How to Conduct Market Dialogue in Danish Public Procurement: Step‑by‑step (2026)

Understanding how to conduct market dialogue in Denmark is essential for every contracting authority planning a complex or innovative procurement. Market dialogue, sometimes called market consultation or market testing, is the structured, pre‑tender engagement between a contracting authority and potential suppliers, carried out under the Udbudsloven (the Danish Public Procurement Act) to sharpen requirements, test feasibility and identify market capacity before a formal tender is published. The process is governed by EU treaty principles of transparency, equal treatment and non‑discrimination, and it must be documented carefully to withstand scrutiny by the Klagenævnet for Udbud (the Complaints Board for Public Procurement).

With revised EU procurement thresholds taking effect for 2026–2027 under Commission Delegated Regulations, contracting authorities face fresh obligations around Prior Information Notice (PIN) publication and record‑keeping that directly affect when and how a market consultation in Denmark should be planned.

Overview of the Process and Who It Applies To

Market dialogue is a voluntary, preparatory phase that takes place before the contracting authority launches a formal procurement procedure. It is not a tender procedure in itself; it is a planning tool. The Udbudsloven explicitly permits contracting authorities to seek or accept advice from independent experts, other authorities or market participants, provided that the advice does not have the effect of distorting competition or violating the principles of non‑discrimination and transparency.

Market dialogue should not be confused with the competitive dialogue procedure, which is a formal award procedure used when the contracting authority cannot define the technical or legal solution in advance. Competitive dialogue is subject to strict procedural rules, participant selection, successive rounds, confidentiality of solutions, and results in a binding contract award. Market dialogue, by contrast, sits upstream of any procedure and carries no selection or award consequences.

The process applies to all entities classified as contracting authorities under the Udbudsloven: state bodies, regional authorities, municipalities, bodies governed by public law, and, under separate utility‑sector rules, entities operating in water, energy, transport and postal services. Any procurement that is likely to exceed the applicable EU threshold should consider market dialogue as part of its planning phase, particularly where the subject matter involves emerging technology, welfare services, construction or complex IT systems. The Business in Denmark procurement‑rules guidance published by Virk confirms that Danish practice actively encourages early market engagement as a means of reducing tender risk and improving the quality of specifications.

Eligibility and Prerequisites for Market Dialogue

Before launching a market consultation, a contracting authority must confirm two things: first, that it is subject to the Udbudsloven (or the relevant utility‑sector rules); and second, that it will observe the treaty principles throughout the engagement.

The three overarching principles that apply at every stage of the market dialogue process are:

• Transparency. All relevant information shared with one supplier must be made available to all suppliers on equal terms. Any PIN or industry‑day invitation should be published openly.
• Equal treatment. No supplier may receive preferential access to the contracting authority’s thinking, internal scoring methodology or evaluation criteria.
• Non‑discrimination. Suppliers from any EU/EEA member state, and from countries with applicable trade agreements, must be entitled to participate on the same terms as Danish suppliers.

Market dialogue can be held at any point during the procurement planning phase, from initial needs analysis through to the final drafting of tender documents. However, the most productive window is typically between the completion of a needs assessment and the drafting of technical specifications. Starting too early risks gathering information that is obsolete by the time the tender is published; starting too late risks the perception that supplier input has already been baked into the specifications, creating a complaint risk before the Klagenævnet for Udbud.

Where the estimated contract value is likely to exceed the EU thresholds, revised for 2026–2027, the contracting authority should plan for a Prior Information Notice on Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) and factor in the associated publication lead times. An ESPD (European Single Procurement Document) is not required during market dialogue itself, but the contracting authority should begin preparing its ESPD selection criteria so they can be tested informally during supplier conversations.

How to Conduct Market Dialogue in Denmark: Step‑by‑Step

The following market dialogue steps represent the recommended sequence for Danish contracting authorities. Each step identifies who is responsible and the typical duration. The timeline table below summarises the full process at a glance.

Step 1, Decide Objectives and Governance

The procurement lead should produce a short Market Dialogue Plan that states the purpose of the engagement (for example, validating technical feasibility, identifying potential subcontractors, testing pricing assumptions), the governance structure (who may speak with suppliers, who signs off on materials) and the rules for managing confidential information. This plan is the contracting authority’s primary evidence that the dialogue was planned, proportionate and compliant. Legal counsel should review the plan before any external contact.

