When a company discovers that a public servant demanded an improper payment to award a contract, that the specifications of a tender were custom-tailored for a competitor, or that an official systematically favors certain providers to the detriment of others who better meet the requirements, the next question is almost always the same: who do you report this to and what is the use of doing so? The direct answer to that question involves understanding the role of the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government (SABG) —formerly known as the Secretariat of the Civil Service (SFP)— and the network of Internal Control Bodies (OIC) that operates under its supervision throughout the Federal Public Administration. For companies that contract with the government, participate in tenders, or simply interact with federal agencies, knowing this mechanism can be the difference between tolerating an irregularity with impunity and activating the only institutional channel designed to correct it.

What is the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government and why is it relevant for companies?

The Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government (SABG) has the function of examining and investigating the conduct of public servants of the Federal Public Administration and of private individuals that may constitute liabilities, as well as substantiating the corresponding procedures in accordance with the provisions of the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities (LGRA); applying sanctions for non-serious administrative offenses and, in the case of serious administrative offenses, bringing responsibility actions before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA), as well as filing the corresponding complaints before the Specialized Prosecutor's Office for Combating Corruption (FEMCC).

As of November 29, 2024, with the publication of the corresponding Decree in the DOF, the former Secretariat of the Civil Service (SFP) was transformed into the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government (SABG), moving from a corrective to a preventive approach. This change is relevant for companies because it reflects an institutional reorientation: the agency not only reacts to completed irregularities, but also seeks to be preventively involved in public procurement procedures before corrupt acts occur.

For practical purposes, when this article talks about reporting "to the SFP", it refers to this agency now called SABG and the internal control bodies it coordinates.

The Law on Acquisitions, Leases, and Services of the Public Sector (LAASSP), as well as the Law on Public Works and Services Related to the Same (LOPSRM), empower the Secretariat of the Civil Service to direct administrative sanctioning procedures for bidders, suppliers, and contractors who violate their provisions; handle conciliation procedures for disagreements in orders or contracts; and review and resolve nonconformity instances for acts derived from public bidding procedures and invitations to at least three people, powers carried out through the General Directorate of Disputes and Sanctions in Public Procurement (DGCSCP) and the Internal Control Bodies (OIC).

When is a complaint before the SFP or its OICs appropriate?

Understanding when this mechanism applies is fundamental, because not every irregularity affecting a company in its relations with the government gives rise to a complaint before the SABG. There are several clearly distinguishable scenarios:

Irregularities of public servants in the performance of their duties

If you are a victim or witness of alleged irregularities committed by a federal public servant during the performance of their duties, as well as private individuals or legal entities linked to government acts, the SFP provides you with mechanisms to submit complaints and reports.

The most frequent scenarios that companies can report under this modality include:

• An official demanding payments not legally provided for as a condition to process permits, licenses, or contracts

• A public servant revealing reserved bidding information to competitors

• An official disqualifying a technical or financial proposal without legal basis, favoring another bidder

• A public servant modifying the terms of an already awarded contract to the detriment of the supplier and to the benefit of a third party

• Officials obstructing the payment of properly submitted invoices without legal cause

Irregularities in public procurement procedures

Complaints must refer to alleged damages or losses to the Public Treasury or the assets of public entities, in cases such as: diversion of resources to purposes other than those authorized; irregularities in the collection, management, or use of public resources; and allegedly irregular acts in the contracting and execution of works, contracting and provision of public services, acquisition of goods, and granting of permits, licenses, and concessions.

Acts of corruption linked to contracting

Individuals who are aware of a fact constituting an infraction are also in a position to file the corresponding complaint, provided they consider that the facts of the infraction are present. This means that a company that, for example, witnessed a competitor offering bribes to officials to obtain an award, can report that fact even if it is not the directly affected party.

What should NOT be reported to the SABG?

There are different mechanisms for situations that are frequently confused with a complaint before the SABG:

What is the difference between an objection, a complaint, and an appeal of nonconformity before the SFP?

