Report on the ESPD survey.
Date: 2020-02-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Subjects: EU law, administrative formalities, civil society, e-procurement, public sector, report, sample survey, simplification of legislation, single document, type of business

Report on the 
ESPD survey 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Report on the ESPD survey 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate G — Single Market for Public Administrations 
Unit G4 — Innovative and Digital Procurement 

Contact: EXEP secretariat 

E-mail:  GROW-EXEP@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Report on the ESPD survey 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Report on the ESPD survey 

The  European  Commission  support  for  the  production  of  this  publication  does  not 
constitute endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and 
the  Commission  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  use  which  may  be  made  of  the 
information contained therein. 

Manuscript completed in December 2019 

1st edition 

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.  

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

© European Union, 2020  
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  regulated  by  Decision  2011/833/EU  (OJ  L  330, 
14.12.2011, p. 39). 
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European Union, 
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-10535-0 

doi: 10.2873/697154        ET-02-20-076-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 

STATE OF PLAY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ELECTRONIC ESPD .................................... 4 

THE ESPD SURVEY ................................................................................................. 5 

eESPD usage ................................................................................................ 5 
3.1 
Automation and integration of the eESPD with other systems ............................. 6 
3.2 
Benefits deriving from the use of the eESPD .................................................... 7 
3.3 
3.4  Main drawbacks experienced from the use of the eESPD .................................... 8 
3.5  User Satisfaction .......................................................................................... 9 
Improvements and changes ........................................................................... 9 
3.6 

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 11 

NEXT STEPS ........................................................................................................ 12 

ANNEX 1 - THE ESPD SURVEY ....................................................................................... 13 

ANNEX 2 – ADDITIONAL TABLES ................................................................................... 22 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

1  Introduction 

In its quest for supporting the process of simplifying EU law and reducing regulatory burdens, for 
the  benefit  of  civil  society,  business  and  public  authorities,  the  European  Commission  Regulatory 
Fitness and Performance (REFIT) Platform1 requested to carry out a specific action on the European 
Single Procurement Document (ESPD).  

In particular, under ‘Priority 4 - Simplification and burden reduction for a deeper and fairer Internal 
Market’,  REFIT  adopted  15  opinions,  in  2017,  which  were  followed  up  by  legislative  and  non–
legislative  measures.  In  addition  to  these  measures,  REFIT  requested  an  action  on  the  ESPD, 
stating that: “the opinion feeds the efforts in improving the implementation of this tool”2. 

Following this request, DG GROW decided to launch a EU wide satisfaction survey on the electronic 
ESPD and to discuss the results with the relevant stakeholders. The report was prepared with the 
support of an external consultant.  

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-

and-less-costly/refit-platform/role-structure-and-working-methods-refit-platform_en 

2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/regulatory-fitness-and-performance-programme-refit-scoreboard-

summary_en_4.pdf 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

2  State of play of the adoption of the electronic ESPD 

The  ESPD  is  a  self-declaration  form  used  in  public  procurement  procedures.  It  offers  preliminary 
evidence  concerning  exclusion  criteria  (e.g.  criminal  convictions,  grave  professional  misconduct) 
and  selection  criteria  (financial,  economic  and  technical  capacity);  while  the  full  set  of  underlying 
documentation (e.g. attestations, certificates) only needs being presented by the winning economic 
operator3.  

According  to  Directive  2014/24/EU4  and  Directive  2014/25/EU5,  the  ESPD  shall  be  provided 
exclusively  in  electronic  form.  The  ESPD  is  based  on  a  standard  form  introduced  through  the 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2016/76.    When  contracting  entities  procuring  in  accordance  with 
Directive  2014/25/EU  apply  (some  of)  the  exclusion  and/or  selection  criteria  provided  for  under 
Directive 2014/24/EU they shall also use the ESPD pursuant to Article 80(3) of the Directive. 

An ESPD service allows for the automated creation of an electronic file (i.e. an ESPD Request and 
Response)  from  data  made  available  by  a  contracting  authority  and  an  economic  operator.  The 
ESPD  service  can  either  be  a  standalone  solution,  or  it  can  be  integrated  in  an  eProcurement 
system.  

As  of  September  2019,  ESPD  services  have  been  implemented  in  26  Member  States,  with  the 
exception  of  Cyprus  and  Luxemburg7.  An  ESPD  service  has  been  made  available  in  12  Member 
States during 2018, and in 9 Member States during 2019 (see Table 1). 