Step 2, Conduct Desk‑Based Market Analysis and Draft PIN or Soft Notice

Before engaging suppliers directly, the procurement team should review publicly available information: existing framework agreements, published market reports, supplier websites and previous tender outcomes. This analysis shapes the questions the authority will ask and identifies gaps in knowledge. Where the contract is expected to exceed the applicable EU threshold, the team should begin drafting a Prior Information Notice for publication on TED and the national e‑procurement portal. Even below the threshold, a soft notice published on the authority’s own website or a national portal can widen the pool of respondents and strengthen the transparency record.

Step 3, Prepare Engagement Materials

The engagement package should include a Request for Information (RFI) questionnaire, a summary of the project scope, clear non‑disclosure rules and a deadline for written responses. Non‑disclosure rules should specify which information is confidential (and in which direction) and what information will be shared publicly. All materials should be reviewed by legal counsel to confirm they do not inadvertently commit the authority to a particular technical approach, pricing level or contract structure.

Step 4, Publish PIN or Soft Notice and Invite Suppliers

If the contract value exceeds the 2026 EU threshold, publish the Prior Information Notice on TED. Regardless of thresholds, publicise the market consultation as widely as possible, through the national e‑procurement portal, industry associations and the authority’s website. The invitation should state clearly that the engagement is non‑binding, that participation confers no advantage in any future tender, and that all information received will be treated in accordance with the stated non‑disclosure rules. Invitations to bilateral meetings should be offered on identical terms to all suppliers who express interest.

Step 5, Conduct Industry Day, Workshops or Bilateral Meetings

This is the core of the market testing procurement phase. Format options include open industry days (presentations followed by structured Q&A), workshops (facilitated group discussions) and one‑to‑one bilateral meetings. Whichever format is chosen, the authority must keep formal minutes of every session, including an attendance register, the questions asked, the answers given and any follow‑up commitments. Where bilateral meetings are used, the same set of questions should be put to each supplier to avoid the perception of selective disclosure. Written supplier responses should be requested within a fixed deadline and stored in the procurement file.

Step 6, Analyse Responses and Update Procurement Strategy

The procurement lead and project SME should synthesise supplier feedback into a summary report, identifying themes, feasibility findings, pricing indications and risks. This report should explicitly state how (if at all) the tender documents or evaluation criteria will be adjusted as a result of the dialogue. The report is an internal document, but it forms part of the procurement file and may be reviewed by the Klagenævnet for Udbud if a complaint is filed. Any supplier whose input has materially shaped the specifications should be identified, and the authority should consider whether compensating measures, such as publishing the information received, are needed to avoid distorting competition.

Step 7, File and Retain the Market Dialogue Record

The complete market dialogue record, plan, PIN or notice, RFI, invitations, minutes, supplier responses, analysis report, equal‑treatment memo, should be filed in the official procurement file. The Udbudsloven requires contracting authorities to retain procurement documentation, and the Klagenævnet may request production of any of these documents during a complaint proceeding. The record should be retained at least until the contract has expired and the complaint limitation period has run.

Required Documents and Information for Market Dialogue

The documents needed for market dialogue in Denmark can be divided into materials the contracting authority must prepare and records it must retain. The table below lists each document, who issues it and practical notes on format and validity.

Contracting authorities running market dialogue for the first time should consider preparing a standardised market dialogue checklist and log to track each document and its completion status.

Timeline and Key Deadlines for Market Consultation

Effective timeline planning is critical. The following table sets out the key activities, their statutory or practical triggers, and the typical lead times that Danish contracting authorities should factor into the procurement calendar. The EU procurement thresholds were updated for 2026–2027 under Commission Delegated Regulations, which means that some contracts that previously fell below the threshold may now require TED publication, and vice versa. Contracting authorities should verify the applicable threshold values in national currency before deciding whether a PIN is mandatory.

The practical effect of these deadlines is that a full market dialogue cycle, from decision to hold dialogue through to formal tender publication, typically spans 12–24 weeks. Contracting authorities should build this into the overall project timeline at the outset rather than treating market consultation as an afterthought.

Costs, Fees and Tax Considerations

Running a market dialogue in Denmark involves direct administrative costs and potential indirect costs if the process triggers a complaint. The table below summarises the main cost items.

