On January 15, the Government Procurement Policy Board approved Resolution No. 04-2026, formally adopting guidelines for a new procurement mechanism called Direct Procurement for Science, Technology, and Innovation, to be issued as GPPB Circular No. 01-2026. Buried inside a routine-sounding procurement update is a genuinely structural change for how Philippine government agencies are allowed to buy from startups: for the first time, agencies can procure directly from qualified startup businesses, including for pre-commercial goods and services that don’t exist yet, without running the standard competitive bidding process built for buying off-the-shelf products from established suppliers.
The legal foundation is Section 37 of Republic Act No. 12009, the New Government Procurement Act, published in October 2024 and meant to replace the two-decade-old procurement law that governed how every Philippine government agency, from a small municipal office to the Department of Health, bought everything from office supplies to hospital equipment. Section 37 carves out a specific, narrower procurement mode for science, technology, and innovation, covering three categories: supplies and services used directly in research and development projects, “commissioned” goods and services developed specifically to meet a government need through early market engagement with suppliers, explicitly including goods manufactured by qualified startup businesses, and other analogous innovation-related purchases.
To understand why this matters, it helps to understand what the old procurement regime actually required. Standard government procurement in the Philippines is built around competitive public bidding: an agency defines exactly what it needs, publishes a bid, and awards the contract to the lowest qualified bidder among suppliers who can already deliver that exact, pre-specified product. That process works reasonably well for buying vehicles, office chairs, or standard IT hardware. It works terribly for buying anything from a startup, because a startup’s whole value proposition is usually a product that doesn’t fully exist yet, or exists but hasn’t been proven at the scale a government contract would require, exactly the kind of offering that gets disqualified by a bidding process built to reward proven, off-the-shelf capability over novel but unproven capability.
The new Direct Procurement for STI mode effectively creates a version of what the US federal government has run for decades through its Small Business Innovation Research program: instead of forcing early-stage technology companies to compete on identical terms against established vendors, or funnel through a separate grants-only track that never generates actual revenue, the government becomes a direct paying customer willing to commission something novel and iterate with the supplier through the process. One notable structural detail: unless a written agreement says otherwise, the procuring government agency retains ownership of the intellectual property behind whatever it commissions, and the supplying startup can’t independently manufacture or sell the resulting product elsewhere without that agreement. That’s a meaningfully different arrangement from a typical government grant, where a startup usually keeps its IP outright, and worth flagging clearly to any founder considering this route: government-as-customer under this mode can mean government-as-IP-owner too, unless the contract is negotiated to say otherwise.
The distinction between this and the government’s existing startup support apparatus is worth being precise about. DOST, DTI, and DICT have run various Startup Grant Fund programs for years, channeling non-dilutive capital, grants, not purchases, to startups developing new technology, the same category of program that funds things like DOST-PCAARRD’s agritech grant proposals. Grants fund development; they don’t generate revenue or prove commercial demand. Direct Procurement for STI is structurally different: it’s the government agreeing to actually buy something, with real payment obligations attached, which is a fundamentally stronger signal of product viability, to a future private-sector customer or investor, than a grant ever is. A startup that can say “the Department of Health procured our diagnostic tool directly under RA 12009” has a categorically more credible sales reference than one that can only say “DOST gave us a grant to build it.”
Whether this mechanism actually gets used at meaningful scale is the open question, and it’s a real one. New Philippine procurement rules have a track record of taking years to translate from published circular into actual agency practice, procurement officers across hundreds of government units need to understand a mode that didn’t exist under the old law, be willing to take on the perceived risk of buying from an unproven vendor instead of a safe incumbent, and navigate the IP-ownership tradeoff clearly enough to explain it to the startups they’re buying from. GPPB’s circular gives agencies the legal tool; it doesn’t guarantee any given agency will pick it up in the next budget cycle instead of defaulting to the bidding process procurement officers already know how to run. For Filipino founders building genuinely novel technology, especially outside consumer fintech, hardware, diagnostics, climate monitoring, defense-adjacent tooling, categories where “we already have five vendors who can bid on this” has never been true, this is nonetheless the first real legal path to government revenue that doesn’t require pretending to be a mature vendor before you actually are one.
Share this article