Developing and launching a certification framework for public procurement professionals can be a transformative step in professionalising the public procurement workforce. When thoughtfully designed, it equips officials with the skills and confidence needed to efficiently manage even the most complex and strategic procurement processes. While it is true that certification can require significant time and resources, it has proven to be a valuable investment in most of the surveyed countries. Importantly, it is not the only path forward. Other effective and commonly used approaches, such as competency models or the publication of practical guidelines and manuals, together with more tailored actions, such as peer-to-peer learning and mentoring schemes (OECD, 2025[2]) can help developing a structured approach to building capacity and developing capabilities in public procurement. It is important to note though that these approaches differ in their importance and level of comprehensiveness. The key is to understand the country’s specific needs and context to determine the best approach for upskilling the workforce. Therefore, based on the analysis of the survey responses and the OECD’s prior work with countries establishing a certification framework for public procurement, the following steps are recommended.
Professionalising public procurement through certification
Depending on the current context of public procurement professionalisation in each country, the upskilling needs might vary. In Croatia, for example, as Box 3 above explains, the EU accession and the need for officials well trained in procurement law to administer EU funds was one of the main motivations behind establishing a certification framework. Similarly, in Albania in the framework of the European integration, prioritising professionalisation was recommended to Albania by the European Commission. On the other hand, in Lithuania, a needs analysis conducted in 2018 identified the lack of public procurement specialists and the capacity of public procurement officers, as well as a negative perception of public procurement as a professional task as the main problems of the public procurement workforce (OECD, 2019[5]).
Differing upskilling needs can require different solutions. It is therefore crucial for countries that are deciding how to professionalise their public procurement workforce to take stock of the current capabilities and needs. For this, a thorough survey of public procurement officials, as well as suppliers and other public entities would be ideal. An analysis of the audit reports on the functioning of the public procurement system could also help shed light on the effectiveness of the procurement system. Based on a granular understanding of the professionalisation needs and actual procurement competencies, the scope of the certification framework can be defined if the public procurement authority decides to establish one. Depending on the country’s professionalisation needs and goals, the training, categorisation, exam modalities and many other variables of the certification framework can be designed in different ways.
Furthermore, the scope of the certification framework needs to be carefully considered depending on established procurement practices. In several countries it is common for contracting authorities to rely on outsourced specialists such as engineers, architects, or IT experts to draft technical documentation. Yet these professionals frequently lack sufficient understanding of procurement rules and procedures. In such instances, the certification of external experts may also need to be considered in the overall strategy for developing a certification framework.
When introducing the certification framework, it is essential to balance professionalisation goals with the need to minimise administrative, financial, and human resource burdens. A well-designed certification framework should deliver value without creating unnecessary complexity. Streamlining documentation, leveraging existing training structures, and using digital platforms and tools can help reduce administrative workload and costs.
Equally important is ensuring that the certification framework is clearly fit for purpose, with a strong business case that justifies its introduction and its continued use. Certification should address genuine capacity gaps and improve procurement outcomes, rather than adding layers of bureaucracy for its own sake. By aligning certification requirements with real needs, public bodies can promote capability building and professionalisation while keeping the system effective.
For this, it is important to listen to feedback and be realistic. A relevant example of this is the Slovak Republic, where as a result of a feedback survey, the Public Procurement Act was amended in 2024 to change the use of a certified professional guarantor in all procurement procedures. The mandatory model for the use of professional guarantors had been criticised in particular in terms of the excessive administrative burden, the lack of available experts and the risk of staff drain from the public procurement sector, which could ultimately jeopardise the ability of contracting authorities to ensure public procurement processes with their own capacities. The new legislation introduced an optional model, which gave contracting authorities the discretion to decide whether a particular procurement, because of its technical complexity, would be carried out by a professional guarantor. This means that contracting authorities can decide for themselves whether to use professional certified guarantors in all or only in certain public procurement processes.
In countries where certification systems have already been established and implemented for several years, the knowledge and understanding of public procurement procedures are well developed within contracting authorities and among procurement officers. However, such knowledge is often lacking at the middle and senior management level, for instance among deputy ministers, board members, directors of sectoral contracting authorities, municipalities and city majors, who make strategic or budgetary decisions that directly affect procurement outcomes.
