How to prevent the top 50 reasons for disqualification — predictably and at scale

When we analyse a specific public tender for a client, we don’t rely on reading the documentation alone. We also check the bid against a catalogue of real exclusion grounds — the 50 most common reasons evaluation committees in Bulgaria throw bids out. This article is that catalogue, brought into the open — because these reasons are predictable, and the predictable is preventable.

It was built from 5,679 real disqualifications. From them we distilled the 50 most frequent, clearly-defined grounds — the recurring patterns behind the bulk of preventable losses. These aren’t anecdotes: each one is written in black and white in a committee report. Company names are removed on purpose — what matters is the reason, not who tripped on it.

What the catalogue shows

Group the 50 grounds into their large families and the pattern is the same one we see in every analysis: bids rarely fall on price. They fall on form and compliance.

Look at the bottom: price is under one tenth — and even there it’s almost always a rejected justification under Art. 72, not the fact that you were expensive. A document sinks the bid even when price is the trigger.

Top 15 single grounds, by frequency

These are the sharpest traps — the fifteen specific reasons that appear most often across the 5,679 disqualifications. Remember: not one of them requires a better price, higher quality or connections.

The full catalogue: all 50 grounds

Below is the complete list, grouped by category and ordered by frequency. The number in brackets is the count of disqualifications in which that ground appeared across the 5,679 cases. This is the pre-submission check, line by line.

Documents and declarations (≈ 46% of the catalogue)

The category that sinks more bids than all the others combined. Almost none of these mistakes require skill — only attention.

• Non-compliance with the authority’s requirements (general) — 116
• Bid does not meet the pre-announced conditions — 111
• Missing or incomplete ESPD — 62
• Bid not matching the announced conditions — 33
• Missing/inconsistent ESPD (personal status, selection criteria) — 28
• Below the minimum required content of the documentation — 26
• Documents not submitted on time — 19
• Missing information in the implementation proposal — 17
• Bid not meeting the tender’s implementation conditions — 17
• Price proposal not decrypted in time — 15
• Missing template (Implementation Proposal, Time Schedule, etc.) — 15
• Discrepancy between elements of the bid — 13
• Missing explanatory note or additional documents — 12
• Missing/inconsistent declarations under Art. 5k PPA (sanctions) — 7
• Missing/inconsistent bill of quantities (BoQ) — 7
• Expired bid validity period — 6
• Mismatch between technical and price proposal — 6
• Discrepancies between individual bid documents — 3
• Below the minimum content of the health & safety plan — 3
• Missing/inconsistent consortium-formation documents — 2
• Bid not meeting the tender’s conditions and requirements — 2
• Bid submitted for an unsuitable lot — 1
• Reliance on repealed legislation or a withdrawn document — 1

Technical non-compliance (≈ 31% of the catalogue)

Here the mistakes are more substantive, but still a matter of preparation, not market power. The spec is read literally — implication is no defence.

• Non-compliance with the technical specification — 143
• Technical proposal below the minimum requirements — 90
• Discrepancy in the linear time schedule — 30
• Missing information on the execution of core activities — 28
• Bid unsuitable within the meaning of the PPA — 20
• No technological sequence in the proposal — 17
• Missing/inconsistent strategy for timing, quality and supervision — 11
• Unsuitable or substandard equipment/materials offered — 10
• Missing/inconsistent work organisation and methodology — 6
• Missing/inconsistent organisation of the construction site — 2
• No allocation of experts in the time schedule — 1

Experience and selection criteria (≈ 13% of the catalogue)

Here the firm is often capable but fails to prove it in the required format.

• Unmet selection criterion — experience — 83
• Missing certificate (ISO or other) — 24
• Mismatch between declared and actual experience — 13
• No proof of a completed similar project — 12
• Missing/inconsistent information on subcontractors — 5
• Non-compliance with an approved selection criterion (similar services) — 4
• Missing/inconsistent competence documents (construction supervision) — 4
• Missing documents for experts’ experience/competence — 3
• Missing information on experts or team — 3
• Missing proof of paid social contributions and taxes — 2

Price and price justification (≈ 9% of the catalogue)

A low price almost never excludes you on its own — what excludes you is the missing or weak justification under Art. 72.

• Abnormally low price / no justification — 44
• Arithmetic error in the price proposal — 25
• Price justification not sufficiently argued — 17
• Incomplete or inconsistent information in the price justification — 16
• Price over 20% below the average without justification — 5

Bid guarantee (< 1% of the catalogue)

• Missing or irregular bid guarantee — 5

How we use this catalogue

The catalogue isn’t meant to be read once and forgotten. It’s a checklist we apply in every tender analysis and fit scoring. When we review a specific procedure, we run the bid against each of these 50 grounds and flag where you’re exposed — before the committee does it for you.

The logic is simple: over three quarters of these grounds are free to avoid. They don’t ask for a better price, higher quality or connections — only for discipline and a timely check. That’s the difference between “we lost fairly” and “we were excluded over the folder”.

In public procurement, more often than anything else, the winner is not the cheapest nor the best-connected — it’s the most meticulous.

— Analysis of 5,679 real disqualifications. Bidder names removed; only the grounds are kept.