This piece explains how a public authority’s review of a major police technology contract led to litigation, and what the settlement means for the next procurement process.
A dispute over who could stop the contract
Palantir sued the mayor’s office for policing and crime (Mopac) in June after Sadiq Khan intervened to block the award of a two-year, £50m contract for Scotland Yard. The proposed system, unified operational analytics, would use AI to process intelligence in criminal investigations. Khan cited what he called a “clear and serious breach” of procurement rules. Palantir alleged that the mayor was blocking the deal because of the company’s values and ethics, while its UK and Europe chief, Louis Mosley, accused Khan of politicising procurement and putting politics above public safety. Those claims were not tested at the High Court: both sides have now withdrawn their allegations.
What Mopac’s review involved
The settlement says the decision was not based on Palantir’s values, ethics or wider reporting about the company. Mopac said its consideration reflected its statutory role in examining spending proposals against the appropriate legal tests and relevant guidance on procurement, governance, affordability and value for money for Londoners. This illustrates a feature of public purchasing that can matter beyond this dispute: an authority may assess whether a proposed commitment is legally permissible, affordable and delivers value before an award is made. Public comments suggesting that other considerations influenced the decision can nevertheless create a different impression, which the agreement sought to correct.
The next process remains open
A new procurement process for the £50m police technology deal is under way. Mopac has agreed to treat Palantir “fairly and equally” if it bids, as expected, but that undertaking does not guarantee the company’s appointment. The authority remains free to assess bids through the new process and reach its own outcome. In practical terms, equal treatment means that Palantir is not to be disadvantaged in the process because of the earlier dispute, while the procurement still has to produce a lawful and value-for-money result. The source does not identify the eventual winner or set out the timetable for the new process.
No damages and no admission of liability
Palantir and Mopac are each covering their own legal costs. No damages have been paid and the agreement contains no admissions of liability. That distinction matters: ending litigation removes the scheduled High Court trial, but it does not establish that either side’s allegations were correct. The dispute also sits within wider scrutiny of Palantir’s public-sector work. The company is facing a battle to retain its £330m NHS medical data contract amid campaigning by parts of the public and some MPs. Palantir has said it was concerned that value-based objections could undermine its ability to operate in the UK, while Khan said the firm contributes to jobs and investment in London.
IN NUMBERS
The police technology contract will now be tested through a fresh procurement process rather than the abandoned legal battle. Palantir is expected to bid, but the outcome remains open.
Reported from theguardian.com, 2026-10-14. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
