Chapter 2 — Research and development procurementProposed — COM(2026) 567
Article 6 — Groups of economic operators
In brief
This article governs how groups of economic operators are treated in R&D procurement. Selection criteria for groups should not differ from those for individual operators, and a group can satisfy a criterion if one member meets it or if the abilities of several members combine to the required level. Buyers may, where justified and proportionate, apply specific rules to critical tasks, must not impose a particular legal form after award, and must avoid creating disproportionate barriers for smaller participants.
Key points
Selection criteria for groups must match those for individual operators unless the article provides otherwise.
A group meets a criterion where one member qualifies, or where members’ abilities can be combined to reach the same level.
For certain critical tasks, buyers may derogate from the combination rule or require the qualifying member to perform them, with justification stated in the procurement documents.
Different performance conditions for groups are allowed only where justified by proportionate, clearly stated objective reasons.
Groups cannot be required to take a specific legal form after award, and barriers linked to operator size must be avoided, in particular for SMEs, innovative startups and scaleups.
What it means in practice
Consortia and joint bids are facilitated, since capacity can be pooled across members to meet selection criteria. Public buyers must justify any special treatment of critical tasks or differing conditions in the procurement documents, and should design requirements so that smaller firms are not disproportionately excluded when bidding as part of a group.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
The treatment of consortia is, to my mind, one of the more practically important provisions for the innovation ecosystem. It requires that selection criteria for groups not differ from those for individuals, and expressly allows technical, professional, economic and financial capacity to be pooled across members — the legal foundation on which most collaborative research bids are built. The safeguard that pooling need not be accepted where it would not achieve the same level of capacity is a sensible reservation, though I would watch how buyers justify invoking it.
What I find most significant is paragraph 8’s explicit instruction not to create disproportionate barriers linked to size, in particular for SMEs, startups and scaleups, combined with the bar on demanding a specific legal form post-award. Read together with the proportionality tests governing critical-task carve-outs, this signals a deliberate tilt towards keeping consortia — and the smaller innovators within them — genuinely able to compete. I expect the critical-task derogations to be the contested drafting point here.
Official text — Article 6 (COM(2026) 567)
4. Public buyers shall not def ine selection criteria pursuant to Article 15 for groups of
economic operators that differ from those for individual economic operators unless
otherwise laid down in this Article.
Groups of economic operators shall be deemed to fulfil a selection criterion where:
(a) one economic operator in the group possesses the necessary technical and
professional ability or economic and financial standing; or,
(b) where such ability or standing can be established by combining the relevant
technical and professional ability or economic and financial standing from two
or several members of the group, unless such combination will not achieve the
same level of ability or standing.
5. When justified by the nature of the contract and in accordance with the principle of
proportionality, public buyers may
(a) derogate from paragraph 1, second subparagraph, point (a) or (b) for selection
criteria relevant for certain critical tasks;
(b) require that certain critical tasks be performed directly by the member of the
group that fulfils the selection criterion relevant for that task.
Public buyers shall identify the critical tasks and related, requirements, clearly
indicating them and their justification in the procurement documents.
6. Conditions for the performance of the R&D pr ocurement contract by groups may be
permitted to differ from those imposed on individual economic operators,
only where justified by objective reasons, which are proportionate and clearly
indicated in the procurement documents.
7. Without prejudice to Memb er States’ competence to organise their social security
systems, public buyers shall not require groups of economic operators to assume a
specific legal form once they have been awarded the R&D procurement contract.
8. Public buyers shall give particular c onsideration not to create unjustified or
disproportionate barriers related to the size of the economic operators participating in
a group, in particular for SMEs, innovative startups and innovative scaleups.
Source: European Commission, proposal for a Regulation establishing the European Innovation Act, COM(2026) 567 final, 9 September 2026. Read the official proposal (PDF). Text may change during the legislative process.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
The treatment of consortia is, to my mind, one of the more practically important provisions for the innovation ecosystem. It requires that selection criteria for groups not differ from those for individuals, and expressly allows technical, professional, economic and financial capacity to be pooled across members — the legal foundation on which most collaborative research bids are built. The safeguard that pooling need not be accepted where it would not achieve the same level of capacity is a sensible reservation, though I would watch how buyers justify invoking it.
What I find most significant is paragraph 8’s explicit instruction not to create disproportionate barriers linked to size, in particular for SMEs, startups and scaleups, combined with the bar on demanding a specific legal form post-award. Read together with the proportionality tests governing critical-task carve-outs, this signals a deliberate tilt towards keeping consortia — and the smaller innovators within them — genuinely able to compete. I expect the critical-task derogations to be the contested drafting point here.