Direct Awards and Simplified Procurements in Turkey: a Practical Checklist for Contracting Authorities (2026)

Direct awards in Turkey entered a new regulatory era on 1 February 2026, when the latest package of amendments to Public Procurement Law No. 4734 took effect. The changes, published in the Resmî Gazete (Official Gazette) and implemented through updated guidance from the Kamu İhale Kurumu (Public Procurement Authority, or PPA), raised direct-award thresholds, broadened certain justification categories and introduced stricter EKAP recording obligations. For contracting authorities, compliance now requires more than knowing the rules; it demands an auditable, step-by-step workflow that can withstand both PPA review and supplier challenge. This guide provides that workflow: a public procurement checklist covering every stage from legal-basis assessment through EKAP publication to post-award record retention.

Key takeaways for procurement officers acting under the amended framework:

• Verify the statutory ground. Every direct procurement must fall within one of the grounds set out in Article 22 of Law No. 4734, as amended.
• Document price reasonableness. At least two of three benchmarking methods (market quotes, historical contract data, official price indices) must be evidenced in the award file.
• Publish on EKAP within the prescribed timeline. The award notice and justification memo must be uploaded to EKAP promptly after the award decision, with all mandatory fields completed.
• Retain the full audit file. Digital copies plus signed PDFs must be retained for a minimum of seven to ten years, depending on entity type.

What Changed in 2026? Legal Summary and Quick Direct Award Thresholds

Effective Date and Official Sources

The amendments to Law No. 4734 that concern direct awards and simplified procurement took effect on 1 February 2026. The amending legislation was published in the Resmî Gazete, Turkey’s Official Gazette, and the PPA subsequently issued implementation circulars to contracting authorities via its official portal. The English-language consolidated text of Law No. 4734, maintained by the Kamu İhale Kurumu, remains the authoritative reference for article numbers and definitions referenced throughout this checklist.

Key Amendments That Matter to Contracting Authorities

Three categories of change carry the most operational weight for procurement teams. First, the monetary thresholds below which contracting authorities may use direct procurement (sometimes referred to as simplified procurement) have been raised. Second, the list of permissible justification grounds has been refined, with clearer language on emergency procurements and exclusive-rights situations. Third, EKAP publication requirements have become more granular: additional mandatory fields now apply to direct-award notices, and the system enforces earlier upload deadlines.

The following table summarises the direct award threshold changes for the three main procurement categories. Industry observers expect these thresholds to be adjusted annually in line with PPA practice, but the figures below are those in force from 1 February 2026.

These figures apply to the sub-paragraphs of Article 22 that impose a value ceiling. Several other Article 22 grounds, such as exclusive rights or emergency, have no monetary cap but carry their own evidence requirements, discussed in the next section.

When Is a Direct Award Lawful? The Legal Test and Mandatory Justifications

Statutory Grounds Under Article 22 of Law No. 4734

Article 22 of Law No. 4734 enumerates the specific circumstances in which a contracting authority may use direct procurement rather than a competitive procedure. Each ground has its own evidentiary threshold. The primary grounds, as applicable after the 2026 amendments, are set out below with the minimum evidence contracting authorities must assemble and the EKAP publication required.

Sample justification wording (sole source): “Having conducted a market analysis on [date], this contracting authority has determined that [Supplier Name] is the sole entity capable of providing [goods/services] due to [patent/exclusive licence/proprietary technology], and no reasonable alternative exists. A direct award under Article 22(a) of Law No. 4734 is therefore justified.”

Sample justification wording (emergency): “An unforeseen [event description] occurring on [date] has created an urgent need for [goods/services/works]. Competitive tendering would delay delivery by an estimated [X] days, risking [specific harm]. A direct award under Article 22(b) is required to ensure continuity of [public service].”

Switching From a Competitive Procedure to a Direct Award

Contracting authorities sometimes need to abandon a competitive tender and move to direct procurement. Under Law No. 4734, this switch is lawful only where the original tender has been cancelled through a formal board decision and one of the Article 22 grounds is independently satisfied. The key procedural triggers are:

• No responsive bids received. The contracting authority must document that all tenders were non-compliant or that no bids arrived, and that repeating the competitive procedure would cause unjustifiable delay.
• All bids exceeded budget. If every bid exceeds the approved budget and the contracting authority cannot increase the allocation, a below-threshold direct award for a reduced scope may be considered, provided the scope change does not amount to a material alteration that should trigger a new tender.
• Supervening emergency. An emergency that arises during a pending tender may justify switching to direct procurement, but only where the emergency ground itself (Article 22(b)) is independently evidenced.

In every case, the file must contain the cancellation decision, a cross-reference to the original EKAP tender record, and a fresh justification memo explaining why the Article 22 ground is met.

