REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Implementation and best practices of national procurement policies in the Internal Market
Date: 2021-05-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, award of contract, e-procurement, electronic government, green public procurement, invitation to tender, tendering

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.5.2021  COM(2021) 245 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Implementation and best practices of national procurement policies in the Internal Market   
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 

2. 
Summary of the Member States monitoring reports ..................................................................... 2 
2.1.  Key quantitative indicators – the number and value of procurement .................................................. 2 
2.2.  Most frequent sources of wrong application or of legal uncertainty ................................................... 5 
Fraud, corruption, conflict of interest and serious irregularities ......................................................... 6 
2.3. 
SMEs participation ............................................................................................................................. 7 
2.4. 
Practical implementation of national strategic procurement ............................................................... 8 
2.5. 
Green public procurement .................................................................................................. 8 
2.5.1. 
Socially responsible public procurement ........................................................................... 9 
2.5.2. 
Innovation public procurement ........................................................................................ 10 
2.5.3. 

3. 

General conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 11 

Page   1/ 11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  document  reflects  the  contributions  that  Member  States  submitted  during  the  first 
reporting and monitoring exercise under Articles 83 and 85 of Directive 2014/24/EU on 
public  procurement,  Article  45  of  Directive  2014/23/EU  on  the  award  of  concession 
contracts,  as  well  as  Articles  99  and  101  of  Directive  2014/25/EU  on  procurement  by 
entities  operating  in  the  water,  energy,  transport  and  postal  services  sector  (hereinafter 
‘the reporting obligation’ or ‘the reporting exercise’).  

Due  to  the  delayed  transposition  of  the  Directives,  the  first  implementation  of  the 
reporting  obligation  took  place  in  2018.  Consequently,  the  reports  covered  in  principle 
the period between the 1 January 2017 and 31 December 20171 (even if a Member State 
transposed the Directives after the 1 January 2017) depending on data availability. 

In the context of the above obligations, the Commission received 27 reports: 26 from EU 
Member  States2  and  one  from  Norway,  as  member  of  the  European  Economic  Area 
(EEA). The original reports as submitted by Member States are available at the following 
address:  

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/public-procurement/country-reports_en. 

2.  SUMMARY OF THE MEMBER STATES MONITORING REPORTS  

As a  general  observation, qualitative information prevailed over quantitative data in  all 
the  reports  received.  However,  the  incompleteness  of  the  latter  limited  the  possibilities 
for  a  comprehensive  aggregation  and/or  comparability  of  the  available  data  at  the  EU 
level.  

2.1.  Key quantitative indicators – the number and value of procurement 

The quantitative indicators are indispensable to define the procurement market. Member 
States mentioned various problems encountered while conducting this reporting exercise, 
e.g. partial or missing input data3 or lack of such data4 etc. The task itself seems to have 
been demanding and resource intensive to the extent that some Member States decided to 
seek supplementary assistance in this respect. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  above  issues  encountered  when  compiling  the  data,  selected  key 
indicators  received  from  Member  States  during  the  first  reporting  exercise  have  been 

1  

Some Member States submitted reports covering different period, depending on what information was available to 
them. 

2   No reports were submitted by the United Kingdom and Austria. 
3  

For  example,  the  report  received  from  Sweden  mentions:  “In  addition,  a  relatively  large  proportion  of  the 
national  procurements  have  missing  values  for  the  procurement  value.”  Similarly,  the  report  received  from 
Denmark  mentions: “It is not required to publish a tender below the EU threshold if said tender does not have 
cross-border  interest.  Data  for  these  tenders  are  therefore  not accessible.  Without  these data  the  total  value of 
procurement under the EU threshold would be misguiding.” 
For example, the report received from Finland mentions: “As regards the under EU threshold procurement, the 
Finnish central eNotification platform HILMA collects the data for the estimated value. Comprehensive data for 
the value of the awarded contracts (as requested in the template) under the EU thresholds is not available for the 
year  2017.”  while  the  Norwegian  government  does  not  collect  data  on  the  value  of  procurement  of  contracts 
awarded below the EU-thresholds. 