These three instruments coexist within the powers of the SABG but have different purposes, conditions for appropriateness, and effects:

An objection is a citizen expression regarding the poor service, inefficiency, or inappropriate behavior of a public servant that does not necessarily constitute a serious administrative offense. Its processing is less formal and can result in a warning or internal disciplinary correction.

A complaint is the formal mechanism for reporting alleged administrative offenses —serious or non-serious— of federal public servants or private parties linked to corporate corruption. The complaints through which the corresponding investigation is intended to be initiated may be made in writing, and must contain the data or indications that point to the presumed administrative responsibility for committing administrative offenses, and can be submitted directly to the competent investigative unit or to the National Digital Platform.

The nonconformity appeal is the specific mechanism to challenge concrete acts within a public bidding procedure. The nonconformity instance is the instrument that individuals have at their disposal to challenge acts they consider irregular in public tenders. Unlike a complaint, the nonconformity has strict submission deadlines —six business days from the challenged act— and seeks the suspension or correction of the ongoing procurement procedure, not the sanctioning of the responsible official.

For companies participating in public tenders and challenging awards they consider illegal, the choice between filing an appeal of nonconformity or presenting a complaint —or both simultaneously— is a strategic decision that must be made with specialized legal advice from the very beginning.

How is a complaint submitted to the SABG and what channels are available?

The complaint can be filed through the SIDEC Platform, available at https://sidec.buengobierno.gob.mx; in writing, addressed to the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government; or, for advice, via telephone.

The formal channels available are:

SIDEC Platform (Comprehensive Citizen Complaint System): It is the official digital channel. It allows filing the complaint, attaching evidentiary documentation, and tracking the status of the file online. Anonymous complaints are accepted, although they have a lesser potential for follow-up and the evidence must be particularly solid.

In writing before the General Directorate of Complaints and Investigations: For more complex cases or when the evidentiary documentation is voluminous, physical submission allows for greater control over the receipt and registration of the file.

Before the Internal Control Body (OIC) of the involved agency: The OICs are those with the authority to receive, process, and resolve objections or complaints submitted by citizens against alleged administrative irregularities committed by public servants, imposing the sanctions established by law. Filing the complaint directly with the OIC of the agency whose official is being reported can be more prompt in cases of non-serious offenses, but involves the risk that the investigating body may not be completely independent of the subject under investigation.

What should a well-formulated complaint contain?

A deficient complaint —without precise data, without documentary evidence, with vaguely described facts— is highly likely to be filed away without an investigation being initiated. The minimum elements it must contain are:

1. Identification of the complainant (can be omitted in anonymous complaints, with the limitations already noted)

2. Identification of the reported public servant or private individual: name, position, agency, and department

3. Logical and chronological narrative of the facts: what happened, when, where, how, and in what context

4. Preliminary legal classification: what type of offense or irregular conduct is believed to have been committed

5. Documentary evidence: contracts, emails, invoices, customs declarations, minutes, lawful recordings, witness statements, or any element that supports the narrated facts

6. Indication of the damage caused: to the public treasury, to the complaining company, or to the contracting process

7. Declaration under oath: the statement of individuals must be made under oath, pointing out the acts or facts presumably sanctionable.

What are the stages of the process that follows a complaint before the SABG?

The administrative responsibility procedure has six stages: complaint, investigation, substantiation, and imposition and application of sanctions. The following breakdown explains what occurs in each phase and what the complaining company can expect:

Stage 1: Receipt and classification of the complaint

Once the complaint is submitted through any channel, the investigating authority receives and analyzes it to determine if the facts narrated are sufficient to initiate a formal investigation. In this stage, three things can happen: the investigation is initiated, additional information is requested from the complainant, or the complaint is archived due to lack of elements.

