There is a myth that lives in every company that has bid for a public tender: that it all comes down to price and connections. That if you are not the cheapest or have no “insider”, your chances are zero. The data says otherwise.
For this analysis we took 59 of the most active bidders on the Electronic Public Procurement Platform — firms that, by number of submitted bids, are among the most prolific in the country, with nearly 19,700 bids across about three years. We then had a Bulgarian-specialised language model read over 18,000 of their evaluation reports (with 4,222 exclusions) — word by word, whole documents, including the illegibly scanned ones. The goal was a simple question: when these firms drop out, why do they drop out?
Of all the bids whose report we could read, about one in four ends in exclusion — the bid never reaches evaluation; it is thrown out on a technicality. And almost all of those exclusions split between two worlds: documents and declarations, and technical non-compliance.
Look at the bottom of the chart. “Price” is barely a tenth — and even that almost never means “you were too expensive”. In more than nine of ten “price” exclusions the firm offered a low price, but its written justification under Art. 72 was rejected. So even when price sinks a bid, it sinks it because of a document — the justification — not the number itself.
The anatomy of an exclusion
Before the mistakes, it is worth understanding the difference between losing and being excluded — they are fundamentally different things.
To lose means your bid was reviewed, scored and simply ranked lower. Someone was better — cheaper, with higher methodology points. That is a fair loss. To be excluded means your bid never reached evaluation. It was thrown out at the door, on a technicality, before the committee saw what you actually offer. You can have the best price in the room and still drop out — because one declaration is missing or signed the wrong way.
This is the hidden tragedy of public procurement. A firm invests weeks of preparation, calculates an aggressive price, prepares a technical proposal — and loses it all to an omission that takes five minutes to avoid. Exclusion is the most expensive cheap mistake in the tender business.
The top 20 reasons, in the committees’ own words
This is the heart of the analysis. We classified each of the 5,679 individual grounds written in the committees’ reports (one exclusion often rests on more than one) by the specific reason. Here is the full ranking — from the #1 killer to the rare technical fumbles. Remember: not one of these reasons requires a better price, higher quality or connections. Each is a matter of discipline.
Share of 5,679 individual grounds across 59 firms. The remaining ≈7% are one-off procedural grounds. Automated reading of the reports; each ground classified by its leading cause.
- 1 General: "the bid / technical proposal does not meet the pre-announced conditions" (Art. 107) ≈ 36%
The umbrella ground committees write most often. In practice it almost always resolves to a specific document or technical gap — just phrased with the general legal provision.
- 2 Missing/incomplete description of performance (programme, strategy, methodology) ≈ 6%
The work programme or performance strategy fails to cover the required minimum content — a missing activity, measure or technological sequence.
- 3 ESPD — unfilled, unsigned or irregular ≈ 5%
Empty national databases, a missing co-manager signature, the wrong or incomplete version of the form.
- 4 Non-compliance with the technical specification ≈ 5%
A bid that does not literally match the spec: a missing parameter, a lower class, an unmet capacity.
- 5 The technical proposal fails to meet minimum requirements ≈ 4%
The technical part is below the announced minimum on at least one indicator or mandatory template element.
- 6 Un-decrypted / not-opened-in-time price bid ≈ 3%
A technical fumble at electronic opening — the price never becomes available to the committee in time.
- 7 Rejected justification for an abnormally low price (Art. 72) ≈ 3%
The price is low, but the written justification was deemed formal, incomplete or undocumented.
- 8 No manufacturer, brand and model stated ≈ 3%
The most common technical omission in supplies — offered equipment without clear identification.
- 9 Non-compliance in the linear schedule ≈ 2%
The schedule does not match the activities, deadlines or resources; a machinery diagram is missing.
- 10 Personal circumstances — tax/social-security/convictions (Art. 54/55) ≈ 2%
A missing document on the absence of debts to the state, or a personal-status declaration.
- 11 Missing registration or entry (builders register, commercial register, licence) ≈ 2%
A structural ground — the firm lacks the required status or a current registration at the time of bidding.
- 12 Another missing or irregular declaration ≈ 2%
A mandatory personal-circumstances declaration or another form is missing or defective.
- 13 Bid/performance guarantee — missing or irregular ≈ 2%
Not provided, provided in the wrong form, or with an expired validity period.
- 14 "Proposal for performance" template — unfilled or irregular ≈ 2%
The mandatory template is skipped, incomplete or does not match the announced conditions.
- 15 Signature: handwritten/scanned instead of QES ≈ 2%
The form of the signature defeats an otherwise valid document — often hidden inside the ESPD and declarations.
- 16 Missing/invalid "Professional liability" insurance ≈ 2%
The mandatory insurance under Art. 171 of the Spatial Planning Act is not stated or proven with a valid policy.
- 17 Price above the estimated (maximum) value ≈ 2%
The offered price exceeds the maximum allowed value for the tender.
- 18 Documents not submitted within the set deadline ≈ 2%
The committee allowed time to fix omissions, but the additional documents were not filed in time.
- 19 Sanctions declaration (Art. 5k, Reg. 2022/576) ≈ 1%
A missing declaration, or one signed by hand instead of electronically, on Russian involvement.
- 20 Unproven experience / similar contracts ≈ 1%
The required number of similar contracts or delivery volume is not documented with recipient and value.
Now the same reasons, grouped into the three big families — so the pattern is clear.
