A price analysis discussing only the more expensive offers leaves the winner out of frame — and missing the winner is missing the essence of the price examination
The Council of State suspends the award of the AViQ statutory auditor contract to L&S Réviseurs because the award report explains why the more expensive offers (RSM Inter Audit and the applicant) were higher, but says nothing about the price examination of the winner — while AViQ had built a 25% indexation into its estimate and the winner bid below that level.
What happened?
The Walloon Agency for Quality of Life (AViQ) launched on 14 November 2022 an open procedure with European publication for the appointment of a statutory auditor for fiscal years 2022 to 2024 (reference 22/078/MP/COMPT/C). The contract has two items: (1) control and certification of annual accounts — lump sum, and (2) validation of expenditure on European ESF projects — schedule of prices, estimated at 280 hours for 2022 and 260 hours per subsequent year. In the preparatory note for the AViQ General Council (10 November 2022), the estimate is expressly based on the previous contract's prices plus '25% indexation'. Three bidders submitted offers: SRL Callens, Vandelanotte & Theunissen (applicant), RSM Inter Audit, and SRL L&S Réviseurs d'Entreprises. On 9 March 2023, the AViQ General Council awarded the contract to L&S Réviseurs. The award decision states under price examination: 'In application of point 1.10.4 of the specifications, the Agency conducted a price examination. The three offers contain elements allowing the Agency to scrutinise all prices and understand their build-up. These elements explained the price differences between bidders. In particular, for item 1, RSM's offer is the most expensive, proposing roughly twice as many hours as Callens and L&S. For the hour allocation between auditors and managers, Callens proportionally allocates more hours to auditor and manager profiles, which financially impacts its offer. Yet all bidders understood the execution requirements, and the prices do not appear intrinsically abnormal.' The applicant filed an extreme-urgency action arguing that no concrete and effective price examination took place — particularly not for the winner. The Council ruled: the award report rightly discusses the price structure of RSM and the applicant (the more expensive offers), but says nothing about L&S Réviseurs' prices, which could not have escaped AViQ's attention for two reasons. One: L&S's prices are at the level of the lowest prices of the previous contract. Two: AViQ itself had built 25% indexation into its estimate — so the winner bid structurally below the indexed expectation. In the silence of the act and absent any element in the administrative file allowing a different judgment, the Council cannot verify whether AViQ effectively examined the winner's prices. Prima facie, no such effective examination took place. First branch of the first plea is serious. Suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
A price examination focusing on the more expensive offers seems logical — they are most suspicious for abnormally high prices or inefficiency. But this ruling reverses the focus: the winner is the one whose price most needs scrutiny, because a too-low price is the greatest risk to execution quality. The winner deserves systematic attention in the award report — without mention of what was examined about its price, the Council cannot establish that a price examination actually occurred. Particularly painful: AViQ itself had built a 25% indexation into its estimate. A winner below the indexed estimate is by definition a red flag.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, there is no price examination unless the award report explicitly discusses the winner's price — what was asked, what was answered, why the price is not abnormally low. Especially when your estimate built in a specific indexation or upward correction and the winner is below it: explain why the discount is plausible (more efficient methodology, different hour allocation, different cost structure). Comparison with more expensive competitors is no substitute. As a losing bidder, if the award report doesn't explicitly cover the winner's price, that's a strong plea — even more so if your estimate contained an indexation the winner doesn't reflect.
Ask yourself
Read the 'price examination' paragraph in your award report. Does the winning bidder's name appear with a specific explanation of its price structure, not merely as residue after discussing the highest offers? If not, rework the motivation. And check: did your estimate include an indexation? Is the winner below that indexed level? Then an explicit explanation why the deviation is acceptable is not optional.
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 →