In public procurement procedures, an abnormally low tender refers to a bid price that is unusually low compared with other bids or the contracting authority’s estimated cost. Article 38 of Public Procurement Law No. 4734 requires the tender commission, after evaluating bids, to identify unusually low-priced bids and request a written explanation before rejecting them. The purpose of this mechanism is to ensure that the quality and timeline of the works are not jeopardized and that the bidder is capable of performing its contractual obligations. Because public investments and service projects must be delivered on time and at the required quality, abnormally low tenders are reviewed with particular care.
The concept applies to all procurement types, including goods procurement, service procurement, and construction works. The Public Procurement Law and secondary legislation impose a specific assessment process for unusually low-priced bids. This enables contracting authorities to clarify the basis of a bid that appears commercially unrealistic before signing a contract. As a result, the abnormally low tender process is critical for both contracting authorities and contractors, and it must be managed correctly.
This article explains what an abnormally low tender is, the post-detection process, how abnormally low tenders are queried, and the key points to consider when preparing an abnormally low tender explanation.
Abnormally Low Tender Process Under the 2026 Regulatory Framework
Under the regulatory framework in force as of 2026, the steps for identifying and assessing abnormally low tenders have been clarified. The tender commission first evaluates all bids and then identifies bids whose prices are unusually low compared with other bids or the estimated cost. Different methods apply depending on the procurement type:
Construction works and service procurements
For these tenders, a threshold known as the abnormally low tender limit value is calculated. The legislation provides a mathematical approach based on the distribution of valid bids and the estimated cost. The tender commission calculates the limit value in accordance with the relevant regulations and the Public Procurement General Communiqué, and determines which bids fall below that threshold. In construction tenders, for example, the limit value may be derived using the arithmetic mean of certain valid bids and specific coefficients; in service tenders, coefficients determined according to the nature of the service may be used. Bids below the limit value are treated as abnormally low.
Goods procurements
Unlike construction and service procurements, goods procurements do not rely on a fixed limit value calculation formula. Instead, the tender commission applies its discretion by comparing bids with each other and with the estimated cost to determine which bids may be considered unusually low. While this provides flexibility, regulatory changes introduced after 2021 made abnormally low tender scrutiny mandatory in goods procurements as well. Accordingly, for all tender types, abnormally low tenders—whether identified by formula or by administrative assessment—must be processed in accordance with the applicable rules.
Once abnormally low tenders are identified, the process includes: requesting explanations, evaluating explanations, and making a final decision. The tender commission is required to request a written explanation from bidders whose tenders are deemed unusually low. At this stage, the commission sends a written request and asks for detailed explanations regarding the key cost components of the bid before eliminating the bid outright. Under the 2026 framework, the approach previously seen in limited contexts—accepting the lowest bid without proper scrutiny—has been removed. In other words, a tender cannot be finalized without conducting the required abnormally low tender procedure for bids below the limit value; the scrutiny process is mandatory.
That said, the legislation also recognizes certain facilitating exceptions in specific cases. In particular, in some small-scale service procurements, bids identified as abnormally low may be rejected without requesting an explanation. Following a decision taken by the Public Procurement Authority in 2022, for certain service tenders with an estimated cost up to half of the applicable threshold value—such as catering services with materials, passenger transportation, and vehicle rental—bids below the limit value may be rejected without an explanation request. These exceptions were introduced where cost structures are relatively transparent and unusually low pricing can be assessed more objectively. Nevertheless, the general rule remains that bidders should be given an opportunity to explain, and the contracting authority should evaluate the explanation before deciding.
After receiving explanations, the tender commission reviews them carefully. The law indicates that, in assessing explanations, the commission should focus in particular on:
- the economic efficiency of the manufacturing or service method,
- technical advantages or special conditions available to the bidder for performance,
- the originality of the goods, services, or works offered.
The bidder’s written explanation should be realistic and supported by documentation. Based on these explanations, the commission determines whether the bid is feasible. If the explanation is deemed insufficient, or if no explanation is submitted, the bid is rejected and excluded from evaluation. Bidders whose explanations are accepted remain in the tender process; when identifying the most advantageous tender, the lowest-priced tender that has provided an acceptable explanation typically remains competitive.
Because the procedure can be complex for both authorities and bidders, strict compliance with the steps from start to finish reduces the risk of complaints and annulments. Where uncertainty exists, obtaining specialist support helps prevent loss of rights. As Bektas Law Office, we provide legal support throughout the tender process. You may contact our specialist team to ensure the process is conducted accurately and in compliance with the applicable rules, to increase your prospects of success, and to pursue any objections through all relevant stages.
Abnormally Low Tender Scrutiny
Abnormally low tender scrutiny is the process by which the contracting authority requests a written explanation from bidders whose tenders have been identified as abnormally low. This process is governed by Article 38 of Law No. 4734 and related secondary legislation. The tender commission sends a written request to each relevant bidder. The request must specify the key components of the tender that form the basis for the explanation, and the same components must be listed for all bidders.
Key tender components are the cost items that materially affect the bid price. For example, in construction works, the authority may request explanations regarding materials, labor, and equipment; in service procurements, it may request personnel costs, transport costs, and materials, among others. The authority must clearly identify these components and request detailed cost analyses and supporting documents. In addition, bidders can strengthen their position by submitting any information and documentation demonstrating why their bid is lower than others and how they will complete the contract at the offered price.
A reasonable period must be granted to bidders. Under the Public Procurement General Communiqué, bidders must be given at least three business days to submit an abnormally low tender explanation. The authority typically specifies the deadline and the submission method in its letter. In tenders conducted via the Electronic Public Procurement Platform, such notifications are sent electronically and bidders may submit their explanations through the system or in writing to the authority. The period is calculated starting from the day following the date the notice is served or made available on the platform and must cover at least three business days. In practice, authorities typically allow three to five business days.