4  

Page 2 /11 

 
 
                                                 
summarised in Table 1  (data in the table refer to calls for competition, unless specified 
otherwise). 

Table 1: Number and value of above and below EU threshold procurement in 2017 

Comments: Denmark – below threshold value only concerns tenders with cross-border interest, France - data for 2016 
and above 90 000 EUR only, unless voluntary reporting,  Hungary – values refer to awarded contracts, Ireland – data 
refer to contract award notices, Italy – approximate division into above and below threshold procurement in goods and 
services,  based  on  contact  value  of  less  than  150  000  EUR,  Luxembourg  -  the  number  of  procedures  refers  to  the 
awarded contracts, Malta - data refer to awarded contracts, the Netherlands – data for 2015, Romania - reporting period 
from 1.01.2017 to 28.02.2018, Slovakia  – for below EU threshold procurement data refer to the number of awarded 
contracts and estimated contract value, Spain – data collection has been closed on 15 December.2017, Sweden – data 
for 2016. 

As  can  be  noted  in  Table  1,  the  submitted  information  shows  several  inconsistencies, 
ranging  from  information  gaps  to  compound  reporting  (e.g.  above  and  below  threshold 
procurement  are  reported  together),  or  reporting  on  different  stages  of  public 
procurement process (e.g. data referring to calls for tender versus awarded contracts), and 
different  periods.  Processing  of  such  input  becomes  problematic  when  the  above  is 

Page 3 /11 

Above thresholdBelow thresholdAbove thresholdBelow thresholdAustriaReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedBelgium n.a  n.a.  n.a.                         6,435.80 Bulgaria                             5,921                              4,955                         6,516.62                            633.12 Croatia                             1,370                              7,413                         2,730.19                         2,606.68 Cyprus                                262                              1,490  n.a.                            175.92 Czech Republic                             4,486                              5,758                         8,546.68                         2,241.13 Denmark                             2,669                                 607  n.a.  n.a. Estonia                             9,005                              1,369                         1,700.00                            800.00 Finland                             4,333  n.a.  n.a.  n.a. FranceGermany n.a.  n.a. Greece n.a.  n.a.  n.a.                         1,800.00 Hungary                             3,020                              8,671                         9,901.94                         1,838.25 Ireland                                879                              1,406                         6,033.56                            261.27 Italy                           47,631 89,606                                              122,364.75                       16,610.25 Latvia                             1,323                              2,679  n.a.                            567.59 Lithuania n.a.  n.a.  n.a.                         2,117.80 Luxembourgn.a.965                               n.a.251.84                          Malta                                372                              5,150                            513.92                            194.88 Poland                           22,458  n.a.  n.a.                       22,604.58 Portugal                             4,579                          536,377                         2,867.00                         3,735.00 Romania n.a.                         3,230.45 Slovakia                             1,650                            26,293  n.a.                         2,086.06 Slovenia                             1,554                              5,579                         2,218.34                            815.31 Spain                           10,991  n.a.  n.a.                       14,419.44 Sweden                             7,561 10,769                          Netherlands n.a.  n.a.                       26,400.00                       46,900.00 United KingdomReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedIcelandReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedLiechtensteinReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedReport not submittedNorway                             4,418                              5,268 n.a.n.a.28,165 72,236.48 CountryNumber of procurement proceduresValue of procurement procedures  [million EUR]144,79683,871.00 280,000.00  
 
coupled with issues such as doubts about comparability between the units of measure or 
differences in coverage (i.e. monitoring of below EU threshold procurement depends of 
the  level  of  national  thresholds,  which  vary  significantly).  As  a  result,  the  information 
received  from  Member  States  was  presented  “as  is”  including  placeholders  for  missing 
input  (even  if  the  latter  is  partially  due  to  voluntary  nature  of  data  collection5)  and  no 
EU-level aggregates have been calculated on the basis of the information received. 

