As the European Union continues to deepen integration in public procurement, cross-border framework agreements are rapidly becoming the norm rather than the exception. These joint procurement initiatives, designed to harness economies of scale, reduce administrative duplication, and improve access to innovation, are being championed by EU institutions, agencies, and increasingly, Member States.
But behind the bureaucratic triumphalism lies a quieter unease, particularly among smaller nations like Ireland. Are these joint purchasing models slowly eroding national procurement identity, diluting the ability of countries to serve their local markets and suppliers?
The Push for Cross-Border Procurement
The European Commission has consistently encouraged collaborative procurement across Member States, primarily through tools like:
- Joint Cross-Border Framework Agreements under Directive 2014/24/EU.
- Central Purchasing Bodies (CPBs) at EU and transnational levels (e.g., Consip in Italy, UGAP in France, or OECP in Ireland participating in European consortia).
- The Joint Procurement Agreement (JPA) — famously used for COVID-19 vaccine contracts but now expanded to medical equipment and other strategic sectors.
These instruments, while technically voluntary, are often incentivised through funding mechanisms and political pressure for Member States to align with broader EU goals like green procurement, digital transition, and SME inclusion.
Legal and Sovereignty Tensions
Legally, the EU Procurement Directives (2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU) provide flexibility for Member States to opt in or out of such frameworks. However, case law from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has increasingly interpreted these provisions in ways that favour open, cross-border access — sometimes at the expense of national discretion.
Take for example the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (KHO 2017:71) case, where a cross-border contract was ruled enforceable even though the domestic contracting authority had limited direct control over it. The ruling raised concerns about accountability and the limits of national oversight in shared procurement structures.
Smaller Member States may also feel coerced into aligning their procurement rules and practices more closely with larger economies or CPBs that dominate the joint agreement landscape, effectively sidelining local decision-making.
Cultural Implications and Local Supplier Access
Procurement is not merely a technical exercise, it is also deeply embedded in local economic, linguistic, and cultural ecosystems. When a cross-border framework is established, specifications, terms and conditions, and language requirements often reflect dominant markets (Germany, France, or the Netherlands), making participation more difficult for smaller domestic suppliers.
For example, Irish SMEs have raised concerns that pan-European frameworks:
- Tend to favour large, already-international suppliers.
- Impose complex administrative requirements.
- Erode local buyer-supplier relationships that underpin resilience in supply chains.
This creates a two-tier system: multinationals capable of navigating EU-wide tenders, and local suppliers left grappling with exclusionary thresholds and foreign red tape.
Adapting Procurement Strategies Without Losing Identity
Procurement professionals are walking a tightrope, balancing EU compliance with the imperative to protect national economic interests. Some strategies emerging across Europe include:
- Hybrid Framework Models: National frameworks with optional piggyback clauses to tap into EU volumes when beneficial but retain local supplier lots.
SME Set-Asides or Reserved Lots within larger contracts, ensuring smaller players are not frozen out.
- Capacity-Building Initiatives: Training local suppliers to bid on EU-wide tenders and simplifying documentation requirements where permissible under Article 58 and Recital 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU.
Digital Procurement Platforms that promote transparency while preserving language and procedural autonomy.
Crucially, national procurement bodies like OGP in Ireland are increasingly engaging in upstream market consultation to assess the real impact of these frameworks before jumping on Brussels-led initiatives.
A Balancing Act Worth Mastering
The rise of cross-border framework agreements is not inherently a threat, but it does demand vigilance. Procurement must remain more than just a conduit for volume discounts; it must reflect the cultural, economic, and social realities of its citizens. The challenge lies not in resisting integration, but in shaping it intelligently, preserving national procurement identity while leveraging the benefits of scale.
Sources:
Directive 2014/24/EU on Public Procurement
Court of Justice of the EU Case Law Database
European Association of Central Purchasing Bodies (EUPLAT)
European Court of Auditors – Special Report 2022 on EU Joint Procurement
