining of a concrete advantage or benefit in the selection process or in the contractual execution. The agreement specifies that the rule applies to both the bid and the documents submitted for the perfection of the contract.

The two positions in dispute

• First position (majority): inaccuracy is the discordance between the content of the information presented and reality; once this is accredited, the presumption of truthfulness is refuted and the principle of integrity is compromised. It is appropriate to revoke the act issued on that basis and open an administrative sanctioning file, where the concrete advantage will be examined along with the other requirements of the infringing type.
• Second position (minority): a bid cannot be automatically excluded solely due to the presence of discordant information; Law No. 32069 requires that the information necessarily and directly influence a concrete advantage or benefit, and this unitary concept must govern both the selection process and the sanctioning process.

The vote and the signatories

• 13 members supported the first position: César Alejandro Llanos Torres, Sonia Tatiana Angulo Reátegui, Juan Carlos Cortez Tataje, Jefferson Augusto Bocanegra Díaz, Marlon Luis Arana Orellana, Daniel Alexis Nazazi Paz Winchez, Erick Joel Mendoza Merino, Steven Aníbal Flores Olivera, Annie Elizabeth Pérez Gutiérrez, Marisabel Jauregui Iriarte, César Arturo Sánchez Caminiti, Jimy Robert Ureta Aquino, and Lupe Mariella Merino De La Torre.
• 3 members voted for the second position: Víctor Manuel Villanueva Sandoval, Danny William Ramos Cabezudo, and Christian César Chocano Davis.
• The document was signed by Helerf Sebastián Vasquez Chumacero, Technical Secretary 2 of the Tribunal.

The change compared to the previous regime

Under the Single Ordered Text of Law No. 30225, approved by Supreme Decree No. 082-2019-EF, literal i) of numeral 50.1 of article 50 required that inaccurate information be related to a requirement, evaluation factor, or prerequisite that represented an advantage or benefit in the selection process or in the contractual execution. Law No. 32069 maintains this element in literal l) of numeral 87.1 of its article 87, in accordance with numeral 356.2 of article 356 of its Regulations.

The Tribunal concluded that there is no second legal definition of inaccurate information in public procurement regulations applicable only to the processing of appeals, and that the legislative modification sought to avoid sanctions for irrelevant data, not to diminish the weight of the principles of presumption of truthfulness and integrity. Therefore, numeral 1 of the agreement provides that, once inaccuracy is corroborated, non-admission, disqualification, or loss of the winning bid shall apply “as appropriate,” and the opening of the sanctioning file shall be ordered.

The precedent binds all State entities and bidders in procedures ongoing since October 27, 2026: a discrepancy with reality in the bid can no longer be defended by claiming that the questioned data was insignificant or that the bid met the terms without it, which raises the standard of documentary verification required before applying and reduces the margin for the chambers to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Source: El Peruano, Year XXXV, No. 1317, Monday, October 26, 2026, Binding Precedents section (Constitutional, Judicial, and Administrative), pp. 1-4 (official reference: V-2567557-1).