Asking why you lost: a letter under Article 55(2)

After the award · 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 11 October 2026. Next review due by 11 October 2027, or sooner if the law changes. EU rules only. Not legal advice.

Short answer. If your tender was admissible but lost, Article 55(2) entitles you, on written request, to “the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender selected” and the name of the winner. If your tender was rejected, you’re entitled to the reasons. The buyer must answer “as quickly as possible, and in any event within 15 days” from receipt of your request. It may withhold information whose release would prejudice someone’s legitimate commercial interests or fair competition (Article 55(3)), but not as a matter of course, and it must still give you the essential content you need to decide on a challenge (Antea Polska, C‑54/21). The standstill period can be shorter than 15 days, so send the request the day the decision arrives. The letter below asks for reasons and scores, not for a competitor’s documents. That is what the Directive supports, and it is the kind of request a buyer finds hardest to refuse.

EU law · What you’re entitled to ask

The buyer has to inform everyone of its decision “as soon as possible” (Article 55(1)). On top of that, “on request from the candidate or tenderer concerned”, it must inform you “as quickly as possible, and in any event within 15 days from receipt of a written request” (Article 55(2)):

The award decision itself must also come with “a summary of the relevant reasons” and the exact standstill period (Article 2a(2) of Directive 89/665; see after the award decision).

EU law · What the buyer can hold back, and what it can’t

The grounds. The buyer may withhold information where its release “would impede law enforcement or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of a particular economic operator, whether public or private, or might prejudice fair competition between economic operators” (Article 55(3)). Information a tenderer designated as confidential, such as trade secrets, is protected by Article 21(1).

The limits. The Court has drawn three:

• No automatic confidentiality. Accepting every confidentiality claim as a matter of course isn’t compatible with the Directive. The buyer must assess whether the information really has commercial value beyond the contract in question (Antea Polska, C‑54/21).
• The essential content, at least. Where full access is refused, the buyer must still give you the essential content of the information, so that your right to an effective remedy is respected (Antea Polska).
• A refusal can be challenged. A decision refusing to disclose information is itself open to review (C‑927/19, ruling point 4).

So ask for what you’re entitled to, not for documents. Article 55(2)(c) entitles you to the characteristics and relative advantages of the winning tender, not to a copy of it. A request for reasons, scores and the method is squarely within the Article. A request for the winner’s cost breakdown or technical solution invites a confidentiality refusal.

Scores, the method and low prices

• Scores per criterion. For EU institutions’ own tenders, under the EU’s Financial Regulation, the General Court and Court of Justice have required a quantified evaluation for each criterion or sub-criterion that the documents weighted (see must the buyer publish its scoring formula?). We haven’t found a judgment that applies that to Directive contracts in so many words. Asking for the scores is still the most direct way to obtain the “relative advantages” Article 55(2)(c) refers to.
• The method. The evaluation method normally can’t be decided after the tenders are opened (TNS Dimarso, C‑6/15). Asking how and when the price was converted into points is therefore a legitimate question.
• An abnormally low winner. Where a losing bidder expressly questioned whether the winning tender was abnormally low, the Court required the buyer to analyse it in detail and give that bidder the broad outlines of its analysis. That case concerned an EU institution (C‑101/22 P). Ask expressly, and ask about the analysis, not for the winner’s explanation file (see abnormally low tenders in the EU case law).

National law · Where your country may give more

National law can set longer standstill periods, specific forms for requests, and general rights of access to documents that go beyond Article 55. Check the review information in the decision you received.

Practice · The letter

Send it in writing, by a route that records the date of receipt: the procurement platform, or email with a confirmation. Fill in the fields in curly brackets. Delete the optional paragraphs that don’t apply.

To: {buyer name}, {department or contact person}
Procedure: {title}, reference {procedure reference}, notice {notice number}
Lot: {lot number, if any}
Date: {date}

Request for information under Article 55(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU
(and the national provision transposing it: {national provision, if known})

We refer to your decision of {date of the award decision}, received on {date received}, to award the above contract to {winner, if named}.

Our tender was admissible. Under Article 55(2)(c), please inform us of the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender selected. In particular, please let us have:

1. The scores awarded to our tender and to the tender selected for each award criterion and sub-criterion, with the reasons for each score.
2. How price (or cost) was converted into points: the formula, any rounding rule, and the price points awarded to our tender and to the tender selected.
3. When the evaluation method, including any scoring scale and the weighting of sub-criteria, was fixed.
4. Where the score of the tender selected was higher than ours, the characteristics of that tender that led to the higher score.

--- Optional: if your tender was rejected ---
Under Article 55(2)(b), please give us the reasons for the rejection of our tender{, including the reasons for the decision of non-equivalence or that our offer does not meet the performance or functional requirements}.

--- Optional: if you doubt the winning price ---
We note that the price of the tender selected is {amount or "considerably lower than ours"}. We expressly ask whether you considered that tender to appear abnormally low, whether you requested an explanation under Article 69 of Directive 2014/24/EU, and the broad outline of your assessment. We do not ask for the tenderer's own explanation or any information it designated as confidential.

--- Optional: procedures with negotiation or dialogue ---
Under Article 55(2)(d), please inform us of the conduct and progress of the negotiations and dialogue with tenderers.

If you consider that any of this information falls within Article 55(3), please tell us which item and on which ground, and provide at least its essential content, so that we can assess whether to seek review.

Article 55(2) requires a reply as quickly as possible and in any event within 15 days of receipt of this request. As the standstill period stated in your decision ends on {standstill end date}, we would be grateful for an earlier reply.

{name, position, company, contact details}

The three lines marked ”--- Optional ---” are instructions for you, not part of the letter. Delete them, and any paragraph you don’t need, before sending.

Our analysis · Why the letter is phrased this way

Practice · After you send it

1. Don’t wait for the answer to take advice. Review deadlines can run from the decision, not from the reply (see after the award decision and challenging an award decision).
2. Recalculate with the scores you receive. Check that the published weighting was respected.
3. If information is refused, ask in writing for the reasons and for the essential content. A refusal can be reviewed (C‑927/19).
4. Keep everything: the decision, your request, the proof of receipt, the reply and its date.

What this page doesn’t cover

National access-to-documents laws. Review procedures and their deadlines in a particular country. Utilities, concessions and defence. Purchases by EU institutions, except where cited as indications.