The GWB review system protects eligible undertakings against procurement infringements in its statutory field. Effective use requires an assessment of standing, complaints, deadlines and the actual award position. These steps should be planned together.
Access to review
An applicant generally needs an interest in the contract, an alleged infringement of its rights and actual or threatened harm to its chance of award. Relevant complaint obligations and time limits under section 160 GWB must be met. Review is not simply an abstract audit of whether an authority behaved perfectly.
Standstill and award prohibition
The intended-award information under section 134 GWB generally triggers a standstill period, subject to the statute. A complaint does not automatically suspend that period. The review application must be prepared early enough for the chamber to notify the authority before award; submission alone is not the statutory trigger for the prohibition.
Decision and appeal
The chamber may order appropriate correction, including renewed evaluation or a return to an earlier stage. It does not automatically award the contract to the applicant. Under the law applying since July 2026, where the authority wins before the chamber, the award prohibition ends with notification of the decision; an appeal against rejection has no suspensive effect under section 173(1).
After contract signature
A valid award is generally not reversible through ordinary review. Defined ineffectiveness grounds under section 135 and potential damages need separate analysis. Record dates of notice, publication and conclusion precisely. Costs, practical remedy and the economic importance of the contract should inform the strategy from the start.
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: Electronic notice
A bidder receives intended-award information. It checks reasons, standstill and complaint requirements immediately. Several periods can run together rather than consecutively.
Example 2: Application filed
The chamber has not yet informed the authority. Confirm the actual procedural position. Filing alone should not be treated as assurance that award is already prohibited.
Example 3: Contract signed
The bidder learns of the procurement after signature. Examine specific ineffectiveness grounds and deadlines. A general allegation of unfairness does not automatically reopen a valid contract.
Example 4: Authority succeeds
Review is rejected. Assess appeal and any available measures without delay. The appeal period does not itself create a further automatic award suspension.
Related topics
Review before the Vergabekammer · Court proceedings in public procurement · Unlawful direct awards and ineffectiveness
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: § 155 GWB · § 169 GWB · § 173 GWB
Updated 13 November 2026. Illustrative guidance on German and EU procurement law.