A price justification based on 3 hours of work — when the specifications require two buses — isn't analysis, it's negligence
The City of Ninove awarded a school transport contract priced at €107,611 (GEO) to a competitor at €41,190 — almost 2.5 times cheaper — after a 'price justification' based on three hours of service, even though the specifications required two separate buses on separate routes.
What happened?
In May 2017, the City of Ninove launched an open tender for student transport for the 2017-2018 school year, divided into four lots. Lot 1 — bus transport for the Windekind school in Denderwindeke — was atypical: the specifications explicitly required 2 buses with separate schedules, for a total of 70 students in the morning and over 100 in the afternoon. The other three lots only required one bus each. The estimate for lot 1: €104,558 including VAT. Three bidders submitted offers for lot 1: GEO bid €107,611, Transibus Local Services SPRL bid €41,190, and a third bidder offered €110,473. Transibus was more than 60% cheaper than the others — and was at about 39% of its lot-4 unit price (€264.40 for one bus vs. €215.88 for what should have been two buses). On 10 July 2017, the school cluster's coordinator director requested a price justification from Transibus. They responded on 24 July with a calculation based on 'a capacity of 50 students and 3 service hours'. Transibus also referenced its fleet of 85 buses (60 deployed for De Lijn/TEC). The college of mayor and aldermen accepted the justification on 8 August 2017 because the company 'applies a small profit margin', and awarded all four lots to Transibus. The City of Ninove did not file a note and did not appear at the hearing on 7 September 2017 — consequence: article 4 fourth paragraph of the RD of 5 December 1991 means the authority is deemed to consent to the petition. But on the merits the case was clear too. A price justification based on 3 service hours cannot possibly cover two separate bus routes with two separate buses, each requiring at least three hours. Transibus had effectively bid with one bus, while the specifications required two. An offer deviating from an essential technical specification — and the number of buses qualifies as such — is substantively materially irregular and therefore void (art. 95 §§3 and 4 RD Procurement). The Council suspended the award by extreme urgency. The implicit refusal to award to GEO was not separately suspended (no added value beyond the suspension of the main decision).
Why does this matter?
For procurement officers this is a warning at the critical moment in the award cycle: the price examination for suspiciously low offers. Ninove's mistake wasn't that they didn't request a price justification — they did — but that they didn't hold the justification up against the specifications. A calculation based on 3 hours can be correct for one bus, but not for two. For bid managers facing a low competitor: here is the angle of attack — show that the price justification doesn't match what the specifications require.
The lesson
When examining a price justification, always lay it next to the technical specifications. Does the number of work hours match the number of vehicles, locations or persons required? Does the capacity calculation match the announced quantities? A price justification that does not fully cover the procurement obligations isn't justification — it's an indication that the bidder has priced a different contract than the one you tendered.
Ask yourself
For every price justification you accept: create a short checklist of the essential technical requirements in your specifications (number of units, frequencies, capacities) and tick that the price justification explicitly covers each element. If one element is missing — e.g. the bidder calculates for 1 bus while you require 2 — the offer is substantively irregular and you MUST exclude it.
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 →