In  several  instances,  when  data  was  reported  separately  for  below  and  above  the 
thresholds,  the  national  figures  for  above  threshold  procurement  differed  from  data 
collected via TED (Tenders Electronic Daily)6. This may be due to a number of factors, 
such  as  insufficient  integration  of  data  transmission  and/or  publication  between  the 
national  systems  and  TED,  and  it  shall  be  further  investigated.  Examples  of  such 
discrepancies are provided in Table 2.  

Table  2:  Discrepancies  between  the  number  of  contract  notices  (CNs)  and  contract 
awards (CAs) – examples 

2017 (2016 SE) 

Country 

CNs published in TED vs. National reporting 

CAs published in TED vs. National reporting 

FI 

HU 

SE 

87% 

84% 

89% 

93% 

108% 

107% 

Figure  1  shows  the  share  of  below  and  above  EU  threshold  procurement  for  selected 
Member  States,  which  also  provided  the  value  of  public  procurement  above  EU 
threshold.  

Figure  1:  Value  of  below  EU  threshold  procurement,  compared  with  above  EU 
threshold procurement  

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

CZ

EE

HU
Below EU threshold

MT

NL

Above EU threshold

PT

SI

The graph shows divergent patterns among the selected Member States, which could be 
explained  by  differences  in  levels  of  national  thresholds,  as  well  as  various 
methodologies for data collection. Interestingly, in some countries (the Netherlands and 
Portugal),  below  threshold  procurement  is  more  important  than  above  threshold 

5   According  to  Article  85.2,  the  reporting  obligations  do  not  refer  to  the  value  of  above  threshold  public 

procurement, nor to the number of procurements. 

6   TED  (Tenders  Electronic  Daily)  is  the  online  version  of  the  Supplement  to  the  Official  Journal  of  the  EU, 

dedicated to European public procurement, available at https://ted.europa.eu/. 

Page 4 /11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
procurement. This highlights the importance of national procurement markets, as well as 
the  importance  of  data  collection  and  monitoring  beyond  TED  (an  exclusive  task  of 
Member States).  

2.2.   Most frequent sources of wrong application or of legal uncertainty 

This  section  focuses  on  the  most  frequent  sources  of  wrong  application  or  of  legal 
uncertainty, including possible structural or recurring problems in the application of the 
public procurement rules, as reported by Member States. The most frequently identified 
general problems were the following: 

 

 

insufficient knowledge of the rules by practitioners, especially rules not clarified 
by case-law; 

inadequate  staffing  (required  quality  and  variety  of  profiles),  as  well  as  staff 
retention, especially at local level;  

 

lack of procurement skills and insufficient knowledge of the market;  

  pressure to ensure a specific result of the procedure by the political hierarchy;  

  pressure to ensure results quickly resulting in shortened time for proper planning 

and conduct of the procedure; 

 

lack  of  central  purchasing  units  or  insufficient  support  available  to  small  and 
understaffed authorities. 

Concerning  the  concrete  application  of  legal  provisions  by  the  national  contracting 
authorities, about a quarter of the Member States mentioned the following issues:  

  calculation of the value of the procurement – Article 5: artificial splitting by the 
contracting  authority,  either  when  used  purposefully  in  an  illegal  context,  or 
through wrong interpretation which could lead to inadvertent artificial splitting; 

  exclusion grounds – Article 57: the use of exclusion grounds by the contracting 
authority for the purpose of favouritism or overly liberal interpretation leading to 
their insufficiently strict enforcement;  

  award  criteria  –  Article  67:  difficulty  for  the  contracting  authority  to  formulate 
proper and meaningful quality criteria, including those involving strategic public 
procurement  (green,  socially  responsible  and  innovative)  and  establishing  a 
relevant link with the subject matter of the procurement. 

