Error Prevention 21 April 2026 · 9 min read

Most Common Errors in Public Procurement Specifications (and How to Avoid Them)

Every special procurement appeal that reaches the Regional Administrative Tribunal has behind it an error that was avoidable. In most cases the problem is not bad faith or deep ignorance: it is time pressure, outdated templates and lack of cross-review. This guide covers the 8 mistakes that generate the most nullifications and appeals in council specifications, with the exact regulatory reference and practical solution for each.

In this article

  1. 1. Why errors in specifications have serious consequences
  2. 2. Error 1: Mentioning commercial brands without justification
  3. 3. Error 2: Non-objective or poorly defined award criteria
  4. 4. Error 3: Splitting the contract object
  5. 5. Error 4: Disproportionate solvency requirements
  6. 6. Error 5: Poorly broken-down tender budget
  7. 7. Error 6: Omitting accessibility requirements
  8. 8. Error 7: Copying specifications without updating references
  9. 9. Error 8: Inconsistency between Technical and Administrative Specifications
  10. 10. How to avoid these errors systematically
  11. 11. Frequently asked questions

1. Why errors in specifications have serious consequences

An error in a public procurement specification is not a minor problem that resolves quietly with a correction. Its consequences can cascade over months: special appeals that halt the tender, files that must be declared void, contracts annulled after award and even personal liability for the signing officer if the error results from gross negligence.

Context: A special procurement appeal automatically suspends the tender from the moment it is filed until the tribunal issues its ruling. The average resolution time is 30–45 days. That stopped time has a real cost for the organisation and for the service the contract was meant to deliver.

The good news: 90% of these errors are avoidable with an appropriate checklist and, increasingly, with automatic validation tools. Let's examine each one.

2. Error 1: Mentioning commercial brands without justification

Including in the Technical Specification a requirement such as "Toyota HiAce vehicle required" or "Microsoft Power BI software" without justification constitutes a direct infringement of article 124.9 LCSP and Directive 2014/24/EU. The principle is clear: technical specifications must not artificially favour or disadvantage any tenderer.

The solution: Replace the brand mention with its equivalent functional characteristics. If it is technically impossible to describe the object without referring to a specific brand (e.g. spare parts for specific machinery), always add the expression "or equivalent" and justify it explicitly in the Report, citing article 124.9 LCSP. This justification must appear in the file.

3. Error 2: Non-objective or poorly defined award criteria

Article 145 LCSP requires award criteria to be linked to the contract object, formulated in a way that allows verification of the information provided by tenderers, and not granting unlimited freedom of choice to the contracting body. Criteria such as "quality of the proposal" without a defined scale, or "team experience" without specifying what is valued, are systematically appealed.

The solution: Define each criterion with its detailed scoring scale and the sub-aspects to be evaluated. If the criterion is technical (work plan, methodology, improvements), specify exactly what characteristics will be valued and how each translates into points. The tender committee must be able to apply the criterion without discretion.

4. Error 3: Splitting the contract object

Article 99.2 LCSP expressly prohibits splitting a contract with the aim of avoiding publication thresholds or more demanding procedures. The problem typically arises when an organisation contracts the same service throughout the year through several minor contracts instead of a single open procedure. If the sum of those contracts exceeds the minor contract thresholds, the contracting body may face an auditor's objection or OIRESCON supervision.

The solution: Plan annual expenditure by contract category. If a need is recurring and exceeds the thresholds, process an open procedure with multi-year duration from the outset. In each minor contract file, always include the article 118.3 LCSP verification.

5. Error 4: Disproportionate solvency requirements

Requiring a minimum annual turnover of "three times the contract value" or demanding prior experience in identical contracts with very high amounts artificially restricts competition. Article 87 LCSP states that solvency criteria must be proportionate to the object and value of the contract.

The solution: Calibrate solvency requirements according to Advisory Committee on Public Procurement guidance. The most widely used practical rule: annual turnover should not be required to exceed twice the tender base price. For technical solvency, ask for experience in similar contracts, not necessarily of the same value.

6. Error 5: Poorly broken-down tender budget

Article 100 LCSP requires the tender base price to be broken down by its main components. It is not sufficient to state "€15,000 + VAT". The specification must show how that figure is reached: staff costs (with hourly rate and estimated hours), material costs, overheads and business profit. Failure to provide this breakdown is increasingly common in appeal rulings that find serious formal defects.

