RENEWI's price went up by EUR 113,000 after 'correction' — and the file does not say how
The Belgian Council of State suspends the award of a 4-year waste management contract to RENEWI because CHR Citadelle did motivate why a correction was needed but never explained how the price was actually recalculated — and without those calculation details, a 'rectification' of EUR 113,000 may in reality be a new price offer.
What happened?
The Centre Hospitalier Régional de la Citadelle in Liège (CHR Citadelle, an intercommunal hospital) launched an open procedure in late January 2018 for waste management over 4 years. The specifications had one award criterion: price. Two bidders responded: RENEWI at EUR 1,540,400 (excl. VAT) and SUEZ at approximately EUR 2,144,738 — RENEWI nearly EUR 600,000 cheaper. For 'recyclable waste' (such as cardboard) the specifications laid down a specific procedure: the contractor would send a monthly credit note multiplying the resold tonnage by a reference index. Critical detail: that resale amount could NOT be in the offer price — only the reference index had to be reported. Recycling income would be settled later via separate credit notes based on actual recycled tonnage. During analysis the CHR noticed that RENEWI's items 1 (CHR Citadelle site) and 11 had already incorporated the cardboard resale in the offer price (negatively — item 11 was even -EUR 26,024.80). On 27 March 2018 the CHR asked RENEWI: 'does your price include cardboard resale? If so, can you recalculate these 4 items without resale?' Two days later RENEWI replied with a four-sentence email: item 1 becomes EUR 1,173,002.85 (was 1,092,602.88 — increase of EUR 80,400), item 11 becomes +EUR 7,475 (was -EUR 26,024.80 — shift of EUR 33,500). The resale index after deducting the EUR 35/tonne delta would come to EUR 83.75/tonne. In the analysis report of 5 April the CHR noted: 'The clarifications provided are clear and allow us to establish that items 1 and 11 already incorporated the resale. To enable a fair comparison the offer was rectified on the basis of art. 79 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. RENEWI total of EUR 1,540,400.16 HTVA is rectified to EUR 1,654,299.5 HTVA, i.e. EUR 2,001,702.3 incl. VAT.' On 4 May 2018 the CHR awarded the contract to RENEWI for that rectified amount. SUEZ filed an extreme-urgency appeal. Central plea: the analysis report is insufficiently motivated. Nowhere does it say how RENEWI arrived at the new prices. What calculation was performed? Which quantité présumée was used? Was the resale index of EUR 83.75 actually mentioned in the original offer or invented after the question? Without those details, SUEZ argued, the CHR cannot show this was a mere correction — and not a new price offer. The CHR and RENEWI defended on two grounds. One: SUEZ has no interest because the rectification raised RENEWI's price (in SUEZ's favour) and SUEZ remained more expensive anyway. Two: an Excel table that RENEWI submitted with its intervention does show the calculation. The Council rejects both. On interest: 'Nothing allows us to prejudge what result a regular rectification would have produced — it might lead to a price higher than SUEZ's, or even to RENEWI's offer being rejected as irregular.' On the Excel table: it is not in the administrative file, so the CHR did not see it when taking its decision. Even a confidential document would have been acceptable — but nothing in the file explains the calculation. Core of the judgment: 'Neither the motivation of the contested decision nor the administrative file allow understanding how the offer was rectified — and thus knowing the motives on which the contracting authority relied to consider that the rectified prices were not in reality new prices.' The plea is serious, no counterweight in the balance of interests, so suspension.
Why does this matter?
When you 'correct' an offer as a contracting authority based on art. 34 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017, explain in the analysis report HOW you arrived at the new price — not only WHY a correction was needed. 'The clarifications are sufficiently clear' is not motivation. Other bidders must be able to follow what arithmetic operation was performed. Otherwise every 'correction' of a few tens of thousands of euros may amount to a new bid — which violates equality of bidders. For bid managers: if you notice the winner was allowed to 'correct' its offer by a significant amount (here +7.4% on the total), demand insight into the calculation method. If it is nowhere visible in the analysis report or the file, you have a strong argument for suspension — even if the correction seemingly works in your favour. Because as the Council says: nothing guarantees that a proper recalculation would not have led to an even higher price, or even to the offer being rejected as irregular.
The lesson
If as a bid manager you see the winning offer was 'corrected' after opening, immediately ask: what calculation was applied? What quantité présumée was used? What index, with what variables? If the contracting authority only replies that 'the clarification is sufficiently clear', you have a strong ground for suspension — even if the correction RAISED the price. For contracting authorities: a rectification under art. 34 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017 must be explained in the analysis report so a third party can reconstruct the calculation. Attach a confidential annex with the calculation if necessary — otherwise no guarantee exists that this was a mere error and not a new bid.
Ask yourself
If the winning offer after correction differs by more than 5% from the original price: can you point in the analysis report to the exact arithmetic operation performed, with what variables and what quantities? If not: ask for it before your appeal deadline expires — that is your strongest lever for a suspension.
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 →