Standards
Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV)
A controlled classification for the subject matter of public procurement in Europe.
- Kind
- Vocabularies
- Steward
- European Commission
- Official source
- https://ted.europa.eu/en/simap/cpv
What it describes
The Common Procurement Vocabulary supplies codes and descriptions for goods, works, and services in European public procurement notices. It gives buyers and searchers a shared classification when organizations use different wording for similar purchases. A notice can use a principal CPV code and supplementary codes. The chosen codes are part of the notice's description, not a complete specification of the contract.
A CPV code alone cannot establish what was delivered, the contractual scope, or whether a supplier is qualified. Classification choices may be broad or imperfect, and the vocabulary can be revised. Retain the notice text, code, code-set version, contracting authority, and publication date. For analysis, compare codes at a consistent hierarchy level and review ambiguous assignments against the source notice.
Structure
Main vocabulary uses an eight-digit code plus a check digit; supplementary vocabulary adds optional detail.
Useful for
- Search procurement notices by subject.
- Compare purchasing categories.
- Group tenders across languages.
Limits
- Not a full contract description.
- Assignment can be imprecise.
- Version and hierarchy level matter.
How it is used in practice
Contracting authorities in the European Union publish notices of planned and awarded contracts, and each notice states what is being bought by reference to CPV codes. The vocabulary is established by a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council, updated by Commission regulation, and is meant to give notices in all official languages a common subject index. Suppliers set alerts on the codes relevant to their business, and analysts use them to measure spending by category across authorities and countries.
The main vocabulary is hierarchical, running from broad divisions down to specific categories, and each code has a check digit. A supplementary vocabulary adds optional detail such as materials or location. The principal code on a notice is chosen by the authority, and additional codes describe secondary aspects, so the code set is part of the authority's description of the procurement, not a classification imposed from outside.
A worked example
A fictional hospital group publishes a tender for laboratory reagents and instruments. One notice uses a code for laboratory reagents, another for laboratory equipment and a third a broader code for medical supplies. An analyst wants to measure how much the group buys in laboratory consumables.
Grouping by exact code would miss the third notice, and grouping by a high-level division would sweep in unrelated purchases. The analyst chooses a rule, such as a set of codes at a specified level, and records it with the vocabulary version used. For ambiguous notices the analyst reads the title and description in the notice, and records the decision with a quotation from the notice. The result is a figure that comes with its inclusion rule and the list of notices read by hand, so a reader can disagree with a specific decision without discarding the whole analysis.
Evaluating a claim that rests on a CPV code
A CPV code supports a claim about how an authority described its purchase. It does not support a claim about the delivered goods, the contract value or the winning supplier, which come from the award notice and the contract. Check whether the code is principal or supplementary, and whether the notice is a prior information notice, a contract notice or an award notice, since these describe different stages.
Also check the version of the vocabulary and the level at which comparisons are made. A purchase can be coded differently by two authorities, and some authorities use broad codes by habit. Data cleaning that rewrites codes to a common level destroys the signal about how the authority described the purchase, so keep the original code beside any derived grouping.
Confusions to avoid
CPV is not a tariff or statistical product classification. The Harmonized System classifies goods for customs, and industry classifications such as NACE classify the activity of the producer. CPV classifies the subject of a public contract, including works and services that have no customs code at all. Mapping among them requires correspondence tables and judgement, and a mapping is a derived claim with its own source.
It is also not a description of the contract's requirements. Two tenders with the same code may differ widely in scope, quantity and specification. Do not use a code to claim that two contracts are substitutes. Use the notice text and the contract documents.
Questions a reviewer can ask
Is the code the principal code of the notice or a supplementary one? Is the notice a prior information notice, a contract notice or an award notice? Which version of the vocabulary applies? What rule groups several codes into one category in the analysis, and were ambiguous notices read by a person? Does the claim concern what the authority intended to buy or what was delivered, and is the second supported by an award document?
Related terms
Found an error on this page? See corrections for what counts as one, how to report it and the dated log.
Enquiry
Which of your sources carry Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV)?
Tell us which sources carry it, which key the same entity some other way and who may read which. We reply with whether and how a first record would use this vocabulary.
Or write to [email protected] in your own words.