"Correcting" a price into a different unit than the specification prescribes is not a calculation error — it is rewriting the specification
The Council of State suspends the award to HR Groep Streetcare because the City of Antwerp recalculated the prices for the "truss frames for traffic signs" items into a price per square metre, while the specification and Standard Specification 250 expressly required a price per metre — a different unit than the one the competitor Trafiroad had used.
What happened?
The City of Antwerp launched a framework contract for vertical traffic signalling: traffic signs, support poles, truss frames. Open procedure, European publication, four award criteria (price 60, quality 10, service 5, sustainability/CSR/transport 25). Two bidders submitted on 29 April 2024: HR Groep Streetcare and Trafiroad. In the inventory, items 63 and 64 concerned truss frames for traffic signs in different surface ranges (5 to 9 m² for item 63, 9 to 12 m² for item 64). Truss frames are steel tube constructions serving as carriers for large signs. According to the inventory form annexed to the specifications and to Standard Specification 250 version 4.1 (to which the specifications expressly refer), these items required a price per metre (m) — the same unit as for the underlying support poles (items 58-62). During price analysis the City asked both bidders for further price details, including on items 63 and 64. This gave rise to the suspicion that HR Groep Streetcare had mistakenly entered a total price for the full surface rather than a unit price per square metre. At the City's request, HR Groep confirmed this and agreed to a "correction" whereby its total price was divided by the maximum surface per item (9 m² / 12 m²). The contract was then awarded to HR Groep Streetcare on 7 June 2024. Trafiroad challenged the award via UDN. Core ground: the City had recalculated into a unit — price per m² — not specified in the procurement documents. The specification required price per metre (m) for truss frames. Trafiroad had used that unit. Recalculating HR Groep's offer into €/m² thus created two different units across the offers, eliminating comparability. The City defended: it was "basic mathematics" that surface is expressed in m²; the inventory description mentions "area" and "m²"; for comparable items elsewhere (items 1-6 for traffic signs) a price per m² was also requested; and if Trafiroad had used m, its offer would be substantially irregular under article 76. The Council rejected all arguments. Standard Specification 250 and the inventory itself explicitly prescribe a price per metre for truss frames. The truss frame is a tube construction (length), while the mounted signs are measured in m² — different items. The comparison with items 1-6 fails: those concern traffic signs, not the supporting truss frame. The argument that the items were "marginal" in total is irrelevant: deviation from specified units affects comparability regardless of weight. Ground serious, suspension ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling warns contracting authorities that think they can escape a difficult situation with a quick "arithmetic correction" on an offer. The City faced a classic fork: one bidder appeared to have made an error, and to "save" the offer it could choose (a) exclude under article 76, or (b) correct under article 34 §2. The City chose (b) — but made a subtle fatal mistake: it recalculated into a unit not prescribed by the specification. By applying a €/m² correction, HR Groep's offer was not brought into compliance with the specification — it was moved away from it. Broader lessons: article 34 §2 is not a miracle cure that can patch every error. A "correction" cannot amount to a revision of the offer into the authority's preferred unit, certainly not one the competitors did not use. The argument "basic mathematics" or "any careful entrepreneur should know" does not work against a specification that expressly prescribes a different unit. And "marginal impact on the total" is no reason to accept an irregular correction — comparability of offers is absolute.
The lesson
Contracting authority: when you suspect an error in an offer, first check what the specification and the applicable Standard Specification say about the required unit. Correct only within that unit — never by switching to another measurement, even if you find it "more logical". Also check which unit the other bidders used. If your correction results in two offers being expressed in different units, comparability is gone. Bidder: read Standard Specification 250 carefully alongside the inventory — the unit column "EH" is binding, even against intuition. If a competitor apparently bid in a different unit and the authority justifies this with a "correction", you have a strong ground. Check whether the correction brings the offer closer to the specification, or further from it.
Ask yourself
Is a correction being applied to a competing offer under article 34 §2 of the Placement Decree? Check three things: (1) which unit does the specification (and the applicable Standard Specification) prescribe for that item — metre, m², piece? (2) which unit did your offer use for the same item? (3) in which unit is the corrected price now expressed? If (3) differs from both (1) and (2), your equality ground is essentially ready.
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 →