The European Committee of the Regions has called for a more results-oriented approach to public procurement, placing greater emphasis on timely delivery, quality and value for money. The proposal raises a fundamental question for the next generation of EU procurement rules: can procedures be simplified without weakening the safeguards that protect competition, transparency and equal treatment?
Public procurement has always involved a tension between two objectives, on one side is the need for robust procedural safeguards. Public money must be spent transparently, suppliers must have a fair opportunity to compete, and contracting authorities must be able to demonstrate that decisions were taken objectively and without discrimination. On the other is a more practical question: did the procurement actually achieve what the public authority set out to achieve? The European Committee of the Regions (CoR) believes that the balance between these two dimensions can be improved. In March 2026, it called for the EU procurement framework to become more results-oriented and proposed introducing a “principle of result” that would orient public spending towards timely delivery, quality and value for money. The CoR argues that clearer overarching principles could allow administrations to focus more on substance and less on formalities, while retaining transparency, equal treatment and proportionality.
The proposal comes at an important moment, The European Commission is currently reviewing the EU Public Procurement Directives and has announced a legislative proposal for reform in 2026. The Commission’s wider simplification agenda is also aimed at reducing unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining economic, social and environmental standards.
The question is therefore not whether procurement should become less regulated. But rather, it is whether the rules can become simpler while remaining sufficiently robust to protect the public interest. But what is the “principle of result”? The “principle of result” is not currently a standalone principle of EU public procurement law. It is a reform proposal advanced by the CoR in the context of the forthcoming revision of the EU procurement framework. The idea is relatively straightforward: procurement rules should not be viewed solely as a framework for conducting a legally compliant procedure. They should also help contracting authorities achieve a successful procurement outcome.
The CoR describes that outcome in terms of:
- timely delivery
- quality
- value for money
- better alignment between public spending and strategic objectives.
The proposal is also explicitly presented as compatible with existing safeguards. The CoR states that a results-oriented approach should preserve transparency, equal treatment and proportionality. This is significant because it distinguishes the proposal from a simple argument for deregulation. The objective is not to replace procurement rules with broad discretion but to create a framework in which compliance with the rules and achievement of the procurement’s objectives are treated as complementary rather than competing goals.
From procedural compliance to procurement performance
EU procurement law already contains elements of this results-oriented philosophy. Directive 2014/24/EU states that public procurement should contribute to the efficient use of public funds. Its rules also allow contracting authorities to take quality into account when determining the most economically advantageous tender. In particular, the Directive recognises the best price-quality ratio as an important basis for award decisions. The framework therefore does not require authorities to treat the lowest price as synonymous with the best procurement outcome.
Article 18 of the Directive establishes that contracting authorities must act transparently and proportionately and treat economic operators equally and without discrimination. At the same time, the Directive’s provisions on award criteria give authorities scope to assess quality alongside price or cost. The proposed principle would build on this underlying logic. Instead of asking only: “Was the procedure followed correctly?” the procurement system would also encourage authorities to ask: “Did the procurement deliver the required outcome, at the required quality and within a reasonable timeframe, while achieving value for money?”, and that shift could be particularly relevant where procurement processes become highly complex relative to the value, risk or sophistication of the contract.
Why simplification matters
For many contracting authorities, particularly smaller local and regional bodies, the administrative burden associated with procurement can be substantial. The CoR has highlighted concerns about complex legislation, extensive documentation requirements and increasingly detailed eligibility criteria. It argues that these burdens can discourage SMEs, start-ups and social economy organisations from participating in public tenders. This is not simply a question of administrative inconvenience. If a procurement process becomes excessively difficult to navigate, several consequences can follow.
First, procurement can take longer, additional procedural requirements, documentation and legal review can increase the time between identifying a need and entering into a contract. Second, participation can be reduced, smaller suppliers may lack the resources required to navigate highly complex procurement processes, particularly where the administrative effort involved is disproportionate to the value of the opportunity.
Third, authorities may become more risk-averse, where procurement professionals operate in an environment in which procedural errors are perceived as carrying significant legal consequences, there can be a natural tendency to prioritise defensibility over commercial or operational judgement.
