Move a comma one position too far and end up €379,000 above the market — and you can't blame the contracting authority later
Renotec quoted a unit price in thousands instead of hundreds for the temporary signage on the Zelzate tunnel — €379,000, or 15% of its entire bid — and demanded that AWV correct this 'obvious material error'; the Council of State refuses, because the error was not 'apparent' and both the numeric and written-out price showed the same wrong figure.
What happened?
In May 2016 the Flemish Roads and Traffic Agency (AWV) launched an open tender for the renovation of the Zelzate tunnel on the N49/E34: replacing fire-resistant doors, applying spray concrete, renewing asphalt surfaces and sealing expansion joints. Five firms bid: BAM Contractors (€2,350,960.24 excl. VAT), Aswebo (€2,470,548.61), Renotec (€2,495,139.07), Trafiroad (€2,686,384.42) and Stadsbader (€3,146,936.03). During the arithmetic check AWV corrected some small rounding differences. In the price examination, something stood out: for item 164 (work site signage, DRIS panels) Renotec's unit price was 'completely out of proportion'. Renotec had quoted in thousands, while the other four bidders quoted in hundreds. AWV concluded this did not affect BAM's price (BAM was near the average); it merely flagged the unusual nature of Renotec's and Stadsbader's prices on this specific item. The contract was awarded to BAM on 29 July 2016. Renotec went to the Council of State (its extreme-urgency application had already been dismissed on 20 September 2016 by judgment 235,794) and argued it had made a 'pure material error' under article 96 of the 2011 Procurement Royal Decree: the comma was misplaced one position to the right, making its unit price €6,317.60 instead of €631.76. Total impact on its bid: €379,059 — exactly 15.19% of its inscription. Had AWV corrected this, Renotec would likely have been the lowest regular bidder. Renotec's arguments: (1) AWV implicitly recognised the error by writing 'completely out of proportion'; (2) at the mirror item 82 (identical works on the opposite carriageway) Renotec did quote in hundreds; (3) AWV knows the market prices for DRIS signage (only two suppliers); (4) a comparison of unit prices across bidders would have made the error visible. AWV defended itself with article 96 §1: 'the contracting authority is not liable for undetected errors' — the bidder is primarily responsible for its own offer. The XIIth chamber (Dierk Verbiest, presiding) sides with AWV across the board. First, a structural point: the 'completely out of proportion' remark belongs to the price examination (article 99), not the arithmetic check (article 96). An abnormal price is not ipso facto a price affected by a pure material error. Two: comparing unit prices across bidders is, under article 96 §1 paragraph 2, a tool for correcting an error already detected — not for detecting one. Three, and decisively: both the numeric unit price and the written-out unit price showed the same wrong thousand-figure. 'An apparent material error is therefore less likely', the Council holds. The fact that an Excel formula converts numeric input automatically into letters does not change this. Four: Renotec's own mirror item 82 has a substantially different unit price from the 'corrected' item 164 — Renotec is the only bidder where items 82 and 164 differ substantially. The reasons it advances (reverse execution sequence, price optimisation via subcontractor Fero, parallel contract) were unknown to AWV at the time of evaluation. Five: the supplier quotes Renotec produced afterwards were not included with its offer; AWV could not consider them in the arithmetic check. Six, for completeness: even if AWV ought to have spotted an error, the correction 'shift the comma one position left' is not obvious given the difference with item 82. The contracting authority has appraisal margin; the Council does not substitute its own judgment, only verifies whether it stayed within the bounds of due care and reasonableness. Appeal dismissed. Renotec pays €700 in procedural costs.
Why does this matter?
This judgment sets a hard threshold: a typo in your bid is not automatically an 'obvious material error' — even if it costs you hundreds of thousands of euros. Three elements drive the outcome and are recognisable in practice. One: numbers and letters that contradict each other are a signal to the contracting authority; numbers and letters that carry the same wrong figure are not. An Excel sheet that automatically converts numeric input into a textual representation works against you here. Two: the contracting authority does not have to compare unit prices across bidders to detect errors — that tool sits in phase 2 (correction), not phase 1 (detection). Three: a 'mirror item' in your own bid that is filled in differently from the item where you later claim an error undermines your case rather than supporting it. For bidders this means: double-check before submission, with focus on items that have a major weight in your total. For contracting authorities: article 96 does not require active hunting for bidders' typos — but it does require correct sequencing (arithmetic check first, price examination second), and careful motivation when you decide something is not a material error.
The lesson
Before submitting, automatically filter for items where the unit price differs by more than 5% from the estimated market price or comparable items in your own bill of quantities. And check every item that weighs more than 10% of your total bid manually — twice. Trying to have an error corrected afterwards as an 'obvious material error' is almost impossible when numbers and letters in your bid show the same wrong figure, and when a 'mirror item' in your own offer shows a different number. The contracting authority is legally not liable for errors it failed to detect.
Ask yourself
You submit a bid for a 200-item work. One item (15% of your total) has a unit price 10× higher than the other bidders'. What is your final check before submission? (1) Item-by-item cross-check against your calculation sheet and a previous bid for similar work; (2) verify that numeric and written-out figures match your intention — not just each other; (3) check that identical items in your bill of quantities (mirror items, repeated works) are filled in consistently. If you skip one of these three and end up with a typo, recovery afterwards is highly unlikely.
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 →