Suspension in extreme urgency: absence of price award criterion is unlawful for bailiff services contract including non-monopolistic services — statutory tariff does not cover amicable debt recovery
The suspension of the award of the bailiff services contract of the municipality of Frameries to UNILEX SC is ordered in extreme urgency — the specifications provide no award criterion relating to price or cost while the contract also covers non-monopolistic services (amicable recovery) whose remuneration is not fixed by national provisions, so the exception allowing evaluation solely on quality does not apply.
What happened?
The municipality of Frameries launched a negotiated procedure without prior publication for bailiff services for the recovery of municipal debts. The specifications set three award criteria: methodology (10 points), tool (40 points) and services (50 points), with no price or cost criterion. The contract was awarded to UNILEX SC. BOREAN & ASSOCIÉS sought suspension. The Council of State held that article 81 of the 2016 Public Procurement Act requires the most economically advantageous tender to be determined based on price, cost, or best price-quality ratio — always including a price component. The exception for services with legally fixed tariffs does not apply when the contract also covers non-monopolistic services (amicable recovery: formal notices, SMS, phone calls) with free pricing. The 'services' criterion mentioning 'measures to limit financial burden' is not a price criterion. On standing for the plea: the fact that the applicant offered a higher price is irrelevant — the absence of a price criterion directly affects the content of tenders. On standstill: violation of the waiting period is a post-decisional formality for which the civil courts have jurisdiction. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that the exception to the price requirement (article 81) only applies when the entire remuneration is legally fixed. A bailiff services contract that also covers amicable recovery requires a price criterion. The ruling also distinguishes interest in the appeal from interest in the plea, and delineates jurisdiction between the Council of State and civil courts for standstill violations.
The lesson
As contracting authority: check whether your bailiff services contract includes non-monopolistic services with free pricing. If so, include a price or cost award criterion. A qualitative 'services' criterion with cost-saving measures is not a price criterion. As tenderer: challenge the absence of a price criterion when the contract includes services with non-regulated remuneration.
Ask yourself
Does my bailiff services contract include non-monopolistic services with free remuneration? Did I include a price or cost award criterion? Is my 'services' criterion truly a price criterion?
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 →