ausschreibungspruefung

/vergaberecht:ausschreibungspruefung

Purpose

Tender documents must satisfy the principles of competition, transparency and equal treatment (§ 97(1), (2) GWB). Bidders who recognizably a violation from the contract notice or tender documents must challenge it at the latest by the expiry of the bid/participation deadline — otherwise preclusion applies (§ 160(3) sentence 1 no. 2, 3 GWB). This skill systematically reviews the tender documents for compliance with procurement law and identifies points for challenge.

Inputs

Contract notice (TED number, contracting authority, procedure type, subject matter of contract)
Tender documents (description of contract / specification of services, suitability criteria, award criteria, weighting matrix, draft contract)
Client's position (bidder / contracting authority reviewing)
Bid deadline / participation deadline
Any existing irregularities or bidder questions

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides statutes (§§ 97, 122–124, 127 GWB; §§ 29, 31, 58 VgV), CJEU case law on suitability and award criteria, and case law of the OLG procurement senates on concretization. Drafter carries out the review in seven steps (1–7 below) and provides a prioritized list of points for challenge. Reviewer checks whether the challenge period (expiry of bid deadline § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 3 GWB) is reflected in the deadline calendar and whether the individual objections are substantial enough for an effective challenge.

Procedure

1. Contract notice § 37 VgV

Mandatory information § 37 VgV in conjunction with Annex V Part C Directive 2014/24/EU: contracting authority, subject matter of contract, CPV code, contract value (estimated), procedure type, suitability and award criteria (minimum information), deadlines.

Review points:

CPV code correct?
Contract value in accordance with the threshold regime?
Procedure type justified (e.g. negotiated procedure only where the conditions of § 14(3), (4) VgV are met)?
Suitability and award criteria at least named in principle?
Bid deadline § 15 et seq. VgV complied with (open procedure: generally 35 days)?

2. Specification of services § 31 VgV

Clarity § 121 GWB, § 31(1) VgV
Product neutrality § 31(6) VgV: prohibition of designations that favor certain products, patents, brands, except "or equivalent"
Functional vs. constructive § 31(2) VgV
Technical requirements § 31(3) VgV (standards, specifications)

Case law: CJEU, judgment of 25.10.2018 – Case C-413/17, Roche Lietuva (technical specifications, prohibition of discrimination) (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-413/17).

3. Suitability requirements §§ 122–124 GWB, §§ 44–47 VgV

3.1 Suitability criteria

Capability to pursue the professional activity § 44 VgV
Economic and financial capacity § 45 VgV (balance sheets, turnover, insurance)
Technical and professional capability § 46 VgV (references, personnel, equipment)

Proportionality standard: § 122(4) GWB — suitability requirements must be in relation and reasonable proportion to the subject matter of the contract.

3.2 Reliance on the capacities of other entities § 47 VgV / § 122(2) GWB

The bidder may rely on the capacities of other entities. The contracting authority may restrict reliance on the capacities of other entities only under the conditions of § 47 VgV (e.g. § 47(5) VgV for critical tasks).

3.3 Grounds for exclusion

Provision	Content
§ 123 GWB	Mandatory grounds for exclusion (criminal offences, tax offences, minimum wage)
§ 124 GWB	Optional grounds for exclusion (serious professional misconduct, defects in previous contracts)
§ 125 GWB	Self-cleaning (measures demonstrating restoration of reliability)

CJEU on self-cleaning: CJEU, judgment of 24.10.2018 – Case C-124/17, Vossloh Laeis (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-124/17).

4. Award criteria § 127 GWB

Most economically advantageous tender § 127(1) GWB — not necessarily the lowest price
Announcement § 127(5) GWB — award criteria and weighting must be stated in the contract notice or procurement documents
Transparency and non-discrimination — the evaluation method must be reproducible
No mixed suitability/award criteria — suitability is binary (yes/no), award is evaluation

CJEU, judgment of 14.07.2016 – Case C-6/15, TNS Dimarso (announcement of evaluation method) (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-6/15).

5. Division into lots § 97(4) GWB

Principle of division into lots (§ 97(4) sentence 1 GWB)
Waiver only for economic or technical reasons documented in the procurement report (§ 97(4) sentence 3 GWB)
Quasi-prohibition of bundling that is hostile to SMEs

Higher regional court case law: OLG Düsseldorf, order of 11.07.2018 – Verg 1/18, NZBau 2018, 638 (strict duty to give reasons) [unverifiziert – prüfen].

6. Draft contract / review of general terms and conditions

In the above-threshold sector, contract terms are increasingly reviewed (risk allocation, contractual penalties, liability clauses). Standard: §§ 305 et seq. BGB are in principle applicable in the procurement relationship, BGH, judgment of 19.05.2011 – VII ZR 24/08, NZBau 2011, 615 [unverifiziert – prüfen].