Investigating authorities will incur in obstruction of justice when they do not initiate the corresponding procedure before the competent authority within a period of thirty calendar days from the moment they become aware of any conduct that could constitute a serious administrative offense, private individual offense, or an act of corruption. This provides some assurance to the complainant that the authority cannot simply ignore a well-founded complaint.

Stage 2: Investigation

The investigation for the presumed responsibility of administrative offenses will begin as a matter of course, by complaint, or derived from audits carried out by competent authorities. During this stage, the investigating authority gathers evidence, requests reports from agencies, conducts proceedings, and prepares the file. This phase can take several months depending on the complexity of the case.

The complainant has a limited role in this stage: they are not a direct party to the investigation, although they may be summoned to testify as a witness. The investigating authority acts on its own initiative and with its own powers.

Stage 3: Report of Presumed Administrative Responsibility

If the investigation yields sufficient elements to presume that a serious offense was committed, the investigating authorities must prepare the Report of Presumed Administrative Responsibility and present it to the Substantiating Authority to proceed under the terms provided in the Law.

Stage 4: Substantiation before the TFJA (serious offenses) or before the SABG/OIC (non-serious offenses)

For serious offenses —which typically involve private companies linked to acts of corruption— the substantiating authority is the Federal Court of Administrative Justice. The TFJA notifies the alleged offender, gives them access to the file, and grants them the right to offer evidence and formulate arguments in their defense.

Third parties, defined as all those who may be affected by the resolution issued in the administrative responsibility procedure, including the complainant, will have procedural standing to interpose the means of defense provided in the LGRA, so they must be notified of each stage of the procedure as they are considered part of it. This is especially relevant for complaining companies: if the TFJA's resolution does not correspond to the reported facts or is unsatisfactory, the complainant has standing to challenge it.

Stage 5: Resolution

Once the file is substantiated, the sanctioning resolution is issued by the TFJA (Specialized Chamber on Responsibilities) or equivalent local jurisdictional body, applying the sanctions provided in the Law.

For non-serious offenses, the resolution is issued directly by the SABG or the OIC, with sanctions ranging from a warning to temporary disqualification.

Stage 6: Execution and challenge

The sanctions imposed in the resolution are enforceable once they become final. The sanctioned public servant or private individual can challenge them through a direct amparo trial before Collegiate Circuit Courts. The complainant, as a third party, can also challenge if they consider that the resolution was insufficient or incorrect.

What can and cannot a company expect when submitting a complaint?

Realistic expectations are fundamental to avoid frustration and to design a comprehensive defense strategy. The complaint before the SABG is only one piece of the puzzle, not the complete solution.

A complete legal strategy in public procurement typically combines the complaint before the SABG to document and pursue the responsibility of the official, the appeal of nonconformity to challenge the specific decision in the bidding process, and the annulment trial before the TFJA to invalidate specific administrative acts. In cases where the correct execution of the public contract has been obstructed by illegal behavior of officials, it may be necessary to add state liability actions.

How does the law protect the complainant from retaliation?

This is an aspect of particular concern to companies that depend on the government as a client and fear that reporting an official will close doors to them in future contracting processes. The LGRA contemplates protection mechanisms, though their practical effectiveness is a subject of ongoing debate.

Public servants who report a serious administrative offense or individual offenses, or serve as witnesses in the procedure, may request protection measures that are reasonable. The request must be evaluated and addressed in a timely manner by the public entity where the complainant performs their duties.

For private parties —including companies— specific protection is more limited in the regulations, although the anti-corruption system provides alert mechanisms for those who report serious acts of corruption. Additionally, the LGRA expressly prohibits retaliation against complainants, and acts of retaliation can be reported as additional administrative offenses.

In practice, a company that reports with solid justification and strong evidence is in a more secure position than one that does so speculatively, because its complaint can hardly be discarded without documentation to back it up. The advice of an attorney specialized in public law and government contracting is essential to design the complaint strategy in a way that minimizes the company's exposure to retaliation while maximizing the effectiveness of the mechanism.