Finally,  despite  the  limited  number  of  answers,  the  following  patterns  were  observed 
frequently: 

  preference  by  contracting  authorities  to  use  lowest  price  as  an  award  criterion, 
seen  as  simpler  and  more  objective;  best  price-quality  ratio  is  used  in  limited 
cases, due to fears of risks in compliance audits;  

  no  or  little  prior  market  research  resulting  in  non-realistic  or  outdated 

specifications; 

  use  of  shortest  possible  deadlines  for  submitting  tenders  or  requests  to 

participate, and short deadlines for contract execution; 

Page 5 /11 

 
 
 

imposing too many selection criteria or not imposing any at all. 

2.3.  Fraud, corruption, conflict of interest and serious irregularities 

Many Member States outlined their legislative solutions, the institutional set-up and the 
“soft law” measures taken, with certain statistics on the functioning of the system. In the 
majority of cases, the general anticorruption and anti-collusion legislation and institutions 
predate  the  Directives.  However,  the  EU  rules  usually  provided  the  impetus  to  focus 
specifically on public procurement-related issues, if not already covered.  

Interesting specific obligations and rights mentioned are, for instance: 

  obligation  to  publish  all  documents,  including  information  on  the  economic 

operators; 

  obligation  of  competition  authorities  to  conduct  tests  and  simulations  of  the 

market, in order to detect collusive behaviour; 

  obligation of economic operators to provide data on their ownership structure; 

  mandatory appointments of integrity officials and establishment of internal audit 

departments in contracting authorities. 

The “soft law” measures7 indicated in the reports were the most numerous and displayed 
the  greatest  coherence  across  Member  States.  They  include  national  strategies  against 
corruption,  manuals  and  guidance  notes  (especially  on  methods  to  conduct  market 
research,  negotiations  or  to  detect  collusive  behaviour),  professionalisation,  education 
and training, or codes of conduct for civil servants (when not set out in legislation) and 
sometimes also for economic operators. The focus devoted to soft measures shows that 
Member States are aware that activity in the field of integrity and anticorruption requires 
not just legal barriers, but also a positive influence on administrative culture, on personal 
behaviour and values. 

Most  of  the  abovementioned  measures  apply  mutatis  mutandis  to  conflict  of  interest. 
There are some specific national measures with respect to conflict of interests: 

  around one quarter of Member States report more detailed rules on the definition 
of conflict of interests than the one provided by the Directives. In general, these 
pertain to clarifying family and personal links that fall admittedly in the scope of 
the notion of interest, as well as rules on shareholding in private companies;  

  many Member States indicate declarations on the absence of conflict of interests, 
impartiality  and  objectivity,  as  a  measure  used  at  national  level.  In  some  cases, 
there is a general obligation to declare any possible conflict of interest, with the 
obligation  to  publish  that  information.  In  general,  penalties  for  breach  of  such 
rules are in place; 

  other measures included:  

7   Measures that do not amount to a strict legal obligation on the side of the practitioners of procurement. 

Page 6 /11 

 
 
                                                 
o  a  ban  on  simultaneous  participation  in  multiple  technical  and/or 
evaluation committees dealing with the same procurement procedure; 

o  strict  provisions  that  contracts  concluded  contrary  to  the  rules 

regulating conflict of interests are null and void; 

o 

the  obligation  for  civil  servants  controlling  public  procurement  to 
submit regular declarations of assets. 

The reports also confirm that Member States are currently pursuing collusion prevention 
and  detection  policies  largely  inspired  by  the  OECD  guidelines8.  Measures  to  fight 
collusion  that  are  common  in  Member  States  include:  elaborating  and  disseminating 
guidance  on  detection,  awareness-raising  and  training,  direct  helplines  for  reporting 
alleged  cases,  leniency  programmes  for  operators  that  come  forward  with  information, 
criminal law sanctions for colluders, etc.  

