BNP downloaded, signed with Adobe Sign and re-uploaded — Treasury said 'not signed', the Council sided with BNP
BNP Paribas Fortis was excluded from the federal payment-accounts procedure because its submission report was not signed directly via e-tendering, but downloaded, signed locally with Adobe Sign by two authorised representatives and re-uploaded — a workflow that is precisely described as valid in the official FOD BOSA e-Tendering Handbook, and that neither the 2017 Procurement Royal Decree nor the selection guide prohibits.
What happened?
The Federal Public Service Finance launched, via a competitive negotiated procedure, a contract for 'The provision and management of a payment-account system for the needs of the federal government'. The bank accounts of essentially the entire federal government — a flagship contract. Three banks submitted requests to participate: Belfius, BNP Paribas Fortis and Bpost-Speos. At BNP, the electronic signature went wrong. Two authorised representatives (J.V. and B.G.) had to sign jointly under an authentic power of attorney published in the Belgian Official Gazette. But BNP staff could not place that signature directly via their work computer on the e-tendering platform — due to bank 'compliance rules'. BNP's solution: download the submission report from the platform, both representatives sign the PDF via Adobe Sign (linked to their e-ID), J.V. uploads the signed document back to the platform as the last document (no. 10) of the request, submitted on 15 September 2022 at 14:17:46 — one day before the deadline. Problem: the e-tendering platform automatically generated the message 'the submission report is not signed' — because the system saw no signature during the upload flow itself. In the evaluation report of 23 January 2023, BNP was therefore rejected as substantially irregular (art. 76 §1 of the 2017 Royal Decree). The reasoning: only a correct, global signing of the submission report directly via the platform safeguards authenticity; a separate signing of a document via a signed PDF file does not suffice. The evaluation report referenced the CVBA TOREON judgment (Council of State no. 246.539 of 30 December 2019). BNP went to the Council under extreme urgency. The Council ruled against the Treasury on two key findings: (1) neither art. 42 §2 nor art. 43 §1 of the 2017 Royal Decree, nor the selection guide, requires that the submission report be signed exclusively and directly via the platform. The official 'e-Tendering Handbook for businesses' (version 26 November 2021) of FOD BOSA describes in section 4.8.5 'Signing with own software and token (3rd party)' precisely the workflow BNP followed — download, sign with external software (Acrobat Reader DC, eID token, etc.), re-upload — as valid. By rejecting BNP, the Treasury applied a requirement that does not exist in its own handbook. (2) The reference to TOREON is not on point: in TOREON only the PDF files of the offer documents were signed separately, and the submission report itself was not signed — here the submission report itself was signed globally, just via a detour. The argument about the qualification of B.G.'s signature (Adobe Sign would only produce 'Authentication', not 'Signature') first appeared in the Treasury's note, not in the contested decision itself. The Council ruled that the irregularity finding 'appears to rest on incomplete investigation' — it is not for the Council in extreme urgency proceedings to conduct the technical debate about eIDAS certificates. Outcome: suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
Contracting authorities regularly reject bids and requests to participate based on formal requirements around electronic signing. This judgment sets a clear limit: it is not enough that the e-tendering platform displays 'not signed'. If the workflow (download, sign with external software, re-upload) matches what the official BOSA handbook describes as valid, the contracting authority cannot reject the bid. For bidders with strict internal IT policies (banks, hospitals, defence suppliers) who cannot freely allow every browser plugin, this is an important safety net: the 3rd-party signing flow remains fully valid.
The lesson
If your bid is rejected because 'the submission report is not signed' while you did sign it locally and re-upload it: immediately request the contested decision and check (1) whether the contract documents or selection guide explicitly impose 'direct' signing via the platform (if not, the authority has no legal basis), and (2) whether your workflow is described in the official FOD BOSA e-Tendering Handbook (section 4.8.5 '3rd party'). If both check out, suspension under extreme urgency is achievable. Also take a screenshot of the signed submission report with the eIDAS certificate properties ('Signature Properties') visible — you will need that evidence.
Ask yourself
Before submitting: do you actually know whether your eID/Adobe Sign flow produces a 'qualified electronic signature' (Signature) or only an 'advanced' one (Authentication)? Open the Signature Properties of the signed submission report in Acrobat — does it say 'This is a Qualified Electronic Signature according to EU Regulation 910/2014'? If not, use a qualified certificate (Belgian eID via Citizen CA, or a commercial QSCD), not just Adobe's default cloud signing.
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 →