Pakistan operates as a federal republic, with public procurement regulated by distinct frameworks at both the federal and provincial levels. Federally, procurement matters are governed by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (the “PPRA Ordinance”), the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (the “PP Rules”) and various regulations issued under the PPRA Ordinance.

At the provincial level, each province has enacted its own procurement laws and rules. They have done so as follows.

• The Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009 and the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014, have been enacted in Punjab.
• The Sindh Public Procurement Act, 2009 and Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, have been enacted in Sindh.
• The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2012 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2014 have been enacted in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or KPK.
• The Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009 and Balochistan Public Procurement Rules, 2014, have been enacted in Balochistan.

The procurement laws at both the federal and provincial levels generally follow similar approaches and requirements for public procurements. However, there are notable differences in certain areas. For the purposes of this article, we have focused on the public procurement laws promulgated by the federal legislature.

The entities subject to public procurement regulations vary from province to province. Federally, procuring agencies subject to procurement laws include ministries, divisions, departments or offices of the federal government, as well as any authority, corporation, body or organisation established by or under a federal law or owned or controlled by the federal government.

The PPRA Ordinance regulates the public procurement of goods, services and works. For the purposes of the PPRA Ordinance, goods mean articles and objects of every kind and description, including raw materials, products, equipment, machinery, spares, scraps, waste material and commodities in any form. This includes all types of assets such as immovable property, physical objects in any form or matter, intangible assets, goodwill, intellectual property and proprietary rights, as well as incidental services if the value of the services does not exceed the value of the goods.

The PPRA Ordinance also defines services as any object of procurement other than goods or works, and works as any construction work consisting of the erection, assembly, repair, renovation or demolition of a building or structure, or part thereof. This includes site preparation, excavation, installation of equipment or materials and decoration, finishing. It also includes incidental services such as drilling, mapping, satellite photography, seismic investigations and similar activities, if the value of those services does not exceed that of the works themselves.

Additionally, the Federal Public-Private Partnership Policy of Pakistan prescribes that the primary governing legislation for the tendering of all federal public-private partnership (PPP) projects is the PPRA Ordinance, the PP Rules and the regulations prescribed under them.

Procuring agencies are generally required to allow all prospective bidders to participate in procurement or disposal proceedings regardless of nationality. However, a procuring agency can decide to limit participation to national bidders only or to prohibit bidders from certain nationalities, in line with the federal government’s policy.

The PP Rules provide that the procuring agency will, when evaluating and comparing bids, allow for preference to domestic suppliers or contractors, while competing with international bidders in line with the policies of the federal government or regulations made by the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (the “PPRA”) for:

• works projects;
• certain goods manufactured, mined, extracted and grown in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and
• disposal of certain assets having any potential impact on national security.

Procuring agencies, when engaging in procurements, are required to ensure procurements are conducted in a fair and transparent manner. They are also required to ensure that the procurement brings value for money to the agency and that the procurement process is efficient and economical. Additionally, procuring agencies are required to allow the widest possible competition by defining specifications that do not favour any single contractor or supplier and do not put others at a disadvantage.

The PP Rules require that certain contracts be advertised before they are awarded. For contracts worth more than PKR500,000 and up to PKR3 million, the advertisement must be published on the PPRA’s website. The procuring agency can also choose to advertise in newspapers if needed. For contracts exceeding PKR3 million, the advertisement must be published on the PPRA website and in at least two widely circulated newspapers, one in English and one in Urdu.

If the procuring agency has its own website, it can also post the advertisement there. When advertising online, the agency must make sure all necessary information is available and remains posted until the bid submission deadline. The advertisement should clearly explain the scope of work, eligibility requirements, deadlines and any other important details to help potential bidders understand the opportunity and apply.

The law does not require the awarding authority to conduct preliminary market consultations before commencing the contract award procedure.

The PP Rules prescribe specific tender procedures for awarding contracts through open competitive bidding. The following methods are permitted.

Single Stage – One Envelope

This procedure requires all bids to be submitted in a single envelope and opened together for evaluation.