Table 1 – ESPD Service implementation 

The  real  potential  of  an  ESPD  service  lies  in  its  integration  with  other  systems,  including  eCertis, 
registers  (or  databases)  of  certificates/evidences  of  each  Member  State  and  eProcurement 
platforms.    The  integration  of  these  services  and  systems  allows  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Once Only Principle in eProcurement.   

17  Member  States  have  already  integrated  eCertis  with  an  ESPD  service,  while  in  3  countries 
developments are on-going8. 

3 Unless verification of certain documentation from other participants is needed to ensure a proper conduct of the procedure. 
4  Directive  2014/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014  on  public  procurement  and 
repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, OJ L 94 of 28.3.2014, p. 65. Other provisions of the Directive refer to use of the ESPD 
in specific contexts, but the main regulation is to be found in Article 59. 

5  Directive  2014/25/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014  on  procurement  by  entities 

operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC. 

6  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2016/7  of  5  January  2016  establishing  the  standard  form  for  the  European 

Single Procurement Document. 

7  Source:  DG  GROW  eProcurement  Matrix,  July  2019.  The  complete  list  of  ESPD  services  is  available  at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/37081 
8 Source: DG GROW eProcurement Matrix, July 2019 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

3  The ESPD survey 

The  European  Commission  designed  an  online  survey  to  assess  the  user  satisfaction  of  ESPD 
services  deployed  across  Europe  and  asked  Member  States  to  promote  the  survey  in  their 
constituencies during the summer 2019.  The survey included questions focusing on the following 
main  aspects:  ESPD  usage;  level  of  automated  pre-filling  of  information;  main  benefits  and 
drawbacks;  satisfaction  indicators  and  suggested  improvements  (see  Annex  1  for  the  full  text  of 
the survey).  

Over  3.500  organisations  from  the  public  and  the  private  sector  replied  to  the  survey,  from  28 
Member  States.  However,  only  public  buyers  participated  in  the  survey  from  Cyprus  and  Estonia, 
while only suppliers from Austria, Czech Republic, Germany and Italy.  

In order to compare the aggregated European results to the national ones for the questions where 
only EU data are shown, additional tables have been included in Annex 2. 

3.1  eESPD usage 

As  shown  in  the  table  below,  the  majority  of  the  survey  respondents  have  been  using  an  ESPD 
service. 

Table 2 – eESPD usage 

On the other side, the main reasons why 43.3% of respondents are not using the eESPD are that 
they are not aware of its existence (39.5% buyers; 56% suppliers); they do not know how to apply 
it  (22.5%  buyers;  23%  suppliers);  it  is  not  mandatory  in  the  current  legal  framework  (22% 
buyers; 15% suppliers) and other reasons (16% buyers; 6% suppliers).  This indicates that lack of 
awareness is the key factor for not using an ESPD service, especially among suppliers; insufficient 
training,  or  services  not  very  user-friendly  could  justify  the  second  main  reason.  The  non-binding 
use of the ESPD at the national level represents another key factor for not using it.  

The  survey  results  also  unveiled  that  suppliers  in  25  Member  States  are  currently  using  an  ESPD 
service from other countries (see table 3).  This demonstrates the relevance of the ESPD for cross-
border procurement. For example, suppliers in Luxemburg are using ESPD services from other MS, 
without having a service at the national level. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Table 3 – Suppliers using the eESPD from other countries  

As  confirmed  by  data  in  the  table  below,  the  majority  of  the  respondents  use  the  eESPD  for 
procedures above the EU thresholds. Over one third of survey participants are using the ESPD also 
for  tenders  below  the  EU  thresholds,  while  only  5  Member  States  (Estonia,  Greece,  Croatia 
Netherlands  and  Romania)  have  made  the  use  of  the  ESPD  mandatory  for  tenders  below  the  EU 
thresholds9. 

Table 4 – eESPD use for above and below EU thresholdsThe European interoperability model (EIM)  

3.2  Automation and integration of the eESPD with other systems 

The survey covered also the level of automation in pre-filling the eESPD, the amount and the type 
of information that would already be included by the service. The results show that in most of the 
cases  (59%)  information  in  the  eESPD  is  not  filled  in  automatically.  This  means  that  the  ESPD 
service  has  not  (yet)  been  integrated  with  an  eProcurement  system,  and/or  with  databases  or 
services for the pre-qualification of suppliers.  

