nachpruefungsverfahren-vergabekammer

/vergaberecht:nachpruefungsverfahren-vergabekammer

Purpose

The review proceedings are the central primary legal protection in the above-threshold sector. They are initiated by application to the public procurement tribunal (§ 160 GWB), trigger an automatic suspensive effect prohibiting award (§ 169 GWB) and lead to a decision by order within five weeks (§ 167 GWB). This skill examines standing to apply, the obligation to complain, time limits and drafts the review application.

Inputs

Designation of the procurement procedure (contracting authority, notice/award no., type of procedure, subject matter of the contract, estimated value)
Status of the client (bidder / applicant / interested party)
Specific alleged infringement of rights (exclusion, suitability, award, non-transparent evaluation, discriminatory requirement, lot splitting, wrong type of procedure)
Time at which knowledge of the infringement was obtained (date + occasion; notice, procurement documents, § 134 information, procedural act)
Complaint already raised with the contracting authority (date, content) and response
Status of the award (standstill period under § 134(2) GWB still running? already awarded?)

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides the provisions §§ 155–184 GWB, relevant decisions of the OLG procurement senates and case law of the BGH procurement senate on standing to apply and on the obligation to complain. Drafter drafts the review application with a clear structure of admissibility/merits. Reviewer checks the deadline calendar (complaint, standstill, appeal), standing to apply and pending proceedings/jurisdiction.

Procedure

1. Examine admissibility

1.1 Applicability of § 155 GWB / above-threshold sector

Procurement above the EU thresholds (see skill vergabe-eu-schwellenwert-pruefung). Below the threshold no review proceedings — legal protection only via the civil law route (§§ 280, 311(2) BGB) and the administrative law route.

1.2 Competent public procurement tribunal § 159 GWB

Federal public procurement tribunal at the BKartA: federal contracting authorities
State public procurement tribunal: contracting authorities of the Länder, municipalities, institutions under Land sovereignty
Where several contracting authorities are involved: § 159(3) GWB

1.3 Standing to apply § 160(2) GWB

Three cumulative requirements:

Requirement	Standard
Interest in the contract	Substantiated interest, not merely a general field of activity; bid or demonstrable intention to bid
Infringement of rights asserted	Provision of procurement law protected under subjective rights, not merely objective lawfulness
Risk of damage	Threatened or incurred competitive disadvantage; chance of award

ECJ on the "interest to obtain the contract" and probability of damage: ECJ, judgment of 05.04.2016 – Case C-689/13, PFE (https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-689/13); BGH, order of 18.02.2003 – X ZB 43/02, NZBau 2003, 293 (https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BGH&Datum=18.02.2003&Aktenzeichen=X+ZB+43/02).

1.4 Obligation to raise objections § 160(3) GWB

Four case groups with different points of reference:

No.	Point of reference	Deadline
§ 160(3) sentence 1 no. 1 GWB	Positive knowledge of the infringement (subjective)	10 calendar days from knowledge
§ 160(3) sentence 1 no. 2 GWB	Recognizable from the contract notice (objective)	until expiry of the tender/participation deadline
§ 160(3) sentence 1 no. 3 GWB	Recognizable from the procurement documents (objective)	until expiry of the tender/participation deadline
§ 160(3) sentence 1 no. 4 GWB	Notification by the contracting authority that the objection will not be remedied	15 calendar days from notification

The "recognizable" standard is not uniform — cf. divergent procurement senates of the Higher Regional Courts, cf. OLG Düsseldorf, order of 22.01.2014 – Verg 26/13 (https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=OLG+D%C3%BCsseldorf&Datum=22.01.2014&Aktenzeichen=Verg+26/13). Conservative: recognizability for expert bidders without specialized legal review.

1.5 Standstill period § 134(2) GWB

After information is given to unsuccessful bidders, the contract may not be awarded before the expiry of 15 calendar days (or 10 calendar days in the case of electronic dispatch). Receipt of an admissible review application within this period triggers the award prohibition under § 169(1) GWB.