Transparency Obligations

Even though direct awards bypass competitive advertisement, Law No. 4734 and PPA guidance still impose transparency requirements. Contracting authorities must publish the award result notice on EKAP, make the justification memo available for inspection, and, for procurements above certain reporting thresholds, submit an annual consolidated report to the PPA. Failure to meet these obligations is among the most common grounds for successful supplier challenges.

Step-by-Step Operational Public Procurement Checklist: Pre-Award Through Post-Award

Pre-Award Checks

1. Confirm procurement plan entry. Verify that the procurement appears in the contracting authority’s annual procurement plan and that EKAP reflects the plan entry. If the item is unplanned (e.g., emergency), document the reason and attach the incident report.
2. Conduct a market test. Obtain at least two written price quotations from the market, or document why only one source exists (exclusive rights). Record the date, supplier names, and quoted prices.
3. Assess price reasonableness. Apply at least two of the three benchmarking methods described in Section 4 below. Attach the analysis to the file.
4. Run a conflict-of-interest check. Each member of the evaluation/award team must complete a conflict-of-interest declaration. File these declarations in the award folder before the decision is taken.
5. Prepare the justification memo. Draft the memo using the sample wording templates above, citing the specific Article 22 sub-paragraph and attaching all supporting evidence.

Authorisations and Sign-Offs

1. Authorised officer (ihale yetkilisi) approval. The award decision must be signed by the officer authorised under the contracting authority’s internal delegation rules. For procurements above certain value bands, approval from a higher-level officer or board may be required.
2. Legal review. Although not always mandatory, a legal opinion from the contracting authority’s legal department or external counsel is strongly recommended, particularly for sole-source and emergency procurements where challenge risk is elevated.
3. Budget confirmation. Obtain written confirmation from the finance unit that funds are available and committed.

EKAP Direct Award: What to Publish, Where, and Sample Field Entries

The EKAP (Elektronik Kamu Alımları Platformu) is the mandatory electronic platform for recording and publishing procurement decisions. For a direct award, the following steps and fields must be completed:

1. Log in to EKAP using the contracting authority’s institutional credentials.
2. Select “Doğrudan Temin” (Direct Procurement) from the procurement type menu.
3. Complete the mandatory fields:
   • Procurement reference number, auto-generated by EKAP.
   • Contracting authority name and registration number.
   • Subject of procurement, free-text description (be specific: “Supply of 500 units of X brand reagent” rather than “Laboratory supplies”).
   • Article 22 sub-paragraph, select the applicable statutory ground from the dropdown.
   • Estimated value (TRY), enter the value from the cost estimate.
   • Supplier name and tax ID.
   • Contract value (TRY), the agreed price.
   • Award date.
4. Upload supporting documents: justification memo (PDF), price evidence, conflict-of-interest declarations, and authorised officer’s signed decision.
5. Publish the award notice. Click “Yayınla” (Publish) to make the notice visible on the public-facing EKAP portal.

Timing: The award notice should be published on EKAP promptly after the award decision is finalised. PPA guidance expects publication within the timeframe specified in the relevant implementation circular. Late publication is a common audit finding and a frequent ground for administrative sanctions.

Award Decision Log: Mandatory Fields

Maintaining a structured decision log alongside the EKAP record is best practice. The table below shows the recommended fields and sample entries for a typical direct-award decision log.

Pricing, Contract Variation and Emergency Procurements: Documenting Value and Reasonableness

Benchmarking Price: Three Practical Methods

Contracting authorities must demonstrate that the price accepted under a direct award is reasonable. The three accepted benchmarking methods, any two of which should appear in the audit file, are:

• Market quotations. Obtain written price quotes from at least two suppliers (or, where only one source exists, request a detailed cost breakdown from the sole supplier). Record the date of each quote and the scope covered.
• Historical contract data. Compare the proposed price against the contracting authority’s own records of previous purchases for the same or comparable goods, services or works, adjusted for inflation using official indices (e.g., TÜİK producer price index).
• Official price indices and catalogues. Use published government price lists, framework agreement catalogues, or sector-specific indices maintained by PPA or relevant ministries.

Emergency Procurement Checklist

Emergency procurements under Article 22(b) follow a compressed workflow. The critical steps are:

1. Document the triggering event, incident report, official disaster declaration or infrastructure failure notice.
2. Issue verbal or written instruction to proceed, the authorised officer may approve verbally, provided written confirmation follows within the timeframe specified by internal rules.
3. Procure and deliver.
4. Complete post-hoc documentation, full justification memo, price evidence, conflict-of-interest declarations and signed decision within the deadline prescribed by PPA implementation guidance.
5. Publish on EKAP, upload the award notice and all supporting documents promptly.

