Are you losing tenders by a narrow margin? Nowadays, it’s rarely just price.

Across Europe, contracting authorities are rewarding offers that combine cost discipline with measurable environmental performance.

The firms winning in 2025 aren’t necessarily just the ones with the longest ESG reports (ESG stands for corporate environment, society, and governance performance).

Instead, they’re the ones with concise, verifiable evidence aligned to what evaluators can actually score. In fact, EU law already allows buyers to award on best value (MEAT), and a forthcoming reform aims to mainstream non‑price criteria by 2026.

A few things we’ve noticed

It’s important to underline that the EU’s updated approach to contract awards provides a wealth of opportunity for organizations looking to enter the market with clear, green, best-value offers. In essence, if you have a solid understanding of your lifecycle economics, have some credible environmental performance to show, and can reliably deliver, you are very likely to outcompete the lowest bids. 

Here’s why:

  • Public buyers are moving from lowest price to best value, with that shift expected to accelerate as the EU revises procurement rules to strengthen sustainability weighting by 2026.
  • The biggest contract categories - construction, infrastructure, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), transport, and facilities - are adding clearer environmental criteria and asking for proof, backed by EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria and sector toolkits (e.g., buildings, ICT).
  • The tie‑breakers are changing, too. Lifecycle cost tables, product‑level carbon data, and credible verification beat bombastic promises; evaluators can and do apply life‑cycle costing under existing rules.

You need a clean narrative and the right evidence. Think of it as a “tender pack” that answers three questions up front:

  • What are we offering?
  • How is it better over the full contract term (cost, performance, environmental impact)?
  • How can the buyer verify it quickly?

What’s changing in tenders

There’s a push towards standardization with European institutions. In practice, this means that as a bidder, you’ll have access to standards and criteria that you can anticipate, prepare for, and build around.

In other words: 

  • Environmental criteria are clearer and more standard - carbon intensity, energy performance, durability/repairability, recycled content, and takeback arrangements—often drawn from EU GPP criteria or sector standards.
  • Coming with evidence is absolutely essential. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for material products (EN 15804 is the applicable standard for construction products); recognized labels or equivalents; short, dated sustainability summaries that map to criteria.
  • Monitoring isn’t an afterthought: more contracts include performance clauses - simple monthly KPIs build trust and reduce risk for the buyer, and align with how authorities operationalize GPP delivery.

When studying tender information, we recommend starting with these essentials:

  • Start with technical specifications. Look for environmental thresholds and documentation requirements that aren’t optional, no matter how strong the rest of your bid might be (like EPD EN 15804 or equivalent). 
  • Move to award criteria next. This shows you what buyers actually care about - how they split points between price, quality, and environmental performance. Environmental criteria commonly hold a lot of weight. Under related EU guidance and emerging policies, 15 - 30% allocations are increasingly referenced when using sustainability criteria.
  • Don’t forget about contract performance clauses. Understand what has to be measured and reported during delivery (energy, waste, emissions, service KPIs, etc). This will in turn have a massive influence on your cost model and staffing.

Show total contract costs, put numbers to your environmental claims, and make comparisons easy. Then cut the hassle: date your evidence, name the exact standards you're using, and organize proof so evaluators can scan it quickly. Do this well, and you're not just polished—you're helping buyers defend their choice of your bid over cheaper alternatives.

Here’s what buyers reward consistently:

  • Clarity over volume: One‑page tables for lifecycle cost (TCO), carbon per unit, and maintenance plans are easier to score than long narratives; EU life‑cycle costing is explicitly allowed and encouraged.
  • Verifiability: Reference recognized standards (e.g., EN 15804 for construction EPDs) and date your data. Evaluators prefer precise claims they can check quickly.

Before you compete

Strong bids don’t lose on story - they get ruled non‑compliant on basics. Here are a few things we suggest you keep in mind when competing in this tendering area.

Documentation precision isn’t a soft target.

If the spec calls for EN 15804 EPDs and you submit a general EN ISO 14025 declaration, you’re out. No malice, just checklist logic. Match the exact standard and version, ensure issuance dates are current, and align product IDs/SKUs with what’s in the bill of quantities. 

It’s also essential that you stay laser-focused on qualification criteria. This is precisely an area where many teams can trip up easily. They’re eager to focus on award criteria where they can elaborate on innovation and sustainability, all while missing straightforward must-haves like turnover minima, professional indemnity levels, and so forth. If a reference requires a project that was delivered within three years and or a minimum contract value, show both openly. Making evaluators hunt for them will likely disadvantage you. 

We also strongly recommend building a single, coherent TCO sheet: CAPEX, OPEX, maintenance cycles, consumables, disposal/take‑back. This part is critical because if you’re unable to substantiate your data on energy efficiency, it won’t be scored.

Submission mechanics still decide outcomes. Things like wrong file formats, expired e‑signatures, mislabeled appendices, or uploading evidence in the wrong portal slot, all of these are still real reasons why bidders get disqualified. We recommend creating a detailed pre-submission audit that includes mandatory docs, naming conventions, version dates, etc. 

The bottom line

The way we see it, a wide array of businesses can use this opportunity to grow and adapt preemptively. While others debate 2026 timelines, contracting authorities are already scoring life‑cycle value and environmental performance under existing MEAT rules.

But it’s also important to assume that this will predominantly advantage organizations that treat this systematically. Those that map lifecycle economics, document environmental performance to recognized standards, and structure evidence for fast evaluation. This could be your competitive edge, not because the rules changed, but because most bidders haven't adapted their approach yet.

Start with one product line or service category. Build your evidence base. Test the process on a smaller tender. Then scale the approach across contract opportunities.