Public Procurement 2025 Comparisons

Three acts regulate the procurement of government and other procuring entities’ contracts in Finland:

• the Act on Public Contracts and Concessions (1397/2016) implementing Directive 2014/24/EU, applying to procurements within the classic sector, as well as Directive 2014/23/EU on concessions;
• the Act on Public Contracts and Concessions of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1398/2016, Utilities Act), implementing Directive 2014/25/EU and applying to procurements within the utilities sector; and
• the Act on Public Contracts in the Fields of Defence and Security (1531/2011), implementing Directive 2009/81/EC.

These three acts cover the five European Procurement Directives.

The entities subject to procurement regulation include:

• the government;
• municipalities;
• wellbeing services counties responsible for providing healthcare, social and emergency services;
• congregations;
• entities in the utilities sector, in accordance with the Utilities Directive;
• institutions of public law character established to satisfy public interests that are not of an industrial or commercial nature; and
• any entity that has secured public funding amounting to more than 50% of the value of a specific procurement.

The procurement of goods, services and public works in general is subject to procurement regulation, with specific exceptions.

Even though the Finnish Public Procurement Acts do not in general distinguish between bidders within and outside the EU, there are a few exceptions.

• According to the Act on Public Procurement and Concession Contracts, bidders and bids from other states in procurements falling within the scope of the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA; Finnish Treaty Series 5/1995) are governed by the same terms and conditions as tenderers and tenders from Finland and other EU member states. However, there is no such clause included in the legislation on bidders and bids from countries that are not within the scope of the WTO.
• According to the Act on Procurement in the Water, Energy, Transport and Postal Services Sectors, contracting entities have the possibility of restricting an award to bids covering products originating from third countries with which the EU has not concluded, whether multilaterally or bilaterally, an agreement ensuring comparable and effective access for EU undertakings to the markets of those third countries.
• The Act on Public Procurement in the Fields of Defence and Security provides that certain defence and security procurements based on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Article 346 are closed to any tenderer from any country if the crucial interests of the Finnish State so require.

The key obligations of awarding authorities are as follows:

• to conduct a tendering procedure in accordance with the applicable procurement legislation for all goods, services and works contracts that exceed threshold values;
• to initiate the procurement process by issuing a contract notice for online publication;
• to prepare a clear request for tenders that facilitates the submission and receipt of equal and comparable bids;
• to ensure that candidates and bidders are treated in an equitable and non-discriminatory manner throughout the entire procurement process;
• to make well-founded decisions regarding any resolutions that impact the status of candidates and bidders, as well as the procurement procedure; and
• to adhere to the fundamental procurement principles of equal and non-discriminatory treatment, transparency and proportionality in every aspect of the procurement process.

With the exception of direct contract awards, legislation mandates that both EU procurements exceeding the EU threshold values and national procurements surpassing the lower national threshold values must be published online, utilising specific contract notices and Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) codes. The information required is detailed within these notices.

It is permissible but so far not mandatory for the awarding authority to carry out preliminary market consultations before launching the contract award procedure. Before initiating the procurement procedure, the contracting entity may conduct market consultations to prepare for the upcoming procurement and provide information to potential suppliers about its plans and requirements for the procurement. The contracting entity may use independent experts, other authorities or suppliers, whose advice can be used to assist in the planning and implementation of the procurement procedure. However, the use of such advice must not lead to distortion of competition or result in procedures contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and transparency.

In national procurements exceeding the national threshold values, the contracting entity may use any procurement process it chooses, provided it adheres to the four procurement principles of equal and non-discriminatory treatment, transparency and proportionality, and that the process is clearly described in the contract notice.

The possible procedures for EU procurements exceeding EU threshold values are mandated by the legislation. Open and restricted procedures are the most commonly applied procurement procedures. The open procedure is a single-stage process where all interested bidders may submit tenders, with no pre-selection of bidders or negotiations regarding any aspects of the procurement. The restricted procedure is utilised when the contracting entity wishes to limit the number of bids, as it involves a pre-selection of bidders.

Framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems are frequently used by central purchasing bodies but are also available to other procuring entities.

Negotiations are integral to competitive dialogue and the negotiated procedure, the use of which are restricted. The negotiated procedure may be selected in situations where:

• the contracting entity’s needs cannot be met without adapting existing solutions;
• the procurement involves design or innovative solutions;
• the contract cannot be awarded without prior negotiations due to specific circumstances related to its nature, complexity or legal and financial form, or because of associated risks;
• the procurement description cannot be prepared with sufficient precision; or
• an open or restricted procedure yields only tenders that fail to meet the request for tenders.