Contract Variations and Price Adjustments

If the scope or price of a directly awarded contract must change after signing, the contracting authority should treat the variation as a controlled amendment. Each variation must be justified in writing, approved by the authorised officer, and reflected in an updated EKAP record. Industry observers expect PPA auditors to scrutinise variations that, in aggregate, push the total contract value above the direct award threshold, as this may indicate that the procurement should have followed a competitive procedure from the outset.

Documentation and Record Retention: Building an Auditable Direct Awards Turkey File

Minimum Audit File Contents

Every direct award file should contain, at a minimum, the following documents:

• Justification memo citing the Article 22 ground and attaching evidence.
• Authorised officer’s signed award decision.
• Price reasonableness analysis with supporting quotes, data or indices.
• Conflict-of-interest declarations from all individuals involved in the decision.
• EKAP printouts, screenshot or PDF export of the published award notice.
• Contract or purchase order (signed by both parties).
• Delivery confirmation / acceptance certificates.
• Invoices and payment records.

Retention Periods and Format

Turkish procurement regulations and the PPA’s administrative guidance require contracting authorities to retain procurement records for defined minimum periods. While the exact retention period may vary depending on entity type and internal policies, the table below reflects the prevailing practice as applied by auditors and the PPA.

All records should be maintained in both digital format (searchable PDF, with metadata) and as signed hard copies where the contracting authority’s internal regulations require wet signatures. EKAP records should be exported and archived locally at least once per quarter to guard against platform-access disruptions.

Sample Audit File Checklist

Use this checklist to confirm completeness before closing out any direct-award file:

• Justification memo, present and signed? Yes / No
• Article 22 ground clearly identified? Yes / No
• Price reasonableness analysis, two methods applied? Yes / No
• Conflict-of-interest declarations, all team members? Yes / No
• Authorised officer’s signed decision, filed? Yes / No
• EKAP award notice, published and printout attached? Yes / No
• Contract / purchase order, signed copy attached? Yes / No
• Delivery / acceptance certificate, present? Yes / No
• Invoices and payment confirmation, attached? Yes / No
• Budget confirmation from finance unit, filed? Yes / No

Remedies, Risk Mitigation and Quick Responses to Challenges

Likelihood of Challenge and Common Grounds

Suppliers may challenge a direct award by filing a complaint with the PPA (Kamu İhale Kurumu) or, subsequently, by initiating judicial review before the administrative courts. The most common grounds for successful challenges include insufficient justification of the Article 22 ground, failure to publish the award notice on EKAP within the required timeframe, and inadequate price-reasonableness documentation. The likely practical effect of the 2026 amendments is that scrutiny will intensify, given the raised thresholds and broader scope for direct procurement.

Immediate Steps if Challenged

• Preserve all EKAP entries and internal records. Do not amend or delete any uploaded documents.
• Freeze payment if the contract has not yet been fully performed, pending resolution of the complaint.
• Issue a correction notice on EKAP if the challenge reveals a procedural deficiency that can be remedied (e.g., missing publication fields).
• Engage legal counsel to prepare the contracting authority’s response within the prescribed time limit.

Practical Mitigation Steps for Contracting Authorities

Prevention is always more efficient than defence. To reduce the risk of successful challenges to direct awards in Turkey, contracting authorities should:

• Use standardised justification templates for every Article 22 ground.
• Obtain legal sign-off on all sole-source and emergency procurements before the award decision is finalised.
• Conduct quarterly self-audits of EKAP publications and file completeness.
• Train procurement staff on the 2026 amendments and updated EKAP field requirements.

Conclusion: Making Direct Awards Turkey-Compliant in 2026

The 2026 amendments to Law No. 4734 give contracting authorities greater flexibility to use direct procurement, but that flexibility comes with commensurately higher expectations around documentation, EKAP transparency and price justification. Every procurement officer should treat the operational checklist and audit-file framework in this guide as minimum standards, not aspirational targets. By embedding these practices into routine workflows, contracting authorities can secure lawful, defensible direct awards while minimising the risk of PPA challenge or judicial review. For complex or high-value procurements, especially those relying on emergency or sole-source grounds, early engagement with specialist procurement compliance counsel remains the most effective risk-reduction measure available.

Additional Turkish legal resources are available in the Global Law Experts lawyer directory, where readers can filter by country and practice area. For related regulatory guidance on doing business in Turkey, see also residency by property purchase in Turkey and how to register medical devices in Turkey.

Sources

1. Kamu İhale Kurumu, Public Procurement Law No. 4734 (English PDF)
2. Resmî Gazete (Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey)
3. Kamu İhale Kurumu, Official Portal and Press Releases
4. Global Public Procurement Database, Turkey Profile
5. World Trade Organization, Turkey Procurement Country Profile
6. T.C. Avrupa Birliği Başkanlığı, Guidelines for Tender Document Preparation