Greece 2026: Unsolicited Proposals, Ppps and Privatizations, What Bidders and Contracting Authorities Must Know Now

Last updated: 4 May 2026

The rules governing unsolicited proposals in public procurement in Greece 2026 have shifted significantly with the enactment of Law 5290/2026 and a series of implementing Ministerial Decisions that took effect between April and May 2026. These amendments restructure how private sponsors submit, and how contracting authorities evaluate, unsolicited project proposals for public-private partnerships (PPPs) and concession-type projects, tightening submission formalities, imposing new value-for-money (VfM) obligations and narrowing the circumstances in which a direct award remains permissible.

For PPP sponsors, infrastructure bidders and the procurement teams that evaluate their proposals, the practical effect is immediate: existing pipeline projects need to be reassessed against the new rules, and any competitive procedure launched from an unsolicited proposal must now follow a more prescriptive sequence of steps. This guide provides a practitioner-focused, step-by-step breakdown of what changed, what to do now, and how to challenge or defend awards under the reformed regime.

Executive Summary, What Changed and What to Do Now

Law 5290/2026 amends the earlier unsolicited-proposal framework that was introduced by Law 4903/2022 and operated alongside the general public procurement code (Law 4412/2016). The April–May 2026 package addresses three pain-points that generated disputes under the previous regime: insufficient transparency in how authorities screened unsolicited proposals before launching competitive processes; ambiguity over exclusivity rights granted to original proponents; and the absence of binding VfM thresholds that would justify progression to an award stage.

Implementing Ministerial Decisions published alongside Law 5290/2026 prescribe standardised submission templates, mandatory ex-ante publicity steps and a revised scoring matrix for the preliminary evaluation of unsolicited proposals. The combined effect is a procurement pathway that is more structured, more auditable, and, for sponsors who fail to adapt, more likely to result in rejection at the screening stage.

The primary compliance decision this article answers is straightforward: does your current unsolicited proposal, or the competitive procedure you are about to launch from one, comply with Law 5290/2026, and if not, what must change?

At-a-Glance Actions

1. Audit pending unsolicited proposals against the new submission-template requirements and VfM thresholds introduced by Law 5290/2026.
2. Confirm exclusivity clauses in any pre-existing memoranda of understanding, several previously permissible exclusivity arrangements are now constrained.
3. Update ex-ante publicity procedures to meet the mandatory public-notice steps before evaluating an unsolicited proposal.
4. Reassess procurement-route selection, direct award is now permissible only in narrower circumstances; competitive dialogue in Greece has become the default for complex PPP projects originating from unsolicited proposals.
5. Prepare litigation-ready files, retain all evaluation records, VfM analyses and correspondence, as challenge risks increase under the new transparency obligations.
6. Check HRADF interaction, where the project involves assets within the HRADF privatization portfolio, verify that the unsolicited-proposal route does not conflict with HRADF-run tender processes.

Quick Legal Definitions, Unsolicited Proposals, PPPs and Direct Award

Understanding the reformed framework for unsolicited proposals in Greece requires precision on three core concepts as they now operate under Law 5290/2026.

• Unsolicited proposal (αυτεπάγγελτη πρόταση). A project proposal submitted to a contracting authority by a private sponsor on the sponsor’s own initiative, without a prior call for tenders or expressions of interest. Under Law 5290/2026, the proposal must include a preliminary feasibility study, an indicative financing plan and a VfM analysis prepared in accordance with the standardised template prescribed by the implementing Ministerial Decision. The proposal does not, by itself, create any contractual right or entitlement to an award.
• Public-private partnership (PPP). A long-term contractual arrangement between a public entity and a private partner for the design, financing, construction and/or operation of infrastructure or services, where the private partner assumes significant project risk. PPP procurement in Greece 2026 continues to be governed by the PPP-specific provisions of Law 4412/2016 (as amended), read together with the sectoral rules introduced by Law 5290/2026 for proposals that originate unsolicited.
• Direct award. The conclusion of a contract without a competitive procedure. Under the amended regime, direct award from an unsolicited proposal is permissible only where the contracting authority can demonstrate that no alternative supplier could deliver the project, that the estimated value falls below the applicable EU thresholds and that all mandatory ex-ante publicity steps have been completed without expressions of interest from third parties.

