On 9 September 2026, the European Commission adopted the much-anticipated Public Procurement Act, with the aim of simplifying and modernising procurement rules to better align them with EU strategic priorities.

The proposed Act would replace the three existing procurement Directives with a single Regulation to: simplify procurement procedures; strengthen quality, environmental, and social criteria; and introduce measures to support European preference, economic resilience, and strategic autonomy. 

In her 2026 political guidelines, President von der Leyen mentioned the need to make better use of public procurement and announced the revision of the 2014 directives, which, according to the Commission, had only partially met their intended objectives. As announced in the Clean Industrial Deal and the Single Market Strategy, the revision will allow for sustainability and centralise the fragmented and complex public procurement provisions. 

Here are 10 takeaways to understand this new legislative initiative: 

1. Lowest price is no longer supposed to be the norm 

The Commission wishes to shift the focus from lowest price towards “best quality for money” standards in procurement. The Best Price-Quality Ratio (BPQR) should be the main driver behind awarding contracts. Quality criteria would normally have to account for at least 30% of the evaluation, rising to 50% for labour-intensive contracts, with significant social considerations included in that 50%. Buyers would be able to derogate where quality was to be sufficiently guaranteed through other requirements. 

2. One EU Regulation replaces the three procurement Directives 

In line with simplification and cutting red tape, this new Regulation would replace three existing Directives. The aim is to reduce national divergence, “gold-plating”, complexity and legal uncertainty by creating a more uniform EU legislative framework. 

3. The procedural system is radically simplified 

The proposal simplifies the procurement procedures around two main ones: an open procedure and a dynamic procedure, both of which can be used with or without selection criteria and negotiations. A separate innovation procedure would allow authorities to ask the market to develop solutions to societal challenges, before testing them and, ultimately, deciding which to purchase.  

4. Procurement becomes an explicit tool for EU industrial and strategic policy 

The proposal moves public procurement away from solely being a mechanism for obtaining goods and services efficiently. It now explicitly links procurement to competitiveness, innovation, the clean industrial base, climate objectives, social justice, fair working conditions, security, resilience, and strategic independence. 

5. A major new ‘European preference’ framework is introduced 

In some cases, public purchasers may prefer European and internationally ‘covered’ supplies, goods, and services. Measures could include limiting participation, setting minimum EU/covered-country origin requirements, or giving preference in evaluations. The Commission could extend this to close specific procurement procedures to non-covered third-country operators or products where EU strategic interests so require. 

6. Green procurement is significantly strengthened 

Environmental considerations, circularity, recycled/refurbished content, waste recovery, and energy efficiency will also be integrated in the procurement cycle. Additionally, the Commission would gain a horizontal power to establish mandatory green procurement requirements for certain products, particularly where divergent national approaches risk fragmenting the Single Market.  

7. Social conditions and labour standards gain greater prominence 

The proposal expressly identifies procurement objectives including high-quality jobs, good working conditions, social inclusion, disability accessibility, gender equality, non-discrimination, training and reskilling, the social economy, and human rights in supply chains. Contract performance must also respect applicable EU and national environmental, social and labour law, and collective agreements.  

8. SME access is a major simplification objective 

Selection requirements must be required and proportionate; excessive financial requirements are discouraged, and previous experience with public contracts normally cannot be demanded unless objectively warranted.  Authorities should consider dividing contracts into lots, while digitalisation should reduce documentation and registration burdens. The new Regulation would also forbid subcontracting for the entirety of the contract period. 

9. EU procurement would become much more digital and data-driven 

The new Regulation would create an interoperable European procurement ecosystem connecting national eProcurement systems. An electronic eligibility service and digital business credentials should allow companies to provide information on exclusion grounds, selection criteria, and origin under a once-only principle. To allow for better monitoring of competition, SME participation, corruption risks, and supply dependencies, the National Public Procurement Data Spaces would feed into a similar European-level structure. 

