Procurement and joint procurement practices : customs control equipment in the EU : executive summary.
Date: 2024-04-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, capital goods, cross-border cooperation, customs cooperation, customs inspection, external border of the EU, public procurement, report, simplification of formalities

Procurement and joint procurement 
practices: customs control equipment in the 
EU 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PREPARED BY: 

For Oxford Research: Bradford Rohmer (Team Leader), Florian Poli and Elina Härmä 
For Wavestone: Chloé Dussutour, Patricia Bachmaier and Thiago Barbizan 
For Intellera: Carlo Montino and Irene Fratellini  
For Ipsos: Martin Kühnemenund  
Expert Panel: Frank Janssens and Michael Lux 

Final version submitted in April 2024. Specific Contract Nr. TAXUD/2022/DE/332 implementing framework contract No 
GROW/2021/OP/0001 Lot2 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union 
Directorate A — Customs 
Unit A.1 — Customs Policy 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024 

© European Union, 2024 

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 
12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise noted, the 
reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and 
any changes are indicated. 

LEGAL NOTICE 
The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official 
opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither 
the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be 
made of the information contained therein.  

ISBN: 978-92-68-12005-7 

   doi: 10.2778/841995  

KP-02-24-111-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

Introduction 

This is the summary of a study about practices for the procurement of customs control equipment by 
customs  administrations  in  the  EU.  It  took  place  following  the  launch  of  the  Customs  Control 
Equipment Instrument (CCEI), a funding programme that was conceived to bring the equipment of all 
Member States up to a sufficiently high level, and which marks the biggest EU contribution to date for 
customs control equipment.1 For the purpose of the study, ‘customs control equipment’ refers to the 
full range of equipment eligible for CCEI funding, for both border-crossing points (e.g., non-intrusive 
inspection  equipment  like  high-energy  x-ray  scanners,  small  handheld  equipment  like  cameras  for 
checking under vehicles) and customs laboratories (e.g., spectrometers).2 

Despite this increased role for the EU – and progressive advances in the EU Customs Union since its 
inception in 1968 – actual purchases of customs control equipment are still mainly the responsibility 
of individual Member States. This created two needs which the study sought to fulfil, namely (1) to 
map the procurement practices of the Member States so that good practices can be widely applied, 
and  (2)  to  explore  possibilities  for  cross-border  joint  procurement  (i.e.,  the  collective  purchase  of 
customs  control  equipment  for  more  than  one  Member  State)  which  could  generate  a  number  of 
significant operational and financial benefits.  

The largely national character of the procurement of customs control equipment meant that the study 
took place against a backdrop of a decentralised and fragmented knowledge base. When it comes to 
existing practices, the need for all Member States to apply the EU Procurement Directives implies a 
certain degree of harmonisation, but they retain significant discretion, and procurement in the niche 
field  of  customs  control  equipment  has  not  been  the  subject  of  much  publicly  available  research. 
Meanwhile, cross-border joint procurement is in its infancy in the EU, both in general and especially 
with regard to customs control equipment.  

For  these  reasons  a  fairly  broad  research  approach  was  taken.  This  entailed,  firstly,  an  ‘overall 
assessment’ comprised of desk research, a written questionnaire for customs authorities, a survey and 
interviews with a sample of manufacturers of and service providers for customs control equipment. 
This was complemented by an ‘in-depth research’ element, based on an examination of nine Member 
States and thematic case studies on three ‘models’ of joint procurement that have been applied either 
in  customs  or  other  policy  fields.  A workshop  with  national  customs  authorities  then  helped  to  tie 
together the findings and draw conclusions near the end of the study.  

The rest of this summary presents the key findings, conclusions and recommendations for the study, 
first  in  terms  of  national  procurement  practices,  then  joint  procurement.  Importantly,  the  study 
conclusions are very much aligned with the vision for joint procurement put forward in the Commission 
proposal for an EU Customs reform despite the two exercises running in parallel and independent of 
each other. 

