Intervening to defend your contract costs you €150 even if the authority withdraws — Liantis learns it at ONE
When ONE withdrew its award to Provikmo (now Liantis) after an initial suspension, applicant SPMT received €1,140 in costs — but Liantis, which had intervened to defend its contract, must bear its own €150 intervention fee.
What happened?
On 14 August 2018, ONE (Office de la Naissance et de l'Enfance, the French-speaking equivalent of Kind & Gezin) awarded a service contract to Provikmo (later renamed Liantis). The contract concerned the services of an External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work from 1 January 2019, specification 0-18023-SIPPT-DS-SEPPT. SPMT-ARISTA, the rejected competitor, filed a suspension application. On 29 October 2018 it succeeded: judgment 242.818 ordered suspension and at the same time admitted Liantis as intervening party — a typical pattern in EPPS cases, where the winning bidder wants to participate to defend its contract. On 5 November SPMT filed for annulment. ONE read the judgment, weighed the risks, and on 27 November 2018 withdrew its own award. On 3 December ONE sent registered letters to all bidders, including notice of remedies, forms and time limits. No one filed annulment against the withdrawal within those deadlines. The withdrawal therefore became definitive and SPMT's case lost its object. The Council lifts the suspension and finds there is no longer cause to rule. Then comes the cost order — and there it gets interesting. SPMT requested €700 procedural indemnity. The Council applies the same dual logic as in 245.076: withdrawal = succédané d'annulation contentieuse, so ONE is treated as the losing party, SPMT as the winning party. Article 67, §2(3) of the Regent's Decree blocks any uplift above the base amount, so exactly €700 is awarded. Add the €400 role fee and €40 contribution — total €1,140 against ONE. But what about Liantis? The Council draws a fine distinction: 'la partie intervenante supporte le droit de 150 euros lié à son intervention'. The intervening party bears its own €150 intervention fee. ONE pays 'the other costs' — the principal costs, not the intervention costs.
Why does this matter?
For bidders who won a contract and face a suspension or annulment application, this is a warning. Intervening seems obvious — you want to defend your contract, follow the reasoning, pressure the applicant. But if the authority then withdraws its award, you bear your own intervention costs (€150 role fee), without compensation. Plus you've incurred legal fees to ultimately achieve nothing. For contracting authorities, the message is that a withdrawal does cap the principal cost order at the base amount, but the winning bidder who came to defend the contract is not compensated by that same authority. That can strain the commercial relationship — especially in multi-year contracts where the same supplier intervenes repeatedly.
The lesson
As winning bidder: weigh whether intervention is worth it. When the authority's error is obvious and withdrawal probable, save yourself the intervention — let the authority handle its own defence. If you do intervene, treat the €150 + legal fees as 'insurance' against the worst-case scenario where you lose the contract to an annulment. As authority: communicate with your chosen bidder before withdrawing — if it has intervened, it now knows its own costs are lost.
Ask yourself
Are you, as winning bidder, considering intervention? Budget at least €150 role fee plus your own legal fees as 'lost' if the authority withdraws. When in doubt about the sustainability of the reasoning: wait for the auditor's report before intervening.
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 →