By Olanrewaju O. Ogunmilua (PhD)
The Federal Government has now made the standstill period a binding feature of federal procurement. In a circular recently issued by the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator George Akume, and addressed to ministers, permanent secretaries, heads of agencies, accounting officers and other officials involved in public procurement, all Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) have been directed to observe a mandatory standstill period of fourteen (14) calendar days before executing any public procurement contract. The directive takes immediate effect and applies to both ongoing and future procurement activities.
The directive flows from the procurement reforms led by Dr Adebowale A. Adedokun, FCIPS, Director-General of the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP). At “The Procurement Evolution” event in Abuja in June 2026, the Bureau presented about 23 reforms approved by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, covering, among other areas, revised procurement thresholds, digital systems, variation of contracts, stronger compliance enforcement and standstill period. The SGF’s circular now gives the standstill reform the force of a Federal Government directive. These measures should be assessed by how effectively they protect public funds while supporting timely project delivery.
With the directive in place, the standstill period deserves particular attention. Nigeria’s Public Procurement Act 2007 established a framework for competition, accountability and value for money, but the effectiveness of its remedies depends partly on when bidders can exercise them. This article examines how the new 14-day interval between notification of an intended award and contract execution can strengthen preventive oversight, and what still needs to be settled for it to work as intended, drawing on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement 2011 and the United Kingdom’s procurement legislation.
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement, adopted in 2011 and commended to all states by United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/95, provides an internationally recognised framework for procurement legislation. Its approach to standstill connects transparency in award decisions with an effective opportunity to seek review before a contract becomes binding. The standstill period is particularly important because it shifts procurement oversight from predominantly corrective intervention after an irregularity has occurred to preventive intervention before government becomes contractually committed.
Understanding the Standstill Period
A standstill period is a legally protected interval between notification of the decision identifying the successful bidder and the conclusion or entry into force of the procurement contract. Under the SGF’s circular, once the relevant approving authority has approved the award recommendation, the procuring entity must issue a Notice of Intended Award to all participating bidders. No contract agreement may be executed, and no Letter of Award may become effective, until the 14 calendar days have expired. During this interval, unsuccessful bidders can examine the outcome, seek clarification and, where legitimate grounds exist, lodge a complaint before the contract becomes binding.
- NCAA -
Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Model Law 2011 provides the foundation for this approach. The procuring entity must promptly notify every supplier or contractor that presented a submission of its decision to accept the successful submission at the end of the standstill period. At a minimum, the notice must state the name and address of the successful supplier or contractor; the contract price or, where price and other criteria were used, the contract price together with a summary of the other characteristics and relative advantages of the successful submission; and the duration of the standstill period. Separately, Article 25 entitles suppliers that presented submissions to obtain, on request, the relevant portion of the procurement record, including a summary of the evaluation, subject to the Model Law’s confidentiality limits.
Under the Model Law, the standstill period runs from the date the notice is dispatched to all suppliers or contractors that presented submissions. Chapter VIII then governs challenges, including the effect of a challenge on the procurement and on the entry into force of the contract. The principle is straightforward. Government announces its intended award, provides the required information and allows time for legitimate objections before the contract becomes binding. This gives procuring entities an opportunity to correct material errors before they create contractual liabilities.
Administrative Review and the Nigerian Reform Agenda
Nigeria already recognises bidders’ right to challenge procurement decisions. Section 54 of the Public Procurement Act 2007 provides an administrative review mechanism for an omission or breach by a procuring or disposing entity under the Act, regulations, guidelines or bidding documents. A complaint is first submitted to the Accounting Officer within 15 working days of the date the bidder became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the breach, and the Accounting Officer has 15 working days to decide. A bidder who is dissatisfied, or who receives no decision, may then complain to the BPP within 10 working days. The Bureau may suspend further action by the procuring entity while it considers the complaint, must decide within 21 working days, and its decision may be challenged in court within 30 days.
A right to complain and a mandatory pre-contract standstill period serve related but distinct purposes. Standstill protects the opportunity to exercise review rights before the contract is signed. This distinction is central to the UNCITRAL approach and should guide implementation of Nigeria’s new directive.
