Anahata Solutions

The sanctioned trail behind a tender: how an abnormally low bid turned out to be a compliance breach

This case illustrates a scenario where a tender appears formally competitive, yet behind the artificially low pricing lie significant risks: violations of integrity principles, opaque sources of funding, and connections to sanctioned entities.

The client did not approach us to “challenge a decision,” but with a clear need: to uncover facts that could serve as grounds for formal action by the tender committee. Facts that were not visible in the official documents — but critical for the legal validity of the bid.

Context: an unusually low bid as a red flag for review

A Polish construction company was participating in a major infrastructure tender. One of the main competitors was a consortium of Turkish firms whose bid was significantly below market value. On the surface, everything seemed technically sound, but the contracting authority had reasonable concerns regarding the transparency of the financing and whether the companies met integrity standards.

The client suspected that part of the funding originated from sources linked to Russian capital, including entities under international sanctions. There were also concerns about the actual independence of the consortium members.

Approach: from legal forms to actual structure

The Anahata Solutions team conducted a comprehensive investigation into the corporate structure, ownership, and business relationships of the consortium participants. We analyzed corporate registries across multiple jurisdictions, reviewed prior tender involvement, transaction reports, and available international contracts.

Special attention was given to the financing framework — the origin of funds, how payments were made, and through which institutions the money flowed. It was in this layer that we uncovered links to Russian investors, including individuals and entities currently under international sanctions. Additionally, we found that part of the project funding was routed through banks already listed in sanctions regimes.

We also identified indicators of affiliation between the consortium companies: shared executives, overlapping functions across legal entities, and a shared history of joint project participation.

Outcome: compliance as a lever, not a formality

The gathered evidence enabled the client to file a substantiated appeal with the tender committee, requesting a review of the competitors’ eligibility. The claims were not speculative — they were grounded in legal facts: breaches in financing structure, non-compliance of funding sources with tender requirements, and the existence of indirect ties to sanctioned actors.

As a result, an investigation into the consortium’s eligibility was launched, the bid was re-evaluated, and the client not only retained the right to participate but gained a strategic advantage — not through confrontation, but through a well-documented position.

Conclusion: transparency is not a formality — it’s a competitive asset

This case reinforces the idea that integrity in tenders is not just a declaration — it’s a structure. In complex public tenders, it’s essential not only to comply with the formal criteria but to demonstrate when competitors do not.

What wins in such cases is not rhetoric, but precise legal insight: deconstructing the structure, tracing financial flows, identifying connections — and delivering facts that drive decisions.

If your bid is under threat due to non-transparent or unfair competition, don’t lean into emotion — lean into evidence. Build a position that works in your favor — through the law.