When is a technical deviation sufficient to exclude a bid from a public tender? In judgments 865/2026 and 869/2026, the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Hellenic Single Public Procurement Authority (HSPPA) in an international tender for the supply of vehicles to the Ministry of Citizen Protection. The tender concerned the procurement of 200 pick-up trucks, with an estimated value of €10,322,580.65 excluding VAT.

Kelemenis & Co.’s client, a car dealership, had initially submitted the third-lowest bid. It challenged its competitors’ bids, however, arguing that they failed to comply with an essential technical specification in the tender documents. Both the HSPPA and the Court of Appeal accepted this argument, resulting in the client being designated as the contractor.

The decisive issue was not the price, but a flashlight required as part of each vehicle’s equipment. The tender documents required the flashlight to maintain a specified minimum luminous flux for a specified minimum duration of continuous operation “at full power”. The Court rejected the view that these two requirements could be assessed separately. It held that they were functionally linked: the flashlight had to maintain the required light output for the minimum duration specified in the tender documents.

This ruling has broader significance. Rather than adopting a narrowly literal interpretation of the specification, the Court emphasised its operational purpose. The judgments serve as a reminder that, in public procurement, the tender terms bind everyone: the contracting authority and the bidders alike. A deviation from an essential technical specification leads to rejection of the bid, while the subsequent submission of supporting information cannot remedy a substantive defect without breaching the principles of procedural formality and equal treatment.