The solution: Always include the cost breakdown in the Justificatory Report. For service contracts, detail the number of hours, the hourly rate per professional category applying the applicable collective agreement, and indirect costs. This calculation is also required to demonstrate that the price is not abnormally low.

7. Error 6: Omitting accessibility requirements in ICT and works contracts

Since the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/882 via Royal Decree 1112/2018, contracts involving public-facing services (software, websites, apps, public buildings) must include accessibility requirements in the Technical Specification. This is one of the most silent errors because it rarely generates an immediate appeal, but it can cause serious problems at the reception phase and in subsequent audits.

The solution: Include a standard accessibility clause in all Technical Specifications for ICT contracts, citizen-facing services and works on public-use buildings. For applications and websites: reference WCAG 2.1 level AA as a minimum. For works: the Technical Building Code SUA (Safety of Use and Accessibility).

8. Error 7: Copying specifications without updating regulatory references

Reusing a 2018 or 2020 specification for a 2026 contract without review can introduce references to repealed regulations, outdated thresholds or requirements that no longer have legal backing. This error is particularly common in councils with limited technical resources that "recycle" historical specifications to speed up processing.

The solution: Maintain an up-to-date base template, updated at least once a year. Before using any previous specification as a base, check: (1) all regulatory references are to current legislation, (2) financial thresholds are current, (3) the administrative units cited exist under that name, and (4) no reference is made to the previous contractor or their specific solution.

9. Error 8: Inconsistency between Technical Specification, Administrative Clauses and Justificatory Report

The Technical Specification, Administrative Clauses and Justificatory Report form a documentary set that must be internally consistent. If the Technical Specification sets a 6-month execution timeline and the Administrative Clauses state 4 months, or if the contract object varies subtly between documents, this creates a contradiction that tenderers can use to found an appeal or request clarification during the consultation period.

The solution: Always use the exact same definition of the contract object across all three documents. After drafting the complete documentary set, carry out a specific cross-review of: contract object, execution timeline, amount, CPV code, procedure type and award criteria. These five elements must be identical in the Technical Specification, Administrative Clauses and Justificatory Report.

10. How to avoid these errors systematically

The root cause of most of these errors is not regulatory ignorance but lack of time to review properly. A procurement officer managing 100 files a year and spending 4–8 hours drafting each has no margin for exhaustive cross-reviews.

The three prevention layers

Layer 1 — Manual checklist

A verification list with the 8 errors described, applied before publishing each specification. It takes an additional 15–20 minutes but prevents 70% of avoidable appeals.

Layer 2 — Peer review

In organisations with more than one procurement officer, establish cross-review as a mandatory step. The drafter is not the best reviewer of their own document.

Layer 3 — Automatic AI validation

AI tools specialised in public procurement can automatically detect brand mentions, non-objective criteria, inconsistencies between documents and outdated regulatory references. This layer does not replace the officer, but acts as a safety net before publication.

AI tools like LicitadIA go beyond drafting: they include integrated regulatory validation that alerts the officer when the generated draft contains any of these common errors. You can learn more on the how it works page. If you want to see the tool applied to the types of contracts in your organisation, the most direct route is to request a free demo.

Frequently asked questions

What is the most frequent error that causes appeals in public procurement specifications?

Mentioning commercial brands without justification in the Technical Specification and poorly defined or non-objective award criteria are the two errors that generate the most special procurement appeals. Both are regulated in articles 124 and 145 of LCSP 9/2017. The State Advisory Committee on Public Procurement publishes an annual summary of the most frequent grounds for appeal upholding.

Can I correct an error in a specification after publishing it?

Yes, but only under very specific circumstances. Modification of specifications after publication is limited to material, factual or arithmetic errors. Any change that affects substantial tender conditions (object, criteria, solvency, timeline) requires the tender submission deadline to be restarted. If the error is serious, the legally safest option is withdrawal of the procedure under article 152 LCSP, with prior justification.

How can AI help avoid errors in procurement specifications?

A public procurement AI system like LicitadIA automatically validates the generated draft against current regulations (LCSP, European directives), detects commercial brand references, identifies non-objective award criteria and flags clauses that have historically generated appeals in similar organisations. By working with the organisation's own documentary history, it also ensures consistency with previously approved specifications. Final legal responsibility always rests with the officer who signs the document.

What if you had an automatic second review before publishing?

LicitadIA validates every specification it generates against current regulations and detects the most common errors before they reach the official platform. No appeal, no delay, no stress.

Request free demo