Single Stage – Two-Envelope

This procedure requires bidders to submit both technical and financial proposals in separate envelopes. The technical proposals are opened and evaluated first. Only technical bids that are successful will then proceed to financial proposal evaluation.

Two-Stage Bidding

In this procedure, bidders initially submit technical proposals without financial proposals. Discussions may be held on technical aspects and bidders are allowed to revise their proposals. Financial proposals are then submitted and evaluated in the second stage.

Two-Stage, Two-Envelope

In this procedure, bidders submit both technical and financial proposals. Only the technical proposals are opened initially and discussions may be held. Revised technical and financial proposals are then submitted and evaluated in the second stage.

The legislation permits limited negotiations with the successful bidder at the time of contract finalisation. However, these negotiations cannot alter the cost or scope of work or services. The procuring agency may negotiate only aspects such as the methodology, work plan, staffing and special conditions of the contract, strictly ensuring that the cost and scope of work or services remain unchanged.

The single-stage, one-envelope bidding procedure is generally the primary method for open competitive bidding in most procurement processes. However, other appropriate procedures may be adopted in specific circumstances. The single-stage two-envelope bidding procedure is used, in which bids are evaluated on both technical and financial grounds, with financial grounds considered only after technical grounds have been evaluated.

The two-stage bidding procedure is suitable for large and complex contracts where technically unequal proposals are anticipated or where the procuring agency is aware of market options, but multiple equally acceptable technical solutions exist for the required performance. Additionally, the two-stage two-envelope bidding method is applied where alternative technical proposals are possible, such as in the procurement of certain types of machinery, equipment or manufacturing plants.

A procuring agency may only resort to direct contracting in specific circumstances. These include situations in which procurement involves acquiring spare parts or supplementary services directly from the original manufacturer or supplier, provided the items are not available from alternative sources. Direct contracting is also permitted where only one manufacturer or supplier exists for the required procurement, subject to approval by the appropriate authority after conducting due diligence.

Additionally, it is allowed if changing the supplier would result in incompatibility or technical difficulties due to differing specifications, with the contracts limited to a maximum duration of three years. Repeat orders not exceeding 15% of the original procurement value may also be placed through direct contracting.

In emergencies, the procuring agency may engage in direct contracting, but only through authorised forums empowered to declare the emergencies. Furthermore, direct contracting is allowed where the price is fixed by the government or an authorised body and for the purchase of motor vehicles from local original manufacturers or their authorised agents at the manufacturer’s price.

The law does not prescribe any specific obligations or timeframes for the publication of procurement documents such as the pre-selection questionnaire, invitation to tender or draft contract.

The procuring agency is responsible for determining the response time for receiving bids or proposals, including pre-qualification proposals, taking into account the complexity, availability and urgency of each procurement. However, the response time must be at least 15 days for national competitive bidding and 30 days for international competitive bidding. These time limits are calculated from the date of publication of the advertisement or notice.

Each advertisement or notice must clearly specify the response time allowed for that particular procurement and provide information regarding the collection of bid documents, which will be available until a specified date to ensure sufficient time for submission by the closing date. It is important to note that no minimum time limit applies in emergency cases.

The response time is calculated from the date of the advertisement’s first publication, whether in a newspaper or on the relevant website. However, for procurements up to PKR3 million, the response time will be calculated from the date the advertisement appears on the PPRA’s website. In instances where the advertisement is published in both electronic and print media, the response time will be counted from the date of first publication in the newspapers.

The law does not prescribe a fixed set of criteria that interested parties must meet to be eligible to participate in the procurement process. However, the PP Rules allow a procuring agency to assess a supplier’s or contractor’s professional, technical, financial, legal or managerial competence at any stage of the procurement process if there are credible reasons or prima facie evidence of any defect in their capacity. The assessment must be properly recorded in writing and retained as part of the procurement record.

Furthermore, the rules mandate the disqualification of a supplier or contractor if it is found that they have submitted false, materially inaccurate or incomplete information regarding their qualifications. In addition, the procuring agency must maintain a blacklisting mechanism in line with regulations, which may result in the debarment of suppliers or contractors for specified periods on grounds such as corrupt or fraudulent practices, failure to perform contractual obligations or breach of bid security declarations. The duration of blacklisting ranges from six months to ten years, depending on the nature of the breach. Blacklisting decisions must be communicated to the relevant supplier or contractor and the PPRA and may be reviewed by the PPRA upon the supplier or contractor’s petition.

