EU Public Procurement Act: Scrapping the Restricted Procedure Reprices Every Infrastructure Tender in Europe

If this were my bid team, I would leave the buy-European headlines alone this month. I would read the procedures chapter instead. The clause that changes your cost of bidding says a buyer who negotiates must negotiate with everyone.

The European Commission adopted its Public Procurement Act proposal on 9 September 2026. One directly applicable regulation of 144 articles would replace Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU. Executive Vice-President Stephane Sejourne presented the change as a cut from about 900 pages of rules to roughly 200. The Commission estimates annual administrative savings of EUR 650 million. Europe's public procurement market is worth about EUR 2 trillion a year. That is some 15 per cent of EU GDP, Euronews reported on 9 September 2026.

The restricted procedure goes, and the shortlist goes with it

Under the proposal the standard route is an open-negotiated procedure. Any interested operator may submit a tender. The restricted procedure and competitive dialogue are abolished. The buyer decides whether to apply selection criteria and whether to negotiate at all. If it does negotiate, it must first negotiate with every suitable, non-excluded operator. Only then may it reduce the field through successive rounds. Law firm Noerr, analysing the draft on 22 July 2026, called this a significant impediment and a source of delay.

That matters most where tenders are expensive to prepare. A tunnelling package or a grid systems package costs real money to price. Today a sponsor prequalifies a handful of bidders. Each one knows its odds before it spends. Remove the shortlist and bid cost rises while win probability falls. Contractors answer that in two ways. They bid fewer jobs, or they price the cost of losing into the jobs they do bid.

The general contractor model gets a question mark

The draft also says a contract may no longer be subcontracted in its entirety. Noerr notes this puts previously accepted general contractor models in question. The stated purpose is preventing the exploitation of workers. The commercial effect reaches further. Plenty of European civils and building contracts are won by firms that self-perform very little. Those firms will need to show what work their own people and plant actually do.

Frameworks get shorter, and utilities lose the most

Framework agreements survive with tighter limits. Single-supplier frameworks fall to three years from four. Multi-supplier frameworks cap at five. Utilities lose their eight-year frameworks. They sit on the same limits as every other buyer, per McCann FitzGerald's analysis of 22 July 2026. There is no extension where the subject matter would justify one.

This lands on grid operators, rail infrastructure managers and water companies. Those buyers run multi-year renewals programmes through frameworks. A five-year ceiling means re-tendering a programme inside the life of that programme. Supply chains that buy plant and build crews for a framework need a payback period. Shorter terms shorten the payback and raise the price.

Every variation becomes a test

The de minimis safe harbour for contract modifications is removed. Today many routine variations sit under that exemption. Under the proposal every modification must be assessed against the substantive tests. The 50 per cent value cap goes and a notice obligation replaces it. Changes above half the estimated contract value need a modification notice published in advance.

On a FIDIC job that is administration. Variations arrive weekly on a live site. A rule that tests each one needs a contract team able to run the test quickly.

What happens to national procurement law

Choosing a regulation over directives removes national discretion. Noerr expects Germany to repeal Part 4 of its competition act and the secondary procurement rules beneath it. The same mechanism applies across the Union. Central and Eastern European procurement acts transpose the same three directives. Directly applicable EU text would displace them. Sponsors that built internal process around national rules face a rewrite.

Timing gives room. Noerr expects adoption by the European Parliament in 2027 and a two-year transition. On that path the rules apply in the first half of 2029 at the earliest. The text will change during negotiation. Defence procurement under Directive 2009/81/EC stays outside the reform.

Three questions worth more than the page count

The reform will be argued in public on European preference and on page count. The commercial argument for builders sits elsewhere. Bid cost, self-performance and framework tenor decide whether a firm competes at all. Sponsors should model what an open-negotiated competition costs them to run. Contractors should work out which of their contracts would fail a self-performance test. Investors in listed contractors should look at framework exposure. Ask what share of the order book expires under the shorter limits. Those three answers are worth more than the page count.

---

📊 Analytics & Strategic Insight

Procurement architecture is a cost driver, and Europe has just redesigned it

The decision most in this industry are avoiding:

👉 Bid cost is a market design choice. Buyers decide how many firms spend money to compete. Drop the shortlist and that spend goes up. The market gets it back in prices.

👉 Self-performance is about to become evidence. A ban on subcontracting a whole job asks builders to show their own crews and plant. Many groups have cut that back for a decade.

👉 Framework tenor is balance sheet planning. Crews, depots and plant are bought against framework length. Cut the term and the payback changes before a tender is priced.

Here's the full context:

→ 2014: The EU adopts three directives. They split concessions, public contracts and utilities into separate rule sets.

→ October 2025: The Commission reviews the three directives. Its working document finds mixed results on competition and on who takes part.

→ November 2025: An EU-wide consultation opens. Lawyers and academics send in views until 26 January 2026.

→ July 2026: A draft of the new rules becomes public. Noerr and McCann FitzGerald both publish analyses on 22 July 2026.

→ Most recent: On 9 September 2026 the Commission adopts the proposal. It cuts around 900 pages of rules to about 200.

What this means for infrastructure operators, contractors and investors:

✅ Expect fewer bidders per job and a higher price per bid. Open talks with every qualified firm raise the cost of competing. That cost comes back in tender prices.

✅ Utilities lose their longest planning tool. Eight-year frameworks fall to five. A renewals plan now has to survive a re-tender in mid programme.

✅ Order books built on frameworks carry a new expiry risk. Analysts should ask which framework seats end sooner under the new limits. That question belongs in the next results call.

3 moves you can make this week:

1️⃣ Price an open-negotiated competition. Take your last big tender. Cost it again, this time with talks open to every qualified bidder.

2️⃣ Measure your self-performance. Work out, by value, how much of your order book your own people and plant deliver.

3️⃣ Map your framework expiries. List every framework seat you hold. Note its end date, and whether a shorter limit moves that date.