Selection Criteria

Selection criteria (German: Eignungskriterien, often translated as suitability criteria) are the requirements a contracting authority uses to check whether a candidate or bidder is professionally and financially able to perform a contract properly. They relate to the company itself, not to the specific offer. The assessment follows a pass/fail logic: anyone who proves the required suitability advances to the next stage; anyone who fails is excluded, regardless of how good or competitive the offer might be.

Selection criteria therefore act as a filter at the very start of evaluation. They ensure that a contract is only awarded to suitable companies that can actually deliver it. Section 122 GWB speaks of competent and capable (suitable) undertakings that are not subject to the exclusion grounds.

The three permitted pillars of suitability

An authority may set selection criteria exclusively for three areas:

1. Authorisation and licence to pursue the professional activity (commercial or craft register entry, industry-specific licences)
2. Economic and financial standing (minimum annual turnover, professional or business liability insurance, balance-sheet figures)
3. Technical and professional ability (references, qualified staff, technical equipment, quality management)

The first two pillars are often summarised in German procurement law under the term capability, the third under technical competence. On top of this comes the bidder's personal reliability, which is secured through the exclusion grounds.

Distinction: selection vs. award criteria

The most important practical mistake is conflating selection criteria with award criteria. The two must be kept strictly separate:

A bidder who proves the required suitability must not, in a second step, receive a better score for the same points (e.g. more references). Suitability is an entry ticket, not a competitive advantage.

The central provision for selection criteria is Section 122 GWB. Subsection 1 stipulates that public contracts are awarded to competent and capable (suitable) undertakings that are not excluded under Sections 123 or 124 GWB. Subsection 2 conclusively limits the permitted selection criteria to the three pillars of professional activity, economic-financial and technical-professional capability. The decisive clause is: selection criteria must be linked to the subject matter of the contract and proportionate to it. This principle of proportionality prohibits excessive requirements.

Below the GWB, Sections 42 to 46 of the VgV detail the suitability check above the EU thresholds:

• Section 42 VgV governs the selection of suitable undertakings and refers to the selection criteria established under Section 122 GWB.
• Section 44 VgV concerns authorisation and licence to pursue the professional activity.
• Section 45 VgV concerns economic and financial standing. Importantly, a required minimum annual turnover may exceed twice the estimated contract value only if special risks justify it.
• Section 46 VgV concerns technical and professional ability, e.g. references covering the last three years for supplies and services.

The exclusion grounds are found in Section 123 GWB (mandatory, e.g. bribery, fraud, money laundering, tax arrears) and Section 124 GWB (optional, e.g. insolvency, serious misconduct, significant poor performance on earlier contracts). Despite an exclusion ground, a company can be readmitted through self-cleaning under Section 125 GWB. For construction works, Section 6 VOB/A and Section 6a EU VOB/A mirror this structure.

A city administration runs an open procedure for the supply and maintenance of IT network infrastructure for three schools, with an estimated contract value of 600,000 euros. In the contract notice it sets the following selection criteria:

• Professional activity: entry in the commercial or professional register.
• Economic standing: a minimum annual turnover of 1.2 million euros over the last three financial years and business liability insurance with a cover of at least 2 million euros.
• Technical capability: three comparable references from the last three years and at least two certified network engineers.

A mid-sized system house applies. It proves 1.5 million euros annual turnover and three matching references, but can only field one certified engineer; the second employee is still being certified. Here reliance on the capacities of other entities helps: the system house names a subcontractor with a second certified engineer and attaches the subcontractor's commitment declaration.

The procurement office checks the evidence before the actual bid evaluation. Only once suitability is confirmed is the offer evaluated against the award criteria (70 percent price, 30 percent quality). Had the city required a minimum turnover of 5 million euros, this would have been disproportionate and challengeable for a 600,000-euro contract, because twice the contract value is only 1.2 million euros.

• Conflating selection and award criteria. A company with more references than required must not receive bonus points for them in the bid evaluation. Suitability is pass/fail, not a competitive factor. This conflation is one of the most frequent reasons procedures are overturned before the procurement chamber.
• Setting excessive requirements. A minimum turnover exceeding twice the estimated contract value without justifying special risks breaches Section 45 VgV and the principle of proportionality.
• Failing to state selection criteria in the notice. Only criteria clearly named in the contract notice are binding. Requirements added later are ineffective.
• Not submitting evidence in the required form. Anyone who forgets a self-declaration or submits outdated certificates risks exclusion, even with a substantively convincing offer.
• Relying on a subsequent request for documents. Requesting missing documents under Section 56 VgV is at the authority's discretion and not a legal entitlement.

• Decode selection criteria early. Read the contract notice and the evidence list first and assign each requirement to one of the three pillars. This immediately shows whether participation is realistic.
• Maintain a suitability folder. Keep your commercial register extract, insurance certificates, turnover figures and references up to date in a central folder. Many certificates may not be older than six months.
• Use pre-qualification. With pre-qualification you register standard evidence centrally and avoid resubmitting it for every tender.
• Close suitability gaps via reliance on other entities. If you lack a criterion, you can rely on the capacities of another company through reliance on third parties, provided it performs the relevant part of the work.
• Find matching procedures systematically. With Patterno HIT you receive daily tenders matching your company profile, so you can check early whether you meet the selection criteria.