A procurement system may recognise administrative review, but if a procuring entity can proceed rapidly from approval of an award to contract execution, the bidder’s remedy can be reduced to a complaint against a contract that has already been signed.
Nigeria therefore has procurement remedies; the SGF’s circular now protects the opportunity to use them before contractual commitment. Where a complaint is received within the standstill period, the circular requires the procuring entity to address it under the administrative review procedures of the Act and BPP guidelines, and to suspend further steps towards contract execution, where applicable, until it is resolved. The 14 days are therefore a minimum, not a fixed signing date.
The reform question has moved from whether Nigeria should have a standstill period to how the new one should be anchored. The circular is an administrative instrument, and it is expressly to be read alongside the Public Procurement Act 2007, existing procurement regulations and BPP directives. For prescribed categories of procurement, a durable framework should identify the notice that starts the period, its duration, applicable exceptions and the effect of a timely challenge on contract execution. The proposed amendment to the Public Procurement Act 2007, which the SGF has publicly referenced as part of the ongoing reforms, offers a natural vehicle for giving the standstill period a statutory footing.
Aligning the Standstill Period with Section 54
One design question needs early attention. Section 54 gives an aggrieved bidder up to 15 working days to lodge a complaint with the Accounting Officer. Fourteen calendar days, by contrast, ordinarily contain about ten working days, and fewer where public holidays fall within the window. A bidder could therefore file a complaint that is timely under the Act but arrives after the standstill period has ended and the contract has been signed, at which point the circular’s suspension no longer helps.
This gap does not defeat the reform, and BPP guidance can close it. The Bureau could make clear that a complaint against an award decision must be lodged within the standstill period if it is to suspend contract execution, while leaving the statutory Section 54 timeline intact for other purposes. This matters regardless of the length eventually chosen, since any standstill shorter than 15 working days, including the shorter period recommended below, leaves the same gap unless suspensive effect is tied to the standstill itself. Either way, the guidance should confirm how the period is counted, including weekends and public holidays, and every Notice of Intended Award should state the exact date on which the period ends and how a complaint is to be lodged.
Why Timing Matters in Procurement Remedies
Without a protected review window, evaluation and approval may be followed immediately by award and contract execution. A complaint and investigation may then arise only after government has become contractually committed. Under a standstill regime, notification of the intended award is followed by a defined review interval. Contract execution proceeds after the period expires and subject to any applicable suspension or review requirements.
The second arrangement is institutionally preferable. Once a contract has been executed, mobilisation may have occurred, goods may have been ordered, contractors may have commenced works and financial commitments may already have arisen. Correcting an irregular procurement at that point becomes considerably more difficult.
Government may face litigation, contractors may claim damages and projects may be delayed or abandoned. Public funds may already have been committed, leaving government to choose between preserving an irregular contract and cancelling it at considerable financial and operational cost. A standstill period helps identify and resolve material procurement problems before they become contractual liabilities.
Lessons from the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom’s Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025, provides a useful comparative example for procurements governed by that legislation.
Section 51 of the Procurement Act 2023 generally prohibits a contracting authority from entering into a public contract before the applicable mandatory standstill period ends. The period is eight working days, beginning on the day the contract award notice is published, subject to statutory exceptions. Before publishing that notice, the authority must give each supplier whose tender was assessed an assessment summary explaining the award decision. The standstill gives unsuccessful suppliers time to consider the decision and initiate proceedings where appropriate before the contract is entered into, and proceedings started within the period can automatically prevent the contract from being signed until the court decides otherwise.
Under the earlier Public Contracts Regulations 2015, the UK period was ten calendar days from the standstill letter. Across the European Union, the Remedies Directive (Directive 2007/66/EC) requires at least ten calendar days where the award decision is sent electronically and fifteen days where it is sent by other means. Nigeria’s 14 calendar days is therefore at the longer end of comparable practice, while the UK achieves the same protective purpose with eight working days.
Nigeria does not need to reproduce the UK system verbatim. Our procurement architecture, administrative structures and development challenges are different. The underlying principle is valuable. There should be a legally identifiable stage at which the award decision has been made but government has not yet become contractually committed. The SGF’s circular now creates that stage.