National procurement practices  

The first study task consisted of mapping national approaches to the procurement of customs control 
equipment in the  EU, with a view  to identifying good practices. Lacking a pre-existing definition of 
‘good practices’ for the procurement of customs control equipment, one was developed by adapting 

1  Background  information  on  CCEI  can  be  found  on  the  Commission’s  dedicated  website:  Customs  Control 
Equipment Instrument (europa.eu).  
2 The types of equipment eligible for CCEI funding are defined in Annex I of  Regulation (EU) 2021/1077 of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  June  2021  establishing,  as  part  of  the  Integrated  Border 
Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment. 

2 

 
 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

criteria  used  in  the  context  of  the  European  Semester,  a  framework  for  the  coordination  and 
surveillance of economic and social policies in the EU. This led to the definition of four objectives under 
each of which good practices were sought, namely:  

•  Value  for  money:  providing  the  required  equipment  in  an  economic,  efficient  and  effective 

way; 

•  Transparency,  security  and  fairness:  disclosing  information  in  a  comprehensible,  accessible 
and timely manner, while ensuring wide access to different companies, achieving a high level 
of security of the equipment and a robust process for awarding contracts; 

•  Strategic,  digital  and 

innovative  procurement:  using  procurement  to  contribute  to 
environmental  and  social  objectives  while  maximising  the  use  of  digital  tools  and  fostering 
innovation; and 

•  Joint procurement ‘readiness’: taking part in forms of national and cross-border cooperation 

that can lay the foundation for future cross-border joint procurement.  

The  study  was  not  an  evaluation  -  rather  than  forming  judgements  on  the  quality  of  different 
procurement systems, it aimed to identify good practices and lessons learnt that could be applied more 
widely and feed into the implementation of CCEI. At the same time, the exercise inevitably gathered 
insight on the aspects of procurement that are perceived as working more and less well, and on the 
challenges experienced. The issues covered ranged from the high-level and strategic to details such as 
maintenance arrangements.  

Overarching conclusions 

Overall, the picture that formed was a positive one. No customs authorities doubted their compliance 
with EU or national procurement legislation, and they were also broadly satisfied with their systems 
and processes, and the results achieved. Despite differences in the specifics, approaches were found 
to be similar – and similarly well-functioning – in many respects. These included consistency in terms 
of the basic look and feel of the main procurement steps (from initial preparation through performance 
of the awarded contract), central organisation of procurement within the customs authority, a high 
usage of open procedures (rather alternatives such as framework contracts) and a reliance on both 
national and EU digital platforms to publish tendering information. Taken together, these similarities 
contributed  to  a  general  sense  that  national  procurement  systems  were  functioning  in  line  with 
expectations, and that customs authorities had little appetite for major changes.  

Nonetheless, it was also clear that the situation was far from perfect, and that complacency would 
bring its own risks. Of the several widespread challenges identified, most of these related to a difficulty 
for  customs  authorities  to  formulate  and  implement  a  strategy  for the  longer term, with  decisions 
instead focused on day-to-day operational needs. Such challenges include: 

•  Giving the appropriate wright to price criteria, which provide a necessary incentive to keep 
costs down, but are also hard to set at a level that would still encourage companies to offer 
innovative equipment / new technologies; these may be expensive at first but provide 
greater value for money over time; 

•  Marshalling the technical expertise needed to design tender specifications effectively, which 

is requiring more specialisation as equipment becomes more advanced; 

•  Ensuring sufficient standards in terms of (cyber-)security, data protection and privacy, which 
is especially urgent given the growing role of data and digitalisation in customs operations; 

•  Prioritising innovation in the tendering process, which can take a back seat to more 

immediate needs;  

3 

 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

•  Making procurement less lengthy and cumbersome, which in many countries remains the 

case despite the adoption of digital tools.  

•  Defining and meaningfully applying environmental and social criteria, which have been 

adopted in many Member States but with practices and actual effects still varying widely;; 

•  Developing and promoting joint procurement, which (as discussed in the next section), is not 

close to being realised in most countries despite its numerous potential strategic, 
operational and financial benefits. 

The  study  identified  good  practices  for  addressing  these  challenges  across  the  above-mentioned 
‘objectives’ that were used to structure the analysis, namely value for money; transparency, security 
and fairness; strategic, digital and innovative procurement; and joint procurement ‘readiness’. These 
led to a detailed ‘manual’ with proposed ‘solutions’ and examples. The ‘solutions’ are not a panacea – 
the more strategic issues are especially difficult to solve and will require concerted action at different 
levels– but the results of the study show that thoughtful planning and inclusive, active communication 
can go a long way towards making procurement systems more effective.  