Similar restrictions apply to the use of competitive dialogue.

The choice of procedure is not solely at the discretion of the awarding authority and is subject to certain conditions:

• open and restricted procedures can generally be used in any situation;
• the use of negotiated procedures and competitive dialogue is restricted in EU procurements, as outlined in 2.3 Tender Procedure for the Award of a Contract;
• framework agreements can be established between one or more contracting entities and one or more suppliers to set prices, planned quantities and other contract terms for a specified period; and
• dynamic purchasing systems may be employed provided the procurement procedure is fully electronic and pertains to ordinary procurements generally available on the market.

The legislation permits direct contract awards, but they are regulated such that they are exceptional and made strictly on the following grounds:

• no (suitable) requests to participate or tenders have been received in response to an open or restricted procedure, and no essential changes have been made to the terms and conditions of the original call for tenders;
• only a certain supplier can implement the procurement for a technical reason or for an exclusive right, no reasonable alternatives or substitute solutions are available, and the absence of competition is not due to an artificial narrowing of the terms and conditions of the procurement;
• the aim of the procurement is the creation or acquisition of a unique work of art or artistic performance;
• it is absolutely essential to conclude the agreement, and the prescribed time limits cannot be observed due to extreme urgency arising from unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the contracting entity;
• the goods to be procured are manufactured only for research, testing, product development or scientific purposes, and the procurement does not concern mass production to ensure the financial viability of goods manufacturing or to cover the costs of research and development;
• the procurement concerns goods that are quoted and purchased on the commodity market;
• the goods are procured under particularly advantageous conditions from a supplier that is winding up its business, from an administrator or a liquidator in the course of insolvency proceedings, or via an arrangement with creditors or corresponding proceedings; and
• the case concerns a service procurement made on the basis of a design contest and awarded to the winner(s) of that contest in accordance with its rules – all of the winners shall be invited to participate in the negotiations in such cases; and
• in case of additional purchases.

These direct award criteria are applied in connection with procurements exceeding both EU threshold values and national threshold values.

In procurements exceeding the EU threshold values, the contracting entity must make the request for tender documents, the invitation to negotiations and their annexes, and other procurement documents. These must be made available to everyone free of charge, without restrictions, directly, in full and in electronic form. The procurement documents must be made available from the day the procurement notice is published. The notice must mention the internet address where the invitation to tender and other procurement documents are available in electronic form. Additional information related to the procurement documents must be provided no later than six days, or in an accelerated procedure no later than four days, before the deadline for receiving tenders.

No corresponding mandatory rules on timing are applicable for procurements exceeding national threshold values.

The time limits are partly regulated by the legislation. For procurements exceeding EU threshold values, the following apply:

• receipt of expression of interest – 30 days; and
• submission of tenders – 30 days for open procedures, 25 days for other procedures and ten days for dynamic purchasing systems.

These timelines are shorter with prior publication and the use of accelerated procedures.

For procurements exceeding national threshold values, the Procurement Act does not define minimum time limits for national procurements. When setting the deadline, the size and nature of the procurement, as well as the time required to prepare the tender, must be taken into account by the procuring entity. Based on legal praxis, the deadline for submission of tenders should generally be more than 14 days.

The contracting entity may set requirements according to the registration, financial and economic situation, and technical and professional qualifications of candidates or tenderers in a procurement exceeding the EU threshold values. These requirements must relate to the subject matter of the procurement and be proportionate to its nature, purpose and scope. The requirements shall be stated in the procurement notice.

The requirements must ensure that the candidate or bidder has (i) the right to engage in professional activities; (ii) sufficient financial and economic resources; and (iii) the technical and professional capabilities to execute the procurement contract in question. Candidates or tenderers who do not meet the minimum requirements must be excluded from the tendering process.

The eligibility requirements for procurements exceeding national threshold values are lighter. The contracting entity may set eligibility requirements, which must be proportionate to the nature, purpose and scope of the procurement. The requirements shall be stated in the procurement notice.

For procurements exceeding the EU threshold values, the following apply.