2. Examine the merits

Subsumption of the alleged procurement law infringement under the relevant provision:

Suitability defects §§ 122–124 GWB (exclusion lawful?)
Evaluation errors § 127 GWB (transparent, non-discriminatory award criteria announced in advance)
Choice of procedure §§ 14 et seq. VgV
Description of services § 31 VgV (product-neutral, unambiguous)
Information § 134 GWB (15 calendar days / 10 calendar days for electronic)

Causality: § 168(1) sentence 2 GWB — the procurement chamber orders only what is necessary to eliminate the infringement of law (no restriction tied to the application within the meaning of administrative procedural law, but proportionality).

3. Formulate applications

Typical applications:

A finding that the applicant's rights have been infringed by the measure (e.g. exclusion).
Setting aside the procedure or restoring the situation as it was before the challenged measure.
Inspection of files § 165 GWB.
Preliminary/interim order § 169(2) GWB (extension of the standstill period).
Cost order § 182 GWB.

4. Suspensive effect § 169 GWB

Upon receipt of the admissible application, award prohibition. Effect until 2 weeks after expiry of the complaint period against the procurement chamber decision (§ 173(1) GWB) or until the Higher Regional Court's decision on the complaint. Practical means of pressure for the bidder side — file an application immediately if an award is imminent.

5. Decision and costs

VK decides within 5 weeks (§ 167(1) GWB), extension by the chair possible. Decision on costs § 182 GWB — fees from EUR 2,500 to 50,000 according to the contract value and importance of the matter.

6. Legal remedies: immediate complaint § 171 GWB

Deadline: 15 calendar days from service of the VK decision (§ 172(1) GWB)
Jurisdiction: OLG Procurement Panel
Suspensive effect § 173 GWB (award ban continues until 2 weeks after expiry of the complaint period)

Sources and Citation Style

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

Statute

§ 134 GWB (Information and waiting obligation)
§ 155 GWB (Principle of review proceedings)
§ 159 GWB (Jurisdiction of the public procurement tribunals)
§ 160 GWB (Application, standing to apply, complaint)
§ 165 GWB (Inspection of files)
§ 167 GWB (Expedition)
§ 168 GWB (Decision of the public procurement tribunal)
§ 169 GWB (Suspension of the procurement procedure)
§ 171 GWB (Immediate complaint)
§ 172 GWB (Deadline, form, content of the complaint)
§ 173 GWB (Suspensive effect)
§ 182 GWB (Costs)
Art. 1, 2 Directive 89/665/EEC (Remedies Directive, amended by Directive 2007/66/EC)

Commentaries

Wiese, in: Burgi, Vergaberecht, 4th ed. 2022, § 21 marginal no. 1 et seq. (Review)
Antweiler, in: Ziekow/Völlink, Vergaberecht, 5th ed. 2024, § 160 GWB marginal no. 30 et seq.
Möllenkamp, in: Pünder/Schellenberg, Vergaberecht, 4th ed. 2022, § 169 GWB marginal no. 5 et seq.
Müller-Wrede (ed.), Beck'scher Vergaberechtskommentar, § 160 GWB

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

ECJ, judgment of 05.04.2016 – Case C-689/13, PFE (standing to apply, secondary applications)
BGH, order of 18.02.2003 – X ZB 43/02, NZBau 2003, 293 (standing to apply)
BGH, order of 26.09.2006 – X ZB 14/06, NZBau 2007, 50 (obligation to complain, knowledge)
OLG Düsseldorf, order of 22.01.2014 – Verg 26/13 (recognisability of procurement documents)
OLG München, order of 10.11.2016 – Verg 11/16, NZBau 2017, 174 (urgent application § 169(2) GWB)

Output format

NACHPRÜFUNGSANTRAG nach § 160 GWB
An: Vergabekammer <…>
Datum: <…>

In der Vergabesache
   Antragstellerin: <Mandant>
   Auftraggeberin / Antragsgegnerin: <…>
   Beigeladene (ggf. präsumtive Zuschlagsempfängerin): <…>
   Verfahren: <Bezeichnung, Bekanntmachungs-Nr., Vergabe-ID>