Recommendations – a ‘manual’ for improving national procurement practices 

As per the study ToR, recommendations on national procurement practices should help ‘establish an 
optimal and efficient approach towards harmonisation of procurement procedures of customs control 
equipment’, while also taking into account national competences for public procurement and existing 
procurement  systems  that  the  Member  States  are  mostly  satisfied  with.  In  practice,  the 
recommendations take the form of a ‘manual’ of different mechanisms, practices, measures etc. that 
have  emerged  from  the  study  as  possible  ways  for  addressing  challenges  experienced  across  the 
procurement process.  

The diagram below presents a high-level overview of the solutions and challenges. The rounded boxes 
at the top of the diagram show the 14 solutions that are proposed. The rectangular boxes underneath 
depict  the  challenges  experienced  across  the  four  procurement  phases  defined  in  Directive 
2014/24/EU:  (1) preparation,  which  runs  from  early  market  consultations  until  the  terms  of  a 
procurement are set; (2) publication and transparency, which concerns the launch and running of the 
tendering process; (3) choice of participants and award of contracts; and (4) contract performance; 
phases (2) and (3) are grouped, given that they are closely related, while certain challenges relate to 
horizontal / cross-cutting aspects. The numbers next to each challenge stand for the tool(s) that help 
address each of them. 

4 

 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

Figure 1: Overview of solutions' for procurement processes at national level 

Source: Authors’ elaboration 

The proposed ‘solutions’ can be briefly summarised as follows: 

•  Solution  #1  –  Ongoing  market  research:  making  effective  purchases  relies  on  a  good 
understanding  of  the  market  offering,  which  in  turn  relies  on  market  research.  This  is 
underpinned by giving it strategic importance and high priority in the customs administration. 
Several approaches can be effective depending on a country’s circumstances,  ranging from 
entrusting this function to a ‘centre of excellence’ (see Solution #4) to simply ensuring that 
certain officials are charged with keeping regular contact with relevant manufacturers.  

•  Solution  #2  –  Mechanisms  to  coordinate  technical  and  policy  /  business  leadership: 
purchasing customs control equipment should serve clear policy aims and contribute to the 
EU customs mission. To make this happen in practice, (1) decisions about equipment should 
be elevated to the strategic level, (2) policy / business leaders need the space to interact with 
each other about ‘the big picture, and (3) based on this work, a ‘strategic vision’ should be 
created and given the political weight needed to implement it in practice.  

•  Solution #3 – Strict security requirements: stakeholders expressed lingering concerns about 
security  risks  of  some  companies,  in  terms  of  cybersecurity,  data  protection,  intellectual 
property  rights  and  privacy  issues.  The  study  did  not  find  a  readily  available  solution, 
suggesting  that  fresh  thinking  is  needed.  This  could  start  with  taking  stock  of  the  security 
criteria that are already in use (including those provided by the Commission). Measures could 
be taken to verify compliance, e.g., by requiring manufacturers to agree to monitoring by a 
certification body. Then, if any manufacturers are deemed to pose security risks, a second line 
of defence (though one to consider and formulate very carefully) could involve designating 
them as such and restricting their participation in tendering processes. 

•  Solution  #4  –  ‘Centres  of  excellence’  for  technical  expertise:  difficulty  to  mobilise  the 
technical expertise needed to procure customs control equipment was the most frequently 
cited  problem  during  the  study.  One  way  to  deal  with  this  is  to  establish  a  ‘centre  of 
excellence’,  which  involves  involve  defining  its  mission  and  terms,  identifying  the  relevant 

5 

 
 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

experts within the customs authority, designating them as part of the centre of excellence, 
giving them sufficient time to devote to the tasks at hand (including with regard to such aspects 
as market research in addition to specific purchases) and defining the arrangements for them 
to provide input. 