Bidders requested to provide an explanation must submit documentation that substantiates why their price is low. The explanation file should include separate cost breakdowns for each key component. For example, in personnel-based service procurements, the bidder should demonstrate—through calculations—that its price covers mandatory expenses such as minimum wage, social security premiums, and travel and meal costs. In construction works, components such as material prices, transportation costs, and labor costs should, where possible, be supported by proforma invoices or quotation letters reflecting market conditions. The bidder should also explain the commercial basis for the lower price, such as the ability to procure materials below market price due to existing stock, transportation advantages due to proximity to the site, or cost savings achieved through specific technology—supported with evidence.
Another critical aspect is transparency and equal treatment. The authority must send requests of identical content and scope to all bidders whose tenders are deemed abnormally low and must not advantage or disadvantage any bidder through different questions or requirements. For example, it would be improper to request only material cost explanations from one bidder while requesting both material and labor explanations from another; the components must be consistent across all bidders. This principle has been repeatedly emphasized in Public Procurement Board decisions. A 2024 Board decision, for instance, found that the procedure had been conducted incorrectly because the authority failed to specify key components in its request, and ruled that the scrutiny must be repeated in compliance with the applicable rules. This illustrates that procedural deficiencies in the scrutiny stage can create serious legal risk for the tender outcome.
Failure to submit an explanation on time, or submitting an explanation that does not provide satisfactory information for the requested components, leads to an adverse result: bids are rejected under the rules. The tender commission evaluates whether the response is reasonable for each component and whether the bid amount is feasible in light of the explanation. Explanations that are not persuasive result in exclusion; those deemed adequate allow the bidder to remain in the competition.
Key Points When Preparing Abnormally Low Tender Explanations
When preparing or evaluating an abnormally low tender explanation, bidders should pay close attention to the following:
- Full coverage of key components: The explanation must address all key components specified by the authority. No item should be left unanswered or unsupported. If the authority requests explanations for materials, labor, and overhead, the file should contain separate analyses for each. Omitting even one component may render the explanation insufficient. From the authority’s perspective, key components must be clearly defined and applied equally to all bidders.
- Documentation and transparency: The explanation must be supported by concrete documents and data. Claimed costs should be verifiable. Examples include proforma invoices from suppliers, price quotations, or catalog price lists for materials; and calculations based on the applicable minimum wage and mandatory statutory employer costs for labor. In essence, the explanation should provide a clear and auditable rationale for how the bidder can perform at the offered price. The authority should assess the reliability of the documents and the internal consistency of the submitted data.
- Compliance with minimum cost elements: Particularly in personnel-based service procurements, bids must account for non-negotiable minimum costs such as minimum wage and mandatory insurance and tax expenses. In cleaning or security service tenders, the explanation must at least demonstrate that the bidder can fully cover statutory wages and premiums. If a bid is below these legal minimums, it is generally unacceptable regardless of the explanation, because such pricing implies non-compliance with mandatory obligations.
- Consistency and realism: The explanation must be consistent with the offered price. Bidders should clearly show how the total bid is derived from the cost components. If the aggregated costs exceed the bid price or are unrealistically lower, this indicates inconsistency. Claimed advantages must also be credible and supported; for example, a bidder claiming discounted procurement should substantiate the discount and demonstrate that the supplied materials meet required quality standards. Explanations drafted solely to win the tender without commercial realism typically fail to establish confidence and may be rejected.
- Regulatory compliance and ethical standards: Bidders must act honestly and in compliance with the rules. Submitting false or misleading documents, claiming discounts that do not exist, or intentionally undercalculating costs and providing incomplete information may trigger serious consequences, including exclusion from the tender and potential debarment from public procurement. Short-term gains should not be pursued at the expense of long-term legal risk. Authorities should also verify data where appropriate and, if necessary, conduct market checks to confirm the accuracy of submissions.
These points are critical to preparing and assessing abnormally low tender explanations effectively. Abnormally low tender procedures require technical expertise, familiarity with regulatory details, awareness of current Public Procurement Board decisions, and understanding of sector-specific cost dynamics. Where needed, consulting an attorney experienced in public procurement law can help ensure compliance and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome.
Assessment and Conclusion
The abnormally low tender procedure plays a central role in ensuring transparency, competition, and proper contract performance in public procurement. The 2026 framework seeks consistent implementation across all procurement types. Whether the tender concerns goods, services, or construction works, contracting authorities must carry out the required scrutiny and decide based on its outcome. This promotes efficient use of public resources and helps ensure that the contractor awarded the contract has the capacity to perform properly.
Correct application of the procedure supports a sound tender outcome. For bidders, a well-managed process reduces performance risks at the contract stage and mitigates the likelihood of delay or substandard delivery. If a bidder can offer a lower price due to a genuinely efficient cost structure and can substantiate this through a reasonable explanation, it can remain in the tender and compete successfully.
This article has addressed the concept and procedure of abnormally low tenders in public procurement under the 2026 framework. From tender announcement to contract signature, bidders must understand their rights and obligations regarding abnormally low tenders. Errors in this area can lead to prolonged complaint processes or even annulment of the tender. For that reason, professional support is advisable where uncertainties arise.
If you encounter abnormally low tender scrutiny in a public procurement process, you may consider working with a specialist public procurement team to protect your interests and manage the process effectively. Experienced legal counsel can guide you in preparing explanations, responding to the authority’s assessments, and managing potential challenges. As Bektas Law Office, our team experienced in public procurement law provides legal and technical support from start to finish. You may contact our specialist team to minimize risk in your tender process.
