What the proposed EU procurement reform would mean for Romania

General information, not legal advice.

Reviewed on 20 October 2026. The proposed European Public Procurement Act could substantially change Romanian tender preparation and contract administration. Lower turnover requirements, minimum quality weights and BIM obligations would need to be reflected in procurement documents; contract changes and payment records would need to fit a common European framework. These changes are proposals. They do not currently replace Romanian procurement law or amend a signed HG 1 contract. European Parliament legislative file.

This article focuses on Romania, particularly public works governed by Law 98/2016 and the execution conditions under HG 1/2018. The wider European comparison, scoring examples and market-access proposals are explained in Europe's proposed procurement reform: what would change?.

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.

Start with the right Romanian contract

Romania's procurement framework has several layers:

• Law 98/2016 governs ordinary public procurement.
• Law 99/2016 governs procurement in utilities sectors, including relevant water, energy, transport and postal activities.
• Law 100/2016 governs works and services concessions.
• HG 1/2018 provides general and specific contractual conditions for certain publicly financed investment contracts. It has separate annexes for execution and for design-and-build.

A single EU regulation would not make every contract identical. The buyer, activity, value, exclusions and contract type would still matter. A municipal school, a water utility project and a concession transferring operating risk need different starting analyses. Law 98; Law 99; Law 100; HG 1 execution conditions.

The clause references below concern HG 1's execution annex. A design-and-build project must be checked against its own annex, applicable version and signed documents, particularly for design responsibility and payment valuation.

Current Romanian rules, proposed EU changes and practical consequences

The comparison concerns contracts within the proposed European act's scope. The proposed rules are not obligations that apply today. For each topic, the useful distinction is what would change in procurement documents and contract administration, rather than simply which article number would replace another.

1. Turnover: which participation barrier would fall?

• The Romanian rule. Article 175 of Law 98 permits financial requirements necessary and appropriate for the contract. Required minimum annual turnover should normally not exceed twice the estimated contract value. A higher requirement needs sound justification, such as special risks, with reasons stated in the procurement documents. Framework agreements have specific rules relating the requirement to call-off contracts.
• The proposed change. Article 27 would lower the ordinary ceiling to 50% of estimated annual contract value, retaining justified exceptions. This limits the requirement a public buyer may set; it is not turnover that every tenderer must automatically possess.
• The practical consequence. The participation requirements and their justification would need revision. A multi-year contract requires an annual calculation base, rather than applying 50% to its entire value. A firm previously excluded by a high turnover requirement might become financially eligible, while still having to demonstrate the required personnel, experience and resources.

Law 98, Articles 175–176; proposed Article 27.

2. Quality: what would change in the scoring model?

• The Romanian rule. Article 187 already permits price-quality and cost-quality assessment. Paragraph (3¹) restricts lowest-price awards to contracts not exceeding the Article 7(1) thresholds, with the express exception for the negotiated procedure in Article 104(1)(b). Paragraph (8) excludes both lowest price and lowest cost for specified categories, including intellectual services and certain transport infrastructure contracts, subject to the exception stated there. Quality therefore already has a mandatory role in many procurements.
• The proposed change. Article 98 would normally require at least 30% of points for quality, rising to 50% where the contract's subject matter is labour-intensive. Life-cycle cost weighting would count towards these percentages. Paragraph (5) allows a derogation where quality is secured through specifications, performance conditions or the combination described in the text; the justification must be published.
• The practical consequence. A model awarding 90 points for price and 10 for quality would need revision or support under the applicable derogation. Quality factors should describe measurable, verifiable benefits, and the promises earning points should become performance obligations. The 50% requirement depends on the subject matter; describing a contract as “works” is insufficient.

Law 98, Article 187; proposed Article 98.

Environmental scoring is already a Romanian obligation in defined cases

Under Law 98/2016, Article 187(4¹), where the contract's subject affects the environment throughout its life cycle, the authority must include environmental-protection evaluation factors within the best price-quality or best cost-quality award criterion. The paragraph was introduced by Law 86/2022; OUG 52/2024 amended its wording. This existing duty should not be presented as a future innovation of the proposed EU act.

