In a medical gas tender, an excessive requirement is a mistake too
The contracting authority piles on requirements because it wants things to be safer. The effect is sometimes the opposite: one valid bid, an appeal, and a procedure that has to be repeated.
Why is an excessive requirement a flaw rather than a safeguard?
A requirement disproportionate to the scope of the contract harms competition just as really as a requirement set too low harms patient safety. It is the same category of error, only from the opposite end of the scale.
In practice it looks innocent. Someone copies the list of documents from a previous, larger tender and pastes it into a contract for replacing a few terminal units. Suddenly the contractor has to prove competence for activities that will not be performed within this scope at all.
Proportionality of public procurement requirements is not a formality for the procurement department. It is a test of whether the description of the subject of the contract describes the hospital's actual need or, by accident, a single supplier.
How to cite standards in the description of the subject matter of a contract without being accused of restricting competition?
A standard may be cited, but one must allow equivalent solutions and to state up front how equivalence will be measured. The mere addition of „or equivalent" without assessment criteria saves nothing — it only moves the dispute from the bid stage to the appeal stage.
The rules for matching technical requirements to the scope of work are discussed in the guide „Medical gases in practice. Volume 1" (GMWP) developed by INMED S.A. They all come down to one thing: a parameter entered in the documentation must be verifiable and justifiable.
What can realistically be demanded from the contractor?
Only those documents the contractor must hold in order to carry out exactly this scope legally and safely — not a wider scope „just in case".
- evidence of conformity relating to the subject matter of this contract, not to the entire device category
- the method of demonstrating equivalence where a standard or a specific solution appears in the description
- subject-matter means of proof stated explicitly in the tender documents (SWZ), with a submission deadline and a rule for supplementing them
- confirmation of competence for the activities that will actually occur within that scope
- the scope of liability after handover, tied to what the contractor actually changed in the installation
The rest is cost on both sides. The contracting authority receives fewer bids, the contractor adds a risk margin, and the hospital pays for both.
Frequently asked questions
Can a specific standard be named in the tender documents at all?
Yes, referring to a standard is permissible provided the contracting authority allows equivalent solutions and describes how it will assess their conformity. The problem is not the standard, but the absence of that open door.
Can excessive requirements overturn a tender procedure?
Yes — an excessive condition is often an effective ground for an appeal and leads to an amendment of the SWZ or to annulment. The procedure goes back to the start, and the hospital's technical need goes on waiting.
Who should draft the technical requirements?
The procurement department should not do this on its own. The requirements are drawn up together with a technician or engineer who knows the condition of the existing installation.
How to match the scope of documents and technical requirements to the actual subject matter of the contract — without narrowing the market and without safety gaps — is described in more detail in GMWP. If you are currently preparing a procurement procedure for medical gases, order the GMWP guide and check your requirements before they are published.