Suspension granted: meal distribution carts Résidence Jeanne Mertens — multiple deviations from specifications not examined by contracting authority
Suspension granted: the decision of the CPAS de Binche to award the supply contract for meal distribution carts for Résidence Jeanne Mertens to G.B.M. is suspended — the offers of G.B.M. and Cuisimat deviate on multiple points from the specifications (stainless steel structure, inclined tanks, wheel diameter, doors exceeding chassis, number of trays, power) without the offer analysis report or award decision identifying or qualifying these deviations as substantial or non-substantial.
What happened?
The CPAS de Binche launched a supply contract for meal distribution carts (hot and cold chain) for Résidence Jeanne Mertens. Four tenderers submitted offers: Metos, G.B.M., Cuisimat and Electro Belux. Metos was excluded for exceeding maximum width. The CPAS awarded to G.B.M. Electro Belux sought suspension. The Council of State found that G.B.M. and Cuisimat's offers deviated on multiple points: non-stainless steel roof, flat tanks instead of inclined, wheel diameter of 160 mm instead of 200 mm, doors exceeding chassis when open, wrong number of trays (Cuisimat), excessive power (Cuisimat). None of these deviations were identified in the analysis report or award decision. The contracting authority claimed only the width (bold in specifications) was a minimum requirement, but the Council ruled that a minimum or substantial requirement need not be expressly identified as such — it has that character when non-compliance may affect equality, offer comparability, ranking, or proper execution. The first plea is serious. Suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that contracting authorities must systematically examine all deviations from specifications, even those not expressly identified as minimum requirements. The analysis report must identify, qualify, and motivate each deviation. The Council of State cannot substitute itself for the contracting authority to declare an offer irregular when the authority did not do so during the procedure.
The lesson
As contracting authority: systematically examine every deviation from specifications in every offer. Qualify each deviation as substantial or non-substantial and motivate that qualification. Do not limit yourself to bold or framed requirements. As tenderer: identify deviations in competing offers and verify whether the analysis report examined them.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, did I identify all deviations from specifications in every offer? Did I qualify and motivate each deviation? Did I limit myself to expressly identified minimum requirements?
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 →