March 2026
An Overview of the Draft Amendments to the Government Procurement Act (Taiwan)
The Government Procurement Act (the “Act”) was promulgated on May 27, 1998, and has undergone multiple amendments, with the most recent amendment enacted on May 20, 2019. In order to remove unnecessary restrictions on bid opening, safeguard suppliers’ rights and interests, and refine the blacklist mechanism, the Public Construction Commission under the Executive Yuan (the “PCC”) published on November 11, 2025, a draft amendment to certain provisions of the Act (the “Draft Amendments”) for public notice. The public notice period lasted until January 10, 2026, and the public notice procedure has now been completed.
The Act contains a total of 114 Articles, and the Draft Amendments revise 52 Articles, representing the most extensive revision to date. The key points of the Draft Amendments at the stages of tendering, contract award, contract performance management, inspection and acceptance, the supplier information system, and the blacklist mechanism are summarized as follows.
I. Tendering Stage
1. Additional Procurement Under Limited Tendering Procedures May Exceed 50% of the Original Contract Amount
Under the current Act, when government agencies, public schools, and state-owned enterprises (the “Entity” or “Entities”) conduct procurement above the public announcement threshold (i.e., construction works, property, and services procurement of NTD 1.5 million or more [1] ), additional works required within the scope of the original tender purpose may only be procured through limited tendering procedures, provided that the additional amount does not exceed 50% of the original contract amount. As a result, when changes in procurement needs exceed this threshold, the Entities may face difficulties negotiating directly with the original supplier.
The Draft Amendments remove this restriction on additional procurement. As a safeguard, they further provide that where the cumulative additional amount exceeds the above threshold, approval from the superior Entity is required before proceeding (Article 22, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Draft Amendments).
In practice, large-scale procurement cases often involve changes in the scope of work, and it is common for construction projects involving larger amounts, scale, and longer durations to undergo multiple contract modifications. The Draft Amendments may reduce delays caused by re-tendering and mitigate the risks and uncertainties borne by suppliers during contract performance.
2. Written Notice and Time Limits for the Non-Return or Recovery of Bid Bonds
After the contract award or cancellation of a tender, the Entity shall return the bid bond to unsuccessful bidders without interest. However, where an unsuccessful bidder falls within certain statutory circumstances (such as submitting false or misleading documents in the bidding process or refusing to perform the contract without just cause after being awarded the contract), the bid bond already paid shall not be returned, and any bid bond not yet paid or already returned may be recovered.
To clarify the content of such adverse administrative measures, the Draft Amendments require the Entity to notify the supplier in writing of the decision. The written notice must include the amount involved, the relevant facts, the reasons, and information on available remedies.
In addition, in order to ensure that Entities make such decisions in a timely manner, the Draft Amendments introduce statutory time limits. An Entity may no longer decide not to return or to recover a bid bond if two years have passed from the time the Entity knew the supplier’s unlawful conduct, or if ten years have passed from the date of bid rejection, non-award of the contract, cancellation of the tender, or contract award (Article 31, Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Greater Transparency in Market Sounding and Confidentiality of Competitive Information
In practice, Entities often conduct market sounding or request suppliers to provide reference information prior to tendering. To prevent Entities from consulting only specific suppliers, the Draft Amendments require such procedures to be conducted through public briefings or public solicitations.
The Draft Amendments also clarify that, in addition to the government estimate, which must remain confidential before the contract award, other information that may restrict or distort competition must likewise be kept confidential (Article 34, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Draft Amendments).
4. Strengthening Conflict-of-Interest Rules in Project Management
Under the current Act, the responsible person of a project management supplier may not simultaneously serve as the responsible person of the supplier being managed.
The Draft Amendments expand this restriction to the agents and employees of the project management supplier. They further provide that not only the project management supplier and the managed supplier, but also their respective subcontractors, may not be the same supplier. Similar restrictions are also applied mutatis mutandis to relationships between supervision suppliers and their subcontractors, contractors, or suppliers (Article 39, Paragraphs 2–4 of the Draft Amendments). These revisions broaden the scope of conflict-of-interest regulation and aim to ensure the integrity and fairness of government procurement.
