A Rüge is a complaint to the contracting authority identifying a procurement infringement and requesting correction. It is often a prerequisite to GWB review. A clarification question may not be enough, and a complaint does not automatically stop award.
Recognised and apparent infringements
Under section 160(3) GWB, an infringement actually recognised generally needs to be complained of within ten calendar days. Defects apparent from the notice or procurement documents must generally be raised by the relevant application or tender deadline. The factual sequence and actual wording matter; later legal advice does not automatically restart a period.
Rejection and parallel deadlines
Following notice that the authority will not remedy the complaint, the review application is subject to the statutory fifteen-calendar-day rule. Standstill under section 134 GWB is a separate period and is not simply added to complaint time. Repeated letters or ongoing discussions do not automatically extend statutory deadlines.
Content and proof
Identify the procurement and lot, the challenged requirement or decision, the facts and alleged breach, the effect on the bidder’s chance and the requested correction. Use a provable route, normally the designated platform where appropriate. Preserve the sent text, attachments and receipt. The legal significance comes from the content, not merely the heading “complaint”.
Escalation and special cases
If correction is refused, assess review promptly with complete documents and the current award position. The chamber’s notification of the authority is important to the statutory award prohibition. Particular ineffectiveness claims concerning unlawful direct awards follow special rules; section 135 GWB time limits require separate examination.
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: Known breach
A bidder recognises a concrete infringement. Record the date and assess all relevant periods immediately. Waiting for an internal board meeting can consume the available time.
Example 2: Notice defect
A restrictive condition is apparent from the published notice. Raise any necessary complaint by the applicable deadline. Waiting until an exclusion decision may be too late.
Example 3: Complaint rejected
The authority refuses to remedy the issue. Track the review deadline separately from the tender deadline. Sending the same complaint again does not automatically create more time.
Example 4: Only a question
A bidder asks why a requirement exists but does not clearly allege a breach or request correction. Its message may not meet the complaint requirement. State the concern and remedy unambiguously.
Related topics
Review before the Vergabekammer · Remedies above the EU thresholds · Bidder checklist: from notice to award
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: § 160 GWB · § 134 GWB · § 135 GWB
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.