Standstill Should Not Become Another Bureaucratic Bottleneck
Standstill could add to procurement timelines if it is poorly managed. Nigeria already faces delays in planning, approvals and budget implementation. Set against those delays, 14 days is a modest addition, and it is far shorter than the delay that follows when a signed contract is challenged in court. MDAs should build the period into their procurement plans and award schedules from the outset rather than treat it as an afterthought.
The length of the period itself also merits review. Fourteen calendar days is a straight two weeks for every covered contract, regardless of its value or complexity. For a strengthened statutory regime, an interval of eight to ten working days could be considered, subject to consultation and assessment by the BPP: eight working days for standard procurements, in line with the UK, and up to ten for high-value or complex contracts where bidders reasonably need more time to examine the award decision. Counting in working days would also ensure that weekends and public holidays do not eat into the time bidders actually have to respond, and would place the standstill on the same basis as the working-day timelines in Section 54. This is a policy recommendation for the statutory framework and the proposed amendment to the Act; until then, the SGF’s 14 calendar days remains the binding requirement for federal MDAs.
UNCITRAL recognises that standstill need not apply universally: Article 22 provides exceptions for procurement under a framework agreement without second-stage competition, low-value procurement below a prescribed threshold and urgent public-interest circumstances. Where urgency is invoked, the decision and reasons must be recorded, and Article 25 requires the procurement record to state the reasons wherever no standstill period was applied. The circular applies to all procuring entities, so BPP implementation guidance should settle coverage, including whether low-value procurement and call-offs under existing framework arrangements fall within the requirement, and how any exemption is to be documented and reviewed.
Protecting the Reform Against Abuse
A Nigerian standstill system must also guard against abuse of the complaints process. Rules should require challengers to identify the provision allegedly breached, the disputed decision, the supporting facts and the remedy sought. Frivolous or clearly unsubstantiated complaints should be subject to expedited dismissal, while genuine complaints receive prompt and independent consideration. The framework should state clearly when a challenge suspends contract execution and how that suspension may be reviewed. The circular already requires procurement officers to keep records of notices issued, complaints received and actions taken; those records should feed into the Bureau’s compliance reviews and, in aggregate, into published data on complaints and their outcomes. These safeguards would protect effective remedies while limiting avoidable disruption to public projects.
Emergency Procurement Must Remain Possible
Standstill rules should permit a proportionate response to genuine emergencies. Natural disasters, epidemics, urgent national-security requirements and circumstances involving imminent threats to life may require immediate procurement. UNCITRAL expressly recognises urgent public-interest considerations as a basis for proceeding without standstill, provided the decision and justification are recorded.
Nigeria should retain this principle, align it with the emergency procurement provisions already contained in the Public Procurement Act 2007, and require clear documentation. An Accounting Officer seeking an emergency exemption should explain the nature of the emergency, why delay would prejudice the public interest, whether the circumstances could reasonably have been anticipated and how the selected procurement approach represents value for money. Emergency exemptions must not become a routine means of avoiding competition.
Conclusion
A standstill period can reduce the risk of discovering procurement defects only after a contract has been signed, mobilisation paid and implementation commenced. The UNCITRAL Model Law 2011 provides a framework for protecting review rights before contractual commitment, while the UK legislation illustrates how a defined period can operate within a modern procurement system.
With the SGF’s circular, Nigeria now has a mandatory 14-day pre-contract window. The priority is to connect it cleanly with the administrative review mechanism in Section 54 of the Public Procurement Act: align the time limits, specify coverage, notification content and exemptions, settle the treatment of complaints, and give the regime a statutory footing through the proposed amendment to the Act. For that statutory framework, a period of eight to ten working days, scaled to contract value and complexity, merits consideration, subject to evidence and consultation.
The BPP can consolidate the standstill reform by issuing clear implementation guidance, monitoring compliance and applying the administrative sanctions the circular provides for noncompliance. The practical test is whether bidders can obtain timely redress and procuring entities can correct material errors before government assumes contractual liabilities. A properly managed pause before signing can protect public money and strengthen confidence in government contracting.
An Advisory Policy Article by Olanrewaju O. Ogunmilua (PhD)
Email: [email protected]
