A payslip does not prove where your worker lives — and without that home address, your 25-minute response time falls apart
The Council of State rejects Aquastructo's suspension request against its exclusion for unjustified abnormally low prices in the road-salting and snow-clearing tender for the Aarschot district, because the payslips Aquastructo submitted to evidence its short response times only state the place of employment — not the home addresses of the workers from which the claimed central location would have to be inferred.
What happened?
In early 2021, the Flemish Roads & Traffic Agency (AWV, Flemish Brabant division) launched a European tender for ice and snow control in the Aarschot district — preventive salting and curative snow-clearing with specialised vehicles. The four-year framework agreement was split into two lots: lot 1 (regional roads + adjacent cycle paths, 61 points on price) and lot 2 (separated and elevated cycle paths, 65 points on price). Four bidders submitted for both lots: Aquastructo, Krinkels, Soga and Abog. After bid opening on 25 March 2021, AWV requested price justification on 9 April for both the total price and several unit prices. Aquastructo justified on 21 April with four arguments: (1) efficient central location with workers from 'every region' enabling rapid response; (2) experience and know-how; (3) own track-and-trace system supporting efficient routes and tight time calculations; (4) reference to past contracts. For unit prices, Aquastructo proposed a 25-minute response time (lot 1) or 45 minutes (lot 2) including loading, based on average speeds of 50-70 km/h and 20 minutes loading. The 7 June 2021 award report rejected this. Among the reasons: 'Mere reference to other contracts is not sufficient'; '20 minutes [loading] is achievable for one truck, but in practice waiting times must be accounted for, making 20 minutes unrealistic'; AWV already provides track-and-trace on its salting trucks; the loading-place coordinator is under-qualified (a manual worker rather than a site supervisor). Conclusion: Aquastructo failed to rebut the appearance of abnormally low pricing for total price and unit prices on items 1 and 5 (lot 1) and items 1 and 3 (lot 2). On 18 June 2021, AWV declared Aquastructo's bid substantially irregular for both lots and awarded to Krinkels. Aquastructo's single plea — breach of duty of care and motivation — was rejected. The Council recalled that the burden of proof for the normality of a prima facie abnormally low price lies on the queried bidder. The submitted payslips 'mention only the place of employment, not the workers' home addresses', so the central element supporting short response times was not proven. Repeating the price justification in the application while reversing the burden onto AWV does not work. Elements not retained in AWV's final conclusion (such as reserve-vehicle depreciation) cannot ground criticism. The under-qualification motive seemed to be misread by Aquastructo as favouring its position. Suspension request rejected, costs awarded.
Why does this matter?
A price justification is no formality. A bidder that scores too low and is queried gets one — sometimes two — chances to demonstrate normality. This ruling sharpens the burden of proof: arguments like 'we are efficient' or 'we have experience' are explicitly disqualified. Documentary evidence must actually prove what it is supposed to prove — a payslip stating 'place of employment' does not prove 'worker home address'. And later reversing the burden onto the contracting authority ('AWV should have shown our times are unrealistic') does not work: the bidder must support concretely; the contracting authority does not have to disprove. For bid managers, this is a hard reality check: the sentences in your price justification must not be sales talk — they must contain numbers, source documents and reasoning that answer every doubt.
The lesson
Treat a price-justification request like a file in which every doubt the contracting authority can raise must have a direct, documented answer. Work line item by line item (total and unit price) with mini-reasoning: assumption → source → number → conclusion. If you claim home address is relevant, attach documents that actually establish home address — not place of employment. If you justify a short time by technology, attach a trip-report quote, not just 'we have track-and-trace'. Avoid arguments that also apply to your competitors ('we are sector experienced') — they add nothing to the normality test.
Ask yourself
Bid manager: when writing a price justification, lay it next to the contracting authority's six classic rejection motives: (1) summary and unsupported, (2) unrealistic times, (3) under-qualified personnel, (4) unsupported low depreciation, (5) generic arguments, (6) evidence that does not prove what is claimed. For each motive your document must offer an answer. No answer on one motive = lost on that point.
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 →