It  appears  that,  in  most  Member  States,  national  competition  authorities  are  primarily 
responsible for carrying out such policies. The role of central procurement authorities9 in 
this  area  is  not  developed.  The  importance  of  establishing  and/or  maintaining  clear 
communication  and  cooperation  channels  between  competition  authorities,  central 
procurement authorities and contracting authorities is generally acknowledged as a major 
element of the policy to fight collusion.  

The reports show that developing and applying means for the quantitative assessment of 
collusion  risks  in  award  procedures,  mostly  in  the  form  of  risk  indicators,  remains  a 
challenge.  

2.4.  SMEs participation  

The  diversity  in  reporting  and  data  shared  makes  it  difficult  to  compare  the  data  from 
different countries on SME participation.  

Around three quarters of Member States have provided contributions on the quantitative 
reporting. However, only a limited number of Member States have explicitly mentioned 
challenges encountered by SMEs in public procurement. These include in particular the 
administrative burden, the lack of knowledge of the SMEs product market, or the lack of 
dialogue  between  contracting  authorities  and  SMEs.  To  address  them,  most  of  the 
measures  reported  are  those  required  by  the  EU  Directives  on  public  procurement 
(division  of  contracts  into  lots,  turnover  cap,  etc.).  Several  Member  States  report  on 
complementary measures such as helpdesks and other support structures, introducing e-
procurement  modules  even  for  below  threshold  procurement.  Most  of  the  challenges 
encountered  by  SMEs  relate  to  participation  in  public  procurement  in  general,  while 
some  reports  also  revealed  certain  challenges  that  are  more  related  to  national 
specificities. 

Certain  Member  States  have  presented  additional  measures  to  the  ones  included  in  the 
Directives to improve SMEs participation in public procurement.  

8   OECD Recommendation on Fighting Bid Rigging in Public Procurement 

(https://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/oecdrecommendationonfightingbidrigginginpublicprocurement.htm).  

9   Centralized procurement entities in place in most Member States, responsible for procurement policy. 

Page 7 /11 

 
 
                                                 
Some interesting practices can be highlighted: 

 

 

the Dutch government encouraged SMEs to work with contracting authorities 
to  identify  constraints  and  developed  concrete  actions  to  improve  public 
procurement practices, which the government presented in February 201810;  
the  Italian  government  initiated  Supplier  Training  Desks11  that  provided 
training and assistance to local enterprises, and in particular micro, small and 
medium enterprises on the use of electronic procurement tools.  

Some Member States, which had difficulties in providing data, indicated that they intend 
to put in place data collection systems in the future.  

2.5.  Practical implementation of national strategic procurement  

Strategic  public  procurement  includes  green,  socially  responsible  and  innovative 
procurement.  The  objective  is  to  increase  the  value  added  and  impact  of  the  procedure 
and  of  the  public  expenditure,  thereby  contributing  to  the  effective  implementation  of 
economic,  social  and  environmental  policy  objectives  at  EU,  national,  regional  and/or 
local  levels)  and  to  an  inclusive  recovery,  as  well  as  promoting  the  twin  transition  and 
strengthening social resilience.  

2.5.1.  Green public procurement 

Green  Public  Procurement  (hereinafter  'GPP')  is  defined  as  "a  process  whereby  public 
authorities  seek  to  procure  goods,  services  and  works  with  a  reduced  environmental 
impact throughout their life cycle when compared to goods, services and works with the 
same primary function that would otherwise be procured"12. 

Member  States  reported  on  some  main  challenges 
implementation of GPP, such as: 

they  encountered 

in 

the 

 

 

 

 

the  difficulty  to  foster  GPP  practices  due  to  the  lack  of  legal  obligation  for 
contracting authorities to use environmental criteria in tendering procedures; 
the lack of legal certainty on the correct interpretation of the requirement for ‘link 
to the subject matter of the contract’ and the general fear of litigation; 
the  lack  of    data  on  the  effectiveness  and  economic  benefits  of  applying  GPP 
criteria and the difficulty to monitor their application; 
the  lack  of  specific  knowledge  and  skills  of  the  public  servants  engaged  in 
tendering  procedures,  the  fact  that  GPP  may  be  perceived  as  an  obstacle  to 
competition, specifically restricting SME participation in public tendering. 

