Six abnormally low prices, six times 'answer satisfactory' — that is not a price review
The Belgian Council of State annuls a €655,708 award to GBM because the contracting authority dismissed six abnormally low prices with the same boilerplate line 'la réponse a été jugée satisfaisante', without obtaining a single purchase document or supplier catalogue.
What happened?
In July 2019 the Résidence Préfleuri care home (Neufchâteau) launched an open procedure for the supply and installation of kitchen equipment, classified as works, estimated at €677,856.93 excl. VAT. Three tenders were submitted, with GBM the cheapest and Polymat the most expensive. On 7 August the project author flagged six positions in GBM's offer as abnormally low (items 4.1, 5.9, 8.4, 12.4, 7.1 and 14.1, each more than 15% below the tender average) and one as abnormally high (5.1, more than 10% above). GBM was given twelve days to justify its prices, with specific requests for purchase prices, technical data sheets, labour costs, margin calculation and confirmation that site and technical conditions had been priced in. On 13 August GBM replied with a single explanation for all six low items: it belongs to the Eurochef network and therefore enjoys 'exceptionally favourable purchase conditions'. It provided purchase and sale prices per item with coefficients of 16.7%, 5% (item 8.4) and 9% (item 14.1), each time with the short line 'installation included'. No Eurochef catalogue, no supplier contract, no breakdown by material, labour, overhead and margin. For the high item 5.1, a supplier quote was produced. On 23 August the project author's analysis report simply pasted the line 'la réponse a été jugée satisfaisante' under every questioned item. GBM scored 100/100, Polymat 91.85/100. On 12 September the board awarded the contract to GBM for €655,708.41 excl. VAT. Polymat challenged the award. The VIth chamber agreed that when a contracting authority considers apparently abnormal prices acceptable, its reasoning must be precise and grounded in facts — their reality, accuracy and relevance. Here GBM produced no network catalogue, no purchase evidence for six of the seven flagged items, no cost decomposition, and no explanation for its differing margins. The identical one-liner under every item is 'une clause de style' that makes it impossible to understand the authority's reasoning. Beyond the formal motivation defect, the authority could not conclude, on such an incomplete file, to the regularity of the offer — that is a manifest error of assessment. Confidentiality of price justifications offers no cover. The award is annulled. The debate on the requested damages is reopened. Costs (€200 roll fee, €20 contribution, €770 procedural indemnity) are borne by the contracting authority.
Why does this matter?
This is one of the most recognisable patterns in Belgian procurement litigation: the authority detects abnormal prices, asks neat questions, receives a generic answer and stamps 'acceptable' on it. For bid managers finishing second: the award report around price justification is the first thing to obtain and dissect. A single stock phrase per item is often enough ground for suspension or annulment. For contracting authorities: this judgment sits within a very consistent line of case law (see 260462, 260794, 261881) — each item needs a factual anchor in the record, and boilerplate will not hold.
The lesson
When you ask a bidder to justify prices and you get a reference to 'exceptionally favourable purchase conditions' through a network or parent company, that answer is incomplete by definition without a catalogue, supplier quote or contract. Probe further — or declare the offer irregular. And do not write 'answer satisfactory' under every item in your award report: note, per item, which exhibit or figure supports your conclusion. A copy-pasted line is a style clause and it will not save an award on appeal.
Ask yourself
Open your award report and read only the price-justification section. If the same phrase ('acceptable', 'satisfactory', 'sufficient') sits under every questioned item and you need to go back to the bidder's letter to understand why — you have a problem. Even if your substantive judgment is right, the reasoning the Council of State demands is missing.
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 →