How can security offers be compared by what they deliver?

Two offers can include the same number of cameras or loudspeakers and still cover different services. For a sound comparison, clients need to see which task the proposed solution fulfils, which prerequisites it needs and which services have to be organised in addition.

Creating a common basis for comparison

Before the assessment, operating conditions and required functions should be described identically for all offers. These include, for example, the area, operating period, environmental conditions and responsibilities. Within the scope of the German Public Procurement Regulation, section 31 expressly allows performance or functional requirements that can be expected to produce sufficiently comparable offers [1]. How such requirements are derived from the task is covered in Procuring security technology: function first, then devices.

A practical comparison scheme combines five questions:

Field	Comparison question
Protection function	Which areas and tasks does the solution cover?
Operability	Which power supply, communication and failure provisions are required?
Scope of services	Who is responsible for set-up, configuration, operation, alarm handling and dismantling?
Evidence	How are the promised properties and functions demonstrated?
Total effort	Which costs and own contributions arise over the entire period of use?

Separating minimum requirements from added value

First, check whether the defined minimum requirements are met. Additional features are then assessed according to their significance for the contract. An attractive extra feature does not make up for a missing required protection function.

A fictitious example: two suppliers quote for mobile surveillance over five operating days. Offer A assumes an existing power and data supply; offer B includes providing it. The prices only become comparable once the additional costs and organisational tasks of offer A are taken into account. Which option is more suitable depends on the conditions on site.

Setting the assessment in advance and documenting it traceably

For public contracts within the scope of the VgV, the award criteria and their weighting must be announced in advance. Section 58 allows qualitative criteria alongside price or cost [2]. For private procurement, too, an assessment framework set in advance is a useful working aid.

Open points should be clarified within the procedure permitted in each case, and differences documented. The result then shows which service is offered at which total effort. Simply setting device quantities and final prices side by side can hide these differences.

Read more: Turning protection goals into security requirements on verifiable requirements, Assessing event technology for safety tasks on distinguishing event technology from security technology by their task, and Measuring security quality: why functions matter more than equipment.

Context: research as of 2 November 2026. The comparison scheme and the example are editorial recommendations, not a binding procurement scheme; the example is fictitious. The VgV does not apply to every procurement; other procurement regimes, thresholds and exemptions must be checked separately. In public procurement procedures, offers can only be clarified or supplemented within the limits permitted in each case. Unmet minimum requirements and the award assessment are to be handled separately. General orientation, not legal advice.