€21M versus €36M and €40M: a price matching the estimate is not an abnormal price — even when competitors quote double
SNCB awards an 8-year framework agreement for ticket machines to Conduent at €21.4 million while Almex bid €36.2M and Scheidt&Bachmann €39.7M — and the Council refuses suspension under extreme urgency because Almex did not directly attack one essential reason given by SNCB: that Conduent's amount matches the original estimate, and that single reason suffices to remove any appearance of abnormality.
What happened?
SNCB launched, via a negotiated procedure with prior call for competition, an 8-year framework agreement for the supply, installation and maintenance of automated ticket vending machines (TVMs) on Belgian territory and the Netherlands-Germany border region. Special tender document CS3/0002334378 of 9 February 2022. Goal: new machines with I2B (Information to Buy) and After Sales functionality, plus greater Business independence from IT. 11 candidates, 6 retained, 5 offers (FLOWBIRD declared irregular). Three award criteria: quality 50%, price 30%, SLA 20%. Two-phase evaluation. After phase 2, the amounts diverge sharply: Conduent €21,390,625 (winner), Almex €36,225,760, Scheidt and Bachmann €39,655,722. SNCB itself splits price into three parts: hardware (~40%), software (~3%), maintenance/support (~57%). On hardware/software 'globally comparable'. The full gap is in maintenance/support: Almex ~€21.2M, S&B ~€24.6M, Conduent ~€6.4M — a factor of three. Yet SNCB concludes that 'the three final offers contain no unit or total prices that appear abnormal'. Three reasons given: (1) Conduent has physical presence in Brussels, the others do not; (2) maintenance is 'intellectual' work with strong price variations; (3) the total matches the initial estimate. Almex went to the Council under extreme urgency with four branches: prices were abnormal; at least an in-depth examination required; the three reasons are factually wrong (Almex has Belgian presence via subcontractor Unit-T from Mechelen with stocks in Ghent-Brussels-Namur; technician work is not 'intellectual'; the estimate comparison is doubtful); reasons are internally contradictory. The Council rejected on a principled basis. Key finding: 'The possible existence of a significant difference between the prices of one bidder and those of its competitors does not by itself establish that the contracting authority committed a manifest error of assessment'. Price verification's purpose is NOT to explain differences between bidders, but to ensure each individual offer can deliver execution without speculation against public funds. Decisive point: Almex did NOT directly attack one of SNCB's reasons — that Conduent's amount matches the original estimate. Almex critiqued that the estimate was poorly prepared, that there was no proper market prospection, that three other offers showed double the amount — but did not 'directement remettre en cause la comparabilité retenue par la partie adverse'. That single unattacked reason suffices on its own to negate any appearance of abnormality — and therefore any obligation to question Conduent. The three other reasons (Brussels presence, intellectual character) were not even examined — the Council found it unnecessary. Outcome: suspension under extreme urgency rejected. Immediate execution. Almex pays €994 in costs; Conduent pays €150 for its intervention. (Note: judgment rectified by judgment no. 257.020 of 30 June 2023 for a typo in one motivating sentence — no change to the dispositive.)
Why does this matter?
This judgment gives contracting authorities considerable room to accept dramatic price differences without further inquiry as long as they have one solid reason. And it shows the flip side for challenging bidders: in a suspension request you MUST attack each reason in the award decision directly. Miss one — especially the central 'comparable to our estimate' — and you lose, even if the winner's price is half of yours and of the two other serious bidders. For bid managers it also means: if you win a contract with a price well below the competition, look in the award decision for the 'comparison with initial estimate' argument. If the authority used that argument, the award is extremely difficult to challenge — unless the estimate itself is critiquable.
The lesson
When filing a suspension request against an award where the winner has an unusually low price: make a list of ALL reasons the authority used to qualify that price as 'normal'. For EACH reason you must develop a direct ground — not a general attack on the price examination as a whole. If the authority says 'comparable to our estimate', you must prove that estimate was not representative: how many companies were consulted in the prospection phase? How old is the estimate? Which historical contracts is it based on? Which market dynamics have changed since? Without that direct attack the reason stands and is on its own enough to refuse suspension.
Ask yourself
Open the award decision. Find the paragraph 'Régularité des offres de prix' or 'price examination'. List ALL reasons the authority uses to qualify the winning price as non-abnormal — typically there are three or four (technical explanation, market context, comparison with estimate, etc.). Do you have a specific argument for EACH reason? More specifically: have you directly attacked the reason 'comparable to our estimate'? If not, revise your application before filing.
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 →