10. The reform combines greater flexibility with stronger oversight 

Buyers will have more freedom to negotiate, conduct market consultations, and adapt procurement to their needs, which will be accompanied by stronger transparency, data, and integrity requirements. Member States will have to designate national coordinating authorities, monitor their procurement markets annually, and strengthen the professionalisation of public buyers. The public procurement system would be analysed every three years by the Commission. 

Stakeholder reactions: 

Stakeholder reactions were positive about the Commission’s shift away from lowest-price procurement towards “best quality for money”, simplification, and digitalisation. Business and industry organisations, including BusinessEurope and MedTech Europe, welcome simpler procedures and greater use of the best price-quality ratio, stating this should support competition, innovation, and value for money. However, BusinessEurope cautions against overloading procurement regulations with wider strategic objectives that could raise complexity or hinder competition.   

Trade unions, social-economy organisations, and environmental and food stakeholders also welcome the stronger focus on quality but generally want the proposal to go further. ETUC calls for binding social conditionalities, stronger collective-bargaining requirements, and tighter rules on subcontracting, while food and sustainability organisations want environmental, organic, animal-welfare, and other sustainability criteria to become more integrated rather than largely optional. Overall, stakeholders largely support moving beyond price alone, but differ over how strongly social, environmental, and strategic objectives should be included in procurement processes. 

Parliament’s reaction: 

MEPs showed broad cross-party support for the direction of the Public Procurement Act, particularly its simplification, digitalisation, and move away from lowest-price awards. EPP and Renew members emphasised reducing administrative burdens, improving legal certainty, removing barriers for SMEs, and using procurement to strengthen European industrial competitiveness. S&D broadly shared these objectives but placed greater focus on ensuring SMEs benefit and on integrating social and environmental considerations. The Greens/EFA also welcomed quality-based and digital procurement but argued that the proposal remained insufficiently ambitious on green and social criteria. The Left went further, calling for companies that underpay or mistreat workers to be excluded from public contracts and for procurement to actively support the green transition. 

European preference emerged as a key area of debate. While there was considerable support for using procurement to strengthen European industry, positions differed on its scope. PfE and some Renew voices called for a stronger preference for European suppliers, with Virginie Joron (PfE, France) arguing that the Commission proposal remained too open to non-EU countries. S&D supported strengthening European production but cautioned that preference requirements should not undermine competitiveness. EPP focused more broadly on using harmonised procurement rules to support high-quality European competitiveness. Other inputs stressed openness, conflicts of interest, and access to procurement across Member States, with numerous MEPs perceiving the proposed single digital platform as a crucial means of boosting transparency and cross-border involvement.   

Member states’ reaction: 

Member States broadly welcomed the Commission’s ambition to simplify public procurement rules and strengthen the role of quality alongside price, but significant reservations were expressed over how the reform should be implemented. Non-price criteria received the most attention, reflecting general support for turning procurement into a more strategic investment tool. Security, resilience, and European preference were all highlighted as significant objectives, however delegations stressed the need for clear definitions, proportionality, and coherence with other measures, notably the Industrial Accelerator Act and European Innovation Act. France was particularly supportive of using procurement strategically to strengthen European industry, while Cyprus raised concerns about potential additional costs. 

The main dividing line concerned the Commission’s choice of a Regulation rather than a Directive. A large group, including Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Finland, Austria, and several central and eastern European countries, favoured a Directive, citing concerns over administrative complexity, litigation, burdens on smaller contracting authorities, and the loss of national and regional flexibility. The Netherlands supported the Regulation, while Denmark, Luxembourg, and Slovakia considered the legal instrument less important than the content of the proposal. European preference is expected to remain another major issue in the negotiations, particularly regarding its scope, costs, and interaction with international obligations and other EU legislation. Member States were also divided over the pace of negotiations, but the Irish Presidency and Commission are working towards the Q4 2027 deadline set forth in the One Market, One Europe roadmap.   

Find out more

DeHavilland is always monitoring developments around EU policy and events. If you would like to start receiving these updates, start your trial today.