Com­plaints and review pro­ce­dures

We rep­re­sent con­tract­ing author­i­ties as well as bid­ders and appli­cants in com­plaints and in review pro­ceed­ings before all pub­lic pro­cure­ment tri­bunals and High­er Region­al Court sen­ates.

For bid­ders, we strive for a pre-tri­al reme­di­al deci­sion. We are suc­cess­ful in more than half of our cas­es. If we do not achieve a rem­e­dy, we are hap­py to enforce the rights of bid­ders and appli­cants before the Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment Cham­ber.

Are you a bid­der or appli­cant in an award pro­ce­dure? Get to know your rights to opti­mize your award posi­tion! Get in touch with us!

Why argue? This is a ques­tion that con­cerns all bid­ders and appli­cants. There are many pre­con­cep­tions about com­plaints and review pro­ce­dures, which we are hap­py to dis­pel. In addi­tion, there are tan­gi­ble advan­tages to a con­tract award review. For bid­ders and appli­cants as well as for con­tract­ing author­i­ties.

We rep­re­sent pub­lic clients in the event of a com­plaint and before the Pub­lic Pro­cure­ment Cham­ber and the High­er Region­al Court. We ini­tial­ly help them to avoid review pro­ceed­ings. This is because we keep an eye on the time con­straints of each project. If the dis­pute can­not be avoid­ed, we work not only to win the review pro­ce­dure, but also to bring it to an end as quick­ly as pos­si­ble.

Are you a con­tract­ing author­i­ty and have you been issued with a rep­ri­mand or even a review pro­ce­dure? Are you not quite sure what to do and whether you are exposed to oth­er (com­pen­sa­tion) risks? Get in touch with us!

We have suc­cess­ful­ly act­ed for our clients in numer­ous review pro­ceed­ings. We have list­ed some of our suc­cess­es below so that you can see for your­self:

• Nation­wide rep­re­sen­ta­tion of pub­lic clients (e.g. state author­i­ties, munic­i­pal­i­ties, etc.) and bid­ding com­pa­nies (e.g. IT ser­vice providers, school trans­port com­pa­nies, con­struc­tion com­pa­nies, clean­ing ser­vice providers, tow­ing ser­vice providers, plan­ning offices, defense com­pa­nies, social econ­o­my com­pa­nies, phar­ma­cists pro­vid­ing hos­pi­tal care) in more than 100 review pro­ceed­ings
• Some suc­cess­ful rep­re­sen­ta­tions:
  • VK West­falen — VK 1–10/22 (client rep­re­sen­ta­tion, EU VOB/A, award cri­te­ria, eval­u­a­tion)
  • OLG Frank­furt a.M. — 11 Verg 8/21 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, VgV, lot allo­ca­tion, suit­abil­i­ty require­ments, del­e­ga­tion of award deci­sions)
  • VK Nieder­sach­sen — VgK-06/2020 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, suit­abil­i­ty require­ment, kmU pro­tec­tion, new­com­er pro­tec­tion)
  • VK Sach­sen — 1/SVK/013–20 (client rep­re­sen­ta­tion, project engi­neer issue)
  • VK Thürin­gen — 250‑4003-3711/2020/E‑008-GTH (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, exclu­sion of bids, eval­u­a­tion matrix, addi­tion­al request for doc­u­ments)
  • VK Berlin — B1-15/23 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, exhaus­tive and unam­bigu­ous spec­i­fi­ca­tions, lot allo­ca­tion)
  • VK West­falen — VK 1–52/20 (Bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, VgV, award cri­te­ria, eval­u­a­tion of ref­er­ences in the con­text of § 58 para. 2 no. 2 VgV in con­junc­tion with § 65 para. 5 VgV) § 65 para. 5 VgV)
  • VK Bund — VK1-128/21 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, VgV lack of suit­abil­i­ty of best bid­der, inad­e­quate price)
  • OLG Düs­sel­dorf — VII-Verg 30/23 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, legal­ly incor­rect announce­ment, ade­qua­cy, suit­abil­i­ty test)
  • VK West­falen — VK 3 ‑42/23 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, frame­work agree­ment with­out spec­i­fi­ca­tion of max­i­mum quan­ti­ties, con­flict of inter­est)
  • VK Nieder­sachen — VgK-12/2021 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, late bid due to dis­rup­tion of the award plat­form)
  • VK Sach­sen — 1/SVK/024–22 (Bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, suit­abil­i­ty require­ment)
  • VK Sach­sen-Anhalt — 2/VK LSA/10–23 (client rep­re­sen­ta­tion, suit­abil­i­ty require­ment, excep­tion to the prin­ci­ple of award­ing con­tracts in lots)
  • VK Sach­sen — 1/SVK/042–20 (Bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, inad­mis­si­ble over­all award of scaffolding/facade, error in pub­li­ca­tion of suit­abil­i­ty cri­te­ria)
  • VK Sach­sen — 1/SVK/001–22 (Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the invit­ed par­ty, amend­ment of award doc­u­ments)
  • KG Berlin — 1/22 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, inad­mis­si­ble direct award of coro­na test cen­ters)
  • VK Süd­bay­ern — 3194.Z3-3_01-20–46 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, annul­ment con­trary to pub­lic pro­cure­ment law)
  • OLG Koblenz — Verg 3/22 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, VgV, max­i­mum amount of frame­work agree­ments, right to sec­ond chance)
  • VK Bran­den­burg — VK /22 (bid­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion, VgV, eval­u­a­tion cri­te­ri­on price accord­ing to new HOAI)