The Commission marks a single-bidder share above 20% as unsatisfactory. Greece is at 55%. In more than half of the contracts that went through a competition, the competition had one entrant.
Five figures from the scoreboard
- 55% of Greek public contracts published on the EU's tenders journal (TED) in 2024 drew a single bidder. The Commission's benchmark, a typical mid-ranking EU country, stood at 28%.
- 125 days on average from the deadline for offers to the award decision in open procedures, against 74 days in the benchmark.
- 80% of Greek procedures were awarded on price alone, against 54% in the benchmark.
- 2.9% of GDP in contract value was advertised on the EU's tenders journal, against 5.8%.
- 47% of Greek procedures were divided into lots, against 32%.
All five come from the European Commission's Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard, "Access to public procurement (Greece)", reporting period January to December 2024. The column the Commission labels "EU average" is taken from "a typical (mid-ranking) EU country" rather than calculated as a mean.
Alone at the table
For a supplier, that number points two directions at once. It is a sign that public buyers in Greece struggle to attract offers, which the scoreboard treats as a weakness of the market. It is also a sign that a firm which prepares properly may often find itself alone at the table.
Anyone who has bid in Greece knows a third reading of the numbers. Some of those “tables” were set for one guest before the notice went out, and the firm sitting alone is the one that was expected.
A tender with one bidder is an opening that only pays if the bid was priced for the wait.
Why so few firms bid
Three other figures may help explain why so few firms bid, but the data cannot prove it.
The first is time. A decision takes 125 days on average in Greek open procedures against 74 in the benchmark. The Commission rates anything above 120 days as unsatisfactory. Four months between submitting an offer and learning the result is four months of capacity held in reserve. In that time the firm keeps people free for a project that may not come, with a price that may no longer be right when it does.
The second is how the winner is chosen. Eight procedures in ten are decided on price alone. That is the highest share the Commission still rates as satisfactory. For a firm whose advantage is quality, method or speed of delivery, it means the advantage carries no weight in most awards.
The third is visibility. Greece advertises contracts worth 2.9% of GDP on the EU's tenders journal, half the benchmark. Less is published at EU level, so less is visible to a firm that only watches that channel.
One figure points the other way. Nearly half of Greek procedures are split into lots, well above the benchmark. The Commission notes that lots make it easier for smaller firms to make an offer.
A table set in advance
The fourth explanation is the one the scoreboard cannot show. Some tenders appear to be written around one supplier before they are published. Other firms see it and stay away.
EU procurement law names the practice. It treats competition as "artificially narrowed" where a procurement is designed "with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators". It also bars specifications that point to a make, trade mark or source unless the subject of the contract justifies it. Where such a reference cannot be avoided, it must carry the words "or equivalent". Greek law repeats the rule on specifications in Article 54 of Law 4412/2016.
Greek firms say the practice is common. Eight in ten Greek respondents (81%) to the Commission's 2026 survey of small and medium-sized firms called tailor-made specifications for particular companies widespread in public procurement. Across the EU the figure was 59%. Among Greek firms that had bid in the previous three years, 45% believed corruption had cost them a contract. The EU figure was 30%. A survey records what firms believe and proves nothing about any single tender. Belief is what decides whether a firm bids, though. A firm that thinks the winner is already chosen does not spend a week on the offer.
Firms describe a second version, and the price figure above makes it worse. The specification asks for more than the budget can pay for and the award is won on price alone. The demanding requirements are then checked strictly only when a bidder who was not expected to win reaches the final checks. A supplier who prices in every requirement loses on price, while one who expects some requirements never to be checked can go lower. We have no figure for how often this happens. The nearest survey question is about conflicts of interest in the evaluation of bids. Three Greek firms in four (74%) called them widespread. Across the EU, 53% did.
Tendering as a demand channel
Public tendering is a demand channel like any other and deserves the same discipline as the rest of the pipeline. That means deciding which opportunities to pursue, knowing what each offer costs and seeing clearly what each one returned.
Before the next bid, that comes down to five questions.
- Was the tender written for someone? If the specification names a brand without "or equivalent", or asks for something only one supplier could offer, put the question in writing during the clarification period. The answer, or the silence, belongs in the bid decision.
- Can the firm win on price without losing money, given that most awards are decided that way?
- Can it prove every requirement it has priced in, on paper, on the day of the final checks? Assume the checks will be strictest for a winner nobody expected.
- Can it hold the people and the price for four months?
- Does it know how many offers it submitted last year, how many hours each one took, how many it won and how long each decision took?
In our experience, firms that track this bid less often and win more of what they bid for. Firms that do not tend to treat every tender as a lottery ticket whose cost never appears anywhere.
Where the data stops
The scoreboard is built from notices published in the EU's tenders journal (TED), which covers mainly contracts above the EU thresholds. Many smaller national tenders are not in it. The Commission also notes that the move to new TED notices in 2023 and 2024 introduced some data-quality issues that "may affect comparability across countries and years". The Commission itself calls the scoreboard "only a partial view". The data says nothing about win rates, margins or sectors. It covers 2024 only.
The survey has limits of its own. It is a telephone survey of 506 Greek firms with 1 to 250 employees, run in April and May 2026. It measures perception. The question about lost contracts went only to firms that had bid, which is a smaller group.
The Monday check
List every public tender the firm bid for in the last twelve months and write down six things for each one.
- the date the offer was submitted
- the hours spent preparing it
- the date the decision arrived
- the result
- whether it was decided on price
- whether the specification could have been met by more than one supplier
Add up the hours per contract won and the average wait. Those two numbers decide whether tendering belongs in the demand plan and how much of it.
Sources
- European Commission, Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard, Greece country page, "Access to public procurement (Greece)", 2024
- European Commission, Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard, "Access to public procurement", indicator definitions and thresholds, reporting period 01/2024 to 12/2024
- European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 582, businesses' attitudes towards corruption in the EU, 2026 (fieldwork 23 April to 8 May 2026; small and medium-sized firms with 1 to 250 employees; Greece 506 interviews). Greece factsheet and data annex, questions Q3 and Dx8
- Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, Article 18(1) and Article 42
- Greek Law 4412/2016 on public contracts (Government Gazette A 147/2016), Article 54, technical specifications
Researched and drafted with AI tools from the sources listed; reviewed and edited by Meterknot.
