Nordic Public Procurement Bulletin April 2026
Revising the EU Public Procurement Directives: Nordic Perspectives
Important business opportunity
Public procurement represents significant economic value. Every year, over 250 000 public authorities in the EU spend around 16% of the total GDP (around €2.5 trillion per year) on the purchase of services, works and supplies.[1] Public procurement is also framed as a tool to secure the right quality at the right price, prevent corruption and unequal treatment, and support sustainable development, including environmental and social objectives.
Updates of Directives as an important discussion
In February, DLA Piper’s Nordic Public Procurement team gathered at its Stockholm office for an event that focused on the development of the public procurement rules in the EU ("EU Directives"), with a Nordic outlook. The session included Mikala Berg Dueholm (DK), Tuija Kaijalainen (FI), Line Voldstad (NO) and Charlotte Brunlid (SWE). The main focus in the discussion was the challenges that often create difficult judgement calls in practice; abnormally low tenders and third-country supplier access.
Several objectives of the EU Directives have been partially achieved. At the same time, the rules are still very complex. New priorities that may influence the forthcoming amendments of the EU Directives include security of supply and strategic autonomy. Within the process of establishing the new EU Directives, the Commission has opened up for input from the market and interested parties..
From a Swedish perspective, stakeholders have repeatedly identified several shortcomings in the current procurement directives. These include a high administrative burden, limited digitalisation, concerns over abnormally low tenders, and barriers that make it difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in public procurement procedures. Swedish stakeholders have also called for modernisation, with particular emphasis on greater digitalisation, stronger competition, simplified procedures, and more effective follow-up of publicly procured contracts..
In Finland, the current emphasis is on a national revision within the scope of the EU Directives, rather than a broad public debate on revising the documents themselves. Practical concerns that have been identified include the lack of competition, inadequate procurement preparation, SME participation in procurement, and the inadequate consideration of security of supply needs. The Finnish Government submitted a Government Proposal to Parliament on 5 February 2026. The following proposals have been listed: changes in the limitations on the use of in-house entities (a 10% ownership limit); an obligation to re-tender if only one tender is received unless there is a particularly compelling reason not to; a rule that EU contracts, meaning contracts with an estimated value above the applicable EU threshold values, must be divided into parts unless there are specific reasons not to and that a decision not to divide a procurement can be appealed; mandatory analysis/advance market dialogue for procurements above €10 million; and a provision allowing conditions related to security and emergency supply. The suggested revision is intended to enter into force in the spring of 2026.
In Denmark, the overall tone is positive regarding the revision of the EU Directives, with calls for more practical and less bureaucratic rules. There is a broad consensus on the need for modernisation, with both contracting authorities and businesses calling for simplification. The discussion also highlights the need for stronger competition, particularly for SMEs. There is also a call for greater flexibility in the choice of procedures and evaluation methods. Moreover, new national Danish rules outside the scope of the EU Directives will be introduced shortly to regulate procurement in construction.
In Norway, similar to Finland, the focus has been on national revision of the current procurement regulations. An appointed committee ("procurement committee") delivered a substantial report (two partial reports) where rather significant changes were proposed. The initiation and national revision process as such was criticised as it did not seem to consider that a revision was expected at EU level for the EU Directives. Subsequently, when the revision at EU level commenced, most of the proposed changes in the national revision report(s) were put on hold. Norway has taken part in the EU consultation process on the EU Directives, and has emphasised that the starting point is that a competitive and resilient internal market is key to achieving the best value for money. Digitalisation is presented as a key element of the system, with a shift from document-based rules to data/information-based requirements. This is intended to facilitate the integration of AI and automation. In the consultation, Norway also noted that the proposed change to EU procurement rules raises concerns for the Norwegian market, particularly regarding the application of the 'Buy European' slogan to EEA/EFTA products.
Abnormally low tenders: uncertainty and the need for clearer approaches
One key challenge at EU level is the lack of uniform definitions and the inconsistent approaches to abnormally low tenders, which create legal uncertainty. This, in turn, increases the risk of unequal treatment and reduces predictability for both contracting authorities and tenderers.
In Sweden and in Finland, the definition of what constitutes an abnormally low tender is not clearly defined, which gives contracting authorities considerable scope for discretionary assessment and can lead to unpredictability and legal uncertainty for suppliers. In Denmark, it is considered an issue that the contracting authority has significant discretion to exclude suppliers based on their low tender prices. Norway shares the experience of a race to the bottom in Norwegian procurement.
Third-country suppliers: access, discretion and diverging national practice
At EU level, the debate continues to reflect significant uncertainty over whether, and on what basis, suppliers from third countries should be allowed to participate in EU public procurement. The absence of a clear and consistent framework has contributed to divergent national practices and legal uncertainty. As a general rule, where a supplier comes from a third country that is not covered by an international public procurement agreement with the EU, such as the WTO Government Procurement Agreement ("GPA") or a bilateral agreement, the decision to admit or exclude that supplier remains within the discretion of the contracting authority. In Sweden, there is ongoing uncertainty about whether, and under what conditions, suppliers from third countries should be allowed to participate in public procurement. Swedish case law includes an example in which a Swedish company was excluded from participating in a public procurement procedure because more than 10 percent of its ownership was held by an entity from a third country outside GPA. From a Norwegian perspective, it is highlighted that suppliers from third countries may participate, but are not granted legal rights or remedies under the procurement rules. There is also a practical challenge in providing adequate guidance on security and risk. This also raises a question of what is 'European' in public procurement. Denmark has rules stipulating that suppliers from tax havens may not submit tenders in procurement procedures; however, as these rules are not aligned with EU regulations, the statutory provision will be repealed, leaving it to contracting authorities to regulate this in the procurement documents. In Finland, an additional exclusion ground is being suggested to exclude high-risk suppliers or suppliers with inadequate reliability bringing an apparent risk to national security or security of supply.
Closing reflection
Across the Nordics, the themes point in the same direction: more competition is necessary in public procurement. The update of the EU Directives needs to balance simplification and flexibility with legal clarity and predictability. At the same time, the handling of abnormally low tenders and third-country supplier access remains central to the discussion. These areas combine commercial pressure with heightened legal and risk considerations. Against this backdrop, we support both contracting authorities and suppliers in structuring and simplifying their procurement work in a more systematic way. We see in practice that already this can create real value for many organisations, and we are proud to be part of improving how public procurement is managed.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss your public procurement challenges.
