Europe's proposed procurement reform: what would change?

General information, not legal advice.

Reviewed on 20 October 2026. The European Commission has proposed a single Public Procurement Act to replace the three main procurement directives. Its most consequential changes concern how buyers assess quality, who can compete, how large construction projects use BIM and how contracts are managed after award. The proposal has not been adopted and creates no new obligations today. The European Parliament's file remains in its preparatory phase. Legislative status.

This article explains the European proposal and its practical implications. For national legislation, SEAP and construction contracts under HG 1/2018, read the companion article: What the proposed EU procurement reform would mean for Romania.

Current EU thresholds: 2026–2027

The proposal does not set today's tender threshold. The following amounts apply from 1 January 2026 for the indicated categories, excluding VAT. They determine the relevant EU procurement/publication regime; they are not national direct-purchase limits. Special services and certain defence supplies have separate rules.

For example, the same EUR 180,000 ordinary supply requirement falls above the central-government threshold and below the sub-central threshold. Its classification, aggregate estimated value and the buyer's status matter before comparing figures. Below an EU threshold, national procurement requirements still apply. In Romania, use the officially published RON equivalents applicable to the procedure; a current exchange-rate calculation is not a substitute.

Sources: Regulation 2025/2152 — ordinary procurement, 2025/2150 — utilities, 2025/2151 — concessions.

The proposed changes at a glance

The comparison below uses Directive 2014/24/EU as the baseline for ordinary public contracts. Utilities and concessions have their own current directives; the proposal would bring all three into one instrument. National rules may already be more demanding in particular areas.

Sources: Directive 2014/24/EU; Commission proposal, Articles 24, 27, 65, 98 and 105–108.

Why reform is being proposed

The problem is broader than lengthy tender documents. In its 2023 audit, the European Court of Auditors found that the share of procedures with a single bidder rose from 23.5% in 2011 to 41.8% in 2021; the average number of bidders fell from 5.7 to 3.2 over that period. These EU-level findings do not describe every national market, but they show why access and competition are central to the reform. ECA Special Report 28/2023, Figure 5.

For a buyer, fewer credible offers can mean weaker price discovery and less choice. For a smaller contractor, disproportionate turnover requirements can prevent an otherwise capable team from competing. Better legislation may help, but results will also depend on competent preparation, usable systems and consistent contract management.

Quality: what would a 30% weighting actually do?

Proposed Article 98 would normally require quality to account for at least 30% of the total points. For labour-intensive contracts, the minimum would be 50%. A construction contract should not automatically be assigned to that category merely because it involves workers; the nature of its subject matter matters.

The draft also permits a departure from the normal method and minimum weights where quality is ensured through specifications, performance conditions or a combination that includes quality criteria. The buyer would have to identify the justification in the published procurement summary. Describing the proposal as an unconditional ban on the lowest price would therefore be misleading. Article 98, including paragraph 5.

Consider a fictional school project using 70 points for price and 30 for quality, with price points calculated as lowest price / tender price × 70.

Tender B wins this illustration. The formula and awarded quality scores are fictional, not prescribed by the proposal. The difficult work lies in defining what earns those ten additional quality points and making the promised performance enforceable.

Useful criteria could examine:

• A measurable reduction in operating energy, with a common calculation method.
• A delivery plan that keeps an occupied building functioning, evaluated against disclosed criteria.
• The experience of the people actually assigned to critical work, where it affects performance.
• Maintenance access, repairability or response times, backed by verifiable commitments.

A requirement such as “excellent methodology” gives bidders little guidance. A stated outcome, evidence requirement and scoring scale make offers easier to compare. Quality promised in the bid should then appear in acceptance checks and contract administration.

Life-cycle cost: a cheaper purchase can cost more to own

Life-cycle costing already exists in the current directive. The proposal reinforces its role: Article 98 would count the weighting assigned to life-cycle costs within the quality percentage, with the method addressed in Article 99.

Option B costs EUR 40,000 more to buy but EUR 110,000 less over the illustrated period. This simplified calculation excludes discounting, residual value, replacement and disposal. A real evaluation must state common assumptions and evidence requirements before bids are submitted. Proposed Articles 98–99.

