Tips for analyzing OCDS, sanctioned companies, questionable tech contracts, and a new dataset: Our latest newsletter

Recent public contracting stories involve investigations into various high-stakes scenarios, including kickback schemes for Covid-19 medical supplies in Spain, dealings by Hungarian oligarchs with government contracts, and contractor activities in Washington, D.C. Specific examples include an investigation regarding a British company's export contract to Armenia involving dual-use goods and sanctioned entities. There are tips available for investigating contracts for biometric technology in Africa, such as facial recognition systems, suggesting methods like monitoring industry developments and using export trade databases. Legal action has occurred, such as a Supreme Court ruling in Sri Lanka holding officials accountable for an irregular drug procurement deal. Furthermore, investigations have uncovered instances where state-owned mining companies awarded significant contracts to non-experienced foreign firms. Data insights are available from cities like Bangkok, which now publishes weekly open contracting data, and analyses exist on direct awards in Malta, analyzed through large language models. Practitioners focus on utilizing the Open Contracting Data Standard for analysis, emphasizing the need to understand procurement procedures, check data quality, examine concrete examples, and seek external verification for anomalous findings.

The aggregation of disparate investigative threads—from sanctions risk in technology exports to the use of LLMs in data analysis—reveals a growing focus on tracing illicit flows and assessing institutional transparency across borders. The practical advice emphasizes that robust findings emerge from contextual understanding, rigorous data quality checks, and deep dives into specific examples rather than surface-level patterns. This suggests a systemic challenge: while official standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard exist, the operational reality involves complex, inconsistent procedural rules (direct awards vs. open procedures) that create significant analytical friction. The pattern of relying on external verification for anomalous findings underscores a necessary skepticism toward aggregated data and external assertions without primary documentation. The implication is that cognitive sovereignty requires not just access to data, but the specialized skill set to navigate institutional opacity, ensuring that investigative efforts move beyond flagging anomalies to building verifiable narratives about accountability.