A red flag in DIGIFLOW is not an exclusion decision — call the tax office before kicking out the lowest bidder
The Council of State suspends in extreme urgency the award decision of BMWB after AIB-Vinçotte — the lowest bidder — was excluded on the basis of a DIGIFLOW certificate contradicted by positive certificates from both before and after the same date.
What happened?
The Brussels Water Management Company (BMWB) — a public-law limited company — announced on 10 June 2015 a negotiated procedure with publicity for legally required inspections of electrical installations, lifting equipment and other plant. Four lots, 36-month term. Five bidders, including AIB-Vinçotte and VZW Bureau voor Technische Inspecties. For lot 1, AIB-Vinçotte was ranked first (lowest price, sole award criterion). On 24 July 2015, BMWB consulted DIGIFLOW and received a 'negative fiscal certificate' indicating tax debts above €3,000. BMWB excluded AIB-Vinçotte on that basis and awarded lot 1 on 18 September 2015 to Bureau voor Technische Inspecties. AIB-Vinçotte immediately filed for urgent suspension. The bidder produced positive fiscal certificates from 7 July and 23 September 2015. At the hearing, it produced a certificate from the regional director of the collection centre, dated the very same day as the DIGIFLOW certificate (24 July 2015), confirming no tax, fine, interest or collection cost above €3,000 was due. The Council found the exclusion motive prima facie unsound — based on a certificate contradicted by another certificate of the same date. Significantly, an earlier ruling (no. 231.931 of 13 July 2015) had already warned contracting authorities not to 'rely blindly on the DIGIFLOW certificate'. Three factors reinforced that warning: (a) automatic and unilateral DIGIFLOW reliance was recent and the system could have teething problems; (b) AIB-Vinçotte is a highly reputable name, making insolvency claims unconvincing; (c) the DIGIFLOW certificate was requested outside the 48-hour window in Article 63. BMWB should have followed up with the tax authority instead of denying AIB-Vinçotte a chance to respond. Exclusion and award decisions suspended, along with the implicit refusal to award lot 1 to AIB-Vinçotte.
Why does this matter?
DIGIFLOW is a time-saving tool, not an oracle. A negative certificate can result from an update delay, a pending appeal, or a bug. Contracting authorities must not exclude a low bidder without critical review: is the system current? Is there a pending dispute? Is the €3,000 threshold actually crossed? For bidders, this is an important line of defence — if you know your tax situation is in order but DIGIFLOW says otherwise, immediately request a current certificate from the tax authority and submit it to the contracting authority. That can save an award.
The lesson
When DIGIFLOW shows a negative fiscal certificate for a bidder who otherwise meets all award criteria, delay your decision by one working day and call the collection centre to actively verify the certificate. Do this especially for reputable bidders or when the certificate was requested outside the legal 48-hour window. Accept counter-evidence (recent positive certificates, proof of payment or settlement plan) from the bidder.
Ask yourself
Before excluding a bidder based on a DIGIFLOW certificate: (1) was the certificate requested within 48 hours of bid opening? (2) did I contact the bidder to provide an explanation or a current tax certificate? (3) is there a pending appeal or payment plan the system has not yet processed? Three 'no's = exclusion without investigation = decision liable to annulment.
About this database
The Council of State (Raad van State / Conseil d'État) is Belgium's supreme administrative court. In disputes over public procurement — from contract awards to tenderer exclusions — the Council of State is the final arbiter. The rulings in this database are summarised by TenderWolf in plain language, with practical lessons for tenderers and contracting authorities. View all rulings →