An Apple discount only meaningful when bundled with a laptop: post-factum motivation does not count
PXL university college awarded an Apple supply contract to Econocom because of an unusually high discount on one specific product; the Council suspends because the administrative file lacks any explanation — and the argument that 'this product is only ordered with a laptop' was raised only in the procedural notes.
What happened?
PXL ran a procurement for 'supply of laptops for resale to students, staff and own use'. The contract had three lots — lot 3 covered Apple products. Four award criteria for lot 3: discount percentage (80 points), service (10), alternative warranty (5), price of alternative warranty (5). The discount criterion was split into six sub-criteria, one per product category: laptops (25 points), desktops (10), iPads (15), iPhones (5), AppleCare (20) and accessories (5). Per sub-criterion the bidder offered a discount on Apple's official price list, with rule of three applied to the offered percentages. Two bidders for lot 3: Lab9 Pro (Apple Premium partner) and Econocom (Enterprise partner). For the discount criterion, Econocom scored 74.44 and Lab9 59.59 — a 25% difference. On 28 March 2023 (mistakenly dated 21 March), PXL awarded the contract to Econocom. Lab9 filed for suspension. The judges examined the assessment table: in a confidential Excel with two tabs, PXL had applied the rule of three twice — once to the discount percentages themselves (giving 59.59 vs 74.44 — the figures in the award report), once to the product prices after discount (smaller difference). PXL chose the first tab as prescribed by the specifications. The tab also contained a reference column with the discount percentages of the current supplier (2022-2023). The Council noted two things. First: for one specific product (presumably AppleCare, weighted at 20 points) Econocom offered a discount far higher than both Lab9 and the current supplier. There was no explanation in the file. Second: PXL argued in its procedural note that this product 'is only ordered with a laptop' and that the bundle total was comparable. But this analysis was not in the administrative file — it was post-factum motivation. Moreover, Lab9 argued that by offering such a high discount on a product that is actually rarely bought, a bidder can undermine the weights of the sub-criteria. The intervening party itself acknowledged in its 'bid strategy note' that it expected low volumes for this product. If PXL planned to buy AppleCare and laptops together, those should have been combined in one sub-criterion. Conclusion: the general price scrutiny was insufficient in the file. The award decision is suspended.
Why does this matter?
This judgment puts a finger on a typical weakness in supply contracts with multiple sub-award-criteria per product category: a bidder can strategically shift its discount to the most heavily weighted sub-category — even if that product is actually rarely ordered. The contracting authority must detect this pattern and explain in its award report why a strikingly high percentage is nonetheless not apparently abnormal. Failure to do so cannot be 'repaired' later via procedural notes: post-factum motivation is no valid motivation.
The lesson
If you lose to a bid with strikingly high discounts on one part of an award criterion, request the complete administrative file (including the confidential Excel assessment table). Look for an explanation of why that one high percentage is not abnormal. If the explanation is not there — and the contracting authority only raises it in the procedural notes — you have a strong ground. Conversely: if you have won by such a strategy, ask the contracting authority before the award to include your justification in the award report.
Ask yourself
For a price criterion with multiple sub-criteria: compare the offered percentages with the weights. Does one percentage deviate strikingly from both the current supplier and from what is economically logical for the bidder's partner status (Premium, Enterprise…)? And does the award report or assessment table contain an explanation? If both red flags appear, suspension is realistic.
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 →