9 This information has been gathered during the eProcurement workshops organised by DG GROW in the Member States. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

This  result  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with  information  previously  gathered  by  the 
Commission10, clarifying that two thirds of the Member States plan to proceed with such integration 
but the related developments will require time. 

However,  the  remaining  41%  of  eESPD  users,  when  asked  for  the  type  of  information  that  was 
automatically pre-filled by the service, reported that the main data included information concerning 
the  procurement  procedure  and  the  contract  authority  or  contracting  entity  (38.4%);  exclusion 
grounds  (24,6%);  information  concerning  the  economic  operator  (21,15%);  and  selection  criteria 
(15.9%). Table below depicts the merged answers for both buyers and suppliers.  

Based on the above mentioned outcome, it can be inferred that over one third of the ESPD services 
are integrated at least with the eProcurement system of the contracting authority.  

Which information does the  ESPD fill in 
automatically ?

15,87%

24,64%

38,34%

21,15%

Information concerning the
procurement procedure and the
contract authority or the contracting
entity
Information concerning the economic
operator

Exclusion grounds

Selection criteria

Table 5 – Pre-filled information in the eESPD 

3.3  Benefits deriving from the use of the eESPD  

A key objective of the survey is to assess the benefits of the eEPSD. The results are outlined below, 
specifically for buyers and suppliers, as they vary in terms of relevance. 

The  harmonisation  provided  by  the  eESPD  for  asking  qualification  criteria  in  Europe  is  the  main 
benefits  for  public  buyers  (20.81%);  followed  by  making  it  easier  for  foreign  suppliers  to 
participate  in  procurement  procedures  (17.64%)  and  also  for  domestic  suppliers  (16.06%).  It 
offers a more efficient way to evaluate bids (13.95%).   

The European value of the eESPD has therefore been confirmed by public buyers, recognising that 
the service is particularly valuable for foreign suppliers.  

10 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of the practical application of the 

European Single Procurement Document (ESPD). Brussels, 17.5.2017 COM(2017) 242 final. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Main benefits for Buyers

10,02%

6,45%

16,06%

20,81%

17,64%

13,95%

8,09%

6,98%

Table 6 – eESPD benefits for Buyers 

It makes it easier for domestic suppliers to
participate
It makes it easier for foreign suppliers to
participate
It is more efficient to evaluate bids

It allows data to be retrieved automatically
from national databases
It fills buyers data automatically

It provides for an harmonized way to ask for
qualification criteria in Europe
It provides structured data that enables use
of data analytics tools

For  suppliers,  the  reduction  of  administrative  burden  represents  the  main  benefit  -  as  only  the 
winner  has  to  provide  documents  and  evidences  (20.58%).  Making  it  easier  to  participate  in 
domestic  procedures  (18.09%)  is  the  second  main  benefit,  followed  by  a  reduction  of  the  time 
necessary to submit a bid (16.23%). The value of harmonisation is only the fourth benefit in order 
of importance (11.58%). This can be justified by the fact that suppliers have to use different ESPD 
services to submit tenders to contracting authorities, and having to learn using different interfaces 
and processes.  

Finally, re-use of data from a previous procedure is considered to be a key benefit only by 9.46% 
of the respondents, possibly implying that this option is not provided in the majority of the ESPD 
services, or that suppliers are not fully aware of its potential benefits. 

Main benefits for Suppliers

It is easier to participate in domestic procedures

20,58%

4,24%

9,46%

3,33%

18,09%

It is easier to participate in procedures in other EU
Member States

It reduces the time required to submit a bid

It fills company data automatically

7,64%

It provides an harmonized way to ask for qualification
criteria in Europe

It reuses data from previous procedures

16,23%

It allows data to be retrieved automatically from national
databases

11,58%

8,85%

There is no need to provide supporting documents and
evidence (only the winner has to do it)

Other

Table 7 – eESPD benefits for Suppliers 

3.4  Main drawbacks experienced from the use of the eESPD 

The  biggest  disadvantage  of  the  ESPD  for  buyers  is  its  increased  complexity  compared  to  the 
previous  solution  used  in  their  country  (20.16%);  followed  by  the  longer  time  it  takes  to  use  it 
8 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

(17.3%).    In  17%  of  the  cases,  public  buyers  are  still  filling  a  long  paper  document.  Another 
disadvantage  is  that  information  has  to  be  filled  out  manually  (13%),  which  is  expected  if 
integration with other systems has not been achieved. However, a critical issue reported is that the 
ESPD hinders suppliers from participating in tender procedures, in 10% of the cases. 

