Protesting EU Tender Awards: Wrongful Exclusion From Public Procurement

Across the European Union ("EU"), public procurement law offers bidders meaningful protection against wrongful exclusion from tender procedures. While the rules are harmonized at EU level, enforcement occurs primarily through national courts and review bodies under a framework mandated by EU law. For practitioners and bidders alike, understanding how and why wrongful exclusions occur is critical—both to avoid them and to challenge them effectively.

A Right to Effective Remedies

EU procurement law requires Member States to provide effective, rapid, and non-discriminatory remedies for breaches of procurement rules. This obligation arises from the so-called Remedies Directives, which is meant to ensure that bidders may seek interim relief (such as suspension of the procedure), annulment of unlawful decisions, and—where appropriate—damages, including compensation for "loss of opportunity."

Importantly, a bidder does not need to show that it would certainly have won the contract. Recent Court of Justice of the EU case law confirms that unlawful exclusion depriving a bidder of a genuine chance to compete may itself give rise to compensable harm.

How Wrongful Exclusion Typically Occurs

In practice, wrongful exclusion rarely stems from overt misconduct. Instead, it usually arises from procedural or interpretative errors by contracting authorities. The most common scenarios include:

• Over-formalistic rejection: Authorities sometimes exclude bids for minor administrative defects—missing signatures, formatting issues, or clerical errors—without assessing proportionality or allowing clarification. EU law disfavors rigid formalism where the substance of the bid is unaffected.
• Misapplication of exclusion grounds: Bidders may be excluded based on alleged tax, criminal, or professional misconduct without a proper factual or legal basis, or without considering legally required "self-cleaning" measures.
• Blurring selection and award criteria: Authorities occasionally use qualitative judgments (permitted in the award phase) to exclude bidders at the eligibility stage. EU law strictly separates these phases to preserve competition and transparency.
• E-procurement and technical failures: With digital submission now standard, exclusions increasingly arise from platform errors, ambiguous upload rules, or system failures—often beyond the bidder's control.
• Discrimination against foreign or non-local bidders: Excessive documentation demands, refusal to accept equivalent certificates, or rigid language requirements may unlawfully disadvantage cross-border bidders.
• Consortium and subcontractor misunderstandings: EU law allows bidders to rely on the capacities of third parties or consortium partners. Exclusion is unlawful unless the tender documents clearly require individual compliance.
• Inadequate reasoning: An exclusion decision lacking clear and specific reasons may itself breach EU law, as it prevents the bidder from exercising its right to effective review.

Remedies and Strategic Considerations

Timing is decisive. If challenged promptly—often during a mandatory standstill period—courts or review bodies may suspend the award or annul the exclusion. Once a contract is signed, remedies typically narrow to damages, but EU law increasingly recognizes loss-of-chance compensation as a viable claim.

For bidders, the key is vigilance: request full debriefings, scrutinize evaluation reports, and act quickly. For contracting authorities, consistency, transparency, and proportionality are essential to withstand scrutiny.

Conclusion

Wrongful exclusion from public procurement is not an abstract concept but a recurring and litigated reality across the EU. The legal framework strongly favors genuine competition and procedural fairness.

To hear more from the Wallenstein Law Group, click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.