Problem with BT-105 codelist for notice type 14

The option "oth-single" on notice type 14 was removed from the codelist (SDK 1.13). When I asked about this from TED Heldesk I received an answer: "Notice subtype 14 is a PIN Call for Competition and interested parties have to start by expressing their interest, even before getting invited to submit tenders. Therefore, it can never be a single stage procedure and "oth-single" is not in the tailored procurement procedure type code list for subtype 14."

In Finland we have always used single stage procedures with subtype 14 so our response was as follows: "Thank you (also) for your response regarding Notice subtype 14 (PIN Call for Competition) and your view that it cannot involve a single-stage procedure. After further legal analysis, we would like to respectfully challenge this position and ask for additional clarification.

According to Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, for social and other specific services there are no mandatory procedural rules beyond:

• Article 19 (applicable rules),
• Article 31(3) (prior information notice),
• Article 32 (contract award notice), and
• Articles 46–47 (monitoring), along with the annexes on the content of notices.

The directive does not establish an obligation to use any particular award procedure, nor does it prohibit contracting entities from structuring the process as they see fit, provided that transparency and equal treatment are respected. The prior information notice (PIN) obligation is not typically understood as part of the award procedure itself, but merely as a transparency tool.

Consequently:

1. No explicit prohibition – The directive contains no explicit restriction preventing the contracting entity from using a single-stage procedure for such concessions.
2. Expression of interest vs. tender – While the PIN may invite expressions of interest, there is nothing in the directive that would prevent the contracting authority from treating such expressions, if it so wishes, as tenders within a single-stage process.
3. Flexibility as intended – The directive deliberately gives Member States and contracting authorities a high degree of flexibility in awarding social and other specific services concessions. Restricting the TED system to disallow single-stage procedures in subtype 14 seems to limit that flexibility in a way not required by the directive.
4. National legislation interaction – In some Member States, including ours, national law contains more detailed requirements than the directive itself. The TED restriction therefore creates further misalignment, complicating compliance without legal necessity.

Given this, we kindly ask:

• On what legal basis is the exclusion of single-stage procedure (“oth-single”) from the subtype 14 code list made?
• Would the Commission consider adjusting the TED system to better reflect the flexibility that Directive 2014/23/EU clearly provides contracting entities in this area?

We would appreciate clarification, since otherwise contracting authorities may face unnecessary procedural obstacles that are not grounded in EU law."

And to this the answer was: "We have raised this issue with DG GROW and they are consulting within their public procurement unit to understand the implications of your pertinent questions. They also suggested to raise this issue in the eForms GitLab as any decisions will involve other Member States, and DG GROW could address it there.

In practical terms, we won't make any changes in SDK 1.14 for this as we need to close the scope and the changes still need decisions and further clarifications."

So here's the issue in GitLab to be addressed. Any views?