Toit et Moi may reject Dumay-Mior's offer for incomplete fire detection site visits
Claim rejected: Toit et Moi could validly declare Dumay-Mior's offer irregular for non-compliance with the mandatory site visit requirement, despite a visit certificate signed in error.
What happened?
SCRL Toit et Moi launched an open procedure with European publication for the maintenance of fire detection installations across approximately 200 social housing sites in the Mons region. The sole award criterion was price. Four tenderers submitted offers: CGMI-PROTECT (EUR 451,549), EURO-PROTECT (EUR 475,326), Dumay-Mior (EUR 479,170) and Alarmes Coquelet (EUR 484,015), excl. VAT. The specifications imposed a mandatory visit to all sites, marked in red and repeated several times. Visits were spread over two days. On the second day, Dumay-Mior's representative arrived late (after 8:30am instead of 8am) and missed the visits to Niamey 1-4 sites. He also left early in the afternoon for a funeral, missing the entire Bois de Mons park. However, the visit certificate had been signed that morning by the contracting authority's representative. The contract was first awarded to CGMI-PROTECT (13 October 2023) but withdrawn due to lacking BOSEC certification. A second award to Alarmes Coquelet was suspended by the Council of State (ruling 258,830 of 15 February 2024) for insufficient motivation. On 22 March 2024, the contracting authority adopted a new award decision with reinforced motivation: the certificate was issued in error, the representative's declaration was corroborated by two other tenderers' statements, and Dumay-Mior never concretely contested the alleged facts. The Council examined the grounds. The first ground (selection criterion irregularity) was inadmissible for lack of interest. The second ground had three branches: the visit certificate has no special probative value and can be rebutted by concordant evidence (not serious); the mandatory visit constitutes a minimum requirement under Art. 76, §1, 4°, 3° (not serious); the requirement is not disproportionate given fire safety concerns (not serious). The suspension request was rejected.
Why does this matter?
A visit certificate signed by the contracting authority does not have absolute probative value. If the authority establishes through concordant evidence that the certificate does not reflect reality, it can set it aside. A mandatory visit to all sites can constitute a minimum requirement under Article 76, §1, especially for contracts involving personal safety. Non-compliance leads to a substantive irregularity with no margin of appreciation.
The lesson
Do not rely on a signed certificate if you have not actually fulfilled the requirement it certifies: the contracting authority can challenge it based on concordant evidence. Complete all mandatory site visits in full — early departure or late arrival can lead to rejection of your offer as substantially irregular. For contracts involving personal safety, expect visit requirements to be strictly enforced.
Ask yourself
Have I actually visited all sites required by the specifications? Does my certificate reflect reality? Do I understand that a signed certificate does not cover factual non-compliance with the visit requirement?
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 →