Countries could there consider raising awareness by introducing basic or partial certification for managerial and leadership staff, ensuring that they possess at least foundational knowledge of public procurement principles. This would help align strategic decision-making with sound procurement practices and strengthen the overall governance of the procurement system.
As discussed throughout this report, the design of a certification framework plays an important role in whether the framework will eventually be a meaningful tool of professionalisation rather than a box-ticking exercise. Therefore, this section outlines key design considerations for various functions that a certification framework could have.
Across the board certification
The implementation of a certification framework across the board could serve the purpose of professionalising the entire workforce to achieve a minimum standard for a vast number of buyers. In this case, the training programme would need to be designed to give candidates a solid understanding of general concepts and methods instead of honing in on specific, advanced topics. It is important to ensure that the training is not formalistic. The exam should be designed to be practical, flexible and not too burdensome for the candidates nor the examiners.
Mandatory certification required to carry out certain procurement functions
Several countries have been using certification frameworks as a mandatory requirement to carry out public procurement. This ensures that procurements are carried out by a skilled professional and hence reduces the likelihood of errors, lack of compliance or low-quality procurement. When taking this approach, it is important to consider the necessary preparatory steps for introducing such a reform. Procurement authorities need to be careful in not creating bottlenecks in contracting authorities’ ability to conduct procurement, i.e. that an insufficient number of procurement officials are certified when the reform comes into effect. In part, this kind of risk can be avoided by calibrating the mandatory requirement. For instance, the certification requirement may only apply for certain types of procurement (e.g. high value, high risk, sector-specific). The requirement may also apply only for a single individual for each procurement procedure, hence reducing the burden of having to certify all people broadly involved in the procurement procedure (e.g. support staff, junior buyers, etc).
Furthermore, it is important to consider the necessary preparation time when introducing a mandatory certification. Namely, the public administration may need to ramp up its capacity to deliver trainings and conduct the examinations, especially if a large number of procurement professionals is expected to get certified. The private sector could play a role in increasing the public administration’s capacity to deliver trainings.
Voluntary approach
In case the certification is voluntary, it has to have a clear value in the market. For example, some countries introduced voluntary certification frameworks for thematic specialities, such as green public procurement. Becoming a subject matter expert in a thematic specialisation represents a clear added value for procurers who wish to make their skillset more niche and specialist. Employing purchasers who are experts in a specific type of procurement is also valuable for contracting authorities.
A thematic certification framework shall be accompanied by a training curriculum and exam that narrowly focuses on the subject matter. As it can be expected that the number of candidates will be limited for this kind of certification, the options for exam format are less constrained than in case of general certification where much larger volumes of applicants can be expected. For example, an oral examination or essay-based exam can be feasible, where candidates can demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topics.
Advanced level- complex, high-value procurement
Similarly to a thematic certification framework, an advanced certification for especially complex procurements can also be implemented. In this case, the certification can serve to distinguish professionals who have more experience in the field and have the skills to handle complex procedures and higher-value purchases. This type of certification framework could be designed with a separate curriculum and exam that that clearly ensures that the necessary skills are being mastered. A clear distinction from the general training programme would be essential.
Consideration should be given to the incentives that the implementation of a certification framework gives to professionals. An incentive for obtaining the certification could be that being certified could separate public buyers from other civil servants as a standalone profession. A certified procurer could be better regarded and remunerated (with financial or non-financial benefits) within the public administration. If the incentives are not good enough to motivate officials to undertake a certification, making it mandatory could create a barrier of entry to the public buyer profession that would drive potential applicants away.
As a further incentive, the certification framework could foster a learning culture. As explained in chapter 2, in public administrations with a learning culture there is an expectation that officials continuously learn, develop and update their skills. In a public administration where learning is seen as part of the job, a certification framework that does not only certify the skills that public buyers already have but provides them with an opportunity to learn new skills through the certification will be seen as valuable. In a strong learning culture, the opportunity to develop oneself professionally will be an incentive to undertake the training programme and examination. Creating a certification framework that meaningfully contributes to skills developments presupposes good understanding of the current skills level of the public servants and thus requires preparatory work on the part of the implementing authorities.