II. Award Stage
1. Removal of the Minimum Three-Bidder Requirement
Under the current Act, a tender may only proceed to bid opening if at least three qualified bidders submit bids. Considering that bidding methods and information transparency have significantly evolved since the Act was enacted, and that concerns over bid rigging have been substantially reduced, this requirement has become less necessary in practice. Moreover, suppliers may sometimes submit non-genuine bids merely to meet the minimum bidder requirement, which may undermine fair competition. Accordingly, the Draft Amendments remove the aforementioned requirement (Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
To address concerns regarding insufficient competition, the Draft Amendments require Entities to publish annual procurement plans above a certain threshold once the budget review process is complete. This allows suppliers to prepare their bids in advance (Article 11-2 of the Draft Amendments).
However, please note that, according to a press release issued by the PCC on March 7, 2026, considering that a majority of public opinion believes the current requirement remains necessary at this stage, the PCC has decided, upon evaluation, that the Draft Amendments will retain the existing provision of the "minimum three-bidder requirement" for bid opening [2] .
2. Time Limits for Revoking a Contract Award
If an Entity discovers, after a contract award, that a bidder engaged in unlawful conduct affecting the fairness of the procurement process, it is required to revoke the award. However, in practice, such conduct is often discovered years later, when the procured items have already been in use for an extended period. At this stage, revocation can impose excessive costs.
The Draft Amendments therefore introduce a statutory time limit. An Entity's right to revoke a contract award is subject to a statute of limitations: two years from the discovery of the grounds for revocation, and a maximum of ten years from the initial award date (Article 50, Paragraph 4 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Service Procurements to Be Awarded Based on the Most Advantageous Tender
Under the current Act, Entities may conduct limited tendering procedures for certain types of procurement, including professional services, technical services, information services, social welfare services, design competitions, and real estate procurement in designated areas (Article 22, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 9–11 of the Act). However, limited tendering procedures for these services still necessitate public evaluation, with contracts awarded to the most advantageous tender. Nonetheless, because these procurements currently fall under limited tendering provisions, they are often misconstrued as allowing Entities to negotiate directly with specific suppliers without a public process.
To address this misunderstanding, the Draft Amendments establish a separate provision governing these procurements and expressly require that the contract be awarded based on the most advantageous tender without a predetermined government estimate (Article 52-1 of the Draft Amendments).
4. Payment of Double the Amount of Bribes or Improper Benefits and Time Limits for Enforcement
Where a supplier offers bribes or other improper benefits to facilitate the conclusion of a procurement contract, the Entity may terminate or rescind the contract. The Draft Amendments further require the Entity to notify the supplier to pay an amount equal to twice the value of the bribe or improper benefit within a specified period.
The Draft Amendments also introduce time limits for the exercise of these rights. The Entity must exercise its rights to terminate the contract, rescind the contract, or demand such payment within two years from the time it knew or should have known of the relevant grounds, and in any event, no later than ten years after the supplier’s misconduct has ceased (Article 59, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Draft Amendments).
III. Contract Performance Management Stage
1. Mandatory Use of PCC Standard Form Procurement Contracts
To strengthen the legal effect of the standard procurement contract templates issued by the PCC, the Draft Amendments require Entities to adopt the templates prescribed by the competent authority when entering into procurement contracts. Where no such template is available, the contract shall be drafted in accordance with the key terms of procurement contracts (Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
In practice, some Entities develop their own contract templates or procurement contracts due to institutional characteristics or the specific nature of individual projects. This amendment provides clearer guidance for procurement contracts that do not adopt the PCC templates and establishes the key terms of procurement contract as a basis for contract interpretation.
2. Strengthening the Protection of Subcontractors
Where the successful supplier becomes subject to a court attachment order but has not assigned its receivables from the Entity to subcontractors in advance, subcontractors may face difficulties securing payment for completed work. This may, in turn, affect their willingness to participate in the project and delay progress.
