You won the bid. You signed the contract. You received the order to proceed. You mobilized capital, personnel, and equipment. And then a DGCP resolution arrived.

VERIFIED REAL CASES

The General Directorate of Public Procurement (DGCP) has, in its recent practice, assumed the authority to suspend awards and project effects on contracts under execution through administrative resolutions. Whether this projection amounts to a true power of contract termination is precisely the question that now divides operators and jurists.

How it does it. The DGCP operates at three speeds. First: it suspends the award while investigating a complaint; your competitor can activate this mechanism from the day after the bid opening. Second: it declares the entire process null, dragging the contract along even if you committed no irregularity. Third and most aggressive: it directly intervenes in the contract during full execution and declares that it has ceased to have effect, by internal resolution, without a court judgment.

The entrepreneur who does not understand this risk architecture is not bidding; they are gambling.

INTRAN T / TRAFFIC LIGHT NETWORK

RIC-156-2023 · Contract DJ-CBS-009-2023 · RD$1,317 MM
INTRANÍ signed a contract with Transcore Latam S.R.L. The DGCP suspended it ex officio in October 2023, while the contract was in full execution, upon documenting the use of third-party technical credentials and falsification of seniority. The TSA upheld the suspension (ruling 0030-03-2024-SSEN-00755). INTRANÍ terminated it in October 2024. Those responsible were indicted in Operation Camaleón.
► The TSA validated the DGCP. Reason: proven fraud and active criminal proceedings.

MINERD / TECH DEVICES

RIC-128 to 162-2021 · RD$280 MM in paid advances
The DGCP annulled 51 out of 56 lots when contracts were signed and advances paid. MINERD resisted until 2024. The case ended by withdrawal without a final judgment (TSA 0030-03-2024-SSEM-00519, Sep. 12, 2024). The doctrine on whether the DGCP can operate on contracts with financial execution initiated was left unresolved.
► The contracting entity resisted for four years. The DGCP exerted pressure. No definitive ruling.

OPERATION COBRA · 20 SUPPLIERS

DGCP44-2025-004600 · November 2025
The Public Prosecutor's Office investigated 20 companies and consortia for collusion, fraud, and money laundering. The DGCP ex officio suspended all their State Supplier Registries, characterizing the measure as "preventive precautionary, not a sanction." No conviction. No judgment. Only an active indictment was sufficient.
► RPE suspended: cannot bid and pending payments are blocked.

OCI-MINERD / EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS

RIC-0011-2025 / RIC-0015-2025 · RD$967 MM · Feb. 2025
MINERD's Internal Control Body (OCI) awarded workshop equipment to four companies. Contracts signed. The DGCP, after five hierarchical appeals, declared that "the signed contracts ceased to have effect." Case referred to PEPCA, the Comptroller General's Office, and the Court of Auditors. No final judgment.
► Paradigmatic case where the DGCP formally declares already signed contracts extinguished.

FARMACARD / SENASA

RIC-0109-2025 · August 2025
SENASA directly contracted with Farmacard alleging an exemption under Law 87-01. The DGCP determined that the service was administrative in nature and therefore subject to Law 340-06, and annulled the contract, but modulated the nullity with a 70-day transitional validity period to protect the public service. Farmacard withdrew its injunction request before the TSA on December 11, 2025.
► Modulated nullity: the contract is annulled with a transition period. Institutional novelty in 2025.

THE MECHANICS OF SUSPENSION: HOW IT OPERATES IN PRACTICE

"No good-faith contractor has lost before the TSA in the documented cases. The TSA has only validated the DGCP where fraud was proven."

ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE JURISPRUDENCE 2021-2025 - TSA AND SCJ - CARLOS ROMERO POLANCO

THE FIVE SCENARIOS YOU SHOULD KNOW

SCENARIO I: Competitor's appeal + precautionary measure

An excluded competitor challenges the award and requests suspension. The DGCP weighs appearance of right and urgency. If granted, the contract cannot be signed, and if already signed, it has interpreted that it can still be suspended (RIC-0221-2024). HIGH RISK

SCENARIO II: Ex officio investigation: nullity of the process

The DGCP investigates and declares the process null. The defect may not be yours, but the contract is extinguished as a direct consequence. Your only defense: claim State liability (Art. 148 of the Constitution; Arts. 57-62 Law 107-13). HIGH RISK

SCENARIO III: Direct intervention in an ongoing contract

The DGCP acts on the contract itself, without any defect in the selection process. This scenario lacks express legal basis in Law 340-06 or Law 47-25. It is the area of greatest legal strength for the good-faith contractor. LOW RISK

SCENARIO IV: Active criminal investigation: suspension of the RPE

The Public Prosecutor's Office investigates your company. The DGCP suspends your State Supplier Registry. No conviction, no judgment. Effect: you cannot bid and pending payments are blocked. The presumption of innocence (Art. 69.3 of the Constitution) strains this practice, which has not yet been resolved by the courts. VERY HIGH RISK

SCENARIO V: Direct contracting without legal authorization

The contracting entity claimed an exemption from Law 340-06. The DGCP determines this is incorrect and annuls the contract. Novelty in 2025 (RIC-0109-2025): the DGCP modulated the nullity with a 70-day transitional validity period. If you had a legal opinion from the entity, your good-faith position is strengthened. MODERATE RISK

WHAT TO DO IN THE FIRST 48 HOURS

First: the DGCP is declaring contract terminations without going through the TSA. Resolution RIC-0011-2025 is a unilateral administrative declaration of termination. Article 45 of Law 107-13 reserves that authority to the TSA. No one has taken that case to a final judgment, and this absence leaves the practice without a clear judicial limit.

Second: precautionary measures have been instrumentalized. In practice, they have become an autonomous blocking tool: the precautionary process lasts months, the economic harm to the supplier is immediate, and many withdraw before reaching the merits.

Third: the suspension of the RPE as an extrajudicial block is the newest and most dangerous frontier. Operation Cobra (November 2025): 20 companies paralyzed by administrative resolution, without a judgment, without a conviction.

Fourth: the absence of final judgments perpetuates uncertainty. All the largest cases—MINERD Devices (2024) and OCI-MINERD Workshops (2025)—ended without a definitive ruling. This absence benefits the DGCP and harms the private sector.

Correcting this course depends on affected contractors persisting until they obtain final judgments. The one who withdraws in court consolidates the practice that harmed them.

Step 1 · Immediate:

Do not issue any official communication without advice. Every statement can be used against you.

Step 2 · First 48 hours:

Preserve all execution documentation: orders to proceed, commencement minutes, payments received, invoices, committed investments.

Step 3 · First week:

File before the TSA: (i) an action for nullity against the DGCP resolution (Art. 44, Law 107-13) and (ii) a request for a precautionary measure suspending its effects.

Step 4 · Concurrently:

Prepare a claim for State liability (Art. 148 of the Constitution; Arts. 57-62 Law 107-13): actual damages, lost profits, and personal liability of the official who issued the act.

Definitive criterion: If you acted in good faith—no falsified documents, no collusion, no bribery—you have a strong legal position. But that position is only defended through procedural perseverance, not informal negotiation.