Award Criteria in Procurement Law 2026

Award criteria determine the most economically advantageous tender in procurement procedures. Price, quality, weighting. Art. 67 Directive 2014/24/EU. AT & DE.

Definition: Award criteria are the weighted assessment standards defined in advance by the public contracting authority, on the basis of which it identifies the most economically advantageous tender among the admitted tenders and, on that basis, grants the award; they are bindingly regulated in Art. 67 of Directive 2014/24/EU and in national procurement laws.

Last updated: January 2026 · Legal basis: Art. 67 Directive 2014/24/EU, § 91 BVergG 2018, § 58 VgV

What are award criteria in procurement law?

Award criteria are the binding assessment standards used by a public contracting authority to decide, in a procurement procedure, which bidder is awarded the contract – they are the heart of tender evaluation and must be defined transparently in advance and published. Without clearly defined award criteria, a non-arbitrary award would not be possible; they are therefore a central instrument for implementing the procurement-law principles of transparency and equal treatment.

Award criteria must be strictly distinguished from selection criteria: while selection criteria assess whether a bidder is suitable for the contract at all (authorisation, reliability, capability), award criteria determine which tender among the suitable bidders receives the award. Mixing the two types of criteria is contrary to procurement law and renders the procedure challengeable.

Purpose and significance

Award criteria enable the contracting authority to identify not just the lowest price, but the best price-quality ratio – making them the central steering instrument for economical and quality-oriented public procurement. Through the mandatory advance definition and publication of the criteria and their weighting, it is ensured that all bidders can align their tenders with the same standards. At the same time, qualitative award criteria enable contracting authorities to embed strategic objectives such as sustainability, innovation or social standards in their procurement.

EU procurement law, through Directive 2014/24/EU, has expressly pushed back the previously dominant price orientation in favour of the best-bidder principle (MEAT – Most Economically Advantageous Tender).

Types of award criteria

Procurement law fundamentally distinguishes between price criteria and qualitative criteria, which must be sensibly combined and weighted by the contracting authority depending on the subject of the contract.

Price and costs

Price is the most common and simplest award criterion: the bidder with the lowest tender price receives the highest score value. An award based solely on the lowest price remains permissible in the above-threshold area but must be expressly defined as the sole criterion.

In addition to the pure price, life-cycle costs (Art. 68 Directive 2014/24/EU) may be taken into account as a cost dimension. These include not only the purchase price, but also operating, maintenance and disposal costs over the entire useful life of the procurement item. Life-cycle cost analyses are particularly relevant for long-lived goods (machinery, vehicles, IT systems).

Qualitative criteria

Qualitative award criteria enable the assessment of the substantive quality of a tender beyond price and may include the following aspects:

Technical quality (e.g. technical concept, solution approach, functionality)
Aesthetic and functional characteristics of a product
Accessibility (barrier-free design)
Social, environmental and innovative characteristics (e.g. energy efficiency, CO₂ emissions, recyclability)
Organisation, qualification and experience of the staff deployed (where the quality of the staff has a significant effect on the contract value)
Customer service and technical assistance
Delivery or performance conditions (delivery time, performance concept)

Weighting of award criteria

All award criteria must be published with a concrete weighting in the procurement documents; a mere ranking without weighting indication is only permissible in exceptional cases. The weightings indicate the percentage share with which each criterion is included in the overall evaluation. The sum of all weightings must equal 100 %.

Example of a weighting structure:

Award criterion	Weighting
Price	40 %
Technical concept	30 %
Quality of the project team	20 %
Environmental standards / CO₂ footprint	10 %
Total	100 %

The MEAT principle (Most Economically Advantageous Tender)

The MEAT principle – the identification of the most economically advantageous tender – is the guiding principle of tender evaluation under EU procurement law and requires the contracting authority always to conduct a comprehensive evaluation taking into account both price and quality. Art. 67(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU expressly stipulates that the award is to be granted on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender from the contracting authority's perspective, which excludes a purely lowest-price competition in many cases.

The MEAT principle enables contracting authorities to make sustainable, innovative and high-quality procurements – and thus to pursue societal objectives that go beyond price.

