Past misconduct can affect participation in public procurement. Authorities must distinguish mandatory and discretionary exclusion grounds, assess the relevant facts and consider legally sufficient self-cleaning. Bidders should provide accurate, carefully explained information.
Establish the ground and the evidence
Sections 123 and 124 GWB contain different grounds with different conditions. A contract problem, accusation or register entry should not be treated as a universal automatic exclusion. The authority must identify the applicable provision, reliable facts, relevant period and any discretion or exceptions. Proportionality and the individual circumstances can be central.
Self-cleaning requires implementation
Section 125 GWB addresses measures through which an undertaking can demonstrate reliability despite relevant misconduct. Depending on the statutory conditions, this includes clarification, cooperation, compensation and concrete organisational, technical or personnel measures. A policy document created for the tender is weaker than evidence that controls actually work and responsible staff are trained.
Competition Register
A register query is an important part of the process where legally required. Its result must be interpreted in light of the governing rules. The authority’s procurement decision and any register procedure are not identical. Undertakings should keep evidence concerning the underlying facts, measures taken and the status of any decision readily available.
Prepare truthful declarations
Check what each form actually asks and the relevant period. Explain earlier performance issues and remedial action consistently. Omitting an uncomfortable fact can create an additional problem separate from the original event. A targeted legal review is preferable to either blanket disclosure without context or an unsupported assertion that nothing is relevant.
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: Earlier termination
A bidder had a contract terminated for significant defects. The authority examines the applicable ground and the bidder’s explanation. The bidder documents what happened and which measures now prevent recurrence.
Example 2: Register result
A query produces a record. The authority assesses its legal meaning and any relevant self-cleaning rather than treating the database response as a substitute for every required decision.
Example 3: New compliance system
An undertaking changes management and introduces controls. Evidence of implementation, training and monitoring matters alongside the other statutory conditions. A new handbook alone may not demonstrate restored reliability.
Example 4: Incomplete declaration
A bidder omits a requested incident because it considers the issue settled. The omission may itself affect trust. Read the question precisely and provide an accurate explanation of the current position.
Related topics
Tender exclusion and requests for missing documents · Selection criteria, references and self-declarations · State procurement rules and collective-agreement compliance
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: § 123 GWB · § 124 GWB · § 125 GWB – Selbstreinigung · § 126 GWB – Ausschlusszeiträume · § 6 WRegG – Registerabfrage · § 8 WRegG – vorzeitige Löschung
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.