Accordingly, the Draft Amendments provide that where a subcontract agreement has been notarized or authenticated and reported to the Entity, the subcontractor’s claim against the successful supplier shall enjoy priority repayment from the procurement contract price (Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Draft Amendments). In addition, similar protection is extended, mutatis mutandis, to contracts between subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors, as well as to contracts for the supply of materials or equipment (Article 67, Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Draft Amendments).
IV. Inspection and Acceptance Stage: Rationalizing the Interval for Periodic Progress Payments
Entities may conduct inspections and acceptance through periodic progress payments and related review procedures. The Draft Amendments stipulate that, for procurements exceeding a certain threshold, the interval may not exceed a specified period. The PCC is authorized to determine this period in order to better safeguard suppliers’ interests (Article 73-1, Paragraph 2 of the Draft Amendments).
V. Establishment of a Supplier Information System
To maintain procurement order and improve the quality of contract performance, the Draft Amendments authorize the PCC to establish an information system to collect information on suppliers and their subcontractors, including their qualifications, experience, and past performance. Such information may serve as a reference for Entities in conducting procurements (Article 93-2 of the Draft Amendments).
VI. Blacklist Mechanism
1. Blacklist Notifications Extended to Other Suppliers
Where an Entity discovers that a supplier has engaged in unlawful conduct or breached the contract in a procurement process, the Entity must issue a blacklist notification specifying the facts, reasons, and the period during which the supplier may not participate in tendering or serve as a contract award recipient or subcontractor. If the supplier does not raise any objection, the notification will be published in the Government Procurement Gazette.
Considering that the actual misconduct may also involve subcontractors or suppliers of the bidding or performing supplier, the Draft Amendments provide that Entities must also include other suppliers who actually engaged in the misconduct as recipients of the blacklist notification (Article 101, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
2. Earlier Initiation of Blacklist Notifications
Under the current Act, where a supplier commits offences under Articles 87 to 92 of the Act, a criminal conviction at first instance is required before an Entity may initiate a blacklist notification.
To prevent such suppliers from participating in government procurement during the course of criminal proceedings, the Draft Amendments allow Entities to initiate blacklist notifications once the prosecutor files an indictment, applies for summary judgment, or issues a deferred prosecution disposition that has become final, without waiting for a court judgment (Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Safe Harbor for Non-Attributable Misconduct
The Draft Amendments introduce a safe harbor provision for the non-attributable supplier. Where a supplier has established and properly implemented reasonable supervision and compliance mechanisms for procurement-related matters, and has not obtained any improper benefit, the supplier shall not be subject to a blacklist notification (Article 101, Paragraph 6 of the Draft Amendments).
In the past, suppliers were blacklisted due to misconduct committed by a single employee. The new provision aims to prevent harsh consequences where the supplier has already implemented reasonable oversight mechanisms. Nevertheless, further guidance from the competent authority may be necessary to clarify how such compliance mechanisms should be assessed in practice.
4. Time Limits for Issuing Blacklist Notifications
To avoid prolonged uncertainty regarding the blacklist notification, the Draft Amendments introduce a statutory time limit. Entities must issue a blacklist notification within two years from the time they knew or should have known of the circumstances giving rise to the blacklist notification. In any event, a blacklist notification may not be issued more than ten years after the end of unlawful conduct or contractual breach (Article 101, Paragraph 7 of the Draft Amendments).
5. Blacklist Extended to Other Suppliers with the Same Representative
Under the current Act, suppliers published in the Government Procurement Gazette are not allowed to participate in tendering or serve as contract award recipients or subcontractors during the blacklist period. However, representatives of blacklisted suppliers may continue to participate in procurement through other existing companies or newly established companies under the same representative.
To enhance the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism, the Draft Amendments provide that suppliers having the same representative as the offending supplier at the time of the misconduct shall likewise be prohibited from participating in tendering or from acting as contract award recipients, subcontractors, or suppliers (Article 103, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
6. Adjustment of Blacklist Periods
Under the current Act, when a supplier is convicted of offences under Articles 87 to 92 of the Act and is sentenced to imprisonment, the supplier is prohibited from participating in tendering or serving as a contract award recipient or subcontractor for three years from the date following publication in the Government Procurement Gazette.