Timeline and Legal Framework, Greek Public Procurement Reforms 2025–2026 and Key Dates

The 2026 amendments to unsolicited proposals do not exist in isolation. They form part of a broader wave of Greek public procurement reforms 2026 that recalibrate thresholds, digital-platform obligations and procedural safeguards. The table below maps the key instruments and their effects.

The interaction between these instruments is critical. A contracting authority evaluating an unsolicited proposal in May 2026 must simultaneously comply with the revised EU thresholds (which determine the required procedural formality), the digital-platform registration rules (which affect supplier eligibility) and the new Law 5290/2026 submission and evaluation requirements. Failing to address any single layer creates grounds for a challenge to a procurement award in Greece.

How Unsolicited Proposals Are Now Submitted and Evaluated, Step by Step

Law 5290/2026 introduces a more prescriptive submission-to-evaluation sequence. The practical effect is that sponsors must front-load more work into the proposal stage, and contracting authorities must follow a documented evaluation path that can withstand judicial review.

Submission Checklist

Sponsors preparing an unsolicited proposal must now include the following at the point of submission:

Evaluation and Scoring Matrix

Once a compliant submission is received, the contracting authority must follow a three-stage evaluation process:

1. Admissibility screening. The authority verifies that all mandatory documents are present and that the proposal falls within a sector and project type eligible for the unsolicited-proposal route. Incomplete submissions are rejected without further evaluation.
2. Substantive evaluation. The proposal is scored against published criteria, typically including innovation and additionality (does the proposal address an unmet public need?), VfM (does it deliver better outcomes than a conventional procurement?), technical and financial credibility, and risk-transfer quality.
3. Public-interest determination. The authority issues a reasoned decision on whether to progress the proposal to a competitive procurement phase. This decision must be published and is subject to administrative review.

Industry observers expect the new scoring matrix to raise the bar for proposals that lack genuine innovation or that are, in substance, conventional project bids repackaged as unsolicited proposals. The likely practical effect will be a reduction in speculative submissions and a sharper focus on proposals that offer demonstrable additionality.

Procurement Routes for Projects Originating from Unsolicited Proposals in Public Procurement Greece 2026

Once a contracting authority decides to progress an unsolicited proposal, it must select a procurement route. Law 5290/2026, read with Law 4412/2016, provides four options, but the conditions for each have been recalibrated.

• Competitive dialogue (Greece’s default for complex PPPs). Where the project involves complex risk allocation, bespoke financing structures or novel technical solutions, competitive dialogue is the expected route. The authority defines its needs and invites selected candidates to develop solutions through structured dialogue rounds before final tenders are submitted. Under the 2026 amendments, the original proponent of an unsolicited proposal participates on equal terms with other candidates, no preferential scoring or information advantage is permitted.
• Restricted procedure. Appropriate where the authority can define its requirements with sufficient precision at the outset. Candidates are pre-qualified and then invited to tender. This route is suited to infrastructure projects with established specifications.
• Open procedure. The broadest competitive route, open to all interested operators. Rarely used for complex PPPs but may be appropriate for smaller concession-type projects that originated from unsolicited proposals.
• Direct award (narrowed scope). Permissible only where (a) the contracting authority demonstrates that no alternative supplier is capable of delivering the project (supported by a market consultation or ex-ante publicity that yielded no expressions of interest), (b) the estimated contract value falls below applicable EU thresholds, and (c) the authority publishes a voluntary ex-ante transparency notice. The 2026 amendments significantly narrow the use of direct award, early indications suggest that authorities are shifting toward competitive dialogue even for projects where direct award was previously considered.

The decision-tree for procurement-route selection should begin with the project’s estimated value (to determine threshold applicability), proceed to the complexity assessment (to distinguish competitive dialogue from restricted/open procedures) and end with the direct-award eligibility test. Documenting this decision path is essential, it forms a key element of the procurement file that challengers will scrutinise.

PPP Deal-Structuring Issues and Privatisation (HRADF) Interaction

PPP procurement in Greece 2026 raises deal-structuring questions that go beyond procedural compliance. Sponsors and contracting authorities must address risk allocation, financing conditionality and, where relevant, the interaction with the HRADF privatization process.

