A forgotten methodology document is not an 'arithmetic error' — even when the contracting authority already knows the content
The lowest bidder received 0/10 for technical centre maintenance because the methodology document was missing; the Council of State refuses to qualify this as a material error and confirms that regularisation would alter the offer — which is forbidden.
What happened?
In October 2015 the Walloon Region launched an open tender for maintenance of the Wacondah hydrological telemetry network (specifications 02.02.03-15D85). Two bids came in: the temporary partnership Paque-Hemmis at €710,281.70 incl. VAT, and Cofely Solelec at €873,264.34 incl. VAT. Both subcontracted the same component — maintenance of the technical centre — to the same subcontractor SPIECE. Yet Paque-Hemmis received 0/10 there because the methodological note for that component was missing from their bid. Cofely received 7/10. Final score: Cofely 82.20, Paque-Hemmis 71.80. The painful detail: in the same tender one year earlier (procedure 02.02.03-14B88, since annulled by ruling n° 230,692 of 30 March 2015) Paque-Hemmis had received 10/10 for the very same component with the very same subcontractor. The contracting authority therefore already knew the methodology. Paque-Hemmis sought suspension and argued that the Walloon Region should have applied art. 96 §1 of the Royal Decree of 15/07/2011: the contracting authority must rectify 'arithmetic errors and purely material errors' by seeking the bidder's true intention — through analysis of the bid, comparison with other bids, and if necessary by asking the bidder. The Council disagreed. First argument: the mere fact that a document was forgotten 'by inadvertence' is not enough to qualify as a material error. Second and decisive argument: even if it were a material error, the contracting authority could not request the document. Art. 96 §4 allows a bid to be 'clarified or completed without modifying it'. But requesting a missing essential document — indispensable for evaluation — would actually modify the bid, as the content was not present elsewhere. Consequently: not requesting completion was correct, and 0/10 was reasonable. Suspension refused. Paque-Hemmis pays €700 procedural indemnity to the Walloon Region plus €400 in other costs.
Why does this matter?
Many bidders hope — often rightly — that a forgotten document can later be supplemented under the guise of 'material error'. This ruling closes that escape route for substantive content documents. A methodological note required to assess an award criterion is not a counting error: it is a fundamental part of the offer. Even when the contracting authority knows the content from a previous procedure or from a competitor's similar bid, it cannot fill in what is missing. For bid managers: a final completeness check is not a luxury but a survival requirement — especially for bids with multiple annexes.
The lesson
If you forget a document about your award methodology with your bid: do not assume the contracting authority can still request it under art. 96 of the Royal Decree of 15/07/2011. The difference between an arithmetic error (correctable) and a missing substantive document (not supplementable) hinges on whether the correction modifies the bid. Correcting an arithmetic error changes numbers but not the substantive offer; adding a forgotten methodological note does modify the offer because the content was not there. Build a mandatory final checklist before your bid is sent: is every document required by the specifications actually attached?
Ask yourself
Do you have a four-eyes completeness check before submission? Concretely: one person ticks off each required document from the specifications against the actual bid; a second person does the check independently afterwards. Specifications ask for 12 annexes → check must yield 12 'present' results.
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 →