Sign the site-visit certificate, accept the consequences — even when your own staff member made the mistake
The Council of State suspends the award because Toit & Moi declared a bidder's offer irregular for an incomplete site visit, while the contracting authority itself had signed a visit attestation confirming exactly the opposite — and the award decision nowhere explains why that signed attestation suddenly carried no weight.
What happened?
Social housing company Toit & Moi (Mons) launched a fire-detection maintenance contract in March 2023, with price as the sole award criterion. The specifications imposed a 'mandatory' site visit over two days, with a visit attestation signed by Toit & Moi to be attached to the bid. Four bidders responded: Alarmes Coquelet (€484,014.71), CGMI-Protect (€451,549), Dumay-Mior (€479,169.77) and Euro-Protec (€475,326.25), all excluding VAT. On 12 May 2023 Coquelet alerted Toit & Moi that Dumay-Mior's representative had skipped sites on the second day. Toit & Moi first awarded to CGMI-Protect on 13 October 2023 with Dumay-Mior excluded as substantially irregular; after a first urgent procedure that decision was withdrawn and on 15 December 2023 the contract went to Coquelet, again with Dumay-Mior out. Dumay-Mior produced a signed attestation in which F.T., Toit & Moi's maintenance and security manager, expressly confirmed that its representative had 'visited all sites covered by the contract'. The specifications stated: 'The attestation will only be validated if all sites have been visited.' Toit & Moi countered that the attestation had been issued 'by mistake', that F.T. lacked authority and that he had only signed it in the morning. Crucially, F.T.'s contradicting email dates from 29 November 2023 — more than seven months after the visits. The Council of State held that an attestation signed by a representative of the contracting authority on the visit days themselves cannot be set aside in favour of a much later email, especially when the award decision contains no reasoning for trusting the late account over the contemporaneous one. The Council read 'will only be validated' as 'may only be signed and issued if all sites have been visited' — once signed, the attestation is valid, not pending validation. The argument that suspension would jeopardise fire safety in social housing was rejected: suspension does not require endlessly extending the current contract; Toit & Moi can withdraw and restart procurement to designate a new provider quickly. Suspension granted, with immediate effect.
Why does this matter?
Site visits are among the most routinised formalities in public procurement — which is exactly why they get rubber-stamped by whoever is on site, often without realising that their signature commits the contracting authority. For bidders: your visit attestation is not a checkbox but evidence that will speak for or against you in any subsequent dispute. For contracting authorities: the person signing speaks for you. What they sign is hard to walk back later with 'it was a mistake'. A contradiction between what you signed today and what you claim seven months later weighs heavily in the formal-motivation review.
The lesson
If you exclude a bid because the bidder failed the site-visit obligation, your award report must explain why the attestation signed by your own staff member on the visit day is not decisive. It is not enough to say in a note or at the hearing 'that attestation was a mistake' — the explanation must appear in the reasoned decision, ideally backed by contemporaneous evidence (per-building attendance lists, signed walking plans, time-stamped photos). And govern internally who is allowed to sign attestations: only those who can vouch for the actual visit.
Ask yourself
Have you excluded a bid based on an 'incomplete' site visit while your organisation issued a signed attestation? Your award report must demonstrate, per non-visited location, who recorded what and when — and those findings must be datable to before the later email that claims the opposite.
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 →