Therefore, while specific eligibility criteria are not prescribed by law, the PP Rules provide a framework for qualification, disqualification and blacklisting of suppliers and contractors during the procurement process.

Procuring agencies may conduct a pre-qualification exercise in cases involving services, civil works, turnkey projects or the procurement of expensive and technically complex equipment. This is to ensure that only technically and financially capable firms with adequate managerial capacity are invited to submit bids.

Pre-qualification is assessed based on:

• relevant experience and past performance;
• capability in terms of personnel, equipment and plant;
• financial position;
• managerial capacity; and
• any other relevant factors deemed appropriate by the procuring agency.

The law does not specify a minimum number of qualified suppliers.

The procuring agency will formulate clear and appropriate evaluation criteria, listing all relevant factors against which bids will be evaluated. These evaluation criteria must be included as an integral part of the bidding documents. Failure to provide unambiguous evaluation criteria in the bidding documents will constitute misprocurement.

All bids received will be evaluated strictly in line with the criteria and terms specified in the bidding documents. No additional criteria, other than those set out in the bidding documents, will be applied during evaluation, except as provided under the PP Rules.

For comparison purposes, if bids are quoted in different currencies, the prices will be converted into a single currency specified in the bidding documents. The exchange rate will be the selling rate prevailing on the date of the bid opening, as notified by the State Bank of Pakistan.

Once opened in accordance with the prescribed procedure, a bid will be evaluated only under the rules, regulations, and policies that were in force at the time the notice inviting bids was issued.

The procuring agency will disqualify a supplier or contractor if it finds, at any time, that the information submitted by the supplier or contractor regarding their qualification was false, materially inaccurate or incomplete.

Based on the procedure adopted for the respective procurement, the procuring agency is required to announce the bid evaluation results in a final evaluation report, providing justification for the acceptance or rejection of bids, at least 15 days prior to awarding the procurement contract. However, where the technical proposal is evaluated before the opening of the financial proposal, the technical evaluation report will be announced prior to the opening of the financial proposal.

The procuring agency may reject all bids or proposals at any time prior to the acceptance of a bid or proposal. Upon request, the procuring agency will communicate the grounds for the rejection of all bids or proposals to any supplier or contractor who submitted a bid or proposal. However, it does not have to justify those grounds. The procuring agency will incur no liability solely by rejecting all bids or proposals. Additionally, notice of the rejection of all bids or proposals will be promptly given to all suppliers or contractors who submitted them.

The procuring agency is required to promptly notify each supplier or contractor submitting an application for pre-qualification whether or not they have been pre-qualified. Upon request, the procuring agency will also make the names of all suppliers or contractors who have been pre-qualified available to any person directly involved in the pre-qualification process.

Only those who have been pre-qualified will be entitled to participate further in the procurement process. Additionally, the procuring agency may reject all bids or proposals at any time prior to the acceptance of a bid or proposal. Upon request, the procuring agency will communicate the grounds for the rejection to any supplier or contractor who submitted a bid or proposal, although it is not required to justify those grounds.

There is no obligation to grant bidders a prior hearing before a decision is taken in the context of the contract awarding procedure. However, the procuring agency may seek and accept clarifications to a bid that do not change its substance. If clarification is required, the procuring agency will make a written request, which the bidder must respond to in writing.

Based on the procedure adopted for the respective procurement, the procuring agency will announce the results of the bid evaluation in a final evaluation report, providing justification for the acceptance or rejection of bids, at least 15 days prior to the award of the procurement contract. Where technical proposals are evaluated separately, the technical evaluation report will be announced before the opening of the financial proposal.

The procuring agency is required to establish a grievance redressal committee or GRC comprising an odd number of members with the necessary powers to address complaints raised by bidders prior to the signing of the procurement contract.

