Pricing ¡ This guide was generated with the help of an AI system. Its legal references were checked against the official EU texts listed under Sources on . Next review due by , or sooner if the law changes. EU rules only. Not legal advice.
Short answer. After the deadline, the buyer may ask you to âsubmit, supplement, clarify or completeâ information or documents that are, or appear to be, incomplete or erroneous, or missing, unless national law says otherwise (Article 56(3)). It is a power, not a duty, and it must be used equally and transparently. The line the Court keeps drawing is simple to state: you may explain or correct what you submitted, and supply evidence of facts that already existed at the deadline, but you may not change your tender into a new one. Answer exactly what you were asked, within the time given, and donât use the request to improve your offer.
EU law ¡ What Article 56(3) says
âWhere information or documentation to be submitted by economic operators is or appears to be incomplete or erroneous or where specific documents are missing, contracting authorities may, unless otherwise provided by the national law implementing this Directive, request the economic operators concerned to submit, supplement, clarify or complete the relevant information or documentation within an appropriate time limit, provided that such requests are made in full compliance with the principles of equal treatment and transparencyâ (Article 56(3)).
Three features matter in practice:
- âMayâ. The buyer can ask, but the Directive doesnât oblige it to. National law can also restrict or exclude the possibility.
- âWithin an appropriate time limitâ. Youâll be given a deadline to answer.
- Equal treatment and transparency (also Article 18(1)). A request canât single out one tenderer for help that others in the same position donât get.
A request to explain a low price under Article 69 is a different procedure, with its own rules (see abnormally low tenders).
EU law ¡ What the Court has allowed and ruled out
Most of these judgments were decided under the earlier Directives, before Article 56(3) existed. They set out the principles that Article 56(3) now refers to. The Directive applied is noted for each.
| Situation | What the Court said | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Asking tenderers to clarify their tenders | Allowed, without requesting or accepting any amendment to the tender. The request must not appear, once the procedure is over, to have unduly favoured or disadvantaged the tenderer asked | SAG ELV, Câ599/10 (2004/18) |
| Clarifying a tender or correcting an obvious clerical error | Allowed if the invitation goes to all tenderers in the same situation, all are treated equally, and the result can't be equated with a new tender | Archus and Gama, Câ131/16 (2004/17) |
| Documents the specifications required, not submitted in time | The buyer may not invite a tenderer to submit them | Archus and Gama, Câ131/16 (2004/17) |
| A document describing your situation that existed before the deadline (for example a published balance sheet) | May be requested, if it can be objectively shown to pre-date the deadline and the documents didn't expressly say that its absence meant rejection | Manova, Câ336/12 |
| New documents to prove you meet the conditions, not in the initial bid (for example another entity's contract and its commitment to lend you its capacities) | Can't be submitted after the deadline | Esaprojekt, Câ387/14 (2004/18) |
| The ESPD of a wholly owned subsidiary whose capacities you rely on, missing from the tender | The omission may be rectified, unless national law precludes it, in compliance with equal treatment and transparency. The tenderer can't be excluded on that ground alone | Câ812/24 (2014/24) |
| A national "rectification" scheme with a fee | Not precluded in principle if the fee is proportionate. But it can't be used to remedy a missing document whose absence the documents expressly made a ground for exclusion, or to make changes that amount to a new tender | MA.T.I. SUD, Câ523/16 (2004/18) |
| Labour costs not listed separately, as national law required | Exclusion without a chance to rectify is allowed if the requirement is clearly in national law referred to in the documents. If the documents gave no way to list them, the tenderer may be allowed to regularise its position | Lavorgna, Câ309/18 (2014/24) |
National law ¡ Where your country decides
Article 56(3) applies âunless otherwise provided by the national law implementing this Directiveâ. MA.T.I. SUD and Lavorgna both concerned national schemes. Whether your buyer can ask for a missing document, how long you get, and whether a fee applies depend on national law and the documents.
Our analysis ¡ Clarification or new tender?
The cases share one test: after the deadline, the buyer can find out what your tender already said or what was already true, but you canât add something that makes your tender better or more compliant than it was. Some questions to put to any answer before you send it:
| Question | If yes |
|---|---|
| Does the answer change the price, the solution or a commitment? | Likely a new tender. Don't send it as a clarification |
| Does it correct an error that is obvious from the tender itself (an arithmetic slip, a typo in a reference)? | Likely a permissible correction, if the buyer asked |
| Does it supply a document that already existed at the deadline and only shows a fact that was true then? | Possibly allowed (Manova), unless the documents made its absence a ground for rejection |
| Does it bring in a new resource, partner or reference you didn't rely on in the tender? | Not allowed after the deadline (Esaprojekt) |
This is our reading of the judgments above, not a rule stated in them. Borderline cases depend on the facts and on national law.
Practice ¡ Answering a request
- Answer the question asked, and nothing else. Extra material can look like an attempt to improve the tender.
- Meet the deadline. The time limit set must be âappropriateâ, but you canât count on an extension.
- Point to where the answer already is. âSection 3.2 of our tender statesâŚâ is the strongest kind of clarification.
- Show dates. If you supply a document, make it easy to see that it existed before the tender deadline.
- Check your own tender before submission instead. Missing signatures, the ESPD of every entity you rely on, separate labour costs where national law requires them: a checklist before the deadline is worth more than any clarification after it.
- Watch what others are asked. If you learn after the award that a competitor was allowed to fix something you were not, or to add something new, note the dates and raise it promptly (see after the award decision).
What this page doesnât cover
Questions you ask the buyer before the deadline (see clarification questions). Explanations of a low price under Article 69. Utilities contracts under Directive 2014/25/EU, except where cited. National rectification procedures in detail.
Sources checked for this page
- Directive 2014/24/EU, consolidated text of 1 January 2026 (Articles 18, 56(3), 59, 63, 69)
- Court of Justice, C-599/10 SAG ELV Slovensko, 29 March 2012 (Directive 2004/18/EC)
- Court of Justice, C-336/12 Manova, 10 October 2013
- Court of Justice, C-387/14 Esaprojekt, 4 May 2017 (Directive 2004/18/EC)
- Court of Justice, C-131/16 Archus and Gama, 11 May 2017 (Directive 2004/17/EC, utilities)
- Court of Justice, C-523/16 MA.T.I. SUD, 28 February 2018 (Directive 2004/18/EC)
- Court of Justice, C-309/18 Lavorgna, 2 May 2019
- Court of Justice, C-812/24, 22 January 2026
This page is re-checked when any of the following happens: an amendment to Article 56(3) of Directive 2014/24/EU; a Court of Justice judgment on clarifying, correcting or completing tenders. Spotted an error? See how corrections work.