When can experience earn points in an EU tender?

Insights · Evaluation & award · Published 10 October 2026. This analysis was generated with the help of an AI system. Its legal references were checked against the official EU texts listed under Sources on 10 October 2026. It describes the law as it stood on that date. Not legal advice.

Short answer. There are two kinds of experience in a tender, and the rules treat them differently. Your company’s track record is a selection question: can you do the job? Your proposed team’s experience can be an award criterion, scored for points, where the quality of the people assigned can significantly affect how well the contract is performed. That is now written into Article 67(2)(b) of Directive 2014/24. Getting there took the Court seven years, and the line still matters when you write your bid.

EU law · 2008: Lianakis draws the line

In Lianakis (C‑532/06), the Municipality of Alexandroupolis tendered a cadastre and town-planning project. Its award criteria were the proven experience of the expert on projects in the last three years, the firm’s manpower and equipment, and the ability to complete the project on time (paragraph 10). The committee then fixed weightings and sub-criteria during the evaluation, scoring experience by the value of past projects and manpower by the size of the team (paragraphs 12–15). The Court held that “award criteria” don’t include criteria that are “essentially linked to the evaluation of the tenderers’ ability to perform the contract in question” (paragraph 30). Experience, qualifications and the means of performing the contract concern the tenderers’ suitability, so they aren’t award criteria (paragraph 31). The case was decided under Directive 92/50/EEC on services. The Court also held that the weightings and sub-criteria couldn’t be fixed later, which is why Lianakis reappears in our analysis of the scoring formula.

The Portuguese court that referred Ambisig in 2013 saw a tension between Lianakis and the Commission’s proposal for what became Directive 2014/24 (Ambisig, paragraph 23).

EU law · 2015: Ambisig separates the company from the team

Ambisig (C‑601/13) involved a Portuguese tender for training and consultancy services that gave 40% of the marks to “evaluation of the team”: its composition, proven experience and academic and professional background (paragraph 10). The Court, applying Directive 2004/18, accepted the criterion. Its reasoning is the key to the whole topic:

• Lianakis “concerns the staff and experience of the tenderers in general and not … the staff and experience of the persons making up a particular team which must actually perform the contract” (paragraph 26).
• The quality of performance “may depend decisively on the ‘professional merit’ of the people entrusted with its performance” (paragraph 31). That is particularly true of intellectual services such as training and consultancy (paragraph 32).
• Where a team performs the contract, its members’ abilities and experience may be “an intrinsic characteristic of the tender” and linked to the subject-matter of the contract (paragraph 33).

EU law · 2014: the Directive writes it down

Directive 2014/24 lists, among possible award criteria, the “organisation, qualification and experience of staff assigned to performing the contract, where the quality of the staff assigned can have a significant impact on the level of performance of the contract” (Article 67(2)(b)). Recital 94 explains why and adds a condition worth checking in the contract terms. Buyers that use this criterion “should ensure, by appropriate contractual means, that the staff assigned to contract performance effectively fulfil the specified quality standards and that such staff can only be replaced with the consent of the contracting authority which verifies that the replacement staff affords an equivalent level of quality”. The recital gives consultancy and architectural services as examples.

EU law · Since then

• In Antea Polska (C‑54/21), a project-design contract with 60% of the points on quality, the Court said quality criteria must come with indications that allow a sufficiently concrete comparison. It added that, for a project development service, account should be taken “in particular, of the training and professional experience of the members of the team proposed to perform the contract”, citing Ambisig (paragraphs 92–94).
• In C‑769/23, about services that are “by nature not very technical”, the Court noted that qualitative aspects “such as the organisation and experience of the staff assigned to perform such services” may affect the quality of performance and the economic value of the tenders (paragraph 70).

In the case law linked to Directives 2014/24 and 2004/18 that we searched on 10 October 2026 (194 decisions, method described in our analysis of the scoring formula), we found no judgment that applies Lianakis under Directive 2014/24 to forbid scoring the company’s general experience, and none that allows it. Article 67(2)(b) speaks only of the staff assigned to the contract. Treat company-level experience as a selection matter unless the documents and national law clearly say otherwise.

Our analysis · How to tell which side a requirement is on

The table is our reading of the provisions and cases above, not a rule from them. Where the documents are unclear about which stage a requirement belongs to, ask before the deadline.

Practice · Writing the team section so it earns points

1. Write about this contract. Evaluators score how the team will perform this contract. A CV that lists every project since 1998 shows the person exists. A paragraph explaining why their last three projects match the tasks they’ll do here shows quality.
2. Match people to tasks and to the scoring scheme. If the scheme scores “experience of the project manager in similar contracts”, say how many similar contracts, of what size, in which role, and what was similar about them.
3. Name people you can actually deploy. Recital 94 expects the contract to tie the buyer to the team that was scored, and to allow replacement only with the buyer’s consent and an equivalent replacement. Before you name someone, check availability, notice periods and what the draft contract says about substitutions.
4. Don’t double-count selection material. Company references proving you meet the selection minimum rarely add points in the award stage. Put the effort into the team section.
5. When you lose, ask for the team score. Ask for your marks and the winner’s marks for each team sub-criterion, and how the scale was applied (Article 55(2)). See how quality is scored for the rest of the scheme.

What this analysis doesn’t cover

National rules on scoring staff or substitutions, which vary. Utilities and defence contracts. Design contests. Whether a particular team criterion is lawful in a live tender: that depends on the documents and national law, and a procurement lawyer in the country concerned can advise.