Contracting authorities should note that VAT is generally applicable to external adviser fees and venue costs but not to the TED publication process itself. The most significant financial risk is not the direct cost of running the dialogue but the cost of a Klagenævnet complaint arising from procedural errors, primarily poor documentation or unequal treatment, which can result in an award decision being set aside and the tender re‑run.

What Changes in 2026: Thresholds and Procedural Impacts

The European Commission adopted Delegated Regulations in late 2025 revising the EU procurement thresholds for the 2026–2027 period. These threshold adjustments directly affect when Danish contracting authorities must publish notices on TED and, by extension, when a formal PIN should accompany a market dialogue exercise.

How the 2026 Threshold Changes Affect Publication and Market Dialogue Timing

Threshold revisions can move contracts above or below the EU publication line. A contract that was previously below‑threshold may now require a TED notice; conversely, marginal contracts may fall below the new threshold and be subject to national rules only. The likely practical effect for market dialogue is that contracting authorities must re‑check every new procurement’s estimated value against the current threshold before deciding whether to publish a PIN on TED or limit publication to the national e‑procurement portal. Getting this assessment wrong is a common source of complaints.

Practical Checklist: Re‑Calculate Estimated Value and Decide on TED Publication

• Retrieve the 2026–2027 threshold values. Consult the Commission Delegated Regulations and the European Commission’s Public Buyers Community summary for the applicable threshold in euros.
• Convert to Danish kroner. Use the official exchange rate published in the Official Journal alongside the threshold regulation. Because Denmark is not in the eurozone, the DKK conversion rate matters.
• Estimate the contract value correctly. Include all lots, options, renewals and potential extensions. Do not split contracts artificially to fall below the threshold, this is a well‑established ground for Klagenævnet complaints.
• Decide whether to publish on TED. If above threshold, TED publication is mandatory. If below threshold, national publication rules apply, but a voluntary PIN on TED can still strengthen the transparency record and broaden the supplier base.

Industry observers expect that the 2026 procurement thresholds will prompt many Danish municipalities and regions to review their standard procurement planning templates and update internal guidance on when a PIN is required.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

The Klagenævnet for Udbud regularly examines whether contracting authorities have distorted competition through their pre‑tender engagement. The following pitfalls are the most frequent grounds for complaints.

• Selective disclosure to favoured suppliers. Sharing draft specifications, pricing benchmarks or evaluation criteria with one or more suppliers but not all participants is the single most dangerous error. Mitigation: publish all non‑confidential information widely, use identical question sets in bilateral meetings, and document every communication in the procurement file.
• Insufficient minutes and records. If the Klagenævnet asks for evidence that the dialogue was conducted fairly and the authority cannot produce minutes, attendance registers or written summaries, the presumption will work against the authority. Mitigation: assign a dedicated minute‑taker for every session; require all supplier responses in writing; store records in the procurement file immediately.
• Sharing evaluation methodology or scoring details. Market dialogue is the place to discuss objectives and broad evaluation themes, not to reveal weighting, scoring formulas or award models. Mitigation: share non‑binding evaluation criteria and objectives only; defer all scoring details to the formal tender documents.
• Failing to check 2026 procurement thresholds before publication. Threshold errors can lead to a complaint that the contracting authority failed to publish a mandatory notice on TED. Mitigation: recalculate the estimated contract value against the 2026 threshold in DKK before every market dialogue exercise; document the calculation in the procurement file.
• Allowing a supplier that shaped specifications to bid without compensating measures. Where a supplier’s input during market dialogue has materially influenced the tender specifications, the authority must consider publishing the information to level the playing field. Failure to do so may amount to an infringement of equal treatment. Mitigation: disclose all relevant information from the dialogue in the tender documents and allow adequate time for other bidders to absorb it.

These pitfalls are not theoretical. Klagenævnet decisions have resulted in award decisions being set aside, contracts being declared ineffective, and contracting authorities being ordered to re‑run tenders, all because of errors during the pre‑tender market dialogue phase. The Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (Konkurrence‑ og Forbrugerstyrelsen) publishes guidance on the complaint system that contracting authorities should review as part of their dialogue preparation.

Sources

1. Retsinformation, Udbudsloven (Public Procurement Act), consolidated text
2. Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (DCCA), Public Procurement / Danish Complaint System
3. Klagenævnet for Udbud (Complaints Board for Public Procurement), decisions and guidance
4. Business in Denmark (Virk), Procurement Rules
5. European Commission, Updated Public Procurement Thresholds 2026–2027