Not every defect has the same consequence. The authority must identify the requirement, the actual defect and the applicable rules on clarification or supplementation. Bidders cannot assume that every omission will be cured after the deadline.
Classify the defect
Late submission, missing evidence, changed contract terms, absent prices and an incomplete quality concept raise different issues. Read the tender objectively against the published documents. Selection evidence concerns the undertaking’s capability; scored performance material concerns the competitive offer. This distinction can be decisive for whether later material may be accepted.
Apply current section 56 VgV
Subject to transparency and equal treatment, the provision allows requests to supply, supplement, explain, complete or correct documents within its limits. The authority may have ruled out requests in the notice or procurement documents. Performance documents relevant to economic evaluation are subject to particular restrictions, with a narrowly framed exception concerning certain minor price items.
Avoid changing the competition
Clarification must not become a disguised new offer. Examine whether the requested explanation merely makes an existing statement intelligible or changes its substance. Consistency between comparable cases matters. The authority should record both the decision to request material and the result, including any deadline and the bidder’s response.
Respond promptly to exclusion
Secure the exclusion notice, tender as submitted and current documents. Compare the stated reason with the actual requirement and any published supplementation policy. Complaint and review deadlines may run while further information is being requested. A factual explanation should be prepared without assuming that correspondence itself suspends award.
Four practical examples
The following scenarios are illustrative, not reports of actual client matters. The outcome depends on the documents and circumstances of the individual procurement.
Example 1: Missing declaration
An undertaking omitted a company declaration. Check the published supplementation policy and the legal category of the document. A right to repair the omission should not simply be assumed.
Example 2: Own standard terms
A bidder attaches its own liability terms. The objective meaning of the tender may amount to an unauthorised amendment. A later statement withdrawing the terms does not automatically cure every defect.
Example 3: Absent quality concept
A scored concept is supplied only after closing. Particular limits protect equal competition. Calling the new material an explanation does not resolve a substantive improvement of the tender.
Example 4: Blank price item
One price field is empty. The authority examines the statutory exception, overall price, ranking and competitive effect. A small monetary amount alone does not answer every condition.
Related topics
Selection criteria, references and self-declarations · Rüge: complaints and procurement deadlines · Award criteria and tender evaluation
Discuss your procurement
For a review, please identify the authority, contract or lot, current procedural stage and any deadline. We can then clarify the scope of the requested work. Contact our team. An enquiry does not itself create a retainer or preserve a legal deadline.
Legal sources
Official legislation and materials, some in German: § 56 VgV – Nachforderung · § 57 VgV – Angebotsausschluss · § 53 VgV – Angebotsform · § 160 GWB – Rügefristen
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.