Any party may submit a written complaint against the eligibility criteria, evaluation parameters or any other terms of the bidding documents if found to be inconsistent with the procurement regulatory framework. These complaints must be filed before the bid submission deadline and will be reviewed by the GRC.

A bidder who feels aggrieved by any act of the procuring agency after the submission of their bid may lodge a written complaint within seven days of the announcement of the technical evaluation report or within five days of the issuance of the final evaluation report. If a complaint is filed against the technical evaluation report, the GRC must suspend the procurement proceedings until the complaint is resolved.

However, if a complaint is submitted after the issuance of the final evaluation report, the bidder cannot raise objections regarding the technical evaluation. An objection can be raised to any part of the final evaluation report only when the single-stage, single-envelope bidding procedure has been adopted.

The GRC must investigate the matter and decide on the complaint within ten days of its receipt.

Any unauthorised breach of the PP Rules will result in a declaration of mis-procurement.

The PP Rules require that if a complaint is filed against the technical evaluation report, the GRC must suspend the procurement proceedings until the complaint is resolved.

See 4.1 Responsibility for Review of the Awarding Authority’s Decisions.

If any bidder or party is not satisfied with the GRC’s decision, they may file an appeal before the PPRA within 30 days of the communication of the decision. This appeal must be submitted along with the prescribed fee and in accordance with the PPRA’s procedure. The PPRA decision will be final.

The GRC will investigate and decide upon the complaint within ten days of its receipt. Upon the procurement contract’s entry into force, any disputes between the parties will be resolved by arbitration. The procuring agencies are required to include a method of arbitration in the procurement contract that is consistent with Pakistani law. The length of the arbitration will vary depending on what the parties have contractually agreed.

Comprehensive data on the annual number of procurement claims considered by the PPRA is not readily available.

The typical costs involved in filing an appeal before the PPRA are nominal, not including the legal representation or advisory costs of the parties.

Based on the Regulation for Procedure of Filing and Disposal of Review Petition, 2022, read with the amendments to Schedule-II approved in 2025, the costs of filing a review petition for a contract up to the limit of PKR250 million will be PKR200,000/- (Two Hundred Thousand Rupees). The costs of filing a review petition for a contract exceeding the limit of PKR250 million will be 0.1% of the procurement value, not exceeding PKR2.5 million.

Similarly, based on the Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2021, read with the amendments to Schedule-II approved in 2025, the costs for filing an appeal for a contract up to the limit of PKR250 million will be PKR200,000/- (Two Hundred Thousand Rupees). The costs for filing an appeal for a contract exceeding PKR250 million will be 0.1% of the procurement value, not exceeding PKR2.5 million.

These fee schedules remain subject to revision and may be amended from time to time.

Following the award of a contract, the procuring agency may negotiate with the successful bidder at the time of contract finalisation, without changing the cost or scope of work or services. These negotiations may relate to streamlining work or task execution, including the methodology, work plan, staffing and special contract conditions. The PPRA may also determine the extent and types of procurement negotiations through regulations.

The legislation does not establish the grounds on which the parties may terminate the contract.

The public procurement legal framework establishes several special prerogatives in favour of the procuring agency, granting it significant flexibility and control throughout the procurement process. The procuring agency has the authority to reject all bids or proposals at any time prior to acceptance without incurring any liability towards suppliers or contractors. While it must communicate the grounds for rejection upon request, it is not required to justify those grounds.

The procuring agency may also disqualify a supplier or contractor at any stage if it finds that the information submitted regarding qualifications was false, materially inaccurate or incomplete. It also has the discretion to extend the bid submission deadline, if necessary, after recording reasons in writing and ensuring equal opportunity for all bidders.

During contract execution, the procuring agency may accept requests for price adjustments in circumstances of unusual price volatility, subject to verification against national or international price indicators. The procuring agency is further empowered to utilise alternative methods of procurement, such as petty purchases, requests for quotations, direct contracting, negotiated tendering or force account.

Moreover, it may negotiate with the successful bidder on matters such as methodology, work plans, staffing and special conditions at the time of contract finalisation, strictly without altering the cost or scope of work or services. However, the material terms of the contract cannot be modified. The procuring agency may also disclose information relating to unsolicited proposals or bidders if considered necessary as part of the procurement process.