For  suppliers  the  need  to  fill  in  information  manually  represents  the  biggest  drawback  (19%). 
Suppliers are still compiling the ESPD as a long paper document, not using the electronic form in 
over 18% of the cases; while public buyers are asking for supporting certificates to all bidders  

in 17% of the cases. Other disadvantages include the increased time required to use it (13%), and 
increased  complexity  (12.8%).  4.5%  of  respondents  report  that  the  ESPD  hinders  their 
participation in tender procedures. The requirement for eSignatures is also a challenge (7%). 

3.5  User Satisfaction 

The survey has covered specific aspects of the user satisfaction in relation to the use of the eESPD. 
These include ease of use, time saving, usefulness, efficiency and reduction of compliance risk. An 
overall satisfaction grade was also requested, ranging from 1 (very low satisfaction) to 5 (very high 
satisfaction).   

In  general,  respondents  are  sufficiently  satisfied  with  the  ESPD  services  deployed  across  Europe, 
both in the case of buyers and suppliers.  

Overall Average Satisfaction

3,20

3,04

3,05

3,02

3,06

2,93

3,25
3,20
3,15
3,10
3,05
3,00
2,95
2,90
2,85
2,80
2,75

Average
Satisfaction
Grade Overall

Average
Satisfaction
Grade for
Compliance
risk reduction

Average
Satisfaction
Grade for
Efficiency

Average
Satisfaction
Grade for
Usefullness

Average
Satisfaction
Grade for
Time Saving

Average
Satisfaction
Grade for Ease
of Use

Table 8 – eESPD satisfaction 

3.6  Improvements and changes 

As  the  REFIT’s  opinion  requested  to  assess  what  could  be  improved,  a  set  of  pre-defined  options 
were  provided  based  on  the  knowledge  gathered  by  liaising  with  stakeholders  during  the 
eProcurement  workshops  and  EXEP  meetings.  Respondents  have  also  been  given  the  opportunity 
to express other individual answers.  

Over  a  third  of  survey  participants  would  like  to  see  the  ESPD  service  integrated  with  other  IT 
solutions, such as eTendering systems, notifications and national databases. This shows that users 
are  aware  of  the  benefits  of  the  eESPD  integration  which  would  result  in  having  most  of  the 
required information automatically pre-filled through the data retrieved from the other IT systems.  

Training  is  the  second  major  improvement  that  users  have  reported.  This  is  consistent  with 
answers  provided  at  the  beginning  of  survey  where  lack  of  awareness  and  knowledge  on  how  to 
use it represented the key two factors for not using the eESPD.  In addition, having a functionality 
to  support  collaboration  between  suppliers  involved  in  joint  procurement,  or  cases  where 
subcontractors are involved, and another one for providing an overview of the results of all eESPDs 
are seen as relevant improvements to be made to the services. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

What would you like to see improved or 
changed ?

Functionality to support collaboration between
suppliers involved in joint procurements or cases
where you have subcontractors

10,99%

14,43%

38,20%

12,37%

24,01%

Functionality to provide an overview of the
results of all ESPDs during the evaluation phase

Training on the use of the ESPD and / or an ESPD
service

Integration with other IT solutions (e.g.
eTendering system, notifications, national
databases)

Other

Table 9 – eESPD changes and improvements 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

4 

Conclusions  

ESPD services have been gradually deployed in 26 Member States, during 2018 and 2019. Only in 
Cyprus and Luxemburg an ESPD service is not yet available. However, suppliers in Luxemburg are 
using ESPD services from other countries. The main reasons for not using the eESPD are related to 
the lack of awareness and training, beyond national legislations not requiring its use.  

Almost  60%  of  the  survey  respondents  are  using  the  eESPD  for  tender  procedures  above  the  EU 
thresholds,  while  over  30%  for  tender  procedures  above  and  below  the  EU  thresholds.  Estonia, 
Greece,  Croatia,  Netherlands  and  Romania  have  made  it  mandatory  also  for  tenders  below 
thresholds,  representing  14,5%  of  the  total.  The  survey  results  also  unveiled  that  suppliers  in  25 
Member States are currently using an ESPD service from other countries, emphasising the value of 
this tool to facilitate cross-border public eProcurement. 