Fourth, the procurement itself can become detached from the underlying need, a process may be meticulously documented while still failing to produce the quality, timing or performance that the contracting authority actually required. The CoR’s March 2026 position reflects precisely this concern: it argues that clearer and simpler overarching principles could enable contracting authorities to exercise proportionate and reasoned discretion while reducing unnecessary complexity.
But simplification cannot mean fewer safeguards
This is where the concept becomes more challenging. Public procurement is not simply purchasing. It involves the allocation of public resources in a competitive market, often involving significant sums of money and multiple potential suppliers. Procedural safeguards exist for good reasons. The current EU framework requires contracting authorities to act transparently and proportionately and to treat economic operators equally and without discrimination. Procurement must also be designed in a way that does not artificially restrict competition.
These requirements cannot simply be displaced by a general objective of obtaining a “good result”. A results-oriented principle could, for example, become problematic if it were interpreted as allowing an authority to favour a preferred supplier because that supplier appeared most likely to deliver the desired outcome. That would undermine equal treatment and effective competition. Similarly, an authority should not be able to justify an inadequately documented decision retrospectively by pointing to a successful contract outcome. A good result cannot automatically make an unlawful procedure lawful, this is perhaps the most important safeguard for any future reform. The challenge is therefore to distinguish between unnecessary procedural formalism and procedural protections that serve a genuine legal or public-interest purpose.
Could a results-oriented approach reduce litigation?
The CoR explicitly argues that introducing a principle of result could reduce litigation risks. The underlying argument is that clearer overarching principles could provide contracting authorities with greater confidence when exercising discretion. There is a potential logic to this, a highly detailed regulatory framework can create uncertainty when numerous provisions interact. If authorities and suppliers are required to interpret increasingly complex procedural rules, disagreements may arise not only over substantive procurement decisions but also over whether a particular procedural requirement has been correctly applied. A clearer framework based on principles could, in theory, make decision-making more predictable.
However, it would be too strong to conclude that introducing a “principle of result” would automatically reduce litigation. That outcome would depend on how the principle was drafted, interpreted and applied by national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. A broad principle could even create new litigation if its meaning were unclear. For example, what constitutes an adequate “result”? How should value for money be measured? How much weight should be given to timely delivery compared with quality? When could an authority legitimately depart from a procedural requirement because doing so was considered necessary to achieve a better outcome?
If these questions are not answered sufficiently clearly, a principle intended to reduce uncertainty could instead create another layer of interpretation. The success of the proposal would therefore depend heavily on legal clarity.
The importance of proportionality
One area where the proposed approach could have particular practical significance is proportionality. Proportionality is already a principle of EU procurement law. Article 18 of Directive 2014/24/EU requires contracting authorities to act in a proportionate manner and a stronger emphasis on results could reinforce the idea that procurement requirements should be calibrated to the contract concerned.
For a highly complex infrastructure project involving significant technical, financial and operational risks, extensive qualification, evaluation and contractual requirements may be entirely justified. And for a relatively straightforward and lower-value purchase, the same level of procedural complexity may be much harder to justify. The objective should not be to apply the same level of process to every procurement. Instead, a mature results-oriented framework would ask whether the requirements imposed are proportionate to the value, risk and objectives of the contract. This could be particularly valuable for smaller contracting authorities and organisations with limited procurement capacity.
What would this mean for public-sector and non-profit buyers?
The debate is especially relevant to organisations that do not have large procurement teams. Local authorities, smaller public bodies and non-profit organisations can face many of the same regulatory requirements as much larger contracting authorities while having considerably fewer resources available to manage them.
For these organisations, simplification could have a practical impact well beyond reducing paperwork and a clearer framework could allow procurement teams to spend more time on:
- understanding the underlying requirement
- engaging appropriately with the market
- designing realistic specifications
- identifying meaningful quality criteria
- assessing whole-life value
- managing contract performance
- monitoring whether the supplier actually delivers the expected outcomes.
A procurement process does not end when a contract is awarded. If the objective is genuinely to focus on results, contract management becomes part of the procurement equation. A contract that was competitively awarded but subsequently suffers from poor performance, delays, uncontrolled costs or inadequate quality cannot be regarded as a successful procurement merely because the tender procedure was compliant. A results-oriented model would therefore need to connect procurement design, award and contract management more closely.
