Two small Excel sheets saying '