Key deal-structuring considerations under the amended framework include:

• Risk allocation. The VfM analysis required at submission must identify which risks are transferred to the private partner, which are retained by the public sector and which are shared. Law 5290/2026 reinforces that risk transfer must be genuine, a proposal that transfers nominal risk but includes public-sector guarantees that effectively neutralise it may fail the VfM threshold.
• Financing pre-conditions. Sponsors should ensure that their indicative financing plan addresses bankability from the outset. Lenders increasingly require evidence that the procurement route and contractual structure comply with the 2026 rules before issuing commitment letters.
• State guarantees and availability payments. Where a PPP involves state-funded availability payments, the contracting authority must confirm budgetary coverage and compliance with fiscal rules, a step that must now be documented in the procurement file.
• Confidentiality and exclusivity. Pre-existing exclusivity arrangements between sponsors and authorities are subject to new constraints. Exclusivity clauses that prevent or discourage third-party participation in the subsequent competitive procedure are no longer enforceable.

Interaction with the HRADF Privatization Process

Where the project involves assets within the HRADF portfolio, airports, ports, motorways, real estate, the unsolicited-proposal route must be reconciled with HRADF-run tender processes. The HRADF operates under its own legal framework and governance structure, and an unsolicited proposal that overlaps with an HRADF asset may be redirected to the HRADF process or require HRADF consent before progressing.

Sponsors should check three things before submitting an unsolicited proposal that touches HRADF assets: whether the asset is listed in the current HRADF Asset Development Plan; whether an HRADF tender is underway or planned; and whether HRADF consent is required for the proposed procurement route. Failure to verify these points can result in the proposal being rejected outright or, worse, progressing to an advanced stage only to be blocked by an HRADF objection.

Challenge and Defence Playbook, Administrative Remedies and Litigation to Challenge a Procurement Award in Greece

The 2026 reforms increase both the transparency of procurement decisions and the grounds on which those decisions can be challenged. For bidders who lose out and for contracting authorities seeking to harden their awards, the litigation landscape has shifted.

Administrative Review Routes

Greek procurement law provides a layered system of administrative and judicial remedies, governed by Law 4412/2016 (as amended) and the EU Remedies Directives as transposed into Greek law:

1. Pre-contractual administrative review (AEPP, Single Public Procurement Authority). An aggrieved bidder may file an application for review before the AEPP, challenging the lawfulness of a contracting authority’s decision at any stage of the procurement procedure, from the terms of the call to the award decision. This is the primary first-instance remedy.
2. Judicial review before the Administrative Courts. Decisions of the AEPP, or procurement decisions not subject to AEPP review, may be challenged before the competent administrative courts. For above-threshold contracts, the Council of State (Symvoulio tis Epikrateias) has jurisdiction over certain categories of disputes.
3. Interim measures and suspension. Both the AEPP and the administrative courts have the power to suspend a procurement procedure or enjoin the contracting authority from concluding the contract pending resolution of the dispute. Suspension is available where the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case and a risk of irreparable harm.

Procedural Timelines for Remedies

Evidence Checklist for Bidders Defending or Challenging Awards

Whether you are challenging an award or defending one, the evidentiary requirements under the 2026 regime are more demanding. Practitioners should assemble the following from the outset:

• Complete procurement file. All published notices, evaluation reports, scoring sheets and minutes of evaluation committee meetings.
• VfM analysis and public-sector comparator. The contracting authority’s VfM assessment is a primary target for challengers, any deviation from the standardised template is a potential ground of review.
• Conflict-of-interest records. Declarations filed by evaluation committee members, advisers and the original proponent.
• Ex-ante publicity evidence. Proof that the mandatory public-notice steps were completed before progressing the unsolicited proposal.
• Correspondence and meeting records. Any communication between the contracting authority and the original proponent, particularly regarding exclusivity, confidential information or project specifications.
• Timeline documentation. Evidence of compliance with statutory deadlines at each stage of the procedure.

Strategies for Contracting Authorities to Harden Awards

Contracting authorities can reduce challenge risk by: documenting every discretionary decision with written reasons; publishing evaluation criteria and weightings in advance; ensuring the evaluation committee includes members with no connection to the original proponent; and retaining independent legal advice on procurement-route selection and VfM compliance. Early indications suggest that awards supported by a robust, template-compliant VfM analysis and full ex-ante publicity are significantly more resilient to challenge.