The effective governance of the entire certification system is equally crucial. Monitoring and evaluation could be designed as part of an integral governance tool that continuously identifies systemic weaknesses and capacity gaps within the national procurement system. Once such weaknesses are detected, the certification framework should be designed to respond proactively, by updating the training syllabus, refining examination content, or adjusting competency requirements to ensure that the system evolves in line with real needs. A well-governed certification system could therefore include clear institutional responsibilities, feedback loops, and data-driven mechanisms that enable policymakers to translate the lessons from monitoring and evaluation into tangible improvements. This approach would allow the certification process to serve not only as a tool for assessing competence, but also as a driver of continuous improvement in the national public procurement system.
In addition to designing an effective monitoring system, countries could consider measuring the impact of certification frameworks to understand the effects of the reform on public procurement professionalisation. While it is a complex undertaking to clearly define cause and effects when many factors are at play simultaneously, countries could focus on a limited number of performance indicators to be measured over time. It is important for countries to establish a baseline for a certain number of indicators, so that the changes over the time are actually comparable. Several indicators could give an indication about the overall improvement of the public procurement practices, such as the use of quality criteria, the number of bidders, the number of single bids, the number of irregularities, the length of procedure, or the number of SMEs bidders.
Furthermore, countries with a national e-procurement system already possesses extensive datasets that reveal where the problems and inefficiencies within the public procurement system lie. When properly analysed, the information generated by e-procurement platforms can support monitoring and impact measurement efforts, thereby guiding targeted improvements to the certification framework and the broader procurement system.
Drawing on the experience of countries that have already implemented public procurement certification frameworks, several lessons learnt, and actionable recommendations have emerged to guide those considering the establishment of such systems.
Short term actions: planning
In the short term, countries are invited to develop their ‘business case’ for introducing a certification framework. This entails having clarity about the concrete needs that are being addressed with a certification framework. As discussed throughout this report, certification frameworks may support a variety of professionalisation goals, ranging from large-scale capacity-building (e.g. Croatia), development of specialised skills in a specific area (e.g. Norway), enhancing the standing of the profession and supporting professional development (e.g. France).
The goals of the certification framework have important implications for its design, providing input to key questions such as introducing a voluntary or mandatory framework, requiring certification as a pre-requisite to carry out certain public procurement procedures, etc. In certain cases, this step will require a preparatory analysis, whereby countries gain clarity on the current skills gaps in public procurement, and the need to establish an underlying competency framework as the basis for the certification framework, and/or the need to establish dedicated training. The preparatory analysis should also indicate whether legal changes are required to introduce a certification framework.
Once the broad elements of the certification are developed, countries can proceed with a high-level estimate of costs and benefits for introducing such a scheme. This step will allow them to secure the necessary financial resources as well as stakeholder buy-in.
As part of the planning, countries should already define the governance structures and assign responsibilities for the implementation and maintenance of the certification framework. At this stage, countries can consider which steps to carry out in-house or to outsource to external providers.
Step-by-step approach:
Establish the concrete need and goals for a certification framework (based on preparatory analysis)
Estimation of costs and benefits for introducing a certification framework
Secure financial resources
Ensure buy-in from stakeholders
Define governance structures
Long term actions: implementation
Once the planning is completed, countries can move to the practical aspects of implementation. These entail any preparatory steps, such as making necessary legal amendments, or formalising certain governance aspects. Importantly, implementation requires the design of the key elements that constitute a certification framework. This step may vary across countries depending on their situation, as certain elements may already be available and thus require only adaptation. In other contexts, greater preparation will be necessary for the design phase. With a fully designed certification framework, countries will be able to conduct awareness-raising activities and officially launch it. If the framework is mandatory pre-requisite for public procurement, sufficient lead time should be considered for procurement officials to adapt (e.g. pass the qualification). Finally, countries should be mindful of quality control and monitoring of activities, thereby ensuring that the certification framework is fit for purpose, or making the necessary adaptations. Finally, countries may wish to evaluate the impact of their certification framework with regards to their public procurement professionalisation goals.
Step-by-step approach:
Preparatory steps (if necessary): legal amendments, formalisation of governance
Design all elements of certification framework, as needed (e.g. competency framework, training / train-the-trainer, exam questions, etc.)
Awareness-raising & launch
Quality control and monitoring
Impact assessment
Figure 9 provides an overview of short term planning and long term implementation actions recommended for countries wishing to establish a certification framework.
Source: Author’s elaboration