• In a restricted procedure, the contracting authority publishes a contract notice, in which all interested suppliers can request to participate. To be accepted as tenderers, candidates must adhere to the minimum suitability requirements and evaluation criteria presented in the procurement notice. In a restricted procedure, at least five candidates must be invited, unless there are fewer suitable candidates. If there are fewer than five suitable candidates, the contracting authority may continue the procedure by inviting all candidates who meet the suitability requirements to submit a tender.
• In a negotiated procedure, competitive dialogue or innovation partnership, at least three candidates must be invited, unless there are fewer than three suitable candidates.

In national procurements exceeding national threshold values, there is no mandatory minimum number of qualifiers. Whatever criteria are used, they must be disclosed in the contract notice.

Public contracts shall be awarded to the bidder with the most economically advantageous tender (MEAT) – ie, that with the (i) lowest price, (ii) lowest cost or (iii) best price-quality ratio. If services or works are procured based solely on the lowest price criterion, the procuring entity is obliged to give a reasoned decision stating the grounds for this.

The best price-quality shall be assessed on the basis of criteria considering qualitative, environmental and/or social aspects, and linked to the subject matter of the public contract in question. Qualitative aspects may include technical merit; aesthetic and functional characteristics; accessibility; a design for all users; social, environmental and innovative characteristics; trading (and its conditions); operating costs; cost-effectiveness; after-sales service and technical assistance; maintenance; delivery conditions, such as delivery date, delivery process and delivery period; or the period of completion. Organisation, and the qualifications and experience of the staff assigned to perform the contract, may also be used as criteria, where the quality of the staff assigned can have a significant impact on the level of performance of the contract.

The evaluation criteria shall be formulated in a sufficiently precise way in order to make bids comparable, but also such that they do not give too much discretionary power to the procuring entity.

The tenderer must demonstrate in their tender that the goods, services or construction works offered comply with the requirements set out in the procurement notice and the invitation to tender. Tenders that do not meet the contract notice, the request to tender or the terms of the tendering procedure must be excluded from the competition.

The contracting authority may request that the tenderer or candidate submit, supplement, clarify or complete incomplete or incorrect information and documents within a specified time.

There is an obligation to disclose the criteria or other elements of the evaluation methodology, where:

• the selection of bidders has been clarified in 2.9 Restriction of Participation in a Procurement Process; and
• the contracting entity must specify the evaluation criteria of the tenders – and their relative weighting in procurements exceeding EU threshold values – in the contract notice or the request for tender.

The contracting entity must make a written decision on all matters affecting the status of candidates and tenderers, and this decision must be justified. The decision or related documents must clearly indicate the essential factors that influenced the decision. There is no specific timetable for notification. However, the time for the appeal/rectification process (14 days from the date the candidate or tenderer received the decision), along with the instructions for appeal, does not start before the interested parties are notified.

The contracting entity must make a written decision on the outcome of the tendering procedure, and this decision must be justified. The decision or related documents must clearly indicate the essential factors that influenced the decision. There is no specific timetable for notification. However, the time for the appeal (14 days from the date the candidate or tenderer received the decision), along with the instructions for appeal, does not start before the interested parties are notified.

In general, there is no obligation to grant a prior hearing. However, when the contracting entity is thinking of using mandatory or discretionary exclusion grounds, the candidate/ tenderer shall have the right to present counter evidence (self-clean). Also, when the bid is deemed abnormally low by the procuring entity, the procuring entity must grant the bidder the possibility of providing an explanation and other evidence. The bid may be rejected provided the explanation or other evidence does not satisfactorily account for the low level of the bid or costs tendered.

In a procurement exceeding the EU threshold values, and in a service procurement or concession contract under Schedule E exceeding the national threshold values, the agreement may be concluded no sooner than 14 days after the candidate or tenderer has received or is deemed to have received notice of the decision and instructions for appeal (standstill period).

No such standstill period applies for procurements exceeding only the national threshold value.

The award decision, or another resolution made by the procurement entity during the procurement process and affecting the position of a candidate or bidder, may be reviewed as follows.

Procurement Correction by the Procuring Entity

The procurement correction may be initiated either by the contracting entity itself or at the request of a party concerned. The decision of the contracting entity regarding the request for correction cannot be appealed based on the Public Procurement Acts.

Market Court Appeal

The party concerned and, in certain cases, specific authorities, may bring the case before the Finnish Market Court by filing an appeal. In procurements exceeding the EU threshold value, the procurement entity must not sign the procurement contract if the procurement decision has been appealed to the Market Court. In an appeal of a procurement exceeding the national threshold value, the Market Court may, upon request, temporarily prohibit or suspend the execution of the procurement decision or order the procurement process to be otherwise suspended during the court proceedings.

