Procurement review & court appeals

Home / Procurement services

Challenge or defend an award decision through the appropriate forum.

What matters in practice

Above the applicable thresholds, procurement review bodies examine alleged violations of bidder rights under the GWB. Jurisdiction, standing, admissibility and procedural timing must be checked first. The submission should identify the contested conduct, supporting documents and the harm caused or threatened.

How we assist

We prepare review applications and responses, address access to the procurement file and protect confidential business information. Appeals to the competent higher regional court involve distinct formal and timing requirements. The successful bidder may also need advice on participation and protecting its award position.

Three practical examples

1. The application follows a general enquiry

A bidder previously asked a vague question and now wants formal review. The legal assessment checks whether the required complaint was actually raised and which time limits apply. The application needs an admissibility record as well as substantive arguments. A general expression of dissatisfaction may not perform the same procedural function.

2. The evaluation contains an identifiable error

The applicant compares the rejection reasons with the published scoring model and its own offer. It requests a remedy suited to the defect, such as lawful re-evaluation, rather than assuming a right to immediate award. The authority’s contemporaneous record is important to testing what actually happened.

3. The authority offers to correct the process

A proposed correction may resolve the applicant’s concern but affect other participants. The parties examine the scope of the remedy, timing, costs and continuing procedural interests. Any settlement should be consistent with the procurement rules and should not privately change the competition in a way that disadvantages others.

Related guidance

German and EU procurement framework · Legal sources

Legal reference: Official source. Reviewed 12 November 2026. This overview does not replace advice on the relevant procurement and its deadlines.

Build an admissible review application

Identify the procurement, interest in the contract, alleged infringement and resulting or threatened harm. Preserve the complaint history and the relevant dates. A strong substantive concern can still fail if a procedural requirement or applicable preclusion rule is overlooked.

Use the proceeding to address the actual defect

Frame the requested remedy around the challenged stage: admission, corrected documents, re-evaluation or a new procedure. Consider access to the file and protection of confidential information. Keep commercial expectations realistic: correcting an unlawful evaluation does not automatically entitle the applicant to the contract.

Documents, decisions and next steps

For an urgent assessment, provide a dated chronology and the complete notices, tender documents and correspondence. Explain the commercial objective and whether the contract has already been signed. We distinguish the legal merits from admissibility, timing, interim protection and the practical result a proceeding could achieve. The authority’s response may resolve one issue while leaving another open, so the position should be reassessed at each material step. Keep original electronic messages and attachments, rather than relying only on a summary of a telephone conversation. Any proposed settlement should be checked for its effect on the procurement and on the other participants.

German state rules · EU country guides · Special procedures · Industry guidance