#1: Documents — the silent killer
This is the category that sinks more bids than all the others combined — about half of all exclusions. And the cruellest part is that almost none of these mistakes require skill — only attention. The typical ones, each a real ground for exclusion:
- Unfilled national databases in the ESPD — fields that seem trivial but are mandatory under Art. 67 of the Public Procurement Act.
- A declaration signed by hand and scanned instead of with a qualified electronic signature — the form of the signature defeats the content. In one case it was a declaration under an EU regulation (Art. 5k of Reg. 2022/576) — signed by hand, and the bid fell.
- An ESPD not signed by all legal representatives — one missing co-manager signature and the document is invalid.
- No translation of the technical specification for foreign-language products.
- A missing mandatory catalogue or brochure with the technical proposal.
- No indication of which information is a trade secret.
Notice the pattern: none of these is about the quality of the bid. Each is about the way it is formatted. A firm can be the best for the job and still drop out because it signed on the wrong line.
#2: The technical proposal — the devil is in the parameters
Second come technical non-compliances — and in the new data they are surprisingly heavy: over a third of all exclusions. The mistakes here are more substantive, but still a matter of preparation, not market power:
- A parameter that doesn’t meet the minimum requirement — scanner, tyre or computer specs that “don’t fully comply”. This is the single most common ground for exclusion of all.
- No manufacturer, brand and model stated for offered equipment — the most common technical omission in supplies.
- An unfilled or irregular mandatory “Proposal for performance” template.
- Swapped or incorrect data in the template — e.g. swapped columns for load and speed index.
- A price exceeding the maximum estimated value.
- An un-decrypted price bid — in one case a bidder failed to open their price bid in time and the committee unanimously proposed exclusion under Art. 107.
The lesson: the technical specification is read literally, not “in spirit”. The required quantity, capacity and parameter must be stated explicitly — implication is no defence.
#3: Experience and team — when the firm “on paper” falls short
Selection criteria are the third big group of traps. Here the firm may be perfectly capable, but fails to prove it the right way:
- An unmet requirement for a minimum number of contracts of similar scope.
- An undocumented volume of delivery — e.g. a required 3,000 MWh over three years, not documented with volume and recipient.
- A missing one of the required technical staff.
- Missing certificates of professional experience for the site manager, the health-and-safety officer and the quality controller — a very common omission in construction tenders.
Here the mistake is rarely that the firm lacks the experience — it is that it didn’t submit the exact documents that prove it in the required format.
Why builders err more than traders
The exclusion rate is not the same for everyone. Across the firms in the analysis it ranges from under 5% to over 50% of their bids — and the spread is not random.
The difference is entirely in documentation complexity. A construction tender requires a mountain of certificates — for staff, experience, build category, quality systems. The more mandatory documents, the more chances for a small mistake. Supplying toner cartridges or fuel needs far less paperwork — so formal exclusions there are rarer, and the battle is more often settled fairly, on price.
The lesson is direct: the more document-heavy your market, the more resource you must put into compliance, not price.
Three stories from the reports
The first is a construction firm with a competitive price for a renovation, which got far in the procedure. It fell not on money, but because a safety-management certificate was missing; the committee gave a deadline to fix it, but the file was never put in order in time.
The second is an IT supplier with a technically solid bid. Excluded because manufacturer, brand and model were not stated for part of the equipment, and a specification translation was missing for foreign-language products.
The third is an energy trader who lost entirely fairly: it offered 18.75 BGN/MWh against the winner’s 8.27. No formal mistake — just more expensive. That is what a fair loss looks like, and it is rarer than many think.
The checklist that would have saved most bids
If we sum up all the real grounds for exclusion into one practical pre-submission check, it looks like this:
Signatures & format
- All declarations use a qualified electronic signature, not handwritten/scanned
- The ESPD is signed by all legal representatives
- All national databases in the ESPD are filled in
Documents & attachments
- Catalogue/brochure and all mandatory materials are attached
- Foreign-language documents have an official Bulgarian translation
- The trade-secret information is indicated
- The "Proposal for performance" template is fully completed
Technical compliance
- Manufacturer, brand, model and all parameters are explicitly stated
- Every parameter meets the minimum — checked literally
- The price bid is decrypted/openable in time
Selection, team, figures & deadlines
- The required number of similar contracts is documented (with volume and recipient)
- The full team of key experts is attached with certificates
- Certificates (ISO etc.) are current and attached
- All sums in the BoQ and price tables are recomputed
- Deadlines use the correct units (calendar vs working days)
- Warranty periods are above the minimum
Not a single line on this list requires a better price, higher quality or connections. Each is a matter of discipline.
What to do with this
Treat documentation as a product, not a formality. Over 80% of exclusions — documents plus technical non-compliance — are free to avoid. All it takes is attention and a checklist before every submission.
Don’t fear a low price — but prepare its justification in advance. A low price almost never excludes you on its own; it demands a defence under Art. 72. And that very defence fails often — the rejected justification is the third most common ground for exclusion of all. A low price is a weapon only if you carry the documents to defend it.
Read the specification literally. “Calendar” is not “working”. “Brand and model” means exactly brand and model. Technical non-compliance is the second-heaviest category — and almost always a matter of reading, not ability.
If tenders were won only on price or connections, the small, honest firm would be powerless. But when the most common cause of failure is a document, fate returns to its own hands. In public procurement, more often than anything else, the winner is not the cheapest or the best-connected, but the most compliant.
This is exactly what our requirements ↔ documents check and declaration auto-fill incl. eEEDOP are for — so you stop losing tenders over the file.
— Analysis of open EOP data and automated reading of over 18,000 evaluation reports.
