Product-Neutral Tendering for Security Technology

Specification of services and tender documents for security technology on the desk of a contracting authority, next to a form with evaluation criteria

Key Takeaways

Under § 31(6) VgV, references to specific products are permitted only by way of exception and must always carry the addition 'or equivalent'.
According to the BayObLG (25 March 2021), a product-specific tender is permissible only on objective, documented, contract-related grounds.
According to the Federal Public Procurement Tribunal (decision of 7 August 2024), a covert product-specific tender is impermissible.
Neutral items in the specification describe protection objectives, security zones and standards such as DIN EN 60839-11-1 or VdS 2095 instead of product names.
The addition 'or equivalent' does not release the contracting authority from the duty to formulate all requirements in an objectively verifiable way.

Why Tenders Must Be Product-Neutral

Public procurement law obliges public contracting authorities to procure services through competition and transparent procedures, treating all participants equally. This principle of competition follows from § 97 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB). For the description of services, § 31(1) of the Procurement Ordinance (VgV) makes it concrete: the description must be drawn up so that it gives all companies equal access to the award procedure and does not unjustifiably hinder the opening of the procurement market to competition.

Both provisions give rise to the requirement of product-neutral tendering: the procurement need is in principle to be described without naming a particular manufacturer or product, so that all bidders get a clear picture of the subject of the contract and comparable bids can be expected. The Bremen Senator for Economic Affairs, Ports and Transformation sums up the practical rule as follows: this principle may be departed from only in exceptional cases.^[1]

Competition: the description of services leaves room for a wide range of technical solutions instead of prescribing one make.
Equal treatment: all companies get the same access to the procedure, without particular products being favoured or excluded.
Transparency: the subject of the contract is described precisely enough for comparable bids to emerge and for the award to be made in a traceable way.

For the contracting authority, product neutrality is not a formality. A breach of the requirement can be challenged with a complaint and can delay the procedure or lead to its cancellation in review proceedings. Anyone awarding contracts for security technology carries this risk particularly often, because the subject matter is technically complex and references to specific makes easily creep into a specification of services unnoticed. The following process shows how this happens and how you avoid it.

Where Security Technology Becomes Tied to One Make in Practice

In security technology, a tie to one make rarely arises from openly naming a manufacturer. It arises de facto, for example through existing systems, protocols and proprietary interfaces. Three constellations are particularly common in practice:

Existing systems and extensions: an existing access control system or video surveillance system is to be extended. Aligning the specification of services with the technical data of the existing system effectively tenders only that manufacturer's products.
Manufacturer-specific protocols and proprietary interfaces: when intrusion detection systems, video surveillance or access control are to be connected to a higher-level security management system (PSIM) or a control room, the interface question decides which bidders can deliver at all.
Covert requirements via parameter catalogues: taking the brochure data of a reference product as the catalogue of requirements achieves the same result as openly naming a make, without naming a manufacturer.

The Bremen fact sheet names exactly this conflict: in the tendering of cabling, line connections and automation of building services systems, an interface risk arising with alternative products was recognised as an objective reason. This shows both sides: the risk is real, and it can be justified, but it is not automatically a free pass.^[1]

The technical way out of dependence on a manufacturer lies in neutral, freely available interfaces such as BACnet or OPC. Through such interfaces, manufacturer-specific systems can be integrated into a higher-level security management system, across sites and countries as well. Formulating the interface requirement in a product-neutral way from the outset decouples procurement from the manufacturer of the existing system and keeps competition open. Specialist planning for security management systems (PSIM) & control rooms starts at precisely this point: with concept development, system selection and tendering on neutral interfaces.

Protection Objectives and Performance Characteristics Instead of Product Names

A product-neutral description of services is craftsmanship that begins before the specification of services. The methodical route leads through the as-is survey of existing systems and processes, the needs analysis and the target design. Only on this basis does a specification of services emerge that describes protection objectives instead of makes. In workshops, threats are analysed, protection objectives defined and protection zone concepts with catalogues of measures developed; the result is a target concept of several pages as a basis for decisions. How such an analysis proceeds through to a verifiable requirements profile is described in our service Security Concepts & Threat and Risk Analyses.

Legally, this approach rests on § 31(2) VgV: the characteristics of the subject of the contract are to be described in the form of performance or functional requirements or a description of the task to be solved, as precisely as possible, so that they convey a clear picture of the subject of the contract and sufficiently comparable bids can be expected. Alternatively or in combination, reference is to be made to technical requirements in the prescribed order of precedence, that is, first to national standards transposing European standards.