Requirements for the definition of award criteria

Award criteria must cumulatively satisfy three properties: they must be linked to the subject of the contract, formulated transparently and verifiably, and must not grant the contracting authority unrestricted freedom of choice.

Specifically, this means:

Link to the subject of the contract: the criteria must relate to aspects relevant to the specific contract (Art. 67(3) Directive 2014/24/EU). Criteria relating to the bidder's general corporate policy are not permissible.
Transparency: the criteria and their weighting must be fully disclosed in the contract notice or the procurement documents.
Specificity: the criteria must be formulated in such a way that bidders understand what will be evaluated and the contracting authority can assess the tenders against objective standards.
No unrestricted discretion: the evaluation methodology must be defined in advance; subsequent changes to the criteria or weightings are contrary to procurement law.

Legal basis

The regulation of award criteria in EU procurement law is primarily enshrined in Art. 67–68 of Directive 2014/24/EU.

Art. 67 Directive 2014/24/EU – Criteria for the award of contract (MEAT principle, quality criteria, price element)
Art. 68 Directive 2014/24/EU – Calculation of life-cycle costs
Art. 69 Directive 2014/24/EU – Abnormally low tenders (duty to examine)
Art. 18(1) Directive 2014/24/EU – Transparency and equal treatment principles

National implementation

Austria (BVergG 2018)

In Austria, award criteria are regulated in § 91 of the Federal Procurement Act 2018 (BVergG 2018, BGBl. I No. 65/2018) and in §§ 132 ff. BVergG 2018 (evaluation and award). The BVergG 2018 adopts the MEAT principle from Art. 67 of Directive 2014/24/EU and requires that the award be granted to the tender with the best price-quality ratio (best-bidder principle). An award based solely on the cheapest-bidder principle (lowest price) is only permissible for simple, standardised performances and must be objectively justified.

The best-bidder principle in Austria means that the award decision always requires an overall assessment that includes qualitative aspects. The procurement review authorities (in particular the Federal Administrative Court) have, in numerous decisions, clarified the requirements for the transparency and verifiability of award criteria.

Germany (GWB / VgV)

In Germany, § 58 VgV (Procurement Regulation) governs award criteria for supply and service contracts in the above-threshold area. Pursuant to § 58(1) VgV, the award is to be granted to the most economically advantageous tender, whereby, in addition to price or costs, in particular qualitative, environmental and social aspects may be taken into account. § 58(2) VgV non-exhaustively lists possible criteria (quality, organisation, qualification of staff, customer service, delivery conditions).

For works contracts in the above-threshold area, § 16d VOB/A applies, imposing comparable requirements. In the below-threshold area, § 43 UVgO (Below-Threshold Procurement Regulation) contains analogous rules.

Related terms

FAQ

What is the difference between award and selection criteria? Selection criteria assess whether a bidder is fundamentally suitable to perform the contract (authorisation, economic capability, technical competence). Award criteria determine which tender among the suitable bidders receives the contract. Mixing the two types of criteria is contrary to procurement law.

May a contracting authority award the contract solely on the basis of the lowest price? Yes, this is in principle permissible, but it must be expressly defined as the sole criterion. In Austria, an award based exclusively on the cheapest-bidder principle is only objectively justifiable for simple, standardised performances; the best-bidder principle applies as the rule.

May award criteria be changed after the notice has been published? No. After publication of the notice, award criteria and their weightings may in principle no longer be changed. Subsequent changes are contrary to procurement law and give bidders grounds for challenge.

What are life-cycle costs as an award criterion? Life-cycle costs (Art. 68 Directive 2014/24/EU) include all costs incurred over the life of a product or service: acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposal. They enable an overall economic perspective rather than a short-term price orientation.

Can sustainability criteria be used as award criteria? Yes. Environmental and social criteria are expressly permissible (Art. 67(2) Directive 2014/24/EU), provided that they are linked to the subject of the contract. Examples: CO₂ footprint, recyclability, compliance with ILO core labour standards.

Last updated: January 2026 All information without warranty. For legally binding advice, please consult a law firm specialising in procurement law.