It has the discretion to decide the response time for receipt of bids or proposals from the date of publication of an advertisement or notice, keeping in view the individual procurement’s complexity, availability and urgency. However, under no circumstances shall the response time be less than fifteen days for national competitive bidding and thirty days for international competitive bidding from the date of publication of the advertisement or notice.

Furthermore, it may require bidders to furnish a fixed amount of bid security, not exceeding 5% of the estimated value of the procurement, as determined by the procuring agency.

The procuring agencies may carry out the e-procurement process by using information and communication technologies or digital or electronic means. It should be structured to cover all or any aspects of the procurement process, in accordance with the regulations or guidelines prescribed by PPRA.

The procuring agency may assign the whole or part of the procurement process to another procuring agency with the consent of that other procuring agency for the acquisition of goods, works, services and/or disposal of public assets.

In the last year, several important court decisions have clarified the interpretation and application of the PP Rules in Pakistan.

Hashir Surgical Services v Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Peshawar (2026 CLC 54)

In Hashir Surgical Services v Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, Peshawar (2026 CLC 54), the petitioner challenged the Authority’s order, which returned its appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Authority held that its mandate is limited to regulating the public procurement process and does not extend to disputes arising after execution of a procurement contract. The Peshawar High Court upheld this position and dismissed the constitutional petition by observing that once a contract is executed between the procuring entity and the successful bidder, subsequent disputes become contractual in nature and fall outside the Authority’s statutory scope. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2012, does not empower the Authority to adjudicate post-contractual disputes and the Authority, not being a court, cannot determine rights or liabilities beyond its limited regulatory functions. Since the contract provided for arbitration as a dispute-resolution mechanism, the petitioner’s remedy lay in invoking arbitration rather than pursuing a statutory appeal.

Insaf Brothers v Province of Sindh & 6 Others (2025 YLR 2004)

In Insaf Brothers v Province of Sindh & 6 Others (2025 YLR 2004), the plaintiff challenged the issuance of a letter of award to the defendant No 5 despite the Complaints Redressal Committee (CRC) having earlier set aside the procurement committee’s decision for awarding the contract to the defendant No 5. The Review Committee, however, disagreed with the CRC’s findings, treated the plaintiff’s bid deviations as mandatory rather than minor and declared the CRC’s decision to be a mis-procurement under the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010. The High Court observed that the review committee failed to consider the relevant clauses of the bidding documents and the procurement regulations, which clearly distinguished between minor and major deviations. The record showed that the defendant’s bid also contained similar minor deviations, yet the contract was awarded to the defendant despite its higher price. The High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and allowed the application, concluding that the review committee had misread the record and misapplied the procurement rules.

Province of Punjab v Haroon Construction Company, Government Contractor and Others (2024 SCMR 947)

In Province of Punjab v Haroon Construction Company, Government Contractor and Others (2024 SCMR 947), the contractors challenged the procuring agency’s demand for the deposit of additional performance security. The High Court dismissed their claim, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of additional performance security and the consequences attached to its non-payment in the bid documents were beyond the scope of the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2014 and were therefore inconsistent with the procurement framework. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the demand for the payment of additional performance security by the procurement agencies as unlawful and violative of the procurement rules and directed that any requirement for additional security can only be introduced through duly framed procurement rules to ensure transparency, fairness, a level playing field and non-discrimination in public procurement.

Bismillah Metal Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. v Port Qasim Authority (2024 CLD 202 Karachi)

In Bismillah Metal Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. v Port Qasim Authority (2024 CLD 202 Karachi), the Sindh High Court addressed the enforceability of an “as is, where is” clause in a procurement contract. The Court held that such a clause required the plaintiff to accept the vessel as a whole and barred revaluation of its components. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s request for an injunction against the forfeiture of its security deposit, as the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case.

Muhammad Ramzan & Company v Federation of Pakistan (NHA) (2024 CLC 1394 Islamabad)

In Muhammad Ramzan & Company v Federation of Pakistan (NHA) (2024 CLC 1394 Islamabad), the Islamabad High Court upheld the National Highway Authority’s decision to annul a contract and forfeit bid security after the bidder attempted to modify its bid post-submission. The Court held that the action was lawful under the relevant procurement rules, as the bidder had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the tender.

