Defence corrected an Excel error in the winning bid without saying which one — and that single silent asterisk costs the award
The Council of State annuls Defence's award of a framework agreement for maintenance at the Florennes military zone because the award decision states that the winner's T-figure was 'rectified' from 107.36 to 91.34, but nowhere explains which error was actually corrected — and post-hoc explanations by email cannot heal that defect.
What happened?
On 30 January 2019 the Belgian Ministry of Defence launched an open procedure for seven framework agreements (one per military zone) for structural maintenance work over 48 months. Bids were ranked using a 'T-figure' computed from 24 percentages entered into an Excel 'bid sheet'. The Excel template contained a formula error: for 'Domaine 3', value H was multiplied by 20% instead of 2%. Several bidders, including Sepleex Industrie, spotted the error and corrected the formula manually before submitting. Robert et Daniel Samerey did not. After bid opening on 18 March 2019, the procurement officer 'rectified' Samerey's bid under Article 34 of the 2017 Royal Decree (correction of purely material errors). Samerey's T-figure dropped from 107.36 to 91.34, making it the most economically advantageous regular bid for Lot 4. On 27 June 2019 the Minister of Defence awarded Lot 4 to Samerey. The award decision contained only the formula 'correction of arithmetical and purely material errors' and an asterisk (*) without a footnote next to Samerey's figures. No explanation of which error, no reference to the Excel formula, no original/corrected comparison. Only on 31 July 2019, after a written request from Sepleex's counsel, did Defence admit in writing: 'the explanation of the (*) is missing in the motivated decision for Lot 4, unlike in the similar decisions for the other lots.' Sepleex sought annulment. The Council of State upheld the second branch of its plea: Article 4 of the Act of 17 June 2016 and the Belgian formal-motivation Act of 29 July 1991 require bidders to be able to understand an award decision from the document itself, not from later emails. The defence that Sepleex 'already knew the error' (having corrected the formula itself) was rejected: standing to invoke an inadequate-motivation plea protects the safeguard against administrative arbitrariness, not factual knowledge. Confidentiality of the winner's bid was no excuse — explaining an Excel formula error does not require disclosing confidential price data. Award annulled, Defence ordered to pay costs.
Why does this matter?
Procurement teams routinely 'rectify' arithmetic errors under Article 34 of the 2017 Royal Decree and content themselves with a generic phrase like 'after correction of arithmetical and material errors' in the award decision. This ruling makes clear that is not enough — even when the error sits in an Excel template provided by the contracting authority itself, and even when the unsuccessful bidder had already spotted the error. The motivation must state which error, in which bid, why it qualifies as a material error under Article 34, and what its effect is on the ranking figure. An unfootnoted asterisk is not motivation. Subsequent explanations by email or in the defence brief cannot heal the defect — motivation must appear in the contested decision itself at the moment of notification.
The lesson
If you, as a contracting authority, correct a bid under Article 34 of the 2017 Royal Decree, state in the award decision itself: (1) which error, (2) in which bid, (3) why it qualifies as an arithmetic or purely material error, and (4) the effect on the ranking figure. Avoid asterisks without footnotes. And if the error sits in your own template and some bidders had already spontaneously corrected it: explain why you did not relaunch the procedure or publish a corrigendum. Confidentiality is not an excuse to remain silent about the nature of an Excel error.
Ask yourself
If your award decision says 'after correction of arithmetic errors' or marks a bid figure with an asterisk: can a reasonable reader understand from the decision text alone — without emails or defence briefs — which error you corrected and why it qualifies under Article 34 of the Royal Decree? If not, your award is hanging by a thread.
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 →