A price check that only looks at total bid amounts isn't a price check — unit prices don't quietly fall under 'all normal'
The Council of State suspends Charleroi public-health intercommunal ISPPC's award of its medical-mail contract to Postalia Belgium because the bid analysis report compared total bid amounts but contains no proof of any concrete unit-price verification — and an 'all normal' line in the observations note does not cure that.
What happened?
ISPPC, the public-health intercommunal of Charleroi (operating CHU de Charleroi across multiple sites), tendered in June 2023 a 2024-2026 contract for medical-mail distribution and parcel transport, split into lot 1 (overnight delivery to physicians and mutuelles, all to be at doctors' offices by 6 a.m.) and lot 2 (laboratory samples, pharmacy medicines, medical material). Open procedure, unit-price contract. Two firms bid for lot 1: Postalia Belgium (€106,310.60 incl. VAT) and DDP Messagerie (€131,073.49). On 23 August 2023 the bureau executive awarded lot 1 to Postalia (€87,860 excl. VAT) and lot 2 to Brussels Business Courrier. DDP filed an extreme-urgency suspension solely against lot 1 (it was not selected for lot 2). DDP argued Postalia's price was suspect, alone or as a substantial drop from a previous comparable contract ('Tivoli'). ISPPC defended its price check: average of lowest and highest bid; any price within 50% of that average is 'normal'. For lot 1 with two bids, the average was €118,692 and Postalia was within 15%. The observations note added that 'each unit price submitted by the selected bidder is normal'. The VIth chamber (David De Roy, acting president) was not persuaded. The contracting authority must carry out price verification ex officio, and proof of concrete verification must appear in the award decision or the administrative file. The methodology applied to total amounts may pass muster — but neither the contested act nor the file shows any concrete verification of unit prices. The bare 'all normal' line in the observations note cannot make up for that. Worse: ISPPC itself blurs the line between 'vérification' (mandatory and systematic) and 'examen' (only on suspicion of abnormality). Its own report carries headings for both — yet the latter implies a finding of apparent abnormality which never came, and bidders were never asked to justify prices. That self-induced confusion strengthens doubt about the effectiveness of the verification. Suspension granted in extreme urgency, immediate execution.
Why does this matter?
Many contracting authorities and bid managers reduce 'price check' to: compare totals, draw averages, look for outliers. This decision shows that's not enough. A unit-price contract is invoiced on actual quantities × unit price; a check that ignores unit prices is a sham. Authorities must show — in the file itself — they checked unit prices, at least systematically and certainly for the items that carry the total. Bid managers: if a competitor wins on total price, scan its unit prices for items where you doubt realistic delivery — and argue that the authority awarded without concrete unit-price verification. The bar to make this argument fly is low: the file simply has to fail to document the verification.
The lesson
As a contracting authority on a unit-price contract: document your unit-price check in the analysis report. Not 'we looked at it and it's all fine', but concretely — per item, or for the N most important items, a comparison, a reference benchmark, or at least an explanation of why each unit price is acceptable. Keep 'vérification' and 'examen' clearly separated: a heading 'Examen' implies you found an apparent abnormality. As a bidder on appeal: explicitly request the unit-price verification, even if the totals look in line.
Ask yourself
My analysis report has a 'price check' section: can I point, item by item — or at least for the three to five most important items — to what I checked and against what? Or does it boil down to one sentence saying every unit price is 'normal'?
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 →