A party concerned may seek to appeal a decision of the Market Court to the Supreme Administrative Court if the latter grants permission to appeal. In addition, anyone who believes that a procurement entity has acted contrary to the Public Procurement Act(s) may submit a request for action to the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) to examine the legality of the procedure. In case of an illegal direct award, the FCCA may issue a decision prohibiting a contracting entity from implementing a procurement decision. The FCCA may bring the case before the Market Court for the Court to impose sanctions (illegal direct award) in case the procurement contract has been concluded.

The contracting entity may annul an erroneous decision or revoke another resolution that has legal effects on the position of candidates or bidders and resolve the matter anew (procurement correction), provided that the decision or other resolution is based on a breach of Public Procurement Acts or if new information has emerged that could affect the decision, resolution or conditions for making a procurement contract.

For breaches of the Public Procurement Acts, EU legislation, or the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, the Market Court may:

• annul the decision of the procurement entity in whole or in part;
• prohibit the procurement entity from applying a faulty provision in the procurement document or otherwise following an incorrect procedure;
• require the procurement entity to correct its erroneous procedure;
• order the procurement entity to pay a compensatory payment to the party concerned who would have had a genuine chance to win the bid in a flawless procedure;
• impose an ineffectiveness sanction on the procurement entity;
• order the procurement entity to make a penalty payment to the state; or
• shorten the contract period of the procurement or concession agreement so that it ends after a specified time.

The FCCA may, by decision, prohibit a procurement entity from executing a procurement decision in whole or in part, or bring the case before the Market Court if it finds that the entity has made a direct award without the grounds stipulated in the Public Procurement Acts and a procurement contract has already been concluded.

Anyone who causes harm to a candidate, bidder or supplier by violating the Public Procurement Acts, EU legislation, or the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement is obliged to compensate for the damage caused. When a claim for damages concerns costs arising from the bidding process, it is sufficient for the candidate, bidder or supplier to demonstrate the erroneous procedure referred to in the first paragraph, and that they would have had a genuine chance to win the bidding competition in a flawless procedure for the compensation to be awarded.

Upon filing an appeal, the Market Court may temporarily prohibit, suspend or allow the execution of the procurement decision, or order the procurement process to be otherwise suspended during the court proceedings. When deciding on the referred measure, the Market Court must ensure that the measure does not cause greater harm to the opposing party, other rights or the public interest than the benefits of the measure would provide.

There is no need for a temporary prohibition or suspension if, upon filing an appeal, the procurement entity itself provides the Market Court with a written commitment not to execute the procurement decision for as long as the matter is pending in the Market Court. For procurements exceeding the EU threshold – and in certain service and concession contracts exceeding the national threshold – the procuring entity is not allowed to conclude the procurement contract if the matter has been brought before the Market Court by an appeal (automatic suspension).

The party concerned may initiate a procurement correction process and/or bring a procurement-related matter before the Market Court by filing an appeal at its own discretion. Additionally, the matter can be brought before the Market Court by appeal by:

• the Ministry of Employment and the Economy in matters concerning the EU’s supervisory procedure;
• a state or municipal authority, or another entity that has granted project-specific support for the implementation of a construction project.

The party concerned could be, for example, a candidate who has not been selected to make a bid or a candidate/bidder who has been shut out of the process for not fulfilling eligibility requirements. The party concerned is very often a bidder who has come second in the bid comparison and wishes to challenge the bid/bidder who has won the bid comparison.

Please see 4.1 Responsibility for Review of the Awarding Authority’s Decisions regarding the role of the FCCA.

Both the request for correction and the appeal must be submitted independently within 14 days from the date the candidate or the bidder received written or electronic notification of the decision or another resolution, its grounds and instructions on how to appeal/correct the matter.

There is no specific time limit to take any suspected violations of the Procurement Act to the FCCA.

The Finnish Market Court has an average length of proceedings of around 6–7 months. The rectifications processes generally lasts 2–4 weeks.

There were 313 public procurement appeals submitted to the Market Court in 2023, and 411 in 2022.

Only a couple of the Market Court decisions are dealt with by the Supreme Administrative Court per year. The threshold is thus quite high to get the permission needed from the Supreme Administrative Court to appeal.

Costs for the Finnish Market Court in connection with procurement claims generally vary from EUR8,000 to EUR18,000.