•  Solution  #5  -  Pan-European  networks  of  customs  officials with  relevant  expertise:  the  27 
customs authorities of the EU are all charged with applying and enforcing the same customs 
rules, but do so from their own unique perspectives. This means national authorities have a 
lot  to  learn  from each other  through  fora  bringing  together  knowledge  and  experiences  of 
procurement, engagement in which should be maximised. These include the CCEI Coordination 
Group (and working groups therein), CELBET3 (comprised of officials from countries with land 
borders on the EU’s southern and eastern flank, which includes a procurement sub-group), 
and CLEN4 (representatives of customs laboratories from all Member States), as well as PEN-
CP5  (the  Pan-European  network  of  customs  practitioners,  a  Horizon  2020-funded  research 
project bringing together customs authorities to boost innovation in the field of customs. 

•  Solution #6 – Thorough needs assessment: without first identifying needs, even high-quality 
equipment may not correspond to actual needs ‘on the ground’. The stronger approaches to 
needs assessment start very early, before any preconceptions about equipment are made and 
are distinguished by being systematic, inclusive and timely. 

•  Solution  #7  –  Innovation-friendly  award  criteria:  encouraging  innovation  through  the 
procurement process is a major challenge that is the subject of significant efforts from many 
actors. One way of partly addressing the problem involves simply reserving a certain number 
of points in the quality score to innovative elements.  

•  Solution  #8  –  Transparent,  objective  and  purposeful  award  criteria:  one  reason  that 
manufacturers sometimes decline to a submit a bid is an impression that the award criteria 
will  favour  a  certain  competitor.  Quality  criteria  should  be  designed  in  a  way  that  allow 
tenderers to distinguish themselves and play a role alongside price in the award decision, de 
factor as well as de jure. Part of the way to do this is to involve officials with complementary 
areas throughout the procurement process. 

•  Solution #9 – Organisation of tenders into small lots: smaller firms can be effectively blocked 
from responding to a potentially interesting tender because they lack the scale to produce the 
required  volume  of  goods.  Most  procurement  of  customs  control  equipment  is  already 
organised  as  ‘single  procurement’,  which  is  better  for  SMEs  than  even  larger  multiple 
procurements. In addition, tenders can be further subdivided in different ways depending on 
the situation. 

•  Solution #10 - ‘Risk atlas’ for dealing with frequent problems: risks continuously develop and 
need  to  be  monitored  and  mitigated,  regarding  both  corruption  and  emerging  issues  like 
cybersecurity and data protection (see Solution #3). To address emerging risks, one Member 
State  compiles  and  continuously  updates  a  ‘risk  atlas’.  This  entails  officials  dealing  with 
procurement  throughout  the  customs  authority  keeping  track  of  risks  and  come  up  with 

3 See the dedicated CELBET website, CELBET - Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team.  
4 An overview of CLEN is provided at Customs Laboratories (europa.eu).  
5 PEN-CP runs from 2018 to 2025. More details on the project, including a list of its consortium partners and 
information on activities carried out so far, can be found at  Innovation for Customs Administrations | PEN-CP 
Project. 

6 

 
 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

approaches for dealing with these proactively, which are recorded in the atlas that is made 
available electronically in a secure location. 

•  Solution #11 – Central purchasing bodes: a central purchasing body is a central authority that 
takes full or part responsibility for procurement on behalf of other authorities. Usually this is 
done for a country’s procurement system as a whole rather than ‘just’ customs, and can be 
seen as a way to provide oversight, deploy expertise more efficiently, prevent corruption and 
manage other  risks. If a central purchasing body is established, it is important to make the 
most of it by taking stock of what ‘services’ it provides, and arranging procurement-related 
functions in the customs authority so as to maximise complementarity and reduce duplication. 

•  Solution  #12  –  Digital  procurement  tools:  these  are  widely  promoted  because  they  are 
associated with benefits like increased efficiency and making tendering processes more visible 
and  less  costly  to  reply  to.  While  key  decisions  on  digital  tools  are  often  taken  by  central 
governments rather than customs authorities, the latter have a role to play in embracing tools 
as soon as possible and ensuring that any relevant developments at EU level are followed.  

•  Solution #13 – Compendium of specific sustainability criteria: while the use of sustainability 
criteria is gaining pace, this is often superficial, and approaches vary widely. To improve this, 
the  CCEI  Coordination  Group  (specifically  the  working  group  on  procurement)  could  be  a 
suitable  forum  for  the  discussions  and  effort  needed  to  compile  environmental  and  social 
sustainability criteria, tailor them to customs control equipment and share them among the 
Member States. 

