The bond clause in the specifications leaks the estimate — complaining you didn't know is pointless
The Council of State rejects the appeal: a fee percentage is a valid price quotation, and claiming that the estimated contract value was not disclosed while proving in the same pleading that it can be derived from the bond clause undermines your own case.
What happened?
The municipality of Edegem launched a framework agreement for architectural and engineering studies (five lots, specifications 2024-095). Bidders were asked only for a fee percentage applicable to actual execution amounts. In lot 2 (building services): BV D 9%, AG 11%, EE 12%, Arcade 15.13%. In lot 3 (stability): BV DE 5%, EE 10%, Arcade 12.16%. All bidders received equal scores on the plan of approach; the lowest percentage won. Arcade ranked last in both lots. It appealed on two grounds: (1) the authority did not disclose the estimated execution amount, so only percentages were compared, not 'real prices'; (2) the contract was classified as a 'unit price contract' but no unit prices were asked. The Council rejected: a percentage applied to an execution amount yields a real price and is not materially different from a money amount. And Arcade contradicted itself — in the same pleading it showed that the estimated values could be derived from the bond clause (3% of the estimate rounded up to the nearest ten): for lot 2, €125,000; for lot 3, €57,333.33. As a professional actor, Arcade could have done the calculation, and it did not claim to have based its offer on different amounts. No concrete harm, grounds not serious.
Why does this matter?
Two takeaways for any bid manager. One: procurement specifications are not siloed clauses — bond percentages, insurance thresholds and reference volumes often leak critical information. Two: the Council of State checks interest strictly. Claiming you 'didn't know' while proving in the same document that you did know is self-defeating. Also: fee percentages are a valid form of pricing in study contracts, even in 'unit price' framework agreements.
The lesson
Read every set of specifications as an information source: which numbers (bond, insurance thresholds, indicative volumes) reveal the order of magnitude of the contract? If you are about to bid on a fee percentage without an explicit execution amount, do the reverse calculation before you draft. If the information truly cannot be derived, ask during the Q&A period. Complaining 'I didn't know' after the award is too late.
Ask yourself
When reading specifications with a fee percentage as the only price element: can you derive the estimated contract value from the bond, insurance thresholds, or reference volumes? If yes, build that estimate into your offer. If no, ask during the Q&A — not after the award.
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 →