In addition, the appellant shall bear the cost for the court fee, which can be EUR2,440, EUR4,880 EUR or EUR7,300 depending on the value of the procurement. A fee of EUR500 is charged if the case is dismissed without a decision on the main issue, if it is not examined or if it is left unresolved. This can occur, for example, due to the withdrawal of an appeal.

Post-award contract modifications are possible but regulated in the Finnish Public Procurement Acts.

According to the regulations, a public contract or framework agreement may not be amended in any integral respect during the contract period without a new procurement procedure. An amendment shall be considered integral if for example:

• it introduces conditions that, had they been part of the initial procurement procedure, would have allowed for the admission of candidates other than those initially selected, or for the acceptance of a tender other than that originally accepted, or would have attracted additional participants in the procurement procedure;
• the amendment changes the economic balance of the agreement or framework agreement in favour of the contractual partner in a manner that was not specified in the original agreement or framework agreement;
• the amendment considerably broadens the scope of the agreement or framework agreement; or
• a new contractual partner replaces the contractual partner with which the contracting entity originally concluded the agreement.

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, a public contract and a framework agreement may be amended with no new procurement procedure if:

• it is based on contractual terms and conditions, or on terms for their amendment that were known during the procurement procedure and referred to in the procurement documents, irrespective of their financial value, and the said terms and conditions are clear, precise and unambiguous and do not modify the general character of the procurement agreement or framework agreement;
• it is necessary for the original contractual partner to perform additional work, services or extraordinary deliveries of goods that were not included in the original agreement, and a change of contractual partner is not possible for financial or technical reasons and would cause significant inconvenience or a significant overlap of costs for the contracting entity;
• the need for amendment is due to circumstances that a diligent contracting entity could not have foreseen, and the amendment does not affect the general character of the procurement agreement;
• the original contractual partner is replaced with a new contractual partner under an unambiguous condition for amending the agreement in accordance with point 1, or the status of the original contractual partner is wholly or partly assigned to another operator that satisfies the originally established qualitative selection criteria due to corporate restructuring, takeovers, mergers, changes of controlling interest or insolvency, provided that this does not entail other substantial amendments to the agreement and does not seek to circumvent the application of this Act; or
• the case concerns a minor contractual amendment that falls below the national threshold values in procurements and concession contracts concerning the services referred to in Schedule E, or the EU threshold values in other procurements, and does not affect the general character of the agreement.

The value of the amendment referred to in the second and third points in the foregoing list shall not exceed 50% of the value of the original agreement. The value of the amendment referred to in the fifth point shall be less than 10% of the value of the original service procurement or supply contract, or the concession contract for services, and 15% of the value of the original public works contracting agreement or concession contracting agreement.

In addition to what has been agreed in the procurement contract, the procurement entity may terminate the contract in accordance with the Procurement Acts with immediate effect if:

• a substantial modification has been made to the contract (see 5.1 Modification of Contracts After the Award);
• the supplier was subject to one of the mandatory exclusion grounds at the time of contract conclusion; or
• the contract could not have been concluded with the supplier because the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a procedure under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, has found that the procurement entity has seriously breached obligations under the EU Treaties and the Procurement Directive.

If “prerogative” is thought of as being something that is at the discretion of the procuring entity, prerogatives include the following.

• Defining procurement needs: The contracting entity has the authority to determine its procurement needs and to specify the goods, services or works required.
• Choosing the procurement procedure: The contracting entity can select the appropriate procurement procedure (open or restricted procedure). Negotiated and competitive dialogue can be used under certain circumstances.
• Setting eligibility and selection criteria: The contracting entity can establish eligibility requirements and selection criteria to ensure that only qualified suppliers participate in the bidding process. These criteria may include financial stability, technical capability and past performance. However, the criteria must not be discriminatory in nature or disproportionate to their purpose, and should not lead to an unjustified restriction of competition.
• Deciding upon the evaluation criteria: The contract should be awarded to the bidder with the MEAT based on the (i) lowest price, (ii) lowest cost or (iii) best price-quality ratio, as predefined by the procuring entity in the procurement documentation. Goods may be procured based on the lowest price criterion without giving any reasoning for this. The evaluation criteria shall be formulated in a sufficiently precise way to make bids comparable, but also not to give too much discretionary power to the procuring entity. See also 2.10 Evaluation Criteria.

These prerogatives must be exercised within the framework of the applicable Procurement Acts and especially the four public procurement principles – ie, equal and non-discriminatory treatment, transparency and proportionality.

