The award should follow the criteria and weighting disclosed for the procurement. A sound evaluation distinguishes minimum compliance, selection and the comparative merits of the offer. Its reasons must be understandable from the record.
Design the matrix before publication
Select criteria that reflect meaningful differences in performance and are linked to the contract. State their weighting and describe the information bidders should provide. Separate a minimum requirement from a feature that earns additional credit. Avoid a matrix that appears detailed but leaves decisive preferences undisclosed.
Apply the same standard
Reviewers should use a consistent approach and record why a proposal meets or fails the relevant quality expectations. Comparable statements should not receive unexplained different treatment. The authority must not introduce new subcriteria that change the disclosed competition. Presentations and demonstrations also need an announced and defensible assessment framework.
Team quality, costs and price
For appropriate professional services, the proposed personnel can materially influence performance quality. This is distinct from general corporate capability. Life-cycle cost models need disclosed assumptions and comparable data. An unusually low offer may require clarification under the applicable rules; a low price is neither automatically unlawful nor a reason to disregard performance concerns.
Review an adverse result
Bidders should compare the stated reasons with their offer and the published matrix. Identify concrete inconsistencies rather than merely disagreeing with the score. Preserve complaint and review deadlines while seeking information. A successful challenge may lead to renewed evaluation rather than a direct award to the challenger.
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: Price and method
A service is assessed on price and implementation. Define quality expectations in advance. A later preference for an undisclosed staffing model cannot safely determine the ranking.
Example 2: Team experience
The proposed experts are central to delivery. A properly designed criterion can assess their relevance. General company references and the quality of the offered team are different matters.
Example 3: Inconsistent scores
Similar promises receive different points. Review the reasons and the disclosed standard. A number in a spreadsheet is not itself an explanation of a material difference.
Example 4: Very low price
A bidder is far cheaper than others. Investigate where required and assess its explanation. A price gap alone does not settle exclusion or contractual reliability.
Related topics
Selection criteria, references and self-declarations · Tender exclusion and requests for missing documents · Sustainable and climate-conscious procurement
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: § 42 VgV · § 56 VgV · § 60 VgV · § 127 GWB
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.