Smaller firms: a lower financial barrier, with the same need to demonstrate capacity

The proposed turnover ceiling changes both the percentage and the reference value. It is 50% of estimated annual contract value, not 50% of an entire multi-year contract. Exceptions would require justification, such as special risks.

For a fictional one-year contract estimated at EUR 6 million, the ordinary ceiling on a turnover requirement would fall from EUR 12 million under Directive 2014/24/EU to EUR 3 million under the proposal. These are ceilings on what the buyer may require, not mandatory requirements that every tender must use.

The proposal would also restrict demands for previous public-sector contracts unless justified by complexity or the subject matter. A company that has delivered comparable private-sector work could therefore have a stronger route into the market. Buyers would still assess relevant people, equipment, experience and financial capacity. Directive Article 58; proposed Article 27.

BIM: a procurement requirement for large works

Building information modelling, or BIM, organises structured information about an asset through collaborative digital processes. Proposed Article 65 expressly refers to open, interoperable formats and the project's life cycle. Its EUR 25 million threshold would concern the estimated value of the public works contract, subject to the applicable valuation rules.

The draft allows narrower requirements where a full requirement would impose a disproportionate burden and full BIM coverage is unnecessary, or where security or public safety requires an exception. It would also empower the Commission to lower the threshold through a delegated act as market uptake increases. Article 65.

For a fictional EUR 30 million hospital, a useful procurement brief would specify:

• The information needed at design coordination, construction, handover and operation.
• Who produces, checks, approves and updates each deliverable.
• Exchange formats, common data environment access and revision control.
• How the buyer tests model completeness and information quality.
• Rights to use and maintain the information after the contractor leaves.

Requiring “a BIM model” without those decisions leaves bidders pricing different services. BIM also needs coordination with the country's design approval, professional responsibility and construction documentation requirements.

More room to negotiate, within published rules

The proposal reorganises procedures around an open procedure, a dynamic procedure and a procedure for innovation. An open procedure could include negotiations where that possibility is announced. This differs from treating the familiar term “open procedure” as a guarantee that negotiation is impossible.

The proposed flexibility has boundaries: negotiations would not permit changing exclusion or selection criteria, award criteria or substantially changing the subject matter. A buyer procuring a maintenance service might discuss delivery arrangements within the announced scope; it could not use negotiations to turn the procurement into an unrelated software development contract. Articles 31–35.

Subcontracting, suppliers and payment

Proposed Article 24 permits subcontracting parts of a contract but prohibits subcontracting the whole contract, including passing the whole of it further down the chain. It also requires disclosure and allows justified, proportionate requirements for the main contractor to perform specified critical tasks. The contractor would remain liable for performance.

The definition in Article 6 focuses on taking responsibility for part of the public contract. Merely supplying goods or components needed for works or services is excluded. The draft also recognises that a public supply contract may include incidental installation. That latter rule classifies a contract awarded by the buyer; it does not settle every downstream supplier-versus-subcontractor question.

For example, delivering standard pumps with incidental positioning can differ from undertaking a complete pumping installation, including integration, testing and responsibility for the functioning system. The actual scope and responsibility matter more than the invoice heading. Articles 6 and 24.

Article 108 would require due payments to be transferred directly to a subcontractor on request where the contract's nature allows it. Procurement documents would set out the arrangements, including a mechanism for the main contractor to contest an undue payment. Direct payment would not mean paying every invoice without checking the work. Article 108.

Contract changes: flexibility still needs a defensible record

Proposed Article 105 separates adjustments made under clear, objectively justified contractual mechanisms from modifications under Article 106. A published indexation formula and a newly negotiated increase are different situations.

Article 106 would treat modifications up to 15% as non-substantial if the conditions are met, including preservation of the initial economic balance. Successive changes would be assessed cumulatively. Additional requirements include objective performance needs, necessity and a written justification. Other grounds address additional requirements, unforeseen circumstances and certain changes of contractor.