The in-house exception has been one of the most discussed topics of the past year because the exercise of control aspect has been interpreted too widely in procurement practice. Many large in-house entities that have been built on this erroneous interpretation need to take action to adapt to the situation by selling, changing their owners, fundamentally changing their way of working, etc.

In-House Exception

The Market Court, in accordance with the proposal of the FCCA, found that the Vantaa and Kerava welfare area did not have the control over Sarastia required by the Procurement Act. Therefore, services could not be procured from Sarastia without competitive tendering based on its status as an in-house entity. The Market Court ordered the procurement to end 12 months after the decision of the Market Court becomes final.

In 2022, the welfare area procured human resources services, and the associated systems, directly from Sarastia as a direct procurement. The procurement, valued at approximately 9.3 million euros, was made as an in-house entity procurement without competitive tendering. The welfare area owns a 0.04% share of Sarastia’s stock.

According to the Procurement Act, procurement entities do not need to tender procurements made from their in-house entities. For a company to be considered an in-house entity under the Procurement Act, the procurement entity must exercise control over it, either alone or together with other procurement entities.

The FCCA took the direct procurement made by the welfare area to the Market Court in spring 2023, as the authority judged that the decision-making structures established in Sarastia did not meet the control requirements stipulated by the in-house exception. The Market Court concluded that the welfare area did not exercise actual control over Sarastia, alone or even together with other owners. According to the Market Court’s assessment, the welfare area’s ability to influence Sarastia’s operations through shareholding or any of Sarastia’s governing bodies was very limited.

The decision is important since the in-house exception has been applied a lot in Finland, although this has started to change since the Market Court decision. The legislative amendments that are under consideration at the moment are going to change the in-house exception (please see 5.3 Prerogatives of the Awarding Authority). Another important decision regarding the electronic submission of appeals is described in the following.

Appeal Period

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court 7.11.2024 (2024:118): Company A had appealed the procurement decision to the Market Court. The company’s appeal arrived at the Market Court on the last day of the appeal period, at 16:16. The issue at hand was whether the Market Court should have dismissed the company’s appeal as late. To resolve this question, it was necessary to assess whether the appeal instructions attached to the procurement decision were incomplete because they did not mention the Market Court’s office hours.

The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the law governing the availability of state services and the allocation of functions stipulates the time during which the court must be open for initiating proceedings. Since the appeal instructions indicated that the appeal had to be submitted to the court before the end of its office hours, the instructions provided sufficient information for initiating the proceedings. The decision of the Market Court, which had examined the company’s appeal, was overturned and annulled. The company’s appeal to the Market Court was dismissed as late.

There is ongoing revision of the Public Procurement Act in Finland. Some drivers of the reform include:

• the necessity to achieve cost savings in a challenging economic situation;
• lack of competition – ie, bids in tendering processes; and
• an ever-growing number of in-house entities in the market, and of their role.

Some of the main objectives of the reform include the following.

• Increasing competition via the following actions:
1. preliminary market consultation will be made part of the procurement process;
2. duty to re-tender, if there has only been one bid;
3. obligation to carry out an analysis of procurements exceeding EUR10 million to assess the suitability of the procurement model and anticipate costs; and
4. contracts exceeding the EU threshold value can be left undivided only for special reasons, and the decision can be appealed.
• Improving the efficiency of the public sector and reinforcing regional vitality and the conditions for entrepreneurship by limiting the possibility of the public sector using in-house entities to provide support services for which there is a functioning market, such as cleaning, financial administration, food and ICT services through:
1. setting a minimum ownership percentage (10%) of in-house entities that takes into account the public interest; and
2. uniform ownership threshold across all sectors.
• Incentivising the use of market consultation, including in smaller national procurements, through:
1. the possibility of avoiding re-tendering; and
2. the opportunity to avoid an appeal if the contract is not divided into lots.
• Next steps include:
1. publishing a summary of statements received during the public consultation phase;
2. deepening the impact assessment;
3. reviewing feedback from the public consultation, official work and, potentially, background studies; and
4. submitting the government’s proposals to Parliament in September 2025.
• Entering the revised rules (1.1.2026) into force, where:
1. the general transition period is 1.5 years (2.5 years for the waste sector), during which existing contracts can be utilised; and
2. during the period from 1 January 2026 to 30 June 2026, it will be possible to make new contracts with a maximum duration of one year.