The complaint before the SFP as a tool for corporate compliance, not just reactive defense

A perspective that sophisticated companies have begun to adopt within the context of the National Anti-Corruption System is to see the complaint before the SABG not as a defensive last resort, but as a proactive tool for risk management and corporate compliance. Documenting and reporting procurement irregularities not only protects the complaining company: it contributes to refining the government market, creates institutional precedents, and strengthens the company's standing for future selection processes as an actor operating with integrity.

Companies that have well-implemented integrity programs, train their staff to identify red flags of corruption, and have clear protocols to escalate problematic situations to specialized legal counsel, are better positioned to use the complaint as a strategic instrument rather than a desperate reaction to a situation that has already escalated too far.

This perspective connects directly with the obligations that the National Anti-Corruption System generates for private companies interacting with the public sector: it is not just about avoiding sanctions, but about operating within an ethical framework that, in the long run, builds real competitive advantages in the public procurement market.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I submit an anonymous complaint to the SABG?

Yes. The law allows anonymous complaints, and SIDEC has an option to submit them without identifying the complainant. However, anonymous complaints have practical disadvantages: the authority cannot request additional information from the complainant, the complainant does not have access to track the file, and above all, the evidentiary standard required to initiate the investigation tends to be more demanding when there is no identified complainant who can be summoned to ratify the facts. For serious cases with solid evidence, a complaint with name and contact details is usually more effective.

How long does it take to resolve a complaint before the SABG?

Times vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case. An investigation for a non-serious offense can be resolved in a few months at the OIC level. A procedure for a serious offense before the TFJA, on the other hand, can take between one and three years, considering the stages of investigation, substantiation, and resolution, plus any eventual appeals. The complaining company must plan its strategy with this timeframe in mind, combining the complaint with mechanisms with more immediate effects, such as the appeal of nonconformity or the annulment trial.

Does the complaint before the SABG suspend the bidding process I am challenging?

Not directly. The complaint before the SABG triggers an investigation but does not automatically suspend ongoing procurement procedures. To achieve the suspension of an irregular bidding process, the appropriate mechanism is the appeal of nonconformity before the DGCSCP, which can indeed include the request to suspend the procedure. Both mechanisms —complaint and nonconformity— can and in many cases should be filed simultaneously, each with its own deadlines and objectives.

What happens if the complaint turns out to be unfounded or cannot be proven?

If the investigating authority concludes that there are not enough elements to presume the commission of an offense, it issues an agreement to conclude and archive the file. This resolution does not generate automatic legal consequences for the complainant, unless the complaint was filed maliciously or was manifestly false, in which case the complainant themselves could incur liability. For this reason, before presenting a complaint, it is essential to have a legal analysis evaluating the strength of the facts and the sufficiency of the available evidence.

Can a company recover financial damages through a complaint before the SABG?

A complaint before the SABG is not a mechanism to claim financial damages directly. Its objective is the investigation and sanctioning of irregular conduct. To claim damages caused by illegal actions of public servants, the correct path is the state liability action before the TFJA, which is an independent procedure although it can be based on the same facts documented in the complaint. In cases where the company suffered concrete and quantifiable losses due to the illegal behavior of an official —contracts improperly terminated, payments withheld without cause, rigged tenders— this action may be the most appropriate path to obtain compensation.

What is the difference between complaining to the OIC of an agency and complaining directly to the SABG?

The OIC is the internal control body of each agency, supervised by the SABG. It has competence to investigate and sanction non-serious offenses committed by public servants of that specific agency. The central SABG has broader competence and acts as a second instance or when the case involves complexity or gravity that exceeds the scope of the OIC. For serious offenses, regardless of whether the complaint is filed with the OIC or the central SABG, the case will eventually be referred to the TFJA for sanctioning. The decision on who to submit the complaint to depends on the severity of the facts, the agency involved, and the company's legal strategy.