Chapter 2 — Research and development procurementProposed — COM(2026) 567
Article 15 — Selection criteria
In brief
This Article governs the selection criteria that public buyers may choose to use as requirements for participation in R&D procurement. Where used, such criteria may relate only to suitability to pursue the professional activity, technical and professional ability, and economic and financial standing. Criteria must be proportionate to the complexity and risks of the contract, and the Article contains specific safeguards, including limits on requiring prior experience and caps on the minimum financial capacity that may be demanded.
Key points
Selection criteria are optional, but where used may only address suitability, technical and professional ability, and economic and financial standing, and must be proportionate, transparent and non-discriminatory.
Means of proof must allow equivalents, and lack of prior experience alone cannot make an operator non-compliant unless justified by the complexity or nature of the contract.
Financial and economic standing may be shown by various means, including bank statements, financial statements, turnover figures or a business plan supported by evidence of tangible and intangible assets, including intellectual property.
Any required minimum financial capacity may not exceed 50% of the estimated contract value, except in duly justified cases, with reasons stated in the procurement documents.
In procedures without preselection, full documentary evidence is requested only from the highest-ranked winning tenders, and operators must be given the chance to remedy minor informalities.
What it means in practice
Contracting authorities can set entry requirements but must keep them tied to genuine capacity and proportionate to the contract, and must reference the European Qualifications Framework where qualification levels are cited. Innovative firms, start-ups and SMEs, which may lack a long contract history, benefit from the restriction on demanding prior experience and from the ability to evidence financial standing through assets, intellectual property and investor funding. The option to prove financial standing between the award decision and contract signature, and the cap on minimum financial capacity, are designed to lower barriers to entry.
Anthony Bochon’s analysis
This is, to my mind, one of the most deliberately innovation-friendly provisions in the Regulation. The insistence that selection criteria be proportionate to the complexity and risk of the contract is standard, but the treatment of prior experience is not: the text bars buyers, save where genuinely justified, from requiring a track record of comparable contracts, and forbids treating a lack of prior experience as decisive. For start-ups and young research-intensive firms this removes one of the most persistent barriers to public work, and I welcome it without reservation.
Two further features deserve emphasis. First, the economic and financial standing rules allow an operator to demonstrate capacity through a business plan and intangible assets, including intellectual property, and cap any minimum financial requirement at 50% of the contract value — a realistic recognition of how innovative firms are actually capitalised. Second, the mandatory or equivalent formula, the reference to the European Qualifications Framework, and the deferred proof mechanism between award and signature all lower the practical entry cost; the point addressees should prepare for is that the burden shifts to demonstrating present human and technical resources rather than past contracts.
Official text — Article 15 (COM(2026) 567)
1. Where public buyers decide to make use of selection criteria as requirements for
participation in R&D procurement procedures, they shall lay down such criteria in
accordance with the conditions in this Article.
2. Selection criteria for R&D procurement procedures shall only relate to:
(a) suitability to pursue the professional activity within the meaning of paragraph
4;
(b) technical and professional ability within the meaning of paragraph 5;
(c) economic and financial standing within the meaning of paragraphs 6, 7 and 8.
3. Public buyers shall limit any requirements for selection criteria to those that are
appropriate to ensure that an economic operator has the required capacities and
abilities to perform the R&D procurement contract. All requiremen ts for selection
criteria shall be related and proportionate to the complexity of and the risks
associated with the subject -matter of the R&D procurement contract and comply
with the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality.
Each reference to be provided as means of proof of compliance with any of the
selection criteria shall be accompanied by the words ‘or equivalent’ to allow
tenderers to provide any type of alternative evidence of compliance.
4. In R&D procurement procedures, i n so far as economic operators are required to
hold a particular authorisation or to be members of a particular organisation in order
to be able to perform the research and development activities concerned in the
country where the economic operator conduct s its main activity, the public buyer
may require such economic operators to prove that they hold such authorisation or
membership.
Certified registration on official lists held by the competent bodies or a certificate
issued by the certification body sha ll constitute a presumption of compliance with
regard to the requirements laid down in the first and second subparagraphs.
5. Public buyers may impose requirements ensuring that economic operators possess
the necessary human and technical resources and exp erience to perform the R&D
procurement contract to an appropriate quality standard.
Unless justified by the complexity of the R&D procurement contract or the nature of
the subject -matter, public buyers shall not require prior experience in other
contracts as a condition for participation in an R&D procurement procedure.
A public buyer may assume that an economic operator does not possess the required
professional abilities in either of the following cases where:
(a) the public buyer has established by any means that the economic operator has
conflicting interests which may negatively affect the performance of the that
contract;
(b) the public buyer has been made aware by any means that the economic
operator presents a security concern for a Member State or the Union as a
whole.