As-is survey: record existing systems, interfaces, usage profiles and contracts.
Needs analysis: systematically determine the areas to be protected, groups of people, access authorisations and integration requirements.
Target design: set protection objectives, types of monitoring and system requirements as a requirements profile.
Specification of services: formulate each item through performance and functional requirements and references to standards, and give each reference to a standard the addition 'or equivalent'.

Reference to standards is the most precise basis of description that procurement law knows: standards such as DIN EN 60839-11-1 for access control systems, VdS guidelines or the DIN VDE 0833 series for hazard alarm systems describe requirements verifiably, without naming a product. The consequence of § 31(2) VgV is important: every reference to technical requirements in the order of precedence prescribed there must carry the addition 'or equivalent'.^[2] How this principle translates into a complete tender for access control systems is described in our article on the access control tender.^[3]

An example makes the difference between a requirements profile and a product data sheet visible. The design and detailed planning of an intrusion detection system follow the security needs of the particular property: the requirements established by the client, the conditions imposed by the insurer and the prerequisites for the police alarm connection. The basis is the relevant DIN and VdS regulations, from the small system with one security zone to the security network spanning several properties.^[4]

A make-neutral item in the specification therefore first describes the requirements profile: the number and location of the security zones, the required type of monitoring, the resistance classes of the building protection, the requirements of the police alarm connection and the insurer's conditions. These are followed by the verifiable references to standards from the DIN and VdS series. Equivalence criteria defined in advance complete the item: they set out what evidence an alternative product must provide for the contracting authority to recognise it as equivalent.^[1]

Make-specific item	Product-neutral item
Control panel of make X, model Y	Fire alarm or intrusion alarm control panel to DIN VDE 0833 with transmission equipment for the police alarm connection, or equivalent
Detector of type Z as per data sheet	Detectors to the relevant DIN EN product standards, suitable for the specified type of monitoring and the security zone, or equivalent
Connection to manufacturer A's existing system	Connection via a documented, freely available interface (e.g. BACnet or OPC) to the higher-level security management system, or equivalent

The addition 'or equivalent' is not an appendage but part of the logic of the description: it signals to bidders that the contracting authority will seriously examine and accept alternative products if they demonstrate the defined performance characteristics. For it to hold up in a dispute, the equivalence criteria must be clearly defined in advance. A guide to the entire tender for intrusion detection systems can be found in our article on the intrusion detection system tender; for fire alarm systems the same approach applies under DIN 14675 and VdS 2095, as our article on the fire alarm system tender^[5] shows.

When the Exception Holds

A tie to one make is not impermissible in every case, but it always has to be justified and documented. § 31(6) VgV prohibits references to a specific production or origin, to a particular process characterising the products or services of a specific company, or to trademarks, patents, types or a specific origin, if this favours or excludes certain companies or products. Such references are permitted by way of exception if the subject of the contract justifies them or if the subject of the contract cannot otherwise be described sufficiently precisely and intelligibly; in both cases they must carry the addition 'or equivalent'.^[2]

Case law specifies the conditions. In a decision of 25 March 2021 (Verg 4/21), the Bavarian Supreme Regional Court (BayObLG) ruled that a product-specific tender is permissible if there are objective and contract-related reasons for it and the contracting authority names them specifically. The public contracting authority has a margin of appreciation in assessing whether specifying a particular manufacturer is justified. The decision must, however, be reasoned in a traceable way and documented.^[6]

Objective, contract-related reasons: technical, economic or security-related aspects that actually exist and are not invoked arbitrarily.
Recognised case groups: according to the Bremen fact sheet, the extension of an existing installation with the same product and an interface risk arising with alternative products, among others, have been recognised as objective reasons.^[1]
Weighing up: discretion must be exercised, and the long-term costs of a one-off product-neutral tender must also be taken into account.
Documentation: the reasons must be recorded in the procurement file before the procedure is launched. They cannot be supplied later in review proceedings; missing documentation gives rise to the presumption that no weighing-up took place.^[1]

In practice this results in a clear sequence: first check whether and how you could describe the service without a lead make. Only if that would involve disproportionate difficulty may you specify a make, and only with documented reasons. As the contract value rises, so do the demands on the care and documentation of the weighing-up.

Bid Evaluation: How to Spot Circumvention

Product neutrality does not end with the description of services. The evaluation of bids shows whether the tender was genuinely open or merely concealed a lead make. In its decision of 7 August 2024 (VK 2-63/24), the Federal Public Procurement Tribunal declared a tender impermissibly product-specific in which the contracting authority had copied a manufacturer's product data sheets exactly and set maximum values that in practice only the referenced products met.^[7] The yardstick is not which product the contracting authority considers preferable, but whether the subject of the contract cannot be described sufficiently precisely without the reference.

