A site visit for 'contract A' can't double as a site visit for 'contract B' — even if it's the same site
The Council of State suspends the award to Move & Play – MP Solutions of the redevelopment of the Scheutbos playground: the specifications required a site visit 'on pain of nullity', and the certificate the winner attached from an earlier visit for the parallel supplies contract does not satisfy that requirement for the works contract.
What happened?
The Brussels Institute for Environmental Management (IBGE) plans the redevelopment of the playground in the upper section of Scheutbos park in Molenbeek-Saint-Jean. The project is split into two parallel contracts: a supplies contract for designing and installing large play structures (awarded in June 2017 to Move & Play – MP Solutions) and a works contract for landscaping (demolitions, plantings, ground covers, earthworks). The works contract is announced on 15 May 2017 via direct negotiated procedure with publication. Sole award criterion: price. The specifications require — in bold and on pain of nullity — a mandatory site visit on 7 June 2017 from 10:00 to 12:00, where the project author and the supervising officer would present the site and its access conditions. Five companies bid. After negotiation, three remain. Move & Play offers 384,780.73 euros incl. VAT, Quintelier 387,176.47 — a 2,395.74 euro gap. The contract is awarded to Move & Play on 8 November 2017. Quintelier challenges in extreme urgency: Move & Play didn't attend the 7 June visit but submitted a certificate from a 6 March 2017 visit organized for the supplies contract. The IBGE defends with two arguments: the specifications don't strictly require the 7 June visit (the certificate template even allows manual date entry), and Move & Play already knew the site through the supplies contract. The Council disagrees. The visit must serve to 'submit an offer in line with the specifications considering the site environment'. The site has specific constraints: site vehicle access, storage, tree and root protection, walker safety. On 6 March 2017 the works contract specifications didn't even exist — they were published only on 15 May. So the supplies bidders couldn't possibly know the works contract's technical constraints, let alone visualize the layout in light of them. Additionally: Move & Play's joint partner (Henssen Holding B.V., the only one with the G class 3 accreditation required for earthworks) didn't even bid on the supplies contract and certainly didn't attend the 6 March visit. And against the argument that Move & Play was 'already on site' on 7 June: the supplies contract award was only communicated on 26 June. The ground is serious. Suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
Textbook example of patere legem quam ipse fecisti applied to site visits. A visit organized for contract A cannot simply be 'transferred' to contract B, even if the physical site is the same. Reason: a visit doesn't aim to learn the site abstractly, but to view it in light of the specific specifications. If contract B's specifications didn't exist when the visit for A was held, the visit is by definition unsuitable. And if the partner with the critical accreditation didn't attend, the entire joint venture wasn't 'present'.
The lesson
For authorities: organize a separate site visit for each contract, even on the same site. Be careful with bidders relying on earlier visits in different contexts — don't accept certificates dated before your specifications were published. For tenderers: attending the announced site visit is cheaper than an extreme urgency procedure, even if it costs a morning. And ensure ALL members of a joint venture attend — especially those with critical accreditations. For challengers: a certificate date prior to specifications publication is a strong ground.
Ask yourself
Did the contract winner actually attend your announced site visit? Or does their offer attach a certificate from a different visit? If so, compare the certificate date with your specifications publication date — if the first precedes the second, it's very likely a breach of the specifications.
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 →