Almost two thirds of the survey participants reported that for the ESPD services used information is 
not  filled  in  automatically,  implying  that  these  services  have  not  (yet)  been  integrated  with  an 
eProcurement system, and/or with databases or services for the pre-qualification of suppliers.  This 
result  is  consistent  with  information  previously  gathered  by  the  Commission,  clarifying  that  two 
thirds  of  the  Member  States  plan  to  proceed  with  such  integrations  but  the  related  developments 
require time. 

Over one third of the eESPD users, when asked for the type of information that was automatically 
pre-filled  by  the  service,  reported  that  the  main  data  included  information  concerning  the 
procurement  procedure  and  the  contract  authority  or  contracting  entity;  followed  by  information 
concerning the economic operator; exclusion grounds; and selection criteria. 

The harmonisation provided by the eESPD for asking qualification criteria in Europe is what public 
buyers consider to be the main benefit (20.81%), followed by a simplification for foreign suppliers 
(17.64%)  and  for  domestic  suppliers  (16.06%)  to  participate  in  tender  procedures.  For  suppliers, 
the requirement that only the winner has to provide documents and evidences represents the main 
benefit (20.58%); making it easier to participate in domestic procedures is the second main benefit 
(18.09%), followed by a reduction of the time to submit a bid (16.23%). 

The  biggest  disadvantage  of  the  eESPD  for  buyers  is  its  increased  complexity  compared  to  the 
previous  solution  used  in  their  country  (20%),  followed  by  the  longer  time  it  takes  to  use  it 
(17.3%).  For  suppliers  the  need  to  fill  in  information  manually  represents  the  biggest  drawback 
(19.3%),  followed  by  the  need  to  compile  the  ESPD  as  a  long  paper  document  in  some  cases 
(18.2%);  while  public  buyers  are  asking  for  supporting  certificates  to  all  bidders  (17.2%). 
Increased time (13%) and complexity (12.8%) are also experienced by suppliers. 

The  survey  has  focused  on  specific  indicators  to  measure  user  satisfaction,  including  ease  of  use, 
time  saving,  usefulness,  efficiency  and  reduction  of  compliance  risk.    Overall,  respondents  are 
sufficiently  satisfied  with  the  ESPD  services  deployed  across  Europe  (based  on  an  average 
satisfaction rate of 3.04, with values ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), as showed in table 
8. 

When asked for measures to improve the use of the eESPD, 38% of survey participants would like 
to  see  the  ESPD  service  integrated  with  other  IT  solutions,  such  as  eTendering  systems, 
notifications  and  national  databases.  Training  on  the  eESPD  is  the  second  major  improvement 
(24%).  In  addition,  having  a  functionality  to  support  collaboration  between  suppliers  involved  in 
joint  procurement  or  cases  where  subcontractors  are  involved,  and  providing  an  overview  of  the 
results  of  all  ESPDs  are  seen  as  relevant  enhancements  by  14.4%  and  12.37%  of  respondents 
respectively. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

5  Next steps 

The transition to digital procurement is starting to take shape in Europe. It will require the use and 
collection of structured information in a common format and will enable a data driven approach to 
decision making, significantly improving the effectiveness of public spending.  

The  European  Commission  should  continue  to  provide  guidance  and  financial  support  for  further 
integration  of  the  ESPD  with  other  IT  systems  and  services.  The  use  of  emerging  technologies  in 
addressing inefficiencies and improving the user experience should also be promoted.  

In  order  to  foster  the  adoption  of  the  ESPD,  user  friendliness  of  the  services  should  be  a  key 
objective  for  implementers.  The  Commission  could  consider  usability  tests  as  a  pre-condition  for 
future funding opportunities. Supporting measures should also be offered for awareness campaigns 
and  training  services  at  the  national  level,  for  both  public  and  private  entities,  including  contact 
points for legal and technical support. 

Public buyers should refrain from asking ESPD in a paper format and requiring all bidders to submit 
the supporting documents.  

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 1 - The ESPD Survey  

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Annex 2 – Additional tables  

Which tender procedures do you use the ESPD for ?

