Competition, transparency, equal treatment, proportionality and economy guide concrete procurement decisions. Their importance extends from the first specification to evaluation and contract changes. General statements of fairness are not a substitute for applying them.
Equal information and clear rules
Comparable participants need a fair information basis. Material clarifications should reach all affected bidders through the designated process. Requirements and evaluation rules must be sufficiently clear before offers are prepared. Transparency does not mean unrestricted disclosure of competitors’ business secrets; information rights and confidentiality must be balanced under the governing law.
Proportionality and access
Selection conditions and evidence should correspond to the contract’s needs and risk. Excessive turnover or narrowly defined references can exclude capable businesses without justification. Consider young and smaller undertakings under the applicable rules. Different treatment requires a lawful basis; a wish to reduce the number of bidders is not itself a proper selection objective.
Lots and policy goals
The interests of small and medium-sized businesses and the lot principle under section 97a GWB matter when structuring the requirement. Quality, innovation, social and environmental goals can be considered in the statutory framework. Translate them into contract-related and verifiable conditions rather than general approval of a company or its location.
Reasoned decisions
The procurement record should show how the principles affected the actual choice. Explain restrictive specifications, bundling, requests for documents and evaluation reasons. A numerical score or boilerplate sentence does not make an otherwise inconsistent decision defensible. Preserve the connection between the announced rules and their application.
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: One bidder informed
A bidder receives an important clarification by telephone. The authority considers how to give the same information to all affected participants. Identical forms alone do not ensure equal knowledge.
Example 2: Excessive turnover
A modest contract requires an unusually high turnover. Assess the link to performance and proportionality. Administrative preference for a large supplier is not a sufficient explanation.
Example 3: New criterion
After opening bids, a department wants to reward another feature. Evaluation must remain within the disclosed framework. A useful feature cannot simply become a new hidden criterion.
Example 4: Convenient bundling
Trades are combined to reduce internal administration. Examine the applicable lot rule and actual exception conditions. Convenience does not automatically outweigh the statutory starting point.
Related topics
Award criteria and tender evaluation · Selection criteria, references and self-declarations · Public works procurement under the VOB/A
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: § 97 GWB · § 97a GWB · § 122 GWB · § 127 GWB
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.