To reflect the principle of proportionality, the Draft Amendments distinguish the blacklist period based on the statutory maximum penalty of the offence. Where the maximum statutory penalty for offences under the aforementioned regulations exceeds five years of imprisonment, the blacklist period remains three years; otherwise, the period is one year (Article 103, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
7. Cumulative Calculation of Blacklist Periods for Multiple Violations
To prevent undermining the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism, the Draft Amendments provide that blacklist periods for multiple violations shall be calculated cumulatively, subject to a maximum of five years.
Where a supplier commits another violation before the previous blacklist period has expired, the new blacklist period shall begin after the previous period ends, ensuring that the periods do not overlap (Article 103-1 of the Draft Amendments).
Overall, the Draft Amendments aim to relax restrictions on additional procurement, enhance the legal effect of the PCC’s standard-form contracts, strengthen the protection of subcontractors’ claims, and rationalize the intervals for progress payment reviews. These changes are intended to strike a balance between safeguarding suppliers’ rights and maintaining the flexibility and order of contract performance.
Notably, the proposed reforms to the blacklist mechanism are particularly significant. These include expanding the scope of suppliers subject to blacklist notifications, adjusting the duration of blacklist periods, and introducing regulations to prevent “shell-company bidding.” Collectively, these revisions demonstrate the government’s commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism while adhering to the principle of proportionality.
However, according to a press release issued by the PCC on March 7, 2026, the PCC has decided to postpone the submission of the Draft Amendments to the Legislative Yuan for this session, in light of the diverse feedback received from various sectors during the public consultation period. The PCC stated that the legislative process will resume once a more comprehensive regulatory impact assessment has been completed [3] . We will continue to monitor the subsequent developments of the Draft Amendments and provide timely updates to assist the client in navigating the challenges and opportunities arising from these regulatory changes.
[1] PCC Order Gong-Qi-Zi No. 1110100798 on December 23, 2022.
[2] Building Consensus on Amendments and Adjusting Submission Schedule; Procurement Act to Maintain the “Three-Bidder” Requirement for Bid Opening. (March 7, 2026). PCC. https://www.pcc.gov.tw/content/index?ltype=N&eid=14145&nn=C61062639C0CD29F&sms=21EF9CF82726C1BB&lang=1 (Last accessed: March 18, 2026).
[3] Id.
The Act contains a total of 114 Articles, and the Draft Amendments revise 52 Articles, representing the most extensive revision to date. The key points of the Draft Amendments at the stages of tendering, contract award, contract performance management, inspection and acceptance, the supplier information system, and the blacklist mechanism are summarized as follows.
I. Tendering Stage
1. Additional Procurement Under Limited Tendering Procedures May Exceed 50% of the Original Contract Amount
Under the current Act, when government agencies, public schools, and state-owned enterprises (the “Entity” or “Entities”) conduct procurement above the public announcement threshold (i.e., construction works, property, and services procurement of NTD 1.5 million or more [1] ), additional works required within the scope of the original tender purpose may only be procured through limited tendering procedures, provided that the additional amount does not exceed 50% of the original contract amount. As a result, when changes in procurement needs exceed this threshold, the Entities may face difficulties negotiating directly with the original supplier.
The Draft Amendments remove this restriction on additional procurement. As a safeguard, they further provide that where the cumulative additional amount exceeds the above threshold, approval from the superior Entity is required before proceeding (Article 22, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 6 of the Draft Amendments).
In practice, large-scale procurement cases often involve changes in the scope of work, and it is common for construction projects involving larger amounts, scale, and longer durations to undergo multiple contract modifications. The Draft Amendments may reduce delays caused by re-tendering and mitigate the risks and uncertainties borne by suppliers during contract performance.
2. Written Notice and Time Limits for the Non-Return or Recovery of Bid Bonds
After the contract award or cancellation of a tender, the Entity shall return the bid bond to unsuccessful bidders without interest. However, where an unsuccessful bidder falls within certain statutory circumstances (such as submitting false or misleading documents in the bidding process or refusing to perform the contract without just cause after being awarded the contract), the bid bond already paid shall not be returned, and any bid bond not yet paid or already returned may be recovered.