For example, when assessing equipment with material energy use over its operating life, the buyer should define a relevant, measurable environmental factor and the evidence used to score it. A generic promise to be environmentally responsible provides little basis for comparing offers. The current Romanian obligation and any future EU minimum weighting are separate questions. Law 86/2022; OUG 52/2024, Article I(6).

3. Subcontracting: what would the site team need to track?

• The Romanian rule. Articles 219–220 require subcontractor identification and updated information. Introducing new subcontractors requires the authority's agreement and the statutory checks; it cannot amount to an impermissible substantial modification. HG 1 clause 7 governs the contractual procedure. The authority may extend information requirements to suppliers and further tiers of the chain.
• The proposed change. Article 24 would prohibit subcontracting the entire contract, including passing it on in its entirety further down the chain. It would require disclosure of proposed subcontracted shares and, for works, information before performance and subsequent updates. Critical tasks reserved to the main contractor would need identification and justification in procurement documents; its liability would remain.
• The practical consequence. Records should identify each firm's package, position in the chain, approval and changes of role. If an equipment supplier later takes responsibility for a complete installation, the contract team should reassess its classification and approvals before that new package starts. The label “supply order” cannot resolve the question by itself.

Law 98, Articles 219–220; HG 1, clause 7; proposed Article 24.

4. Direct payment: what would be new for Romania?

• The Romanian rule. Article 218 already requires direct payment when its conditions are met: the subcontractor opts in, the contract's nature permits it and performance is confirmed. It also addresses unjustified obstruction of confirmation by the main contractor. HG 1 clause 52 connects payment to contractual documentation and valuation.
• The proposed change. Article 108(6) would make direct payment of amounts due a common European obligation, on the subcontractor's request and where the contract's nature permits it. Procurement documents must state the arrangements; mechanisms may allow the main contractor to challenge amounts that are not due.
• The practical consequence. Romania would adapt an existing mechanism. Payment forms should connect the request to the completed scope, certification, applicable deductions and the amount no longer payable to the main contractor. Sending an invoice directly to the beneficiary does not, by itself, establish an entitlement to payment.

Law 98, Article 218; HG 1, clause 52; proposed Article 108.

5. Modifications: why is the percentage insufficient?

• The Romanian rule. Article 221 provides several legal grounds. For the low-value route in paragraph (1)(f), the change must be below the relevant Article 7 threshold and strictly below 10% for supplies/services or 15% for works, without changing the contract's overall nature. Other situations, such as additional works or unforeseen circumstances, have their own conditions and limits. HG 1 clause 37 governs contractual instructions and valuation of variations.
• The proposed change. Article 105 would deal separately with adjustments under clear, objective clauses. Article 106(2) would use a common ceiling of no more than 15%, measured by the net cumulative value of successive modifications, without the additional requirement to remain below the European award threshold. Objective need, necessity and economic-balance safeguards would remain; the amount below 15% would not be an unrestricted budget for new works.
• The practical consequence. A modification file should contain the legal ground, cause, cumulative calculation, effects on price, risk and time, approvals and publication requirements. A supervisor's instruction needs the corresponding legal assessment. For services, a 12% change would exceed today's 10% low-value route but could fall within the proposed 15% route if all conditions were satisfied; today, another legal ground would need examination, if one exists.

There is also a crucial difference at 50%. Under Law 98, the ceiling concerns specified increases for additional requirements and unforeseen circumstances, including Article 221(4)'s accumulation rule. In the proposal, exceeding 50% would normally trigger publication before the modification, rather than operate as a general ceiling. This would not automatically authorise an increase: the legal ground and Article 106's conditions would require separate justification.

Law 98, Article 221; HG 1, clause 37; proposed Articles 105–106.

6. Digital records: what would change beyond uploading documents?

• The Romanian rule. Procedures already use SEAP, and the authority compiles and retains the procurement file. Records justify decisions for oversight and review, with separate requirements governing access and confidentiality.
• The proposed change. Articles 128 and 132–135 provide for interoperable procurement services, reusable eligibility data and a national procurement data space. Article 134 would add structured reporting, including for contracts of at least EUR 10,000 within the relevant scope, 20-day deadlines for specified events and data availability for at least ten years. Public and restricted access are distinguished.
• The practical consequence. Procurement, technical and finance teams should be able to connect the same contract with its modifications, performance and payments. Useful preparation includes consistent identifiers, responsibility for updates and separation of public from protected information. The proposed architecture does not itself establish that SEAP would close.

