The Vergabekammer is the first review body for procurements within the GWB framework. A useful application connects a concrete infringement with the bidder’s own chance of award and requests an achievable correction. Timing can be decisive.
Prepare admissibility and the application
Establish jurisdiction, interest in the contract, alleged rights infringement and threatened or actual harm. Check the complaint history and section 160 time limits. Under section 161, the application needs a reasoned account and evidence. A clear chronology with exact dates is more useful than a general assertion that the process was unfair.
Notification and the award position
The statutory award prohibition generally begins when the chamber informs the authority in writing or electronically of the application. Neither an earlier complaint nor filing alone should be mistaken for that event. Where award is imminent, allow time for the necessary procedural steps and verify the current position.
File access and participation
Section 165 provides for file access within limits protecting confidential interests. Identify business secrets specifically and explain their sensitivity. A blanket secrecy label does not replace a differentiated assessment. Other affected bidders may participate, which can influence the information available and the cost position.
Outcome, appeal and costs
Correction may require changed documents, renewed evaluation or a return to an earlier stage; it does not guarantee the applicant the contract. An immediate appeal is generally subject to a two-week period and specific formal requirements. Since July 2026, an appeal against rejection has no suspensive effect under section 173(1). Chamber fees, own costs and possible reimbursement of others’ expenses should be assessed.
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: Complete chronology
A bidder supplies the notice, tender, complaint and responses with receipt dates. This permits a focused admissibility review. A lengthy narrative without documents is a weaker foundation.
Example 2: Confidential competitor data
The applicant seeks the evaluation file. Access must be balanced with protected secrets. Specific identification of sensitive material helps the body make a reasoned decision.
Example 3: Re-evaluation ordered
A scoring error is found. The authority may have to evaluate again. That correction restores a lawful decision process rather than automatically naming the challenger as winner.
Example 4: Cost assessment
A low-value lot is disputed. Consider the realistic remedy, evidence and procedural exposure together. A legally possible application is not necessarily the best commercial choice.
Related topics
Rüge: complaints and procurement deadlines · Court proceedings in public procurement · Damages and other procurement claims
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 ff. GWB · § 169 GWB · § 173 GWB
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.