A reference number ending in '040' costs a contractor a €2.1 million contract
The Council of State refuses to suspend the award of the Pivert 2 renovation of 65 social housing units in Anderlues to Lixon, because the insulation panel that Hullbridge offered under the reference 'RHINOPOR PS 15 SE 040 120 mm' prima facie has a lambda coefficient of 0.040 W/m²K — whereas the specifications require 0.032 — and the bidder should have verified this when asked to justify its prices.
What happened?
On 26 August 2015 the social housing company Immobilière Sociale Entre Sambre et Haine published a notice for the energy renovation of 65 social housing units in the cité Jardin du Fief in Anderlues, under the Walloon Pivert 2 programme. The procedure was a lowest-price open tender for works fundamentally aimed at energy performance. The technical specifications required, in clause 43.52, an insulation panel with a maximum lambda coefficient of 0.032 W/m²K. Eight bids came in. Prices ranged from €1,918,216.34 (Théret et Fils, including a 2% discount) to €2,509,298.60 (Sotrelco). Hullbridge ranked second at €2,003,202.05 (after a 5% commercial discount). Lixon was third at €2,126,048.49. On 13 October 2015 the project author wrote to Hullbridge requesting a detailed cost breakdown — purchase price, hourly rate, production yield, profit margin — together with technical data sheets for several items. Hullbridge replied on 26 October 2015 with the requested breakdowns and sheets. For item 43.52.1a — façade insulation system — it justified its price using a panel with the reference 'RHINOPOR PS 15 SE 040 120 mm'. On 25 February 2016 the contracting authority rejected Hullbridge's bid as substantially irregular on two independent grounds: • Non-conformity of the insulation: the project author read the figure '040' in the reference as a lambda coefficient of 0.040 W/m²K, whereas the specifications required 0.032. As Pivert 2 is an energy programme and EPS 040 in 120 mm thickness cannot meet the energy performance rules, this is a substantial deviation. • Abnormally low price: after the 5% commercial discount, overheads and profit fell to 8.5% of the sale price (13.5% – 5%), against a usual range of 12% to 15%. The bidder's justification — that overheads would be 'largely covered by other ongoing or planned sites' — was rejected as unverifiable. The contract was awarded on 16 December 2015 to Lixon for €2,113,373.22 excl. VAT and signed. Hullbridge filed an extreme-urgency action on 10 March 2016 with a single plea. The authority first argued lack of standing: the contract had been signed, so suspension would no longer give Hullbridge the work. The Council relied on classic case law under article 14 of the law of 17 June 2013: a bidder retains at least a qualified moral interest in challenging the award decision — a separable act — even after the contract has been concluded. The exception was rejected. In the first branch of its plea Hullbridge contested only the non-conformity (not the abnormally low price). According to the bidder, '040' referred to the maximum available thickness of the panel — 400 mm — and the panel did have a lambda of 0.032. The Council was unimpressed: the reference itself contains '120 mm' for the thickness, so that does not explain '040'. Moreover, the administrative file contains a KNAUF certification document for the Rhinopor PS 15 SE system: the lambda for this type of panel is 0.040 W/m²K. Several other documents corroborate this. Prima facie, the contracting authority did not commit a manifest error. The second branch of the plea — on abnormally low prices — was not examined: since the first ground independently sustained the rejection and was not successfully challenged, the second branch could not lead to suspension. The plea was held not to be serious; the action was dismissed. Hullbridge was ordered to pay €700 procedural indemnity plus €200 in other costs.
Why does this matter?
For bid managers, this is a tangible reminder that technical conformity does not end with the line 'we propose: panel X'. Once the contracting authority asks for price justification and you must hand in product references, those references become the factual basis for the conformity analysis. A reference number suggesting a lambda above the specification is no longer a typo but a substantial deviation — even if you intended something else. The bitter twist: the rejection happened because the authority asked for justification. Hullbridge effectively exposed its bid by handing over a document it could otherwise have kept. That also explains why aggressive commercial discounts are risky in energy projects: pushing your margin down to 8.5% triggers a presumption of abnormally low price, opening a second line of attack.
The lesson
When you are asked to justify prices and must submit product references for an energy-critical component, do three things before sending: (1) verify the lambda or energy parameter in the manufacturer's official data sheet — not only in the supplier's quote; (2) if the reference contains digits that resemble the specification parameter, attach an explicit supplier confirmation that the panel meets the specification; (3) consider how a commercial discount affects your margin — falling below 12% structurally invites a price investigation.
Ask yourself
Take your product references for items where the specification sets a specific energy parameter. Have a technician check, for each product, whether the manufacturer's official data sheet confirms the specification value. If not — or if it is unclear — attach a signed supplier statement that mirrors the specification literally. That is half a day of work and avoids a rejection you can no longer fix.
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 →