Sanghol Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v Capital Development Authority (2024 CLC 321 Islamabad)

Similarly, in Sanghol Engineering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v Capital Development Authority (2024 CLC 321 Islamabad), the Islamabad High Court ruled that the Capital Development Authority acted unlawfully by denying tender documents to the petitioner. The Court clarified that a procuring agency could refuse tender documents only for clear disqualification criteria, such as blacklisting or failure to meet qualifications, and that past litigation could not be grounds for exclusion at the pre-bidding stage.

KAC-RMS (Joint Venture) v National Highway Authority (NHA) (2024 PLD 213 Islamabad)

In KAC-RMS (Joint Venture) v National Highway Authority (NHA) (2024 PLD 213 Islamabad), the Islamabad High Court affirmed the NHA’s discretionary power under Rule 33 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, to reject all bids prior to contract awarding. However, the Court stressed that the discretion must be exercised with valid justification and in accordance with due process. The petition was dismissed, with the Court finding no legal grounds to interfere with the NHA’s decision.

Muhammad Hanif & Co. v Chief Engineer North, Pak PWD and others (2023 CLC 443 Islamabad)

Lastly, in Muhammad Hanif & Co. v Chief Engineer North, Pak PWD and others (2023 CLC 443 Islamabad), the Islamabad High Court considered allegations of mis-procurement by the Pakistan Public Works Department (the “PWD”). The petitioners challenged the contract awarding process, citing violations of multiple PP Rules due to a lack of transparency and fairness. The Court found the procurement process was flawed as evaluation reports were not announced, unsuccessful bidders were not informed and contracts were awarded mere days after bid openings, indicating procedural irregularities and favouritism. Moreover, bid documents were selectively released, and financial evaluations were conducted in a non-transparent manner, without a final evaluation report being issued.

Rental Power Plants Case (2012 SCMR 773)

Citing precedents such as the Rental Power Plants case (2012 SCMR 773), the Court held that contracts awarded through non-transparent means are illegal, even if partially executed. Consequently, the contracts were declared void and the Ministry of Housing and Works was directed to initiate disciplinary action against the responsible PWD officials. This ruling reinforced the principle that public procurement must uphold fairness, transparency and legal compliance, with violations leading to contract cancellation and penalties for those involved.

In furtherance of the Prime Minister’s vision for digital Pakistan, PPRA has developed and deployed an upgraded version of the e-Pak Acquisition and Disposal System (EPADS), namely EPADS Version 2.0. It has been decided that no new procurement activities will be initiated on the existing version of EPADS with effect from 15 February 2026. However, procuring agencies are allowed to complete procurements already in progress on the existing system.

All procurement activities initiated on or after the said date, regardless of their financial value or procurement method, will be conducted through EPADS Version 2.0. This version incorporates enhanced functionalities and improved system performance.

In addition, the upgraded system provides a supervisory feature that enables higher authorities in ministries/divisions/departments to monitor and oversee the procurement activities of their subordinate offices, thereby strengthening oversight, transparency and governance in public procurement processes.

The initiative was launched at the federal level in January 2026, subsequently extended to Gilgit-Baltistan and AJK in February and rolled out across the provinces in March 2026, as per PPRA’s announcement.

Moreover, regulatory reforms are underway, including amendments to the PPRA Ordinance 2002, revisions to the new Public Procurement Rules 2025, and harmonisation of regulations and standard bidding documents. The new procurement rules introduce third-party oversight, independent grievance redressal, mandatory e-procurement & e-disposal, the establishment of procurement cells and efficient procurement methods. In addition, the Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) Compliant Pakistan Energy Labelled (Star Rated) Products Regulations, 2025 have been introduced into public procurement frameworks to ensure that energy-efficient and star-rated products are prioritised in government purchases.

On 15 January 2026, the Federal Cabinet of Pakistan granted in-principle approval to the proposed amendments to the PPRA Ordinance, 2002; however, the amendments are currently undergoing formal enactment.