Product data sheets copied exactly: advertising claims, dimensions and weights of a reference product used as the catalogue of requirements point to a concealed lead make.
Maximum values only one product meets: narrowly drawn limits in practice exclude all alternative bids, even if no manufacturer is named.
An addition without substance: the addition 'or equivalent' does not release the contracting authority from the duty to formulate all requirements in an objectively verifiable way.^[7]
Low weighting of alternatives: allowing variant bids but weighting them lower without a contract-related or objective reason also breaches the requirement of product neutrality.^[1]

The countermeasure is a traceable evaluation matrix: it defines in advance what evidence a proof of equivalence must provide and how variant bids are evaluated. Where narrow technical parameters are indispensable, practice recommends designing them as qualitative award criteria rather than mandatory exclusion criteria; this is precisely what the tribunal found missing in the decision cited.^[7] Many contracting authorities lack in-house expertise for the technical review of security technology bids; this is where independent specialist planning comes in.

Independent specialist planning is a reliable route to a product-neutral tender: a planning and consulting company for security, communications and information technology that has been active in the market since 1992 and has always worked independently of manufacturers and providers. We do not sell products, do not install systems and maintain no ties to manufacturers or installers. Our recommendation is based solely on your requirements, and through manufacturer-independent tendering we achieve competition and comparable bids.^[8]

For public contracting authorities, our service covers the preparation of product-neutral descriptions of services that are compliant with procurement law, the setting up of traceable evaluation matrices and the technical review of incoming bids. We support intrusion detection systems, video surveillance and access control from the as-is survey through target design, tender and award to acceptance, with subsequent site supervision on request. What we do specifically for your specification of services is described on the page Intrusion Detection, Video Surveillance & Access Control: intrusion detection system design and detailed planning to DIN and VdS regulations including the requirements for the police alarm connection, video surveillance systems as well as access control, time recording and locking systems including ID media, plus the neutral modernisation and optimisation of existing systems.^[4]

Contact us for a no-obligation initial consultation. PLANATEL®: Independent planning and consulting since 1992. Tel: 040 / 23 73 02-30 | Email: info@planatel.de

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a product-specific tender permitted?

In principle, no. Under § 31(6) VgV, the description of services must not refer to specific products or processes if this favours or excludes companies. A reference is permitted by way of exception only if the subject of the contract justifies it or the service cannot otherwise be described sufficiently precisely and intelligibly; in that case the addition 'or equivalent' is mandatory. The BayObLG (decision of 25 March 2021) requires objective, contract-related and documented reasons for this.

What are the five principles of public procurement?

Under § 97 GWB, public contracts are awarded through competition and transparent procedures. From this, the principles of competition, transparency, equal treatment of participants, economic efficiency and proportionality can be derived. The requirement of product-neutral tendering follows directly from the principles of competition and equal treatment.

What is a covert product-specific tender?

A covert product-specific tender exists when the description of services appears formally neutral, but the number or strictness of its requirements means that in practice only one manufacturer's product can meet them. The Federal Public Procurement Tribunal (decision of 7 August 2024, VK 2-63/24) found this to be the case because the contracting authority had copied a manufacturer's product data sheets exactly and only the referenced products met the maximum values.

Does the addition 'or equivalent' release you from product neutrality?

No. The addition 'or equivalent' does not cure an impermissible specification of a make. All requirements must still be formulated in an objectively verifiable way, and the contracting authority must seriously examine equivalent alternative products. For the equivalence check, the performance characteristics an alternative product must have should be clearly defined in advance and suitable evidence requested.

How do I formulate a product-neutral item for an intrusion detection system or fire alarm system?

Describe the requirements profile rather than the product: security zones, type of monitoring and resistance classes, the requirements of the police alarm connection and the insurer's conditions. The relevant DIN and VdS regulations serve as the basis of description, and every reference to them must carry the addition 'or equivalent'. Independent specialist planning for intrusion detection systems, video surveillance and access control turns these requirements into a verifiable specification of services.

Do exceptions to product neutrality have to be documented?

Yes. The contract-related and objective reasons for a product-specific tender must be documented specifically and traceably in the procurement file before the procedure is launched. Missing documentation gives rise to the presumption that no weighing-up took place, and it cannot be supplied later in review proceedings.