•  Solution  #14  –  Pre-purchase  testing:  the  long  life-cycles  of  customs  control  equipment 
encourage  a  certain  conservatism,  as  customs  authorities  may  stick  with  tried-and-tested 
solutions even as they become obsolete, while shying away from more innovative equipment. 
Some customs authorities have found a part-solution to this, which entails building trial phases 
for equipment into the procurement process. In practice, this usually takes place early in the 
process,  before  technical  specifications  have  been  fully  developed.  The  customs  authority 
makes contact with suppliers, arranging for prototype equipment to be delivered. Experiences 
with the trial equipment are then recorded and taken into account for the full tender. 

Joint procurement  

The second task for the study was to explore possibilities for joint procurement, which at the time of 
writing was in its infancy in the field of customs control equipment. This research was based on an 
analysis  of  (1) previous  experiences  of  joint  procurement,  both  within  and  beyond  the  customs 
domain, and (2) customs stakeholders’ expectations, preferences and ideas. Several ‘models’ of cross-
border joint procurement were examined, namely:  

• 

• 

• 

Joint procurement between authorities within a single Member State (i.e., ‘domestic’ joint 
involving 
procurement):  three  examples  were  found 
collaboration between customs authorities and the police; 

in  different  countries,  mainly 

Joint  procurement  between  authorities  in  two  or  more  Member  States,  without  the 
involvement of an EU institution: two examples of this were  found in the field of customs 
control equipment, one of which was to facilitate the sharing of X-ray images in the three Baltic 
Member States, and one for mobile gas chromatography in vans between the Irish and British 
customs authorities; 

Joint procurement governed by a dedicated agreement between the contracting parties that 
is coordinated by an EU institution, known as a ‘joint procurement agreement’ (JPA): this 

7 

 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

was examined mainly in terms of an example in the field of public health, the JPA for medical 
countermeasures, which serves as the basis for specific purchases that individual countries can 
voluntarily sign up to, and which has so far been joined by 37 countries and used to purchase 
nearly EUR 13 billion worth of medical supplies and other goods and services; 

• 

Joint procurement involving an EU institution acting as a central purchasing body for one or 
several Member States: the most famous existing example is the European Commission-led 
Advance  Purchase  Agreements  (APA)  that  have  been  used  to  purchase  Covid-19  vaccines. 
Frontex also led an inter-agency agreement to purchase personal protective equipment during 
the pandemic.   

Overarching conclusions and recommendations – ‘roadmap’ towards joint procurement 

Joint  procurement  has  attracted a  lot  of  attention  in  recent  years  for  its  potential  to  bring various 
operational and financial benefits. The evidence from the study also suggests that these benefits do 
materialise  when  joint  procurement  is  tried  in  practice.  These  include  the  pooling  of  resources, 
reduction  of  prices,  standardisation  of  equipment,  better  meeting  of  needs,  and  improved  market 
access, and the opportunity to reduce administrative burdens and encourage innovation.  

However, by scratching below the surface, the study also showed that real-life examples are small in 
number and narrow in scope, especially but not only in the field of customs control equipment. There 
are many reasons for this, not least a natural reticence among Member States to depart from tried 
and  tested  approaches  when  fundamental  national  responsibilities  such  as  border  security  are  at 
stake. But customs authorities’ apprehension also stems from specific  challenges faced by customs 
administrations that in principle are willing to purchase jointly, such as the need to ensure the process 
complies  with  all  relevant  procurement  legislation  and  rules  at  national  level,  expectations  for 
increased  administrative  complexity  and  lengthier  tendering  processes,  and  divergence  in  terms  of 
functional and technical requirements.  

Conscious of both the advantages and disadvantages, the study uncovered significant interest from 
customs authorities and manufacturers to discuss and learn more about the benefits, and – among 
the  small  number  of  interviewees  with  joint  procurement  experience  –  to  promote  achievements 
already made. This was clear from the high response rates and replies to the various data collection 
tools, as well as the largely enthusiastic reception from the circa 50 customs officials participating in 
the study team’s workshop on the subject. 