Law 98, Articles 214–217; proposed Articles 132–135.

Tender preparation: the financial threshold and the quality promise

Consider a fictional one-year works contract estimated at EUR 6 million. Under Law 98, the ordinary ceiling on the annual turnover requirement is EUR 12 million. Under proposed Article 27, the corresponding ceiling would normally be EUR 3 million. Neither figure means that the authority must impose that requirement; necessity and proportionality remain essential.

For a multi-year contract, dividing or comparing figures mechanically can give the wrong result. The proposal explicitly uses estimated annual contract value. A revised procurement template would need a documented annual-value calculation and an explanation of any exceptional requirement. Law 98, Article 175; proposed Article 27.

Quality also needs to survive beyond the tender evaluation. Suppose a contractor earns points for keeping a school occupied during refurbishment. The procurement documents should identify:

• The permitted closures and minimum access arrangements.
• What evidence distinguishes a better programme from a weaker one.
• The staffing and temporary arrangements included in the price.
• Who checks compliance during the works.
• The contractual response if the promised arrangements are not delivered.

Romanian law already recognises quality evaluation and, for certain categories, prohibits using lowest cost or lowest price. The proposed minimum percentages would change the European baseline; they would not introduce quality assessment into a system where it was previously unavailable. Law 98, Article 187; proposed Article 98.

BIM in an HG 1 project: define the deliverable and its contractual role

Proposed Article 65 would require BIM for execution of public works contracts estimated at EUR 25 million or more, subject to its exceptions. The information would be managed through collaborative processes using open, interoperable formats. This would be a procurement obligation; it would not by itself rewrite Romania's requirements for authorising, verifying or executing construction work. Article 65.

For a fictional EUR 30 million public hospital, the tender and contract should make the following practical decisions explicit:

These are suggested drafting topics, not a statutory BIM schedule. In HG 1 execution contracts, the treatment of beneficiary-provided design differs from design-and-build. A BIM requirement should therefore identify whether a party is managing information, coordinating design or assuming design responsibility. Those roles should not be left to implication.

Supplier or subcontractor: what changes during execution?

The proposed definition of subcontractor focuses on assuming responsibility for part of the public contract. Mere supply of goods or components needed for works or services is excluded. Article 6 also recognises incidental installation within a public supply contract. The latter describes the contract awarded by the public buyer; it cannot be used as a blanket rule for every downstream relationship. Proposed Article 6.

A supplier can supply and install without automatically becoming a subcontractor. The useful question is what it has undertaken to deliver and for which part of the main contract it accepts responsibility.

These are indicators, not automatic classifications. For today's Romanian execution rules and the ANAP distinction, see Supplier or subcontractor in Romanian public procurement: the HG 1 distinction.

Under HG 1 clause 7, appointing or replacing a subcontractor is subject to the contractual procedure, including the beneficiary's agreement where required. The proposed Article 24 would preserve the main contractor's liability, require relevant disclosure and prohibit subcontracting the entire contract. A company presented as a product supplier at tender stage should be reassessed if its role expands into a complete works package. HG 1, clause 7; proposed Article 24.

Direct payments: an existing Romanian mechanism

Law 98, Article 218 already provides for direct payment where the statutory conditions are met, including the subcontractor's option and the confirmation of performance. HG 1 clause 52 translates that into contractual administration. In the execution annex, a direct-payment schedule identifies the subcontractor's bank account and the allocation of relevant bill-of-quantities prices, together with the method for valuation and certification.

A fictional specialist completes a payment milestone valued at EUR 80,000. The practical file should connect:

1. The approved subcontract and the direct-payment option.
2. The work included in the payment application and evidence of performance.
3. The supervisor's certification and any applicable deductions.
4. The breakdown between contractor and subcontractor.
5. The resulting payment, avoiding duplicate payment of the same amount.

The amount due is not established by the example alone; the contract's valuation, deductions and certification rules control. Proposed Article 108 would create a common European requirement for direct payment on request where the contract permits it by its nature, with arrangements for contesting undue amounts. Romania would be adapting a mechanism it already uses. Law 98, Article 218; HG 1, clauses 50–52; proposed Article 108.

