€1 million cheaper and still excluded: forgotten road signalling in item B.01.01 makes the bid irregular
The Council of State confirms that Wallonia rightly excluded the lowest bidder (€4.52M) because one major item of its price justification did not include the legally required road signalling — and may simultaneously accept the winner (€5.80M) on the basis of a short but concrete reasoning.
What happened?
In March 2018, the Walloon Region published a tender for replacing street lighting with LED on its non-structuring road network. Four bidders; Verstraete & Zoon was lowest at €4,520,942 including VAT, followed by the Yvan Paque – Engie Fabricom – Ronveaux consortium at €5,795,318. During price analysis, the Region requested justification on items where unit prices deviated more than 15% from the estimate or average bid. For Verstraete this concerned 22 items, including B.01.01 — replacing a lighting fixture on a lamppost — alone representing 16.26% of the contract value. Verstraete justified €84/unit: 1.12 hours of one worker in a cherry-picker truck at €75/h, plus 3% overhead and 5% profit. No mention of road signalling — even though the specifications expressly required every intervention on Walloon roads to include signalling per CCT QUALIROUTES, with those costs included in unit prices. The Region asked for clarification. Verstraete answered with vehicle, fuel and labour cost details, but again nothing on signalling. A third, voluntary email claimed signalling was provided 'in 1 of 8 cases'. Insufficient, ruled the Region: such interventions often require at least 3 workers (one for the lift, one for pre-signalling, one for the impact attenuator) — costs not embedded in the €84/unit. Conclusion: B.01.01 price is abnormal → substantial irregularity (art. 36 §3 RD 18/04/2017) → exclusion. The contract goes to Paque-Engie-Ronveaux. Verstraete files for annulment. First plea: misjudged price justification. Council: contracting authorities have wide discretion in price control; no manifest error. Second plea: the reasoning for the winner was 'stereotypical' and the winner allegedly justified its supply items with mere supplier offers plus margin — which the Royal Decree's report explicitly excludes. Council: an identical reasoning template is not in itself problematic when each item is concretely filled in; succinct reasoning suffices if it demonstrates real analysis. Crucially, the winner had also produced a supplier quote plus a detailed breakdown of overhead and profit (which Verstraete had not done for its supply items), so no unequal treatment. Appeal rejected, Verstraete bears costs.
Why does this matter?
Losing the lowest bid because one mandatory ancillary item was missing from the price is a common mistake. Specifications for roads, construction and infrastructure routinely contain 'included' cost items such as signalling, safety coordination, site visits and logistics. A bidder who fails to address them explicitly in price justification gives the contracting authority a legitimate ground to reject the offer as abnormal and substantially irregular — even when the total price is millions below the competition. For contracting authorities this is welcome support: well-motivated rejection of incomplete price coverage holds up before the Council of State.
The lesson
When drafting price justification: read your specifications chapter by chapter and check that every 'inclusive' ancillary cost item (signalling, safety coordination, transport, site visits, warranty extensions) appears explicitly in your breakdown. A general statement 'these costs are included in our unit prices' does not suffice. For supplies: justification cannot be limited to a supplier quote plus margin — you must substantiate the margin (overhead, profit) and ideally attach the supplier quote.
Ask yourself
When drafting price justification, write next to each item a short line listing the inclusive ancillary costs your specifications mention. Could you convince a procurement officer that you have actually integrated those costs into your unit price — not just claimed it verbally, but supported with figures? If not, rework before the second clarification round.
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 →