A consensus emerged in the workshop to recognise that joint procurement could generate several 
welcome benefits, such as the opportunity to pool expertise, better meet common operational needs, 
foster standardisation and interoperability, lower prices, and obtain better access to scarce equipment 
(especially for smaller Member  States). Still, it was also clear that  many Member States also were 
uncertain about feasibility and preoccupied by practical and legal challenges that could hinder the 
realisation  of  cross-border  joint  procurement  in  the  short-term,  such  as  expectations  of  increased 
complexity, heavy administration, and difficulties to deal with different national requirements. Taking 
a step back, it was obvious from the questionnaire and interviews that customs authorities are broadly 
satisfied with their approaches to procurement. This means that officials are unlikely to favour – or put 
their credibility on the line – for major changes unless the business case is ironclad.  

For these reasons, the study recognises that the road to joint procurement is necessarily a gradual 
and challenging one, more like mountaineering (with stops at intermediate camps to recharge and 
plan for the next stage) than a simple hike in rolling hills. This means taking a gradual approach based 
on  principles  like  starting  small,  building  on  existing  networks  and  operational  links,  proactive 
communication  and  testing  concepts  before  deciding  whether  and  in  what  circumstances  to  scale 
them up.  

8 

 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

These  principles  are  encapsulated  in  the  ‘roadmap’  towards  joint  procurement  that  is  presented 
below. It is considered against the backdrop of CCEI and a potential successor programme, and consists 
of  three  cumulative  steps  for  consideration  over  the  short-,  medium-  and  long-term.  The  exact 
timeframe will depend on the amount of attention that can be put into joint procurement during the 
coming years, as well as evidence of success (or lack thereof) from the initial efforts and the effects of 
this on the will to move forward. Other factors could also play a role, particularly the envisaged reform 
of the Customs Union, which could extend EU responsibilities for customs operations and proposes 
explicitly the creation of an EU Customs Authority tasked with responsibilities namely in the area of 
joint procurement, comprising the development and implementation of operational strategies in this 
regard. The three steps are as follows:  

•  Step 1 – Stock-taking and awareness-raising (short-term). The aim of this step is to make key 
officials  in  national  customs  authorities  aware  of  the  benefits  and  feasibility  of  joint 
procurement, and to take stock of pre-conditions and enabling action that would be needed 
(e.g.,  through  setting  standards  for  certain  types  of  equipment).  This  would  serve  to  build 
motivation, enthusiasm and willingness to consider it in practice. The initial work has started 
in the form of this study and related efforts in the CCEI Coordination Group, and the output 
could be a strategy to outline the approach to the next step, including such aspects as types of 
equipment that could potentially be jointly procured and initial ideas for pilot projects, which 
could in turn feed into the next CCEI call for proposals. 

•  Step  2  –  Piloting  (medium-term).  This  second  step  is  about  gaining  practical  experience 
through pilot projects using joint procurement and learning lessons from these that can be 
used to determine the viability of joint procurement in different circumstances / for different 
types  of  equipment.  The  output  would  include  an  assessment  of  the  results  of  the  pilot 
projects and other evidence and analysis needed to decide on the next step. 

•  Step 3 – Defining the longer-term approach. The course of action at this stage is necessarily 
uncertain and dependent on the previous steps. The key point is that it will involve taking stock 
of the previous experiences and any other relevant developments to decide on an approach 
to joint procurement for the longer-term. The potential scenarios can be envisaged, namely 
(1) scaling up, (2) continued joint procurement at a moderate level, or (3) limited intervention. 
Regardless  of  the  scenario  pursued,  it  will  be  important  for  the  Commission  and  Member 
States to continue keep abreast of the evolving circumstances and to be ready to adjust when 
appropriate, e.g., if circumstantial barriers to joint procurement are removed.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on procurement and joint procurement practices for customs control equipment 

Getting in touch with the EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can 
find the address of the centre nearest you online (european-
union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

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, 
–  via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_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 (european-union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You can view or order EU publications at op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple 
copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local 
documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all 
the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex (eur-lex.europa.eu). 

EU open data 

The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU 
institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for 
both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to 
a wealth of datasets from European countries. 

10