Practical Checklists and Templates, for Bidders and Contracting Authorities

The following checklists consolidate the key compliance actions required under the reformed unsolicited proposals regime in Greece.

Bidder / Sponsor Checklist

• Technical documentation. Preliminary feasibility study (aligned with national infrastructure plans); environmental pre-assessment; technical specifications and innovation statement.
• Legal documentation. Conflict-of-interest declarations for all consortium members; corporate authorisations and powers of attorney; evidence of legal standing and absence of exclusion grounds under Law 4412/2016.
• Financial documentation. VfM analysis (standardised template); indicative financing plan with identified funding sources; audited financial statements for the preceding three years; evidence of financial capacity (bank references, credit facilities).
• Due diligence. Confirm the project does not overlap with HRADF assets or ongoing HRADF tenders; verify that proposed procurement route aligns with the applicable EU thresholds; check that no pre-existing exclusivity arrangements conflict with Law 5290/2026 constraints.
• Litigation readiness. Retain copies of all submissions and correspondence; document any information received from the contracting authority; maintain a timeline log of all procedural steps and deadlines.

Contracting Authority Checklist

• Procurement structuring. Complete admissibility screening before substantive evaluation; publish evaluation criteria and scoring methodology in advance; document procurement-route selection decision with written reasons.
• Conflict-of-interest management. Maintain a conflict-of-interest log for all personnel involved in the evaluation; require declarations from evaluation committee members at each stage; exclude any person with a connection to the original proponent from the evaluation process.
• Transparency obligations. Complete all ex-ante publicity steps before progressing the proposal; publish the public-interest determination decision; issue award decisions with full reasons and scoring breakdowns.
• File integrity. Retain the complete procurement file in auditable form; ensure all documents are date-stamped and version-controlled; prepare for potential AEPP review by assembling the file within the statutory response deadline.

Red-Flag Triggers

• The original proponent had access to confidential project information before the competitive phase.
• Evaluation criteria were modified after expressions of interest were received.
• The VfM analysis was prepared by the sponsor rather than independently verified by the authority.
• Exclusivity arrangements remain in force that may discourage third-party participation.
• The procurement-route selection was not documented with written reasons.

Conclusion, Key Takeaways and Immediate Next Steps for Unsolicited Proposals Public Procurement Greece 2026

The April–May 2026 amendments represent the most significant recalibration of the unsolicited-proposal regime in Greece since Law 4903/2022 first established the pathway. The key takeaways for practitioners are:

• Law 5290/2026 tightens submission formalities, mandates a standardised VfM analysis and narrows the circumstances in which direct award is permissible.
• Competitive dialogue is now the default procurement route for complex PPP projects originating from unsolicited proposals.
• Exclusivity clauses that discourage third-party participation are no longer enforceable under the amended rules.
• Contracting authorities face higher transparency and documentation obligations, every discretionary decision must be supported by written reasons.
• The HRADF privatization process must be checked before submitting any unsolicited proposal that involves HRADF-portfolio assets.
• Challenge risks have increased, the enhanced transparency obligations create more reviewable decision points and more potential grounds for administrative review.
• Bidders and contracting authorities alike must maintain litigation-ready files from day one of the procurement process.

Immediate next steps:

1. Audit all pending unsolicited proposals and pipeline PPP projects against Law 5290/2026 requirements within the next 30 days.
2. Update internal templates, evaluation procedures and conflict-of-interest protocols to reflect the new Ministerial Decision requirements.
3. Engage specialist procurement counsel to review procurement-route selection and VfM compliance for any project currently at the evaluation or pre-award stage.

For a broader overview of the 2026 reform landscape, see our Greece Public Procurement 2026 Changes hub.

Sources

1. Bernitsas Law, Amendments to unsolicited proposals under Law 5290/2026
2. Global Law Experts, Greece Public Procurement 2026 Changes
3. ICLG, Public Procurement Laws & Regulations: Greece (2026)
4. Greek Government Gazette (FEK / et.gr)
5. European Commission, EU procurement thresholds 2026
6. HRADF (Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund)
7. Planet.gr, Innovative unsolicited proposals in Greece under Law 4903/2022
8. Cedefop, Public Procurement