Withdrawal of award decision for ARP debt recovery contract: UDN rejected – grounds challenge only surplus reasons, not the supporting grounds regarding lawyer costs and fee-sharing
The Council of State rejects the emergency suspension request by a bailiff against the withdrawal of the award decision for a debt recovery advisory contract, because the first two grounds only challenge surplus reasons regarding four zero-priced items without contesting the supporting grounds — regarding uncovered lawyer costs and fee-sharing contrary to the Royal Decree of 30 November 1976 — and because the third ground is directed against a non-existent future award decision.
What happened?
The ARP in Brussels tendered debt recovery advisory services (schedule-based contract, estimated €559,360). Two offers were submitted: one by bailiff M.L. (with Leroy et Associés) listing zero euros for four items, and one by the CSMG consortium (law firm Exelia + bailiff Alterius). The contract was awarded to M.L. on 7 March 2024 (€268,620). Following a detailed complaint from CSMG, ARP withdrew the award on 10 April 2024 on three grounds: (1) four zero prices for non-negligible items = substantial irregularity; (2) lawyer costs exceeded the prices offered for the relevant items; (3) fee-sharing between bailiff and lawyer was contrary to the Royal Decree of 30 November 1976. The Council found that the first two pleas — contesting the zero prices — only challenged surplus reasons: the supporting grounds regarding lawyer costs and fee-sharing were uncontested and each sufficed on its own. The third plea regarding the competitor and a potential conflict of interest was directed against a non-existent future decision. Request rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates a fundamental procedural trap: when challenging a withdrawal decision, the applicant must contest all supporting grounds. Pleas against surplus reasons are inadmissible, however well-founded, if uncontested grounds independently support the decision.
The lesson
When challenging a withdrawal: identify all supporting grounds and contest them all. As a contracting authority: structure withdrawal decisions so each ground independently suffices. In schedule-based contracts: avoid zero prices for non-negligible items.
Ask yourself
As challenger: do my pleas target all supporting grounds? As contracting authority: does each ground suffice on its own? As tenderer: have I proportionally allocated costs across all items?
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 →