A review has found government contracts failed to meet standards.

Government Services Minister Bill Shorten has demanded a deeper investigation into several government contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars amid potential conflicts of interest. 

The allegations come in response to a report published in Nine Newspapers that former cabinet minister Stuart Robert used his position to assist friends in securing a profitable Centrelink contract. 

Although no laws were broken, Mr Robert has refuted the accusations repeatedly.

The review, conducted by retired public servant Ian Watt, examined contracts from Services Australia and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) from 2015 to the present day. 

It discovered 19 procurements valued at roughly $374 million that had inconsistencies with standards and good practice.

“Dr Watt's report reveals that in a range of these contracts, perceived conflicts of interest were simply not disclosed,” Mr Shorten has declared. 

“Why weren't the basic standards met? It is wholly unacceptable. More needs to be done to determine the basis of the allocation of $374 million worth of taxpayer money under the previous government.”

In response, a spokesperson for Mr Robert said that the review looked into procurement processes at Services Australia and the NDIA, not ministerial involvement. 

“This is because there wasn't any,” the spokesperson said. 

“Mr Robert has not been contacted by Services Australia, the NDIA, or any person conducting any review. Mr Robert has not received or been asked to provide input to any report prepared for either agency.”

Last year, Nine Newspapers revealed that consulting firm Synergy 360, whose shareholders are close friends of Mr Robert, claimed in leaked emails that the then-NDIS minister had met with them several times over a multi-million-dollar Centrelink contract, which was ultimately awarded to a client of the firm.

The review discovered that 71 per cent of the 95 procurements were consistent with Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPRs) and demonstrated good practice. 

However, 19 procurements were flagged for further investigation due to inconsistencies with CPRs or good practice.

“Many procurements lacked appropriate conflict of interest documentation in accessible records. Further, a small number of procurements had poorly managed actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest,” the report says. 

While the task force found some poorly managed conflicts of interest, or questionable judgments about the choice of procurement method and repeated use of limited or sole sourcing, it did not find any clear misconduct within the 95 procurement processes.

Shorten held Mr Robert responsible for the bulk of the procurements, stating that he had many questions to answer. Mr Robert, on the other hand, accused Mr Shorten of “playing politics”.

“The report has revealed far lower standards than are acceptable according to public service procurement practices across hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts of taxpayer money,” Shorten said. 

The government will now consider its response to the report.