A site instruction and a lawful contract modification are different steps

An HG 1 variation has a contractual procedure: instructions, valuation, supporting records and the relevant decisions. The procurement-law question is separate: does the law permit this change without a new procedure? A supervisor's instruction does not itself establish the answer to Article 221.

The proposal would retain the need for a defensible legal basis. Article 105 addresses clear adjustment mechanisms included in the procurement documents. Article 106 addresses modifications, including a proposed non-substantial route up to 15% and other specified grounds. The written record would need to explain objective need, necessity and the effect on the economic balance and allocation of risk. Law 98, Article 221; HG 1, clause 37; proposed Articles 105–106.

For a fictional EUR 10 million works contract, a proposed EUR 1.2 million change is 12%. That calculation is only the start:

• Under the current limited-value ground in Article 221(1)(f), the percentage must be below 15% for works, the value must also be below the applicable statutory threshold, and the overall nature must remain unchanged.
• Under the proposed Article 106(2), the 12% fits the percentage test, but cumulative changes, economic balance and the other Article 106 requirements still matter.
• The proposed reference to changes above 50% concerns prior publication, with a stated exception; it does not make every increase below 50% lawful.
• The contractual route must still address the scope, price, programme, funding and authorised decisions.

This distinction is particularly useful when reviewing a claim. An entitlement under the contract and permission to modify under procurement law are related questions, but each needs its own reasoning.

SEAP, ANAP and the information needed after award

The proposed digital framework would connect procurement systems, support reusable eligibility information and require a national procurement data space. It does not state that Romania must close SEAP or that one existing institution automatically takes every new responsibility.

Article 134 would require information on certain contracts of at least EUR 10,000, even where the award falls below the main European thresholds, subject to the article's scope. For that category, information would be due no later than 20 days after conclusion and completion. Other categories of information have their own triggers. Information would remain available for at least ten years, with differentiated access rights. Articles 128 and 132–135.

A practical preparation exercise would map each field to its source and owner: contract identifier, approved amount, amendments, subcontractors, payment status, completion and access classification. A scanned payment certificate may remain useful evidence, but it does not automatically provide reliable structured data.

Romania would need to decide responsibilities for the new systems and update national rules and guidance as necessary. ANAP guidance can help explain implementation within its competence; it cannot turn this Commission proposal into an obligation before adoption and the relevant application date.

Ongoing contracts: identify the event, not just the project date

A project approved years earlier can have a tender, contract signature, variation and payment on different sides of a future application date. Proposed Articles 146 and 149 do not provide a complete answer for every such combination. It would be premature to promise either that every old contract remains entirely untouched or that every old contract must be rewritten.

For a live file, the useful chronology includes:

• The date the procurement was launched and the rules used.
• The date and version of the signed contract, including the applicable HG 1 annex.
• The date and nature of the later event: variation, replacement, payment or completion.
• The final EU transitional provisions and any relevant Romanian implementation measures.

For example, a works contract signed before general application but modified afterwards would require a separate temporal analysis of that modification. Today's proposal cannot conclusively decide that future file. Proposed Articles 146 and 149.

A preparation checklist for Romanian project teams

The following division of work is a suggested organisational checklist, not a new statutory allocation of duties.

For the European context and worked quality-scoring examples, return to Europe's proposed procurement reform: what would change?.

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 compares the Commission proposal with the Romanian provisions cited below, checked on 20 October 2026. The numerical comparisons concern Law 98 and the HG 1 execution annex, not every sectoral or concession contract.

• COM(2026)590 and its proposed articles.
• European Parliament legislative status.
• Law 98/2016, official consolidated text, particularly Articles 175, 187 and 218–221.
• Law 99/2016 and Law 100/2016, for the separate sectoral and concession frameworks.
• HG 1/2018 execution conditions, particularly clauses 7, 37 and 50–52.

Legal information notice. This article provides general information and editorial analysis, not legal advice or a legal opinion on a particular procedure, claim or contract. The EU proposal is not currently binding and may change. Applicability depends on the official legislation in force, transitional rules, procurement documents and the signed contract. Obtain qualified advice before making decisions that affect rights, deadlines or payments. Examples and amounts are fictional; English explanations are not official translations of Romanian or EU law.