Suspension of Cirque Royal cleaning contract award — insufficient unit price verification despite applicant's irregular tender
The Council of State suspends the award of the Cirque Royal cleaning contract to Group Cleaning Services because the administrative file does not establish that the contracting authority verified the unit prices of the remaining tenders — Article 36 §4 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017 (15% threshold) constituting an additional obligation that does not relieve the authority of its general price verification obligation under Article 84 of the Act of 17 June 2016 and Articles 33 and 35 of the Royal Decree.
What happened?
The Régie foncière of the City of Brussels launched an open procedure services contract for cleaning the Cirque Royal for 36 months. Eight tenderers submitted offers. Nadeco Pro's tender was declared substantially irregular because it lacked a qualified electronic signature within the meaning of Article 2(9) of the Royal Decree on contract award (the company signed individual documents but did not sign the submission report on the eTendering platform). Four other tenderers failed the technical and professional capability selection criteria. Only three tenders were compared: Aronia, Group Cleaning Services, and Jette Clean. The authority questioned Jette Clean about its abnormally low prices, found the justifications insufficient, and declared its tender irregular. The contract was awarded on 11 January 2024 to Group Cleaning Services for €359,740.26 including VAT. Nadeco Pro filed an extreme urgency suspension request. The respondent challenged the admissibility of the second plea (deficient price verification), arguing it was vague and late. The Council rejected this: the applicant did not have the reasoned award decision when filing and developed its argument based on new elements from the administrative file. The Council found the applicant had standing despite its irregular tender — nothing establishes that the two remaining tenders would not have been found irregular had the authority properly verified prices. On the merits, the Council found that the tender analysis report only referred to verification of 'inventory totals' and the authority confirmed in its observations that it considered itself 'only required to verify price normality for tenders deviating at least 15% below the average.' The assertion at the hearing that unit prices had been checked was unsupported by any document in the file. The plea was serious. The balance of interests did not prevent suspension. The Council ordered suspension of the award decision.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the relationship between the general price verification obligation (Article 84 of the Act of 17 June 2016, Articles 33 and 35 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017) and the specific mechanism of Article 36 §4 (15% threshold). Article 36 §4 provides an additional obligation on top of the general one: it does not relieve the authority of verifying unit prices of tenders whose total amount deviates by less than 15% from the average. The ruling also confirms that a tenderer whose offer is declared irregular retains standing to challenge the price verification of the successful tenderer: if the remaining tenders also proved irregular after proper verification, the authority would need to relaunch the procedure.
The lesson
Price verification is not limited to the Article 36 §4 mechanism (15% threshold). It is a two-step obligation: first verify all total amounts and unit prices (Articles 33 and 35), then — if apparently abnormal prices are detected — conduct the in-depth examination under Article 36. The 15% threshold of Article 36 §4 merely creates a presumption of abnormality in certain cases; it is not the sole trigger for verification. In practice: the administrative file must contain concrete evidence that verification was actually performed, item by item. An unsupported assertion at the hearing is insufficient.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority: have I verified the unit prices of all regular tenders, item by item, and not just the inventory totals? Does my administrative file contain concrete proof of this verification? Did I limit myself to the 15% threshold of Article 36 §4, forgetting the general obligation under Articles 33 and 35? As an excluded tenderer: even if my tender is irregular, have I checked whether the authority properly verified the successful tenderer's prices?
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 →