Ambiguity with respect to the definition of GPP exists in many Member States, as they 
did not clearly define GPP in their domestic legal order, while the rest have often opted 
for  the  European  Commission’s  definition  mentioned  above.  It  is  important  to  mention 

10   Beter Aanbesteden, 16 February 2018. 
11   Sportelli in Rete. 
12   Communication (COM (2008) 400) "Public procurement for a better environment". 

Page 8 /11 

 
 
                                                 
that measures to promote the procurement of products, buildings and services with high 
energy efficiency performance are made mandatory by the Energy Efficiency Directive 
2012/27/EU13,  but  they  haven’t  been  specifically  assessed  in  this  report  (neither  it  is 
required to report on them under the  Directive 2012/27/EU). 

Member States have implemented GPP to different degrees. The main factor is whether 
there  is  a  legal  obligation  for  contracting  authorities  to  include  environmental 
considerations in their procurement procedures. Approximately, one third of the Member 
States  have  introduced  a  legal  obligation  for  specific  sectors,  product  groups,  or  if  the 
value  of  the  contract  is  above  specified  thresholds.  The  others  have  opted  for  the 
voluntary inclusion of GPP. 

Many Member States reported the absence of data on the use of GPP. In addition, while 
many  Member  States  have  included  guidance  on  how  to  incorporate  green  criteria  in 
procurement procedures, only some of them have explained how to assess those criteria 
in the evaluation stages.  

Good practice examples include: 

 

 including mandatory GPP criteria or targets in national sectorial legislation;  

  create  a  library  with  GPP  criteria  for  different  products  and  services,  which  is 
freely available and includes different criteria in terms of degree of environmental 
focus; 

 

impose mandatory annual reporting on the environmental aspects in procurement 
procedures to ensure transparency and enable easy data collection; 

  provide training on GPP to both contracting authorities and businesses; 

  engage  the  environmental  protection  agencies  (or  another  body  performing 

similar activities) in the implementation of GPP.  

2.5.2.  Socially responsible public procurement 

Socially  responsible  public  procurement  (hereinafter  'SRPP')  is  defined  as  procurement 
that  takes  into  account  one  or  several  social  considerations  for  advancing  social 
objectives.  SRPP  can  cover  a  wide  spectrum  of  social  considerations,  such  as 
employment  opportunities,  decent  work  conditions  and  compliance  with  social  and 
labour rights, social inclusion, equal opportunities and accessibility. 

In  general,  the  quality  of  information  provided  was  insufficient  for  a  clear  and 
comprehensive  assessment  of  this  aspect  of  public  procurement  policy  across  the 
Member States. National authorities engaged in preparing the reports sometimes included 
information  on  labour  law  and  social  provisions,  without  providing  a  clear  link  to  the 
public  procurement  legislation.  Additionally,  the  majority  of  Member  States  provided 
hardly any data on SRPP.  

The  following  key  issues  were  mentioned  by  Member  States  concerning  the 
implementation of social criteria in procurement:  

13   Article 6: Purchasing by public bodies. 

Page 9 /11 

 
 
                                                 
 

the lack of clear guidance about the correct implementation; 

  difficulties in calculating social effects and life cycle costing;  

  difficulties in connecting social considerations to the subject matter of a contract; 

  absence of a generally accepted definition of SRPP. 

Approximately two-thirds of Member States have provisions in national law or strategies 
pertaining to the implementation of SRPP. Member States mentioning SRPP in national 
legislation  have  included  precise  criteria  on  the  introduction  of  social  considerations  in 
the  procurement  process  as  technical  specifications,  exclusion  grounds,  award  criteria 
and contract performance conditions. This paves the way towards greater legal certainty 
about the use of SRPP and better guidance for contracting authorities when engaging in 
public  expenditure.  Some  Member  States  even  went  a  step  further  and  incorporated 
proper  assessment  mechanisms  in  national  law,  guidance  or  assigned  a  body  to  assist 
contracting authorities in implementing SRPP and evaluate the social impact of tenders.  

