Diksmuide event hall: correction of comma error and successive tender amounts justified
The Council rejects the suspension request against the award of an event hall and underground car park, finding the correction of a material error (misplaced comma) in the awardee's offer and the successive changes in tender amounts sufficiently motivated and compliant with regulations.
What happened?
The city of Diksmuide launched an open procedure for constructing an event hall and underground car park, with price as the sole award criterion. Five tenderers submitted offers. During arithmetic verification, it appeared that Vuylsteke-Eiffage had made a material error: in post 54.32 (steel door frames), the decimal point was misplaced, making unit prices ten times too low. The designer corrected this by multiplying all items in post 54.32 by a factor of 10. After correction and processing of gaps and quantity adjustments (Art. 79 and 86 Royal Decree on Placement 2017), Vuylsteke-Eiffage ranked as the lowest bidder. Verstraete challenged the award in two joined cases. The first plea concerned notification defects; the Council found no interest. The second plea challenged the error correction and the lack of transparency in successive amounts. The Council found the error evident: the total price for post 54.32 was 88% below the estimate and 87% below the average. The successive modifications corresponded to distinct legal steps. The request was rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the contracting authority's power to correct purely material errors (decimal point errors) ex officio under Article 34, §2 of the Royal Decree on Placement 2017, even without consulting the tenderer when the error is so manifest that there is hardly any discussion.
The lesson
A material error that manifestly appears from comparison with the estimate and other tenderers may be corrected ex officio — even without contacting the tenderer. Transparency requires that each calculation step has its legal basis and is traceable.
Ask yourself
Is my correction of a presumed material error supported by objective comparison elements (estimate, average, other offers)? Have I clearly distinguished the successive stages of offer evaluation and their respective legal bases?
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 →