Preliminary market consultation and contract value estimates for public procurement

Questions this report answers

• How many suppliers could realistically bid, and from where?
• What estimated value can we justify once options, renewals and every lot are included?
• Which requirements in our draft narrow competition without adding value?
• Should the contract be split into lots — by region, service type or volume?
• Which timelines, contract lengths and payment terms does the market consider workable?
• For suppliers: what should our consultation response say and omit?

When you need it

Authorities usually commission this work when the subject is new to them, the last tender drew one bid or none, or technology has moved on since the previous contract. The estimate is a fourth trigger. Article 5 bases it on the total amount payable, net of VAT, including options and renewals, and that figure decides which procedure applies and whether EU-wide publication rules are engaged. An auditor will ask how it was reached; "last contract plus inflation" is a weak answer.

Suppliers use the same research from the other side. A concise consultation response on market capacity, realistic lead times and common pricing models can shape a fairer specification — provided it argues for open competition rather than for your own product.

It is rarely needed for routine purchases with recent comparable awards or where a framework agreement fixes the terms, and it is premature before the decision to buy.

National rules sit on top of the Directive and differ in detail — Bulgaria's Public Procurement Act and the Dutch Aanbestedingswet 2012 each add their own steps. Not legal advice: this page is general information; confirm procedural requirements with your legal adviser.

Sample table of contents

1. Executive summary
   value range and the specification changes that matter most
2. Scope and legal frame
   subject matter, CPV codes, national rules to check
3. Methodology
   who was consulted, how, and how equal treatment was protected
4. Supply market structure
   potential bidders, concentration, SME presence
5. Comparable awards
   earlier contracts, normalised for scope and duration
6. Estimated contract value
   calculation, options, renewals and lots, as a range
7. Consultation findings
   anonymised themes from questionnaires and meetings
8. Specification risks
   clauses that could deter bids or favour an incumbent
9. Lotting and procedure options
   market evidence for each structure
10. Documentation pack
    the procurement file and the pack for all candidates

Methodology and sources

Published evidence first

We begin with desk research: award notices on TED and national portals such as TenderNed in the Netherlands, company registers, trade directories and the authority's own spend data. Our guide to free market data sources for Europe lists the main ones. Past awards are adjusted for scope, duration and indexation before they inform the estimate.

Structured supplier input

A written questionnaire goes to every identifiable supplier, not only familiar ones, and is announced publicly where national practice expects it. One-to-one meetings follow a fixed agenda and are minuted; no participant sees the draft budget. Interviewing follows our B2B research approach: senior respondents, short sessions, precise questions on capacity, lead times and cost drivers.

Building the estimate

The value is triangulated from comparable awards, a bottom-up cost model built on the logic of market sizing, and the ranges suppliers indicate. Where they disagree, the report explains why rather than averaging the gap away, and Article 5 rules on lots, options and renewals are applied explicitly.

Equal treatment controls

Article 41 asks for measures when a candidate has helped prepare the procedure — chiefly sharing the relevant information with all candidates and setting adequate time limits. We prepare that information pack.

What you receive

• Consultation plan: invitation text, questionnaire and meeting agenda
• Anonymised findings summary for sharing with all candidates
• Estimated-value memo with calculation, sources and assumptions
• Excel workbook of comparable awards and the cost model
• Specification review with flagged clauses and alternatives
• Board presentation; for suppliers, an evidence-based consultation response

How the project runs

1. Scoping call and review of draft documents — 3–5 days
2. Desk research of award notices, registers and spend data — 1–2 weeks
3. Questionnaire publication and supplier invitations — about 1 week
4. Response window and one-to-one meetings — 2–3 weeks, partly in parallel with step 2
5. Value estimate and specification review — about 1 week
6. Final report, candidate information pack and presentation — 3–5 days

Common mistakes and how to avoid them

• Inviting only the incumbent and its known rivals. Publicise the consultation and approach firms from award notices in other member states.
• Letting one participant draft the specification. Minute every meeting and record why each suggestion was accepted or rejected.
• Pitching the estimate low to stay under a threshold. Article 5 rules out choosing a calculation method, or splitting a purchase, to escape the Directive without objective reasons.
• Keeping the findings internal. Information that could favour a participant should reach every candidate in time to use it.
• For suppliers: selling instead of informing. A response that reads like a brochure is usually discounted.

Who it suits

Updated: 5 Nov 2026