7. List of complaints and deadline strategy

Prioritised list of complaints:

Priority	Point of complaint	Provision	Recognisability	Deadline
🔴 High	<…>	<e.g. § 127 GWB>	from the procurement documents	until the tender deadline § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 3 GWB
🟡 Medium	<…>	<…>	from the contract notice	until the tender deadline § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 2 GWB

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statute

§ 97 GWB (Principles, division into lots)
§ 121 GWB (Description of services)
§ 122 GWB (Suitability)
§ 123 GWB (Mandatory grounds for exclusion)
§ 124 GWB (Optional grounds for exclusion)
§ 125 GWB (Self-cleaning)
§ 127 GWB (Award)
§ 29 VgV (Procurement documents)
§ 31 VgV (Description of services)
§ 37 VgV (Contract notice)
§§ 44–47 VgV (Suitability, reliance on suitability)
§ 58 VgV (Award)
Art. 18 Directive 2014/24/EU (Principles)
Art. 58 Directive 2014/24/EU (Suitability criteria)
Art. 67 Directive 2014/24/EU (Award criteria)

Commentaries

Burgi, Vergaberecht, 4th ed. 2022, § 14 para. 1 et seq. (Description of services), § 16 para. 1 et seq. (Suitability), § 18 para. 1 et seq. (Award)
Mertens, in: Ziekow/Völlink, Vergaberecht, 5th ed. 2024, § 122 GWB para. 1 et seq.
Opitz, in: Beck'scher Vergaberechtskommentar, 4th ed. 2022, § 127 GWB para. 1 et seq.
Pünder, in: Pünder/Schellenberg, Vergaberecht, 4th ed. 2022, § 97 GWB para. 50 et seq. (Lots)

Case law (`[unverifiziert – prüfen in Beck-Online/juris/eur-lex]`)

CJEU, judgment of 14.07.2016 – Case C-6/15, TNS Dimarso (disclose evaluation method)
CJEU, judgment of 24.10.2018 – Case C-124/17, Vossloh Laeis (self-cleaning § 125 GWB)
CJEU, judgment of 25.10.2018 – Case C-413/17, Roche Lietuva (product neutrality)
BGH, judgment of 19.05.2011 – VII ZR 24/08, NZBau 2011, 615 (review of standard terms in the procurement contract)
OLG Düsseldorf, order of 11.07.2018 – Verg 1/18, NZBau 2018, 638 (division into lots)
OLG München, order of 02.11.2012 – Verg 26/12, NZBau 2013, 261 (mixing of suitability/award)

Output format

AUSSCHREIBUNGSPRÜFUNG
Mandat: <…>
Auftraggeber: <…>
Verfahren / TED-Nr.: <…>
Angebotsfrist: <…>
Stand: <Datum>

I. Verfahrensrahmen
   - Verfahrensart: <…>
   - Anwendbares Regelwerk: <VgV / SektVO / KonzVgV>
   - Geschätzter Auftragswert: <EUR>

II. Bekanntmachung § 37 VgV
    Befund: <✅ / ⚠️ / 🔴>
    Punkte:
      - <…>

III. Leistungsbeschreibung § 31 VgV
     Eindeutigkeit:        <…>
     Produktneutralität:   <…>
     Technische Specs:     <…>

IV. Eignungsanforderungen §§ 122–124 GWB
    Anforderung 1: <…> — verhältnismäßig? Bezug zum Auftrag?
    Anforderung 2: <…>
    Eignungsleihe § 47 VgV: <unzulässig eingeschränkt?>
    Ausschlussgründe § 123/124: <…>

V. Zuschlagskriterien § 127 GWB
   Kriterium / Gewichtung / Bewertungsmethode
   Vermischung mit Eignung?
   Transparenz / Reproduzierbarkeit?

VI. Losaufteilung § 97 Abs. 4 GWB
    Lose vorgesehen? Begründung des Verzichts?

VII. Vertragsentwurf
     AGB-rechtliche Risiken §§ 305 ff. BGB

VIII. Rügeliste (priorisiert)
      🔴 1. <…> — Norm — Rügefrist <Datum>
      🟡 2. <…> — Norm — Rügefrist <Datum>
      🟢 3. <…>

IX. Risiken / offene Punkte
    🟢/🟡/🔴
    Frist-Kalender:
      Angebotsfrist:                 <Datum>
      Rüge erkennbarer Punkte:       bis Angebotsfrist § 160 Abs. 3 S. 1 Nr. 2/3 GWB
      Rüge nicht-erkennbarer Punkte: 10 KT ab Kenntnis § 160 Abs. 3 S. 1 Nr. 1 GWB

X. Quellenverzeichnis
   <gem. references/zitierweise.md>

Examples

Example — award criteria without weighting

Facts: Procurement documents of a Land authority name four award criteria (price, quality, concept, schedule), but no weighting. Contract value EUR 800,000 net, open procedure under the VgV.

Assessment: Pursuant to § 127(5) GWB in conjunction with § 58(3) VgV, the weighting of the award criteria must be stated in the contract notice or the procurement documents. If it is missing, the evaluation method is intransparent and infringes Art. 67 Directive 2014/24/EU; CJEU, judgment of 14.07.2016 – Case C-6/15, TNS Dimarso (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-6/15).

Recommendation to lodge a complaint: 🔴 Recognisability from the procurement documents → time limit § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 3 GWB = until expiry of the tender submission deadline. Recommend a complaint letter with a specific demand: subsequent submission of a weighting; otherwise an application for review.

Risks / typical errors

Recognisable infringement not complained of before expiry of the tender submission deadline → Preclusion § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 2/3 GWB.
Mixing suitability and award — Suitability is binary (minimum requirement), the award is an evaluation. Higher regional court case law is strict.
Suitability requirements disproportionate (e.g. turnover thresholds far above § 45(4) VgV; reference values inappropriate).
Product designation without "or equivalent" § 31(6) VgV — discrimination.
Lot division without proper justification in the award memorandum § 8 VgV in conjunction with § 97(4) sentence 3 GWB.
Evaluation method subsequently changed — breach of the transparency principle § 97(1) GWB.
Letter of complaint generic ("violates public procurement law") — unsubstantiated, harmful in later review proceedings.