Public buyers shall not require prior experience in other contracts without requiring
that contractors possess the necessary human and technical resources to perform the
R&D procurement contrac t. Public buyers shall not deem economic operators non -
compliant with the requirements on technical and professional ability solely due to
lack of prior experience in other contracts.
Any references to qualifications or qualification levels included in s election criteria
shall mention the European Qualifications Framework levels set out in Annex II to
Council Recommendation of 22 May 201742.
6. Where public buyers require economic operators to have minimum economic and
financial standing, they may require economic operators to have one or both of the
following:
(a) a certain minimum financial capacity;
(b) an appropriate level of professional risk indemnity insurance.
42 Council recommendation of 22 May 2017 on the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong
learning and repealing the recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Co uncil of 23 April
2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (OJ C 189,
15.6.2017, p.15).
7. Where public buyers require economic operators to provide proof of minimum
economic and financial standing, public buyers shall allow economic operators to
provide such proof by any appropriate means, including any of the following:
(a) statements from banks or, where appropriate, evidence of relevant professional
risk indemnity insurance;
(b) financial statements or extracts from financial statements, where publication of
financial statements is required under the law of the country in which the
economic operator is established;
(c) a statement of the economic operator’s turnover for a maximum of the last
three financial years available, depending on the date on which the economic
operator was set up or started trading, as far as the information on such
turnovers is available;
(d) a business plan supported by statements or other e vidence of the economic
operator’s tangible and intangible financial assets, including its intellectual
property assets, financial contributions from financial investors or funding
bodies, or evidence of own capital invested in the economic operator.
Where a minimum financial capacity is required, it shall not exceed 50% of the
estimated value of the R&D procurement contract, except in duly justified cases such
as relating to the special risks attached to the nature of the procured research and
development services. R&D procurement contract. The public buyer shall specify the
main reasons for such a requirement in the procurement documents.
In assessing the minimum financial and economic standing, public buyers may
consider information from the annual accou nts of the economic operator only where
the public buyer has specified the methods and criteria for such consideration in the
procurement documents. Such methods and criteria shall be transparent, objective
and non-discriminatory.
Where public buyers impos e economic and financial standing selection criteria in
accordance with paragraph 6, public buyers shall enable tenderers to provide the
proof referred to in this paragraph, first subparagraph, point (d), between the date
that the public buyer notifies ten derers about the decision to award the R&D
procurement contract and the date of signature of that contract.
8. Where public buyers require professional risk indemnity insurance, they shall ensure
and shall provide justification in the procurement document s that the required
liability coverage is proportionate to the reasonably foreseeable amount of loss or
damage that contractors and subcontractors may cause during or as a result of the
performance of the R&D procurement contract.
9. Where the R&D procurement procedure applied by the public buyer does not include
a preselection of economic operators on the basis of exclusion grounds or selection
criteria, the public buyer shall request full documentary evidence proving compliance
with applicable exclusion grounds and selection criteria only from the winning
tenders that ranked highest based on the award criteria. Information that can be
determined from existing national databases established by a public body, or from
the registration on official lists or ce rtifications shall not be questioned without
sufficient justification.
10. Where information or documentation submitted by economic operators is or appears
to be incomplete or erroneous or where specific documents are missing, public
buyers, in compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparency, shall
provide the economic operators concerned with the opportunity to submit,
supplement, clarify or complete the relevant information or documentation within an
appropriate time limit to remedy any deficiency resulting from a minor informality or
irregularity of a tender that does not put into question the decision to award R&D
procurement contracts.
Article 10
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
This is, to my mind, one of the most deliberately innovation-friendly provisions in the Regulation. The insistence that selection criteria be proportionate to the complexity and risk of the contract is standard, but the treatment of prior experience is not: the text bars buyers, save where genuinely justified, from requiring a track record of comparable contracts, and forbids treating a lack of prior experience as decisive. For start-ups and young research-intensive firms this removes one of the most persistent barriers to public work, and I welcome it without reservation.
Two further features deserve emphasis. First, the economic and financial standing rules allow an operator to demonstrate capacity through a business plan and intangible assets, including intellectual property, and cap any minimum financial requirement at 50% of the contract value — a realistic recognition of how innovative firms are actually capitalised. Second, the mandatory or equivalent formula, the reference to the European Qualifications Framework, and the deferred proof mechanism between award and signature all lower the practical entry cost; the point addressees should prepare for is that the burden shifts to demonstrating present human and technical resources rather than past contracts.