Abnormally low tenders (ALTs) are bids whose prices appear unusually low for the contract requirements. Under EU law (Directive 2014/24/EU, Art.69) contracting authorities must ask any bidder whose price “appears to be abnormally low” to explain it. In practice, this means if your bid is flagged as unusually cheap, the authority must let you justify it before any rejection. Article 69 requires you to provide a detailed breakdown of costs, for example, explaining your pricing structure, resources and methods, so that the authority can verify that every element of the contract is covered at the specified quality. Crucially, your explanation must show compliance with the full specification and all mandatory obligations. EU case law insists that each suspected ALT must be fully examined on its merits, and that contracting authorities cannot simply reject or accept a low bid without this clarification.
In contrast, Article 84 of the Directive is only about post-award reporting: it requires authorities to note in the contract award report whether any bid was excluded as abnormally low, and to give reasons. Article 84 does not authorise skipping the Article 69 process, it merely ensures transparency after award. In other words, Article 69 governs the justification phase before award, while Article 84 governs recording the outcome afterwards. You should therefore focus on the Article 69 clarification request itself, not Article 84.
Demonstrating Full Scope and Quality
When responding, emphasise that your bid meets every requirement. The authority will scrutinise whether your bid covers the entire scope and standard of the contract. If your price is low because you planned to omit or cut corners on any deliverable, that is not acceptable, an “incomplete” bid can be excluded. You must show that you intend to perform all work as specified. EU guidance confirms that if a bid is failing to meet key technical requirements, the authority can lawfully exclude it rather than allow it to be patched up. Thus, do not rely on adding omitted items in the clarification, instead, explain how you will deliver everything already included in your bid.
To meet this test, carefully review the specification and explicitly confirm each part. For example, you might prepare a table or narrative demonstrating that your staffing plan, methodology and deliverables cover all contract elements. If needed, cite any quality standards or accreditations you will meet. Remember: the lowest price counts only if the quality and quantity are fully there. EU rules even require rejection if a bid is low because it flouts mandatory social, labour or environmental obligations, so stress your compliance with these.
Explaining Cost Savings (Evidence of Viability)
Provide concrete evidence of how your proposal stays viable at your price. Some common justifications include:
- Senior resources / efficiency: Explain if you use more experienced staff who achieve tasks faster, reducing total hours. For example, “We allocate X senior engineers instead of junior staff, which cuts risk and saves 100 hours of work.”
- Process improvements or automation: Note any software tools, streamlined methods or off-the-shelf solutions that reduce manual effort or costs. For instance, automated testing scripts or pre-configured templates can deliver the same scope in less time.
- Value engineering: If you have designed a more cost-effective solution (without lowering spec), describe it. For example, using a different non-critical component that meets standards but costs less.
- Offshore/onshore mix: If part of the work will be done in a lower-cost location (e.g. programming or back-office support offshore), explain how quality control and communication are maintained. Stress measures like joint senior oversight to ensure standards.
- Volume or strategic discounts: If you have bulk rates, partnership discounts, or can amortize fixed costs over multiple projects, explain how that lowers your price.
Whatever method you cite, back it up with facts. Show cost breakdowns (e.g. labour-hour rates * hours) or refer to past projects where you delivered at similar prices. If using senior staff, show their rates and how many fewer hours they need. If relying on automation, describe the tool and its track record. The Directive explicitly notes that explanations can cover “the economics of the manufacturing [or service] process” and “any exceptionally favourable conditions” available to you. Tailor your explanation to the most plausible reasons for your low price.
Always link each saving to a contract requirement. For example, if you bid X% below estimate because you automate a deliverable, say which deliverable and how the automation meets its functional needs. Also confirm that no required task is outsourced to unqualified subcontractors. In short, tie every cost advantage to a specific, compliant approach. If the authority suspects any area is under-resourced or missing, explain clearly why it is not.
