Public procurement often feels like a maze of rules, specifications, and formalities. One common question that arises is whether authorities can mention specific brands in their tenders. The short answer: almost never. The long answer, however, is nuanced. There are at least three levels of exception that shape how and when brands appear in tender documents.

Hard lock-in

In some cases, brand references are unavoidable due to structural realities. An authority can have formal, justified decisions, to use or to prefer a specific technology or product, in all their projects, or for specific projects. E.g. If an authority has been running 400 websites on Drupal for a decade, like the European Commission, they will most probably require the same content management system for a new website. Similarly, if DG Budget runs its ERP on SAP, any maintenance tender will naturally specify SAP.

This is not favoritism. It is a matter of continuity, compatibility, and practical necessity. Systems that have been in place for years cannot be easily replaced without creating significant risk and cost.

Soft lock-in

Sometimes, tender specifications mention the current technology stack, such as: “Current technology stack: Drupal.” In these cases, proposals for alternative solutions are formally allowed. However, the evaluation committees might have a (strong) preference for the current, familiar technologies. Human risk perception plays a role: committees feel more confident approving solutions they already know. Also, adding a new technology or product to the existing stack increases complexity, dependencies, training needs, overall risk. This soft lock-in reflects a preference, not a mandatory requirement – still it influences outcomes.

Hidden preference

Even when no technology is mentioned explicitly, procurement decisions can reflect invisible preferences. Before writing the tender, potential bidders should investigate: 

• The existing client systems, their technology.
• Past projects and their technical requirements (if a past relevant project mentioned specific technologies, it might indicate a preference).
• Methodologies used by the client, requested and/or recommended in the current and past projects.
• Past contract winners – this often says a lot about technologies.
• Partnerships in past contracts.
• Patterns in procurement and contracting. 

Understanding the context behind a tender is as important as reading the written specifications.

Procurement is a lot about unwritten things. Successful bidders recognize these subtle signals and adjust their proposals accordingly, choosing the best technology, solutions, and products for each tender.

Policy driven brand choices

Policy objectives can also justify brand mentions in tenders. Public procurement can include, and often have policy requirements, not only financial and technical – such as developing specific industries, supporting local businesses, creating jobs, supporting disadvantaged communities etc. Projects with high security requirements might block specific countries or technologies. Recently, the European Central Bank has required that all the suppliers of the project Digital Euro should be European companies, but also controlled by European companies – even before the concept of “digital sovereignty” gained popularity. In such cases, brand or origin references are tied to overarching strategic goals, not favoritism.

Conclusion

So, can brands be mentioned in public tenders? Only under specific conditions: formal lock-in, interoperability, or policy objectives. Otherwise, explicit brand references are not allowed. Bidding based solely on written specifications provides an incomplete picture, understanding historical context, existing systems, and subtle preferences completes the puzzle.

This insight is based on the discussions at Drupal and open source: Unlocking EU public sector opportunities webinar, with Sachiko Muto – the Drupal Association, Ales Kohek – Agiledrop, and Stefan Morcov – Hermix. See the video recording here