{"id":24324,"date":"2026-02-13T12:30:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abante.de\/no-additional-request-for-evaluation-relevant-documents\/"},"modified":"2026-05-08T11:21:32","modified_gmt":"2026-05-08T09:21:32","slug":"no-additional-request-for-evaluation-relevant-documents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/no-additional-request-for-evaluation-relevant-documents\/","title":{"rendered":"No addi\u00adtion\u00adal request for eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion-rel\u00ade\u00advant doc\u00adu\u00adments!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On June 25, 2025, the Fed\u00ader\u00adal Pub\u00adlic Pro\u00adcure\u00adment Cham\u00adber (VK Bund) ruled in its deci\u00adsion (Ref.: VK 1 \u2014 36\/25) that the addi\u00adtion\u00adal request for eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion-rel\u00ade\u00advant doc\u00adu\u00adments in the award pro\u00adce\u00addure is inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble and leads to the manda\u00adto\u00adry exclu\u00adsion of the ten\u00adder.  <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Our video dis\u00adcussing the judg\u00adment  <\/p>\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe hcb-fetch-image-from=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/BF0dBOyM5jA\" title=\"\ufe0f Keine Nachforderung wertungsrelevanter Unterlagen!\" width=\"800\" height=\"450\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/BF0dBOyM5jA?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the case<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the under\u00adly\u00ading pro\u00adce\u00addure, the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty invit\u00aded ten\u00adders for sophis\u00adti\u00adcat\u00aded ser\u00advices in the field of sam\u00adple logis\u00adtics and par\u00adtic\u00adi\u00adpant recruit\u00adment. The scope of ser\u00advices includ\u00aded the recruit\u00adment of par\u00adtic\u00adi\u00adpants via reg\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion offices in at least 100 munic\u00adi\u00adpal\u00adi\u00adties, sev\u00ader\u00adal con\u00adtact points, inter\u00adviews, mea\u00adsure\u00adments as well as sam\u00adpling and sam\u00adple logis\u00adtics includ\u00ading pre-analy\u00adsis in mobile lab\u00ado\u00adra\u00adto\u00adries. As the price was spec\u00adi\u00adfied as a fixed price, the com\u00adpe\u00adti\u00adtion was based exclu\u00adsive\u00adly on qual\u00adi\u00adta\u00adtive award cri\u00adte\u00adria. A cen\u00adtral cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon \u2014 the third award cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon, weight\u00aded with 15% and a max\u00adi\u00admum of 5 points \u2014 was the expe\u00adri\u00adence of the nom\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded key per\u00adson\u00adnel based on the num\u00adber of projects already car\u00adried out with at least 500 par\u00adtic\u00adi\u00adpants. The eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion was based on a quo\u00adta for\u00admu\u00adla: The bid with the high\u00adest num\u00adber of rel\u00ade\u00advant projects was award\u00aded 5 points, the oth\u00aders were put in pro\u00adpor\u00adtion.      <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although the lat\u00ader appli\u00adcant named per\u00adson\u00adnel, it failed to specif\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly assign the required project expe\u00adri\u00adence to them in the offer. In addi\u00adtion, one of the projects named was in the future and there\u00adfore did not demon\u00adstrate any exist\u00ading expe\u00adri\u00adence. Fol\u00adlow\u00ading a request for clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion, the bid\u00adder attempt\u00aded to fill these gaps by sub\u00adse\u00adquent\u00adly refer\u00adring to a sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtor. As this con\u00adsti\u00adtut\u00aded an inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble change to the orig\u00adi\u00adnal bid con\u00adtent, the bid remained incom\u00adplete.     <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key point of the deci\u00adsion<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The deci\u00adsion deals with sev\u00ader\u00adal key aspects. First, the VK Bund found that the appli\u00adca\u00adtion for review was already par\u00adtial\u00adly inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble: Inso\u00adfar as the appli\u00adcant attacked the third eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon as such, it was pre\u00adclud\u00aded pur\u00adsuant to Sec\u00adtion 160 (3) sen\u00adtence 1 no. 3 GWB, as the alleged breach of pro\u00adcure\u00adment law was already appar\u00adent from the ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments and was not object\u00aded to by the expiry of the ten\u00adder dead\u00adline. On the mer\u00adits, the VK Bund found that the appli\u00adcan\u00adt\u2019s bid had to be exclud\u00aded because dec\u00adla\u00adra\u00adtions rel\u00ade\u00advant to the eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion of the third award cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon were miss\u00ading. Pur\u00adsuant to Sec\u00adtion 56 (3) sen\u00adtence 1 VgV, sub\u00adse\u00adquent requests for doc\u00adu\u00adments are exclud\u00aded if they are per\u00adfor\u00admance-relat\u00aded doc\u00adu\u00adments that direct\u00adly influ\u00adence the eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion of the ten\u00adder. As the required project descrip\u00adtions of the key per\u00adsons were direct\u00adly includ\u00aded in the qual\u00adi\u00adta\u00adtive point eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion, they could no longer be com\u00adplet\u00aded after the ten\u00adder dead\u00adline had expired. The con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty has no dis\u00adcre\u00adtion in such a case; the exclu\u00adsion of an incom\u00adplete ten\u00adder is manda\u00adto\u00adry in accor\u00addance with Sec\u00adtion 57 (1) No. 2 VgV.          <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Fur\u00adther\u00admore, the cham\u00adber empha\u00adsized that a sub\u00adse\u00adquent change to the dis\u00adtri\u00adb\u00adu\u00adtion of ser\u00advices \u2014 for exam\u00adple, stat\u00ading that a sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtor should now be respon\u00adsi\u00adble for addi\u00adtion\u00adal work pack\u00adages after all \u2014 con\u00adsti\u00adtutes an inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble change to the ten\u00adder. A bid\u00adder is bound by the con\u00adtent of its orig\u00adi\u00adnal bid; in this respect, the con\u00adtract\u00ading author\u00adi\u00adty has a mar\u00adgin of dis\u00adcre\u00adtion in the design of award cri\u00adte\u00adria, which was not exceed\u00aded here. In addi\u00adtion, the VK Bund con\u00adfirmed the admis\u00adsi\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty of award cri\u00adte\u00adria that are based on the expe\u00adri\u00adence of the spe\u00adcif\u00adic per\u00adson\u00adnel deployed. Con\u00adtrary to the appli\u00adcan\u00adt\u2019s view, such cri\u00adte\u00adria are not to be regard\u00aded as com\u00adpa\u00adny-relat\u00aded suit\u00adabil\u00adi\u00adty cri\u00adte\u00adria, but as per\u00adson-relat\u00aded qual\u00adi\u00adty char\u00adac\u00adter\u00adis\u00adtics with\u00adin the mean\u00ading of Sec\u00adtion 58 (2) sen\u00adtence 2 no. 2 VgV. With regard to the defen\u00addan\u00adt\u2019s bid, the cham\u00adber found that ini\u00adtial doc\u00adu\u00admen\u00adta\u00adtion deficits could be reme\u00addied by means of per\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion \u2014 with\u00adout the need to sub\u00admit new projects. The inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion of the ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments depends on the objec\u00adtive under\u00adstand\u00ading of a com\u00adpe\u00adtent bid\u00adder, where\u00adby the uni\u00adform under\u00adstand\u00ading of all bid\u00adders can be seen as an impor\u00adtant indi\u00adca\u00adtion of the clar\u00adi\u00adty of the spec\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtions.        <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Tips for pub\u00adlic clients<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Secure key per\u00adsons in the con\u00adtract award:<\/strong> The assess\u00adment of the expe\u00adri\u00adence of key per\u00adson\u00adnel is per\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble as an award cri\u00adte\u00adri\u00adon, pro\u00advid\u00aded that the qual\u00adi\u00adty ref\u00ader\u00adence to the object of per\u00adfor\u00admance is clear\u00adly jus\u00adti\u00adfied and oper\u00ada\u00adtional\u00adized.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Clear\u00adly posi\u00adtion sub\u00admis\u00adsion require\u00adments:<\/strong> Every\u00adthing that is rel\u00ade\u00advant for award\u00ading points must be clear\u00adly stat\u00aded as a sub\u00admis\u00adsion require\u00adment in the right place in the ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments \u2014 not just in a gen\u00ader\u00adal expla\u00adna\u00adtion.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Doc\u00adu\u00adment the clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion prop\u00ader\u00adly:<\/strong> The clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion must not lead to the rec\u00adti\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion of a faulty ten\u00adder. It must be clear\u00adly doc\u00adu\u00adment\u00aded in the award file that no unau\u00adtho\u00adrized rec\u00adti\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion was per\u00admit\u00adted.   <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Tips for bid\u00adders and fund\u00ading recip\u00adi\u00adents<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Check com\u00adplete\u00adness before send\u00ading:<\/strong>. Use the ser\u00advice descrip\u00adtion and the eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00adtion matrix to check on your own respon\u00adsi\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty which evi\u00addence must be sub\u00admit\u00adted with the ten\u00adder and to what extent, and whether the evi\u00addence is per\u00adson\u00adal.   <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>No sub\u00adse\u00adquent changes to con\u00adtent:<\/strong> Clar\u00adi\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion only serves the pur\u00adpose of expla\u00adna\u00adtion; attempts to rem\u00ade\u00addy a lack of expe\u00adri\u00adence through new sub\u00adcon\u00adtrac\u00adtor struc\u00adtures are inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ear\u00adly noti\u00adfi\u00adca\u00adtion of ambi\u00adgu\u00adi\u00adties: <\/strong>Rec\u00adog\u00adniz\u00adable defi\u00adcien\u00adcies in the ten\u00adder doc\u00adu\u00adments must be report\u00aded before the dead\u00adline for sub\u00admis\u00adsion of ten\u00adders in order to main\u00adtain the right to sub\u00admit a bid.  <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 25, 2025, the Fed\u00ader\u00adal Pub\u00adlic Pro\u00adcure\u00adment Cham\u00adber (VK Bund) ruled in its deci\u00adsion (Ref.: VK 1 \u2014 36\/25) that the addi\u00adtion\u00adal request for eval\u00adu\u00ada\u00ad\u00adtion-rel\u00ade\u00ad\u00advant doc\u00adu\u00adments in the award pro\u00adce\u00addure is inad\u00admis\u00adsi\u00adble and leads to the manda\u00adto\u00adry exclu\u00adsion of the ten\u00adder. Our video dis\u00adcussing the judg\u00adment Facts of the case In the under\u00adly\u00ading pro\u00adce\u00addure, [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[703],"tags":[707,870,706,708],"team_kategorien":[],"lexikon_kategorie":[202,200,223],"class_list":["post-24324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-public-procurement-law-in-15-minutes","tag-award-procedure","tag-bidder","tag-public-procurement-law","tag-review-procedure","lexikon_kategorie-legal-basis-of-public-procurement-law","lexikon_kategorie-public-procurement-law","lexikon_kategorie-review-procedure"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24325,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24324\/revisions\/24325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24324"},{"taxonomy":"team_kategorien","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team_kategorien?post=24324"},{"taxonomy":"lexikon_kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lexikon_kategorie?post=24324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}