Questioning low prices cannot be limited to the numbers — you must also verify environmental, social and labour law compliance
The Council of State suspends the award to Vanheede Propreté of a €25 million waste collection contract because Intradel, having flagged the prices as suspiciously low, merely referred to certificates attached to the bid and never concretely verified whether the low prices were compatible with environmental, social and labour law.
What happened?
Intradel, the Liège intercommunal waste management body, launched contract 22/38/INT for household and similar waste collection across its territory, split into several lots. Remondis Belgien bid for Lot 3 (zone C1), but Intradel awarded the lot on 28 March 2024 to Vanheede Propreté for €20,599,113.92 excl. VAT (€24,924,927.84 incl. VAT). Remondis sought urgent suspension on 19 April 2024. The facts are unusual because Intradel itself found Vanheede's prices suspicious: when examining combined lots (C1 and C2 together), Vanheede's price for C1 was around 18% below the average estimate and 25% for C2. On 23 February 2024 Intradel therefore emailed Vanheede requesting price justifications under Article 36 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. Importantly, Intradel explicitly asked for justifications covering 'compliance with obligations in environmental, social and labour law, including obligations on well-being, wages and social security'. Vanheede replied on 5 March 2024. On the environmental/social/labour dimension, Vanheede merely referred to documents already in its bid: extracts from the criminal record, social security (ONSS) certificates, tax certificates and transport authorisations. The rest of the letter discussed Vanheede's experience with Intradel, know-how from years of similar contracts, and technical arguments on truck capacity and local routing. In its award report Intradel wrote: 'The justifications provided are deemed convincing by the contracting authority. Moreover, the prices from Vanheede Propreté are coherent with the market estimate'. On inquiry during the proceedings, Intradel confirmed no written analysis existed beyond this brief statement. The Council found the ground serious. Article 36 §2 paragraph 4 obliges the authority, when it considers prices abnormally low, to expressly request justifications on compliance with environmental, social and labour law. Intradel did this correctly. But Vanheede's response — a simple reference to certificates in the bid — does not explain how those certificates show that the low price is compatible with those obligations. Crucially, the motivation of the award decision (through the analysis report it refers to) contains no element showing why Intradel found the justification acceptable. It is equally impossible to deduce from that motivation that Intradel conducted the complete and detailed examination required on the specific environmental/social/labour aspect. Suspension ordered, immediate execution. The balance of interests favoured Remondis: Intradel itself identified no negative consequences of suspension outweighing its benefits.
Why does this matter?
This judgment forces contracting authorities not to limit abnormal-price verification to number-crunching. The environmental/social/labour law dimension of Article 36 §2 paragraph 4 is not a formality: the authority must actively check that the low price is compatible with wage costs, social security, workplace well-being and environmental rules. A simple reference to ONSS and tax certificates is not enough — those only prove the company is not in breach at that moment, not that the offered price is economically sustainable within legal frameworks. For bid managers losing to a competitor with a strikingly low price in labour-intensive contracts (waste collection, cleaning, security, maintenance): this is a powerful ground.
The lesson
If your competitor wins a contract with a price notably below the estimate or your own price, and the contract is labour-intensive: request the full award report and the email exchange requesting justifications. Check whether the authority explicitly asked about environmental, social and labour law compliance. Check whether the response contains more than a reference to ONSS and tax certificates. Check whether the decision's motivation concretely explains why the justifications were acceptable. Missing any of these — suspension ground.
Ask yourself
Is the winning price more than 15% below the estimate or average bid? Is the contract labour-intensive (collection, cleaning, security, maintenance, staffing)? Did the authority explicitly request justifications on environmental/social/labour law compliance (Article 36 §2 para 4)? Does the winner's response on that specific point go beyond listing certificates? Does the award motivation concretely assess that response? Three 'no's on the final questions — real chance of suspension.
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 →