I. Anträge
   1. <Aufhebung / Zurückversetzung>
   2. Akteneinsicht § 165 GWB
   3. ggf. § 169 Abs. 2 GWB: Verlängerung Stillhaltefrist
   4. Auferlegung der Kosten gem. § 182 GWB

II. Sachverhalt
    <chronologisch — Bekanntmachung, Angebot, gerügte Maßnahme,
     § 134-Information, Rügeschreiben vom …, Reaktion AG>

III. Zulässigkeit
     1. Anwendbarkeit § 155 GWB (Oberschwellen)
     2. Zuständigkeit § 159 GWB
     3. Antragsbefugnis § 160 Abs. 2 GWB
        - Interesse am Auftrag
        - Rechtsverletzung
        - Schadensgefahr
     4. Rüge § 160 Abs. 3 GWB (Kenntnis am <…>, Rüge am <…>)
     5. Frist (Stillhaltefrist § 134 Abs. 2 GWB läuft bis <…>)

IV. Begründetheit
    1. Verletzte Norm: <z. B. § 127 GWB, § 31 VgV>
    2. Subsumtion (Gutachtenstil)
    3. Kausalität für Zuschlagschance

V. Eilantrag (falls Zuschlag droht)
   § 169 Abs. 2 GWB

VI. Anlagen
    - Bekanntmachung
    - Angebot
    - § 134-Information
    - Rügeschreiben
    - Antwort AG

[Frist-Kalender intern:
  Rüge § 160 Abs. 3 GWB:       <Kenntnis + 10 KT>
  Stillhaltefrist § 134 GWB:   <Information + 15 KT / 10 KT elektronisch>
  Beschwerde § 172 GWB:        <VK-Beschluss + 15 KT>
  VK-Entscheidung § 167 GWB:   <Eingang + 5 Wochen>
]

Examples

Example — Exclusion due to allegedly missing references

Facts: The applicant (a medium-sized IT provider) received the § 134 information on 03.04.YYYY that its tender had been excluded due to missing references. In the procurement documents, the suitability requirement was formulated as "three comparable references with a contract value ≥ EUR 100,000 from the last three years". The applicant had submitted five references, three of them with values between EUR 95,000 and 110,000; the contracting authority rejected two with 95,000 and 98,000 as "not comparable".

Admissibility: Standing to apply (+) — substantial chance of award. Complaint lodged without delay on 05.04.YYYY, thus within 10 calendar days under § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 1 GWB. The contracting authority rejected the remedy on 09.04.YYYY — the 15-calendar-day period under § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 4 GWB runs until 24.04.YYYY. The standstill period under § 134(2) GWB (15 calendar days) runs until 18.04.YYYY.

Merits: The contracting authority handled the suitability requirement "comparable" intransparently (§ 122(4), § 127(1) GWB) — where the threshold "≥ 100,000 EUR" is not further specified in the procurement documents, references just below it cannot readily be excluded without further transparent criteria. Infringement of § 122(4) GWB in conjunction with § 127 GWB.

Recommendation: Application for review with a request to restore the procedure to the state before the evaluation decision; access to files § 165 GWB; urgent application § 169(2) GWB if the contracting authority intends to award before 18.04.YYYY.

Risk: 🟡 — The factual question of "comparability" depends on the individual case; Higher Regional Court case law on suitability criteria is inconsistent.

Risks / typical mistakes

Complaint late. 10-calendar-day period § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 1 GWB from knowledge. Missing it = preclusion = application inadmissible.
Complaint substantively unsubstantiated (mere hint) — must specify the concrete infringement of law and the facts.
Infringement already apparent from the contract notice/procurement documents, not complained of at the latest by expiry of the tender submission deadline → preclusion § 160(3) sentence 1 no. 2/3 GWB.
Application for review after award → application inadmissible (§ 168(2) sentence 1 GWB), only a declaratory application § 168(2) sentence 2 GWB remains as a preliminary step for damages § 181 GWB.
Observe missing the standstill period § 134 GWB: As soon as the 15-calendar-day period expires and the contract is awarded, primary legal protection is exhausted.
Lack of access to files: Anyone who does not apply under § 165 GWB argues blindly.