A 'maintenance contract' for cycle paths sounds like services — but the CPV code decides, and CPV 45233141 is works
The Council of State rejects the extreme-urgency action by a cleaning company without contractor accreditation against the award to Sotraplant of the maintenance contract for the cycle paths of Namur province, because a contract under CPV 45233141 'road maintenance works' is works — not services — and a bidder without personal accreditation cannot be awarded the contract, even if its subcontractor presents a (partly fitting) accreditation.
What happened?
On 15 October 2015 the Walloon Region published in the Belgian Procurement Bulletin a notice for a 'maintenance contract for the cycle paths in Namur province'. The notice clearly stated: main object CPV 45233141 (road maintenance works), category C, class 3 contractor accreditation required. The award procedure was open adjudication. The specifications described the works on page 3: cleaning of cycle path surfaces, edge clearing, earthworks, use of vacuum sweepers and sewer suction trucks, and 'various works in régie'. On 3 November 2015 the bids were opened — seven bidders, including Laurenty Balayage de Voiries-Wegennet and Sotraplant Travaux Routiers. On 18 November the Region asked Laurenty to justify its prices (Laurenty answered on 24 November). On 12 January 2016 the administration filed its report: all bidders met the qualitative selection 'with the exception of Laurenty Balayage de Voiries which does not hold the required accreditation'. Recommendation: award the contract to Sotraplant as the lowest regular bidder. On 28 January 2016 the Region decided accordingly — award to Sotraplant for €331,455.87 incl. VAT. The decision was notified on 25 March 2016. Laurenty filed an extreme-urgency action (8 April 2016). Their core argument: this is in fact a services contract, not a works contract — cleaning cycle paths is a service, not a 'work' under Annex 1 of the Act of 15 June 2006. Maintenance, they argued, is not works — only restoration and repairs are. Their analysis of the price schedule allegedly showed that cleaning and earth transport accounted for over 2/3 of the value, with pure works items below the €75,000 threshold triggering accreditation. And if it really was services, the standstill period had not been respected before signature. The Walloon Region replied: Laurenty has no personal accreditation; a certificate in the name of 'Laurenty Espaces Verts – Groene Zones' (a separate company) does not count; the subcontractor's certificate was in Dutch (the specifications required French) and only covered subcategory C3 (signalling), not the broader category C. Moreover, the power of attorney in Laurenty's bid was signed by the director of Laurenty Espaces Verts — not by anyone authorised to bind Laurenty Balayage de Voiries. And Laurenty's statutory object is limited to 'cleaning of public or private roads, suction and emptying of catch basins, high-pressure cleaning' — no road maintenance works. The acting president of the sixth chamber (in summary proceedings) sided with the Region. The CPV classification 45233141 is directly applicable under Regulation (EC) 213/2008. 'Road maintenance works' are works, not services. Anyone arguing the contrary is in legal error. The bid specifications — earthworks, edge clearing, various works in régie — confirm that the primary object is works, not services. The Region was therefore entitled, without manifest error of assessment, to require contractor accreditation. Laurenty admitted at the hearing that it had no personal accreditation. Additionally (à titre surabondant): Laurenty's statutory object did not cover the works in question. Result: without accreditation and without legal capacity, Laurenty could in no event be awarded the contract — no interest in the action, request inadmissible, suspension refused.
Why does this matter?
The line between works and services in maintenance contracts is thinner than it looks. 'Maintenance contract' can fall either way — depending on the actual services and, decisively, on the CPV code in the notice. If a notice carries a works CPV, accreditation can be required. If a cleaning contract is qualified as 'works', all service providers without accreditation are excluded. For bid managers: read the CPV code in the notice before deciding to bid. A wrong call (a cleaning company bidding solo on CPV 45233141) cannot be repaired by a partly-accredited subcontractor or by trying to reclassify works as services after the fact before the Council of State. For contracting authorities: your CPV choice instantly fixes the applicable regime — think twice before slapping a works CPV on something that is essentially a cleaning contract.
The lesson
Start every procurement with the CPV code. Does it fall under Annex I of the Act (works)? Then contractor accreditation is mandatory and you must hold it personally — a subcontractor with a (partly fitting) accreditation cannot carry your bid. A certificate in the name of a sister company does not cover you. And even with accreditation: your statutory object must cover the works concerned — otherwise you have no legal capacity to perform the contract.
Ask yourself
Before bidding: (1) Is the CPV code in the notice from Annex I (works)? Then you need your own accreditation. (2) Is your statutory object broad enough to cover the services? (3) Who signs your bid — is that person authorised for YOUR company, not for a sister entity? Three no's = three reasons the Council of State will not even hear you.
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 →