Public procurement in Central Europe

All EU markets

This guide compares procurement routes in Austria, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary. Read it alongside the current notice and national legislation. The common EU framework leaves important differences in domestic procedures, electronic submission and remedies.

• Austria
• Poland
• Czechia
• Slovakia
• Hungary

Austria

Austria’s BVergG framework includes direct awards, direct awards with prior publication and national variants of restricted procedures. Official guidance updated in March 2026 states ordinary direct-award boundaries below EUR 140,000 for supplies and services and below EUR 200,000 for works. Sector and concession rules differ.

The 2026 reform also affects sustainability and procedural requirements. Identify the particular challengeable decision and the competent review body: federal procurement review is dealt with by the Federal Administrative Court, while the relevant regional route must be checked for other buyers. A complaint to the purchaser should not be assumed to preserve the application deadline.

Official Austria guidance and legislation →

Poland

Poland’s national basic procedure is an advertised route for contracts below the EU thresholds. Its variants differ in whether negotiation is excluded, optional or forms part of the route. The Public Procurement Office’s 2026 explanation of the non-negotiated variant confirms that the decision is made on the original offers, without later negotiation to improve their contents.

A bidder should establish the selected variant before deciding its commercial strategy. Do not hold back a better technical solution in expectation of a negotiation round that may never occur. Check the declarations required at submission for the bidder and any resource-providing entity, and distinguish national procurement notices from EU notices.

Official Poland guidance and legislation →

Czechia

The Czech framework under Act No. 134/2016 distinguishes small-scale contracts, below-threshold procurement and above-threshold procurement. The official ministry portal explains that the small-scale boundaries were increased in April 2025, to CZK 3 million for supplies or services and CZK 9 million for works. EU-related limits are set separately in implementing legislation.

For a Czech project, work in the legally applicable currency and valuation method rather than converting an approximate euro figure. Establish whether the buyer is using a simplified below-threshold process or another statutory route, and inspect its buyer profile and funding rules. A small-scale classification should not be equated with an absence of procurement principles.

Official Czechia guidance and legislation →

Slovakia

Slovakia’s below-threshold rules distinguish routes under section 108 from the ordinary national procedure provisions in sections 110 and 111. The procurement authority publishes a 2026 procedural chart that also identifies particular requirements for EU-funded contracts. The contract category, buyer and funding source therefore influence the route.

A supplier should not assume that an invitation to selected businesses is the same process as an open national call. Check the electronic invitation, the eligibility conditions and the operative version of the legislation. Historic decisions may apply earlier statutory limits; use them for their legal reasoning only after checking the period and facts to which they relate.

Official Slovakia guidance and legislation →

Hungary

Hungary’s Act CXLIII of 2015 regulates procurement, concessions and remedies. It separates directive-related and national rules, and the governing version must be checked for the chosen process. The procurement authority’s English translation is useful orientation, but its stated date means that current Hungarian amendments must be reviewed for a live tender.

Language is a practical barrier that needs planning: the Act’s published English text provides for Hungarian proceedings, with another language permitted where the buyer allows it. Arrange translation of declarations and the offer early. Establish the national procedural route, electronic requirements and challenge timetable before assuming that a familiar EU procedure name has identical domestic consequences.

Official Hungary guidance and legislation →

Cross-border tender preparation

Begin with a bid/no-bid review covering the actual performance location, language, licences, staffing, insurance and delivery obligations. Map German corporate and qualification evidence to the documents requested abroad. An ESPD can simplify initial declarations where applicable, but does not eliminate the need to produce supporting evidence at the required stage.

For a consortium, settle who submits, who signs and which member performs each part. Record reliance on another entity separately from ordinary subcontracting. A commercially sensible partnership is not enough if the tender does not demonstrate that the promised resources will be available.

If the process becomes contentious

Identify the challenged act, when it was communicated, the planned contract date and the relevant national remedy. Do not carry German ten- or fifteen-day rules into another legal system. A request for clarification, an administrative complaint and a formal review application can have different effects. Local procedural advice should be arranged while the award can still be prevented, where that is the objective.

Three practical checks

• A supplier finds a notice on TED: open the national procurement documents and test the submission system before investing in the bid.
• An authority requests a local certificate: establish whether equivalent home-state evidence is accepted and raise any unjustified restriction in time.
• A bidder loses on quality: compare the actual reasons with the published scoring model and preserve the evaluation-related correspondence.

Editorial review: 12 November 2026. These are comparative entry guides; the controlling national text and tender documents determine the individual procedure.