Skip to content
01Data study · Austria 2026

Austria IT Procurement Monitor

Who wins Austria’s public IT contracts, and how much competition is really behind them? We analysed 18,165 IT awards from 2019 to 2026, worth €6.5bn in recorded value, in the open procurement data. The most striking finding is not about the sums, but about missing competition.

75.9%

of public IT awards received only a single bid

Data basis: offenevergaben.at core data · dump as of 10 September 2026 · Analysis: Lucas Blochberger

18,165

IT awards analysed

€6.48B

Recorded contract volume

€95,761

Median contract value

75.9%

Single bid only

02Key findings

The competition gap in numbers

Three figures summarise Austria’s IT procurement market: how often only one bidder competed, how large a typical contract is, and what share went to small and medium enterprises.

Single-bidder rate

75.9%only 1 bid
75.9% with a single bid only
24.1% with multiple bidders

Distribution of contract values

Half of all IT contracts fall between the 25th and 75th percentile. The median marks the typical contract, more robust than a mean distorted by mega-deals.

€60,90025th percentile
€95,761Median
€196,80075th percentile

SME share

78.1%to SMEs

Share of awards going to small and medium enterprises, despite concentration among a few large suppliers.

Basis: 18,165 IT awards (CPV 72*, 2019 to 2026), offenevergaben.at core data.

03Time series

Seven years of IT procurement

Contract volume grows, competition stays thin: across the whole period the single-bidder rate never fell below two thirds. The recent 2025/26 dip is partly reporting lag, recent awards often add their bid count later.

Awards per year

Number of IT contracts awarded

857
2019
1,425
2020
1,833
2021
2,049
2022
2,222
2023
2,588
2024
2,320
2025
1,519
2026

Single-bidder rate per year

Share with a single bid (%)

81.281.272.977.879.181.170.967.5
1920212223242526

Median contract value €89,680 → €104,900 · Basis: 14,813 dated awards (contract conclusion 2019 to 2026).

04Segments

Where the money goes

IT awards spread across the CPV sub-classes. Two segments dominate by count: general IT services and software development/consulting.

Segment (CPV)Awards
General IT servicesMedian: €98,3369,402
Software development & IT consultingMedian: €90,5457,911
Data processing & databasesMedian: €88,479424
IT support & consultingMedian: €97,868145
Internet servicesMedian: €94,200137
Computer-related servicesMedian: €98,54086
Network servicesMedian: €113,83434
Other IT servicesMedian: €79,1652

Contract values by size band

< 25k
1,919
25-50k
62
50-100k
6,169
100-250k
4,075
250k-1M
2,183
> 1M
752

A clear cluster just above €50,000, the threshold above which a formal notice becomes standard. Below it, little enters the dataset.

Actual website design (CPV 72413) is a niche: only 64 awards, median €94,200. The market is IT infrastructure and software, not web design.

05Interpretation

What the numbers mean

Three in four awards without real competition

For 75.9% of the IT awards analysed, only a single bid was on the table. One bidder does not automatically mean an improper award, requirements are often so specific that only one provider fits. But at scale and steady across seven years, a single-bidder rate this high is a clear signal of structural competition failure: prices are barely disciplined and market access for newcomers is narrow.

A billion-euro market of mid-sized contracts

Recorded award volume 2019 to 2026 stands at €6.48B. Yet the typical contract is modest: median €95,761, the middle quarter between €60,900 and €196,800. Because individual framework agreements reach hundreds of millions, we deliberately report the median rather than the mean.

Few buyers, concentrated volume

The ten largest contracting authorities account for 50.1% of total award volume, led by state-owned bodies such as ÖBB, ASFINAG, the Federal Computing Centre and the City of Vienna. By count 78.1% of awards go to SMEs, but the volume concentrates on a few large suppliers.

