Buying software for a public administration is very different from buying it in a private company. Law 9/2017 on Public Sector Contracts lays down formal procedures that can drag out procurement for months or even years. Knowing the different procurement routes is key to not wasting time or money in the process.
The four usual routes
1. Direct award (minor contract)
For contracts below the minor contract thresholds (€15,000 excluding VAT for supplies and services), the contracting authority can award directly without a tender. It is the fastest route but also the most limited in value.
Advantages: quick (weeks), no formalities, no administrative appeals.
Limitations: low value; contracts cannot be split to stay under the threshold.
2. Open / simplified open procedure
This is the standard procedure for contracts above the threshold. A public tender is published on the contracting authority's profile, companies submit bids and the contract is awarded to whichever best meets the criteria set out in the tender specifications.
Typical timescales: 2-6 months from start to award, not counting the implementation phase.
3. Joining an existing framework agreement
If the Central Government, an Autonomous Community, a Provincial Council or a Federation of Municipalities has a framework agreement in force with qualified suppliers for a specific category, other bodies can join it and award call-off contracts without having to tender again.
Timescales: days or a few weeks from the decision to signing the call-off contract.
4. Procurement through a Central Purchasing Body
Central Purchasing Bodies (the State's at INAP-FNMT, the regional ones, the FEMP's) are specialist bodies that centralise tenders for multiple administrations. They allow economies of scale to be gained without having to tender individually.
Comparison of the routes
| Route | Timescale | Max. value | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor contract | 1-3 weeks | €15,000 (services) | Low |
| Open procedure | 3-6 months | No upper limit | High |
| Joining a framework agreement | 2-4 weeks | Depends on agreement | Medium |
| Central Purchasing Body | 1-2 months | No upper limit | Medium |
When each route makes sense
Your need is small and urgent
If you are going to procure software for less than €15,000/year (the fee for a modest SaaS) and need a quick solution, the minor contract is the route. Three comparative quotes, a technical report, an award decree. Done.
Your need is large and can be planned
If your contract will be worth €50,000/year or more and you can wait several months, the sensible option is a well-designed open procedure. This lets you define exactly what you need and choose between multiple competing bids.
There is a framework agreement covering your case
The FEMP has several framework agreements with qualified technology suppliers. If you fit an existing category, joining is the fastest and most efficient route: prices have already been negotiated, suppliers have already been vetted, and you only need to process the call-off contract.
Two things need checking: that the scope of the framework agreement really covers what you need, and that the awarded supplier offers you the specific product you want (not all suppliers in the framework have the same products).
Several administrations share the same need
If three neighbouring City Councils want the same software, joint procurement through a Central Purchasing Body or an inter-administrative agreement is clearly more efficient than three separate tenders. The unit price comes down, and so do the administrative costs.
The costliest mistakes
Splitting the contract
"If I go over the minor contract threshold, I'll do three contracts of €14,000." This is a defined infringement. The Comptroller's office detects it and the Audit Office audits it. The penalty may fall personally on the contracting authority.
Specifications copied from another tender
Municipal officers often reuse specifications from other administrations. Using them as a basis is fine; copying them word for word is dangerous: what was valid for Madrid may not be valid for your municipality. Always adapt the specifications to your circumstances.
Overly restrictive specifications
Some administrations draft specifications so specific that only one supplier can meet them. This is known as tailored specifications and may be overturned on appeal. Define your needs functionally, not technically by make and model (except in justified cases).
Not budgeting for the cost of transition
Awarding the software is only one part. Implementing it, training staff, migrating data, keeping the old system running in parallel for a while… all of this has a cost and takes time. The most common mistake is to set the budget solely on the price of the software without considering the real cost of the change.
Labrax software and procurement routes
Labrax is approved under several regional and FEMP framework agreements. For many City Councils this means our products can be procured by joining a framework, with no need to tender again.
For administrations that prefer an open procedure, we can advise on the functional drafting of the specifications (without biasing them towards our product) so that the process is legitimate and useful.
Whatever route is chosen, what matters is that it is aligned with the urgency, value and complexity of the real need. The costliest mistake is not choosing the less-than-optimal route: it is failing to decide and letting the process drag on through inertia.
If your administration is in the process of procuring software and is unsure about the right route, we can give you initial guidance with no obligation. You will make the choice with your legal and procurement departments, but we can share how other similar administrations have approached it.
