The general purpose experiments at the LHC don't have an operating schedule analogous to a telescope, like you might be imagining, where at any given time the collider is being used for one type of search. Instead, at any given moment over the years of data collection the experiments are running in more-or-less the same configuration, collecting lots of data and saving it to disk (and tape backup) for later reconstruction and analysis. So, there's not really any reason why any of the experiments wouldn't repeat supersymmetry searches with new data -- all the papers are referring to essentially the same set of data, filtered and analyzed in different ways. The cost of doing whatever analysis you want on the data scales only with the amount of number of researchers and their free time.
There are some technicalities that might lead some to say the above is an oversimplification. Specifically, all these experiments have hardware and software level triggers, that let them decide what collision events are interesting enough to be worth keeping. Hypothetically one of the teams could decide that they weren't going to prioritize supersymmetry searches anymore, and reconfigure their trigger to prioritize other things. That's not going to actually happen, though. For one, the collaborations will want to perform more searches and, at the very least, set tighter and tighter bounds on supersymmetry; more prosaically, the trigger conditions in these experiments tend to be fairly simple/generic (e.g. "there was a high $p_T$ jet"), since the decisions need to be made quickly (at a 40 MHz rate), and aren't really more specific to supersymmetry than to other sorts of new physics searches (caveat: not a member of these collaborations).