Limits on Clarification
Bear in mind that clarification rules are strict: you cannot fundamentally change your bid during this process. Under the standard Open/Restricted procedures, you may only clarify or confirm information already in your tender, you cannot add new features or revise prices. EU procurement law makes clear that “a bid cannot be amended after it has been submitted,” except to correct obvious minor errors. Any request for clarification must not let you submit what is in effect a new tender. In practice, this means if the authority asks about an inconsistency, you can explain it, but you cannot attach new documents or alter your solutions beyond what you originally proposed. (For example, you couldn’t suddenly add a new subcontractor or change your technical approach.)
In Negotiated Procedures or Competitive Dialogue, there is somewhat more flexibility to discuss bids, especially where this is provided for in the tender documents. As a general matter of principle, equal treatment and transparency still apply. If you get additional clarification opportunities or improvements, so do other bidders. You cannot quietly amend your bid to include new scope without the authority formally notifying all parties and giving them the same opportunity (assuming this is provided for). Any change that would give you a new advantage, for instance, adding a service line you hadn’t priced, would compromise the integrity of a tender process.
Finally, note that if any part of the required scope was genuinely omitted or misunderstood, the authority may deem your bid non-compliant. Case law indicates that if a tender fails to meet essential technical requirements, the contracting authority may not simply ask you to fix it, they may exclude the bid. In other words, the clarification process is not a chance to redo your bid, it is to justify the bid you submitted. Emphasise that your submission is complete and that any anomaly can be explained within its original scope.
Value for Money Considerations
Any response should keep in mind the overriding goal of value for money. Recent guidance (Irish Circular 18/2025 on public procurement) reminds suppliers that public bodies must “treat public funds with due care and pursue optimal value for money”. This means authorities should not penalise a genuinely low bid that still meets requirements, since rejecting it wastes resources. In line with this, make clear that accepting your price will deliver the full quality expected. Point out that our system favors the lowest compliant, acceptable offer: if your explanations show your bid is legitimate, the authority is obligated to accept it rather than scrap a cost-saving opportunity. The is the other side of equal treatment, the supplier is entitled to be treated fairly by the authority also.
By the same token, ensure your tone is factual and neutral. Do not threaten legal action or disparage the process. Instead, use firm evidence: project plans, staff CVs, method statements or past project references. If you cite any case law or statutory principle (for example, that “a contracting authority cannot accept an abnormally low tender without first conducting this [clarification] investigation”), do so in passing to support your point, not as an argument by itself. Keep your focus on practical proof of performance, e.g., a detailed staffing table showing how senior roles reduce hours, or screenshots of your automation tools.
Key Takeaways for Your Response
Clearly affirm that you will meet all contract requirements at the quoted price. Reiterate full scope coverage and compliance with standards.
- Provide concrete evidence (data, breakdowns, examples) for every cost-saving claim. For instance:
- – “The use of automated reporting reduces time by X hours per month (see Appendix A), allowing us to staff only Y days rather than Z days.”
- “Our senior developer (10+ years’ experience) accomplishes the design phase in half the time of a junior, as shown by time-tracking from Project ABC.”
- “Offshore team handles routine coding work (60% savings on those hours) under continuous supervision by our local architect.”
- Emphasise quality controls: explain how you’ll verify outputs. For example, “All offshore work passes through UK-based QA managers and weekly reviews.”
- State that no relevant work is subcontracted or omitted. If any part of the bid is high-level, detail how you’ll build out the specifics under the same price.
- Avoid words like “abnormal” or “mistake.” Instead use neutral terms (“cost-efficient solution”, “efficient resource plan”, etc.) and stick to facts.
- Respect time limits: if the authority asks for info by a deadline, meet it. Courts have held that clarification timeframes (e.g. a few days) are generally enforceable.
By thoroughly demonstrating that your tender is genuine and compliant, you show the authority there is no legitimate reason to reject it. Remember that legal guidance compels the authority to allow you to prove your bid’s validity. If you show that every requirement is met and quality is maintained at your price, the authority must accept your bid as the lowest compliant offer and award the contract.