Value for money is more than price
The emphasis on value for money also deserves careful consideration, value for money should not automatically be equated with obtaining the lowest possible tender price. EU procurement rules already recognise this distinction. The Directive provides for award based on the most economically advantageous tender, including the best price-quality ratio, and allows contracting authorities to establish appropriate quality standards. A lower initial price may ultimately represent poorer value if it results in:
- higher maintenance costs
- poor performance
- delays
- reduced durability
- increased operational costs
- the need for repeated procurement
A results-oriented approach could therefore strengthen the case for considering whole-life value, where appropriate, rather than focusing narrowly on the initial purchase price. This is also consistent with the broader direction of EU procurement policy, which increasingly considers procurement as a tool for achieving wider economic, environmental and social objectives. The CoR’s 2026 position specifically links a more results-oriented framework with innovation, sustainability and competitiveness.
The real test: discretion with accountability
Ultimately, the debate is not really about choosing between rules and results. It is about determining which rules are necessary to protect the integrity of the procurement system, and which requirements merely add complexity without materially improving the outcome. A successful results-oriented framework would therefore need to preserve several fundamentals.
Transparency must remain – Suppliers need to understand how decisions will be made.
Equal treatment must remain – Authorities cannot pursue a desired outcome by giving one economic operator an unfair advantage.
Competition must remain meaningful – Simplification should not become a justification for restricting access to the market.
Proportionality must remain central – Requirements should reflect the nature and risks of the procurement.
Accountability must remain – Contracting authorities should still be able to explain and evidence why a particular decision was taken.
The potential change is therefore not from rules to discretion, but from rules as an end in themselves towards rules as a means of achieving sound procurement outcomes.
What should procurement professionals watch next?
The timing of the debate is significant, The European Commission has been evaluating the 2014 Public Procurement Directives and has identified simplification and modernisation as part of the forthcoming reform agenda. The Commission’s broader regulatory strategy also places considerable emphasis on reducing administrative burdens while maintaining economic, social and environmental objectives. The CoR’s proposal is therefore likely to be relevant to the wider discussion about what the next generation of EU procurement rules should look like.
For procurement professionals, the key issue to watch is not simply whether the words “principle of result” appear in future legislation. The more important question will be what legal effect such a principle would have. Would it merely provide an interpretative objective? Would it influence the way proportionality is assessed? Could it provide contracting authorities with greater discretion in lower-risk procurements? How would courts balance it against transparency and equal treatment? And perhaps most importantly would it genuinely reduce litigation, or simply create a new source of legal debate? These questions will determine whether the concept becomes a meaningful reform or remains a political aspiration.
A possible shift in procurement culture
The most interesting aspect of the proposal may ultimately be cultural rather than legal. Public procurement is sometimes assessed primarily through the lens of procedural compliance: whether the correct documents were issued, the appropriate steps were followed and the required records were maintained. A public authority procures a service because it needs that service delivered. It buys works because infrastructure needs to be built or maintained. It purchases goods because citizens, public servants or service users need them. The proposed “principle of result” seeks to put that purpose back at the centre of the framework. And if carefully designed, it could support a model in which procedural safeguards protect the integrity of procurement, while a stronger focus on results ensures that compliance does not become detached from performance. That would not mean less accountability.
It would mean a different conception of what good procurement looks like: a process that is lawful, transparent and fair, but also proportionate, timely, high-quality and capable of delivering genuine value for the public. The challenge for the forthcoming EU reform will be finding the right balance between those objectives. Simplification will only succeed if it makes procurement easier without making it less fair. And a principle of result will only add value if it helps public buyers deliver better outcomes without weakening the safeguards on which trust in public procurement depends.
Background Reading and Additional Sources:
European Committee of the Regions, March 2026 position on EU public procurement reform https://www.cor.europa.eu/en/news/eu-public-procurement-reform-must-simplify-rules-and-put-people-innovation-and-sustainability-first
European Committee of the Regions – Public Procurement Package https://www.cor.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions/cdr-0099-2012
EUR-Lex – Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT
European Commission – Simplification, implementation and enforcement https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-implementation-and-enforcement_en
European Commission, Simplification https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/better-regulation/simplification-implementation-and-enforcement/simplification_en