To clarify the content of such adverse administrative measures, the Draft Amendments require the Entity to notify the supplier in writing of the decision. The written notice must include the amount involved, the relevant facts, the reasons, and information on available remedies.
In addition, in order to ensure that Entities make such decisions in a timely manner, the Draft Amendments introduce statutory time limits. An Entity may no longer decide not to return or to recover a bid bond if two years have passed from the time the Entity knew the supplier’s unlawful conduct, or if ten years have passed from the date of bid rejection, non-award of the contract, cancellation of the tender, or contract award (Article 31, Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Greater Transparency in Market Sounding and Confidentiality of Competitive Information
In practice, Entities often conduct market sounding or request suppliers to provide reference information prior to tendering. To prevent Entities from consulting only specific suppliers, the Draft Amendments require such procedures to be conducted through public briefings or public solicitations.
The Draft Amendments also clarify that, in addition to the government estimate, which must remain confidential before the contract award, other information that may restrict or distort competition must likewise be kept confidential (Article 34, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Draft Amendments).
4. Strengthening Conflict-of-Interest Rules in Project Management
Under the current Act, the responsible person of a project management supplier may not simultaneously serve as the responsible person of the supplier being managed.
The Draft Amendments expand this restriction to the agents and employees of the project management supplier. They further provide that not only the project management supplier and the managed supplier, but also their respective subcontractors, may not be the same supplier. Similar restrictions are also applied mutatis mutandis to relationships between supervision suppliers and their subcontractors, contractors, or suppliers (Article 39, Paragraphs 2–4 of the Draft Amendments). These revisions broaden the scope of conflict-of-interest regulation and aim to ensure the integrity and fairness of government procurement.
II. Award Stage
1. Removal of the Minimum Three-Bidder Requirement
Under the current Act, a tender may only proceed to bid opening if at least three qualified bidders submit bids. Considering that bidding methods and information transparency have significantly evolved since the Act was enacted, and that concerns over bid rigging have been substantially reduced, this requirement has become less necessary in practice. Moreover, suppliers may sometimes submit non-genuine bids merely to meet the minimum bidder requirement, which may undermine fair competition. Accordingly, the Draft Amendments remove the aforementioned requirement (Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
To address concerns regarding insufficient competition, the Draft Amendments require Entities to publish annual procurement plans above a certain threshold once the budget review process is complete. This allows suppliers to prepare their bids in advance (Article 11-2 of the Draft Amendments).
However, please note that, according to a press release issued by the PCC on March 7, 2026, considering that a majority of public opinion believes the current requirement remains necessary at this stage, the PCC has decided, upon evaluation, that the Draft Amendments will retain the existing provision of the "minimum three-bidder requirement" for bid opening [2] .
2. Time Limits for Revoking a Contract Award
If an Entity discovers, after a contract award, that a bidder engaged in unlawful conduct affecting the fairness of the procurement process, it is required to revoke the award. However, in practice, such conduct is often discovered years later, when the procured items have already been in use for an extended period. At this stage, revocation can impose excessive costs.
The Draft Amendments therefore introduce a statutory time limit. An Entity's right to revoke a contract award is subject to a statute of limitations: two years from the discovery of the grounds for revocation, and a maximum of ten years from the initial award date (Article 50, Paragraph 4 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Service Procurements to Be Awarded Based on the Most Advantageous Tender
Under the current Act, Entities may conduct limited tendering procedures for certain types of procurement, including professional services, technical services, information services, social welfare services, design competitions, and real estate procurement in designated areas (Article 22, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 9–11 of the Act). However, limited tendering procedures for these services still necessitate public evaluation, with contracts awarded to the most advantageous tender. Nonetheless, because these procurements currently fall under limited tendering provisions, they are often misconstrued as allowing Entities to negotiate directly with specific suppliers without a public process.
To address this misunderstanding, the Draft Amendments establish a separate provision governing these procurements and expressly require that the contract be awarded based on the most advantageous tender without a predetermined government estimate (Article 52-1 of the Draft Amendments).