06Market structure

Who buys, who supplies

Top-10 authorities = 50.1% of total volume

Largest authorities (by volume)

  1. 01ÖBB-Holding€754M
    275 Awards
  2. 02ASFINAG€740M
    1,831 Awards
  3. 03Bundesrechenzentrum (BRZ)€347M
    1,919 Awards
  4. 04Stadt Wien€250M
    331 Awards
  5. 05WKO Inhouse€220M
    156 Awards
  6. 06Netz Niederösterreich€216M
    58 Awards
  7. 07ÖBB-Infrastruktur€195M
    980 Awards
  8. 08Sozialversicherung€182M
    855 Awards

Most frequent suppliers (by awards)

  1. 01EBCONT group GmbH530
    €163M
  2. 02SOFTCOM Consulting GmbH445
    €84M
  3. 03Accenture390
    €145M
  4. 04PROGRAMMIERFABRIK GmbH368
    €61M
  5. 05TechTalk GmbH321
    €74M
  6. 06ACP IT Solutions319
    €74M
  7. 07T-Systems Austria GmbH315
    €77M
  8. 08Active Solution286
    €43M

Authorities by award volume, suppliers by frequency. Name duplicates are merged via registration number and normalisation; framework agreements with multiple companies are not counted as a single supplier.

07Methodology

How this study is built

Transparency is part of the asset: every figure traces back to the open source and an explicit base. What we deliberately do not claim is stated here too.

01

Source & filter

Daily core-data dump from offenevergaben.at (processing of the data.gv.at procurement data). Evaluated: award notices (art = KD_8_2*) with CPV 72*, 18,165 IT awards 2019 to 2026.

02

Single-bidder rate (EU definition)

Share of awards with exactly one received bid, among the 12,715 awards with a stated bid count. Mirrors the EU Single Market Scoreboard methodology.

03

Median, not mean

Contract values are strongly right-skewed. Median and percentiles over 15,160 awards with value > 0; framework agreements with multiple companies (1,629×) are not counted as a single supplier.

04

Limits

No regional split: the NUTS region field is practically empty. The yearly trend uses the contract-conclusion date; garbage years (0001/2030) are filtered. The SME share is based on the populated SME field (patchy in early years, hence no SME trend line).

08Use the data

Free to use, with attribution

The aggregated figures in this study are free to use (CC BY 4.0). Newsrooms, analysts and trade publications may quote the numbers and embed the dataset.

Aggregate dataset

All figures as CSV: headline, yearly time series (median/p25/p75/volume/SME), CPV segments, top-20 authorities and suppliers, value size bands.

Aggregate (CSV)

Raw dataset

One award per row: 18,165 IT contracts with authority, supplier, contract value, year, CPV, bid count and SME flag. For your own analysis.

Raw data (CSV, 2 MB)

Suggested citation

Blck Alpaca (2026): Austria IT Procurement Monitor. Data basis: offenevergaben.at core data, dump as of 10 September 2026.
https://blckalpaca.at/en/it-procurement-monitor-austria

For newsrooms

Need a segment or buyer breakdown, a chart in your layout, or a statement? We provide the raw aggregates and an on-the-record quote at short notice. office@blckalpaca.at

Get the next edition automatically? Newsletter

Frequently asked questions

Answers on the data, the method and the limits of the study

General

2
Is this about all IT contracts or only websites?
About all IT services (CPV 72*): software development, IT consulting, operations, data processing. Pure website design (CPV 72413) is just a small niche with 64 awards.
Does one bidder automatically mean a problematic award?
No. Highly specialised requirements can legitimately be met by only one provider. It is the accumulation across thousands of awards and seven years that makes the figure meaningful.

Methodology

3
Where does the data come from?
From the open core-data dump of offenevergaben.at, which processes Austria’s procurement notices (data.gv.at). We evaluate only published award notices with a CPV 72 code (IT services).
How is the single-bidder rate defined?
As the share of awards with exactly one received bid, relative to all awards with a stated bid count, the EU Single Market Scoreboard methodology. At 75.9% across seven years, the figure is structural, not an outlier.
Why no comparison between federal states?
The region field (NUTS) is practically empty in the raw data. A serious regional breakdown would only be possible via a name-mapping of authorities and would remain a subset. We would rather not publish it than estimate it.

Tackle public contracts with data

We build monitoring and analysis pipelines for procurement, market and competition data, from the raw source to an actionable dashboard.

Schedule a call