A fictional EUR 1 million services contract needing EUR 120,000 of additional services illustrates the difference. At 12%, the change exceeds the current directive's limited-value 10% route for services. Another current legal ground might still be available. Under the proposed 15% route, the percentage would fit, but the other conditions would still need to be satisfied.

The draft's reference to 50% concerns prior publication for larger modifications, subject to an emergency exception. It should not be presented as a universal maximum. Nor could modifications be used to repair failings within the contractor's own control. Article 106.

European preference and a more connected digital market

The proposal provides tools for European preference, while preserving access covered by the EU's international procurement commitments. Options include participation or origin requirements and evaluation preferences. A supplier's nationality, the origin of a product and the origin of a service are separate questions.

An evaluation price preference would change comparison, not the amount invoiced. For example, a fictional 5% evaluation preference could treat a EUR 1 million offer as EUR 950,000 for ranking while leaving its offered payment price at EUR 1 million. The 5% is illustrative; the draft does not prescribe that universal rate. Articles 70 and 73–76.

The digital proposals would connect procurement systems and introduce reusable eligibility information and national procurement data spaces. Article 134 would extend certain contract information requirements to contracts of at least EUR 10,000 that meet its scope conditions, with deadlines and at least ten years of availability. Access would be differentiated: a procurement data space is not a requirement to publish every confidential document to everyone. Articles 128 and 132–135.

What buyers and bidders can prepare now

These are preparation measures, not new obligations imposed by the proposal:

• Buyers: test whether quality criteria measure useful outcomes and whether accepted promises are tracked during performance.
• Bidders: organise evidence of comparable work, team capability and measurable performance, including private-sector references.
• Construction teams: define BIM information needs and responsibilities before selecting software.
• Contract managers: maintain clear links between scope, variations, approvals, delivery evidence and payments.
• Everyone: follow the legislative file; a final act may change thresholds, exceptions and dates.

For the effect on Romanian law, direct payments, SEAP and HG 1 construction administration, continue with the Romania companion article.

Already applicable: procurement under the Net-Zero Industry Act

Some sustainability and supply-chain requirements already have a legal basis independent of the proposed Procurement Act. Article 25 of Regulation 2024/1735, the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), concerns covered procurement of net-zero technologies, including relevant works contracts and concessions incorporating them. It is not a blanket requirement for every product, service or construction contract.

The procurement team must first identify whether the technology and procedure fall within Article 25, then apply the relevant environmental-sustainability requirements and resilience rules, implementing acts and exceptions. The earlier transitional limitation of Article 25(1) to central purchasing bodies and contracts of at least EUR 25 million ran until 30 June 2026; it is not the general scope test for a procedure starting in October 2026.

For example, a covered solar-technology purchase requires a specific NZIA assessment. An office stationery purchase does not become subject to the same technology rules merely because the buyer wants a greener contract. The Commission's July guidance explains the existing framework; it does not adopt the proposed Procurement Act. NZIA, Articles 25 and 49; Commission guidance announcement, 22 July 2026.

Legislative milestones to follow

• Parliament's committee referral, report and adopted position.
• The Council's negotiating position and the changes it makes to the Commission text.
• An agreed text followed by formal adoption by both institutions.
• Official Journal publication: the final scope, transition rules and application dates.
• Implementing/delegated acts and operational systems required by the adopted text.

The European Parliament procedure file is the status reference. A negotiating position is a milestone, not a rule already applicable to a tender.

Sources and review date

This edition analyses the Commission text of 9 September 2026 and the legislative status checked on 20 October 2026. Article numbers refer to that proposal unless another instrument is named.

• Full proposal, COM(2026)590 and annexes.
• European Parliament procedure 2026/0265(COD) and Commission reform page.
• Directive 2014/24/EU, the current ordinary-procurement baseline used in the comparisons.
• ECA Special Report 28/2023, evidence on competition.

Legal information notice. This article provides general educational information and editorial analysis. It is not legal advice or an opinion on a particular procurement or contract. The proposal may change and is not currently binding. Before acting, consult the applicable official texts, procurement documents and contract, and obtain qualified advice where needed. All financial examples are fictional; the English explanations are not official translations of legislation.