4. Payment of Double the Amount of Bribes or Improper Benefits and Time Limits for Enforcement
Where a supplier offers bribes or other improper benefits to facilitate the conclusion of a procurement contract, the Entity may terminate or rescind the contract. The Draft Amendments further require the Entity to notify the supplier to pay an amount equal to twice the value of the bribe or improper benefit within a specified period.
The Draft Amendments also introduce time limits for the exercise of these rights. The Entity must exercise its rights to terminate the contract, rescind the contract, or demand such payment within two years from the time it knew or should have known of the relevant grounds, and in any event, no later than ten years after the supplier’s misconduct has ceased (Article 59, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Draft Amendments).
III. Contract Performance Management Stage
1. Mandatory Use of PCC Standard Form Procurement Contracts
To strengthen the legal effect of the standard procurement contract templates issued by the PCC, the Draft Amendments require Entities to adopt the templates prescribed by the competent authority when entering into procurement contracts. Where no such template is available, the contract shall be drafted in accordance with the key terms of procurement contracts (Article 63, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
In practice, some Entities develop their own contract templates or procurement contracts due to institutional characteristics or the specific nature of individual projects. This amendment provides clearer guidance for procurement contracts that do not adopt the PCC templates and establishes the key terms of procurement contract as a basis for contract interpretation.
2. Strengthening the Protection of Subcontractors
Where the successful supplier becomes subject to a court attachment order but has not assigned its receivables from the Entity to subcontractors in advance, subcontractors may face difficulties securing payment for completed work. This may, in turn, affect their willingness to participate in the project and delay progress.
Accordingly, the Draft Amendments provide that where a subcontract agreement has been notarized or authenticated and reported to the Entity, the subcontractor’s claim against the successful supplier shall enjoy priority repayment from the procurement contract price (Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Draft Amendments). In addition, similar protection is extended, mutatis mutandis, to contracts between subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors, as well as to contracts for the supply of materials or equipment (Article 67, Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Draft Amendments).
IV. Inspection and Acceptance Stage: Rationalizing the Interval for Periodic Progress Payments
Entities may conduct inspections and acceptance through periodic progress payments and related review procedures. The Draft Amendments stipulate that, for procurements exceeding a certain threshold, the interval may not exceed a specified period. The PCC is authorized to determine this period in order to better safeguard suppliers’ interests (Article 73-1, Paragraph 2 of the Draft Amendments).
V. Establishment of a Supplier Information System
To maintain procurement order and improve the quality of contract performance, the Draft Amendments authorize the PCC to establish an information system to collect information on suppliers and their subcontractors, including their qualifications, experience, and past performance. Such information may serve as a reference for Entities in conducting procurements (Article 93-2 of the Draft Amendments).
VI. Blacklist Mechanism
1. Blacklist Notifications Extended to Other Suppliers
Where an Entity discovers that a supplier has engaged in unlawful conduct or breached the contract in a procurement process, the Entity must issue a blacklist notification specifying the facts, reasons, and the period during which the supplier may not participate in tendering or serve as a contract award recipient or subcontractor. If the supplier does not raise any objection, the notification will be published in the Government Procurement Gazette.
Considering that the actual misconduct may also involve subcontractors or suppliers of the bidding or performing supplier, the Draft Amendments provide that Entities must also include other suppliers who actually engaged in the misconduct as recipients of the blacklist notification (Article 101, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
2. Earlier Initiation of Blacklist Notifications
Under the current Act, where a supplier commits offences under Articles 87 to 92 of the Act, a criminal conviction at first instance is required before an Entity may initiate a blacklist notification.
To prevent such suppliers from participating in government procurement during the course of criminal proceedings, the Draft Amendments allow Entities to initiate blacklist notifications once the prosecutor files an indictment, applies for summary judgment, or issues a deferred prosecution disposition that has become final, without waiting for a court judgment (Article 101, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
3. Safe Harbor for Non-Attributable Misconduct
The Draft Amendments introduce a safe harbor provision for the non-attributable supplier. Where a supplier has established and properly implemented reasonable supervision and compliance mechanisms for procurement-related matters, and has not obtained any improper benefit, the supplier shall not be subject to a blacklist notification (Article 101, Paragraph 6 of the Draft Amendments).