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%100%

87%

88%

86%

79%

75%

74%

73%

80%

75%

90%

85%

83%

80%

72%

67%

65%

60%

28%

26%

24%

12%

7%

8% 8%
2%

20%

17%

12%
7%

57%

58%

48%

25%

26%

23%

13%

10%

3%

3% 3%

25%

18%

25%

24%
18%

16%

5%

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

17%

5%

11%

2%

N/A 

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Above the EU threshold

Below the EU threshold

Both, above and below the EU thresholds

Annex 2.1 – Visualisation of table 4 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Which information does the  ESPD fill in automatically ?

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

Selection criteria

Exclusion grounds

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Information concerning the economic operator

Information concerning the procurement procedure and the contract authority or the
contracting entity

Annex 2.2 – Visualisation of table 5 by Member State  

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Main benefits for Buyers

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Other
It provides structured data that enables use of data analytics tools
It provides for an harmonized way to ask for qualification criteria in Europe
It fills buyers data automatically
It allows data to be retrieved automatically from national databases
It is more efficient to evaluate bids
It makes it easier for foreign suppliers to participate
It makes it easier for domestic suppliers to participate

Annex 2.3 – Visualisation of table 6 by Member State  

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Main benefits for Suppliers

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

Other

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

There is no need to provide supporting documents and evidence (only the winner has to do it)

It allows data to be retrieved automatically from national databases

It reuses data from previous procedures

It provides an harmonized way to ask for qualification criteria in Europe

It fills company data automatically

It reduces the time required to submit a bid

It is easier to participate in procedures in other EU Member States

It is easier to participate in domestic procedures

Annex 2.4 – Visualisation of table 7 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Satisfaction Grade for Ease of Use

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

180

65

39

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

10 7

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

60

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

28

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

83

62

73

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

Average Satisfaction Grade for Ease of Use

Number of respondent

Annex 2.5 – Visualisation of table 8 by Member State  

Satisfaction Grade for Time Saving

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

180

39

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

65

10 7

60

28

83

62

73

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

Average Satisfaction Grade for Time Saving

Number of respondent

Annex 2.6 – Visualisation of table 8 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

26 

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Satisfaction Grade for Usefullness

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

180

39

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

65

10 7

60

28

83

62

73

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

Average Satisfaction Grade for Usefullness

Number of respondent

 Annex 2.7 – Visualisation of table 8 by Member State 

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

Satisfaction Grade for Efficiency

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

180

65

39

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

83

62

73

60

28

10 7

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Average Satisfaction Grade for Efficiency

Number of respondent

Annex 2.8 - Visualisation of table 8 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

27 

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Satisfaction Grade for Compliance risk reduction

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

l

i

e
c
n
a
r
F

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

180

65

39

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

83

62

73

60

28

10 7

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

Average Satisfaction Grade for Compliance risk reduction

Number of respondent

Annex 2.9 – Visualisation of table 8 by Member State 

5,00

4,50

4,00

3,50

3,00

2,50

2,00

1,50

1,00

0,50

0,00

2

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

Satisfaction Grade Overall

709

105

68

1

1

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

1

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

8

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

69

27

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

180

39

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

4

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

9

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

65

10 7

60

28

83

62

73

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

10

y
a
w
r
o
N

144

95

48

23

23 35 41

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

Average Satisfaction Grade Overall

Number of respondent

Annex 2.10 – Visualisation of table 8 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

28 

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

What would you like to see improved or changed ?

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

s
u
r
p
y
C

i

a
h
c
e
z
C

i

a
n
o
t
s
E

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
e
c
I

l

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a
M

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

y
a
w
r
o
N

d
n
a
o
P

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

i

a
n
a
m
o
R

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
k
a
v
o
S

l

i

a
n
e
v
o
S

l

i

n
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

i

m
o
d
g
n
K
d
e
t
i
n
U

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

i

m
u
g
e
B

l

Other

Integration with other IT solutions (e.g. eTendering system, notifications, national databases)

Training on the use of the ESPD and / or an ESPD service

Functionality to provide an overview of the results of all ESPDs during the evaluation phase

Functionality to support collaboration between suppliers involved in joint procurements or cases where you
have subcontractors

Annex 2.11 – Visualisation of table 9 by Member State 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address 
of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website 
at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You  can  download  or  order  free  and  priced  EU  publications  at:  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  may  be  obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your  local  information 
centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For  access  to  legal  information  from  the  EU,  including  all  EU  law  since  1952  in  all  the  official  language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data can be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 

30