In this context, some interesting practices can be highlighted:  

  drawing up of a “Collection of good practices on social public procurement”;  
  establishment  of  a  Working  Group  on  Social  Aspects  of  Public  Procurement  to 
analyse social aspects that may be taken into account by contracting authorities in 
the  different  stages  of  procurement,  also  preparing  and  publishing  a  detailed 
guide; 

  setting-up of an inter-ministerial committee for the inclusion of social criteria in 
public  procurement,  with  the  objective  of  ensuring  the  coordination  of  the 
integration of social criteria in public procurement and in the implementation of 
reserved contracts to certain entities in the social field; 

  drawing up of a code of conduct for suppliers to ensure that procured goods and 
services are supplied according to sustainable and socially responsible conditions.  

2.5.3.  Innovation public procurement 
The quality of the reporting on the public procurement of innovation14 (hereinafter ‘IPP’) 
varies  considerably  among  Member  States.  Because  of  lack  of  data,  several  Member 
States have not provided any information on measures taken to support IPP.  

The  most  common  obstacles  encountered  by  Member  States  often  related  to  resources 
and administrative capacity necessary to implement IPP, for example:  

the lack of awareness;  
insufficient methodological competence of public buyers;  
low risk tolerance in public spending;  

 
 
 
  scarce or lack of funding dedicated to innovation in public bodies;   
 
resistance to change stemming from the organisational culture.  

14   Buying  the  process  of  innovation,  such  as  research  and  development  services,  or  buying  the  outcomes  of  the 

process of innovation. 

Page 10 /11 

 
 
                                                 
The measures taken to promote IPP varied significantly. Some Member States have set 
out specific national targets, for instance a share of all public procurement that should be 
innovative by a given year. Such targets ranged from 2% to 5%. Others have adopted a 
national  strategy  or  an  action  plan,  eventually  as  part  of  a  wider  strategy  set  out  at 
national  level  to  foster  innovation.  Very  few  Member  States  have  decided  to  set  up 
competence  centres  and/or  brokers  acting  as  intermediaries  between  buyers  and 
suppliers. The aim of these centres is to increase the strategic use of public procurement, 
and  offer  expertise,  sharing  of  best  practices,  training  and  methodological  support  in 
specific  projects.  However,  Member  States,  which  have  not  implemented  competence 
centres,  frequently  offer  specialised  training  on  procurement  for  innovation  and 
guidelines.  The  establishment  of  such  centres  is  a  good  practice,  as  they  contribute  to 
strengthening the capacity of the public procurement workforce to conduct IPP. 

In general, the revised Directives, and in particular the innovation partnership, which was 
included  in  the  new  legislative  package  are  positively  perceived  concerning  fostering 
IPP. Nonetheless, only two Member States reported a small number of cases where the 
innovation partnership was used.  

3.  GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

Overall, the first reporting exercise allowed all involved parties to accumulate previously 
dispersed  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directives  and  provided  useful 
knowledge about public procurement practice across the EU. The reports also presented 
practical examples, which could be source of inspiration and knowledge sharing among 
national authorities.  

Undoubtedly,  the  first  data  collection  exercise  has  shown  that  there  is  much  room  for 
improvement,  especially  regarding  quantitative  reporting.  Moreover,  more  stringent 
implementation  of  strategic  procurement  considerations  is  key  for  supporting  an 
inclusive  recovery,  promoting  a  just  transition  and  strengthening  socio-economic 
resilience in line with the European Green Deal as new growth strategy for the EU. 

Finally,  Member  States  are  encouraged  to  co-own  the  reporting  process  to  the  largest 
extent  possible,  as  ultimately  aimed  at  improving  their  insight  into  their  respective 
governance systems, with the assistance from the Commission services. 

Page 11 /11