The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is preparing for a potential “targeted review” of the 2011 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement. This post reviews the issues that may be taken up in that review, after a July 2026 meeting of the Commission and in preparation for the first working group meeting in February 2027 at UN headquarters, New York.
In May 2025, the UNCITRAL secretariat identified possible areas of reform to the Model Law in document A/CN.9/1230, paras. 17-26. The UNCITRAL secretariat in January 2026 issued a “request for inputs” regarding possible updates to the 2011 model law and its related texts (including the Guide to Enactment). The request from the UNCITRAL secretariat raised a number of issues that may be addressed in a reform of the 2011 law, which were further clarified at the Commission’s July 2026 meeting in New York City (Report A/81/17).
The topics for review stand as described in the table below after that July 2026 Commission meeting. These are many of the same issues originally proposed for review by the UNCITRAL secretariat ), which the Commission favorably considered in asking the secretariat to undertake preparatory work for a possible update of the model law (see A/81/17, para. 219).
The Commission’s report noted (para. 315) that the first meeting of UNCITRAL’s Working Group I on procurement will be from February 1-5, 2026 (New York), and the second meeting will be from September 20-24, 2026 (Vienna).
Because the Commission report from the July meeting favorably noted “legislative developments in a specific jurisdiction” — likely the European Union’s proposed regulation to revamp public procurement — the table below also references relevant portions of the “Public Procurement Act” published on September 9, 2026 by the European Commission. An October 5, 2026 academic webinar on the EU’s proposed legislation (with extensive research materials) is linked at the bottom of this post.
| Topic | UNCITRAL Model Law and Texts: Potential Areas of Reform | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Green Procurement | The Commission has declined to take up issues of “green procurement” (environmentally sustainable procurement), but a key issue here is one of trade – the Commission’s core area of expertise. Some have suggested that the Commission assess the barriers to trade raised, for example, by ecolabels, and seek to facilitate the use of green procurement under existing law. | No further action. The EU’s proposed “Public Procurement Act” contains a range of provisions on “green procurement” and integrating environmental concerns into public procurement processes. |
| Suspension and Debarment | The Commission has indicated that it may wish to expand the Model Law and Guide to Enactment on exclusion and debarment – the process, an inherent part of contractor qualification, by which a public purchaser excludes contractors that pose unacceptable performance or reputational risks. | Topic endorsed for further work. The EU’s proposed “Public Procurement Act” addresses grounds for exclusion in Arts. 25-26. The EU’s approach to vendor exclusion is evolving. A World Bank survey of debarment practices worldwide is here. |
| E-procurement | The Commission may consider lessons learned from the procurement of IT projects, the need for new evaluation criteria, enhanced governance, ownership and control of data used to build large language models (LLMs) and of the public sector data used in operating LLMs, and organizational and capacity challenges, to avoid reproducing errors such as inappropriate specifications, integration failures, and poor outcomes. | Topic endorsed for further work. The EU’s proposed “Public Procurement Act” deals with e-procurement extensively in Arts. 127-136. |
| Contract Administration and Contract Termination Procedures | Ensuring sound contract administration – including fair termination procedures – is essential to robust competition. To that end, the invitation for inputs asked whether this topic should be addressed “by reference to the provisions and related guidance contained in” the UNCITRAL Model Legislative Provisions on Public-Private Partnerships. Those PPP provisions usefully identify terminations for convenience and default. But they are merely a starting point, for they fail to address the prior notice normally required for a termination for default, or the necessary boundaries to a government’s right to terminate for convenience. | The report from the July 2026 Commission meeting, A/81/17, was unclear on whether these issues will be addressed: “It was said that expanding the scope of the Model Law, including to procurement planning and to contract administration, would assist procuring entities in better understanding the market and promote fair bidding. However, it was also said that it might not be useful for the Model Law to broaden its coverage of the procurement cycle.” |
| Whitelisting & Certification Schemes | The secretariat asked for inputs regarding the use of “whitelisting” (listing preapproved qualified suppliers) or certification schemes. The Working Group engaged in the prior reform of the Model Law did not embrace “supplier lists” precisely because with framework agreements (“IDIQ” contracts in the United States) – a cornerstone of the 2011 law — there are more protections than when using supplier lists or “whitelisting.” | Framework agreements — arguably the more modern alternative to supplier lists — were cited in the Commission’s report: “It was also said that framework agreements were a suitable topic for additional guidance.” The EU’s proposed “Public Procurement Act” allows for contracting from “qualification lists” of pre-qualified contractors, in Article 49. |
| Non-Price Criteria to Advance Efficiency, Integrity and Strategic Procurement | The use of non-price criteria has revolutionized public procurement over the last century. By looking to “value-for-money” (or “best value”) and weighing both price and quality, procuring entities have been able to match emerging technologies with governments’ unique requirements and resources. The secretariat looked further and asked whether, and how, “non-price criteria may allow States to pursue their socio-economic policies (e.g., procuring from and supporting domestic micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)),” and whether a “detailed list of non-price criteria is usually found in procurement legislation” or regulations. | The EU’s proposed “Public Procurement Act” describes “open” competitive procedures in Articles 34-35. As with other methods, award is to be based on “the tender offering the best quality for money”— not lowest price. Per Article 98 of the proposed regulation, the “weight of quality criteria shall represent at least 30 % of total points awarded,” and where the contract is labor-intensive, 50%. The EU’s proposed regulation includes extensive materials on efficiency, integrity and strategic procurement. |
| Review (Bid Protest) Procedures and Dispute Resolution Methods in Public Procurement, Including Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) | The secretariat suggested an examination of the current law’s “review procedures and dispute resolution methods,” including the “use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in public procurement.” The Commission may wish: (1) To assess the current law’s Chapter VIII (Challenge Proceedings) against the Methodology for Assessment of Procurement Systems (MAPS), an OECD-supported assessment methodology which under Indicator 13 applies detailed criteria – many of which (such as limitations on fees) go beyond the Model Law — to assess remedies (bid challenge) systems. The MAPS approach, which fully matured only after the current Model Law was finalized in 2011, could help identify gaps in the current law. (2) To explore where Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been used successfully for bid challenges. | Status unclear regarding bid protests and disputes procedures. ADR unlikely to be addressed. The Commission report from the July 2026 meeting, A/81/17, noted that: “[I]t was said that arbitration in public procurement should not be covered in light of its limited usage.” |
| Facilitating Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSME) Participation | Making public procurement systems more accessible, proportional and MSME-friendly requires a nuanced approach, as data indicate that (a) SMEs constitute 95-99% of all businesses in many countries, and (b) medium-sized companies are not disproportionately disfavored in public procurement. The Commission may therefore wish to consider tools targeted at micro and small enterprises specifically. | Status unclear. The Commission report from the July 2026 meeting in New York, A/81/17, noted: “[I]t was said that . . . facilitating the participation of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement was a policy issue rather than a legal one.” |
Many of these potential areas of reform were also reviewed by Christopher R. Yukins and Caroline Nicholas in a book chapter, The UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement: Potential Next Steps, in Elgar Companion to UNCITRAL (Rishi Gulati, Thomas John & Ben Koehler, eds.) (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4293959. They followed up with additional inputs and references in a February 2026 letter to the UNCITRAL secretariat which addressed the proposed reforms outlined above. In the letter, Chris Yukins and Caroline Nicholas also noted the parallels between reform of the 2011 UNCITRAL model law and the ongoing reform of the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments (2000), which is used by governments across the United States.