In the past, suppliers were blacklisted due to misconduct committed by a single employee. The new provision aims to prevent harsh consequences where the supplier has already implemented reasonable oversight mechanisms. Nevertheless, further guidance from the competent authority may be necessary to clarify how such compliance mechanisms should be assessed in practice.
4. Time Limits for Issuing Blacklist Notifications
To avoid prolonged uncertainty regarding the blacklist notification, the Draft Amendments introduce a statutory time limit. Entities must issue a blacklist notification within two years from the time they knew or should have known of the circumstances giving rise to the blacklist notification. In any event, a blacklist notification may not be issued more than ten years after the end of unlawful conduct or contractual breach (Article 101, Paragraph 7 of the Draft Amendments).
5. Blacklist Extended to Other Suppliers with the Same Representative
Under the current Act, suppliers published in the Government Procurement Gazette are not allowed to participate in tendering or serve as contract award recipients or subcontractors during the blacklist period. However, representatives of blacklisted suppliers may continue to participate in procurement through other existing companies or newly established companies under the same representative.
To enhance the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism, the Draft Amendments provide that suppliers having the same representative as the offending supplier at the time of the misconduct shall likewise be prohibited from participating in tendering or from acting as contract award recipients, subcontractors, or suppliers (Article 103, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
6. Adjustment of Blacklist Periods
Under the current Act, when a supplier is convicted of offences under Articles 87 to 92 of the Act and is sentenced to imprisonment, the supplier is prohibited from participating in tendering or serving as a contract award recipient or subcontractor for three years from the date following publication in the Government Procurement Gazette.
To reflect the principle of proportionality, the Draft Amendments distinguish the blacklist period based on the statutory maximum penalty of the offence. Where the maximum statutory penalty for offences under the aforementioned regulations exceeds five years of imprisonment, the blacklist period remains three years; otherwise, the period is one year (Article 103, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the Draft Amendments).
7. Cumulative Calculation of Blacklist Periods for Multiple Violations
To prevent undermining the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism, the Draft Amendments provide that blacklist periods for multiple violations shall be calculated cumulatively, subject to a maximum of five years.
Where a supplier commits another violation before the previous blacklist period has expired, the new blacklist period shall begin after the previous period ends, ensuring that the periods do not overlap (Article 103-1 of the Draft Amendments).
Overall, the Draft Amendments aim to relax restrictions on additional procurement, enhance the legal effect of the PCC’s standard-form contracts, strengthen the protection of subcontractors’ claims, and rationalize the intervals for progress payment reviews. These changes are intended to strike a balance between safeguarding suppliers’ rights and maintaining the flexibility and order of contract performance.
Notably, the proposed reforms to the blacklist mechanism are particularly significant. These include expanding the scope of suppliers subject to blacklist notifications, adjusting the duration of blacklist periods, and introducing regulations to prevent “shell-company bidding.” Collectively, these revisions demonstrate the government’s commitment to enhancing the effectiveness of the blacklist mechanism while adhering to the principle of proportionality.
However, according to a press release issued by the PCC on March 7, 2026, the PCC has decided to postpone the submission of the Draft Amendments to the Legislative Yuan for this session, in light of the diverse feedback received from various sectors during the public consultation period. The PCC stated that the legislative process will resume once a more comprehensive regulatory impact assessment has been completed [3] . We will continue to monitor the subsequent developments of the Draft Amendments and provide timely updates to assist the client in navigating the challenges and opportunities arising from these regulatory changes.
[1] PCC Order Gong-Qi-Zi No. 1110100798 on December 23, 2022.
[2] Building Consensus on Amendments and Adjusting Submission Schedule; Procurement Act to Maintain the “Three-Bidder” Requirement for Bid Opening. (March 7, 2026). PCC. https://www.pcc.gov.tw/content/index?ltype=N&eid=14145&nn=C61062639C0CD29F&sms=21EF9CF82726C1BB&lang=1 (Last accessed: March 18, 2026).
[3] Id.
