Read the tender and decide whether to bid — Germany

Objective: Make a locally informed bid decision that tests eligibility, delivery and return separately.

Study this companion alongside the shared-method lesson. The country is the target procurement market, not your nationality.

Common to all countries

Use stop conditions before a weighted attractiveness score. A mandatory condition that cannot be met is different from a weak competitive feature. Check the participation route, resources, contract risk and time to submit before spending heavily on writing. Familiarity with the buyer cannot replace this analysis.

Country specific — what to verify — Germany

Identify the Bund, Land or municipal buyer. Above-EU-threshold procurement uses the GWB framework and the relevant regulation; below-threshold and works rules need their own scope check. Do not treat a federal example as every Land’s rule.

Separate Eignung (suitability) from Zuschlagskriterien (award criteria). Match declarations, professional evidence and references to the bidder and any relied-on entity. Use the EEE/ESPD where applicable under the tender.

Apply these points to the dossier

For a cross-border bid, separate market access from practical capability. Verify relevant trade coverage, reservations, sanctions or domestic conditions in the applicable rules and tender. Then check professional recognition, mobilisation, language, insurance and delivery costs. A local partner can help fulfil a requirement only where the structure is permitted and its commitment is real.

This country applies domestic procurement rules within the relevant EU framework. Buyer category, value, contract type, exemptions and market-access coverage still need checking. TED publication is not a substitute for national rules or the buyer’s instructions.

Official entry point: e-Vergabe and the buyer’s platform. Reference authority or resource: Bundesportal / Beschaffungsamt. Technical support, the purchasing office and the review body perform different functions.

Worked example

This is a fictional teaching case. Quantities, prices and contractual conditions below are assumptions for the exercise, not legal requirements or market benchmarks.

The fictional opportunity looks attractive and the team estimates a 30% chance of winning. Writing will cost 4,000 units and winning would yield 18,000 units of contribution after delivery costs. However, one mandatory authorisation cannot be confirmed by the required date.

Model answer

The simple expected contribution is 0.30 × 18,000 − 4,000 = 1,400 units, before other opportunity costs. It does not override the mandatory gap. Stop unless a lawful, timely way to meet the condition is verified. Treat the 30% probability as an uncertain internal estimate and test sensitivity rather than presenting it as a forecast.

Put it into practice

Write a one-page decision with three gates: admissibility, delivery capacity and expected return. Assign an owner to each unresolved local requirement. Repeat the commercial calculation at a 15% chance of winning and explain the decision change.

Country application. Add a check drawn from the context above and its source to your worksheet. For example, what action follows from this point: “Separate Eignung (suitability) from Zuschlagskriterien (award criteria). Match declarations, professional evidence and references to the bidder and any relied-on entity. Use the EEE/ESPD where applicable under the tender.”? A successful answer specifies a verifiable action, an owner and a document or status to check, rather than merely copying the portal name.

Self-check: your document separates official facts, case assumptions and points to confirm. A colleague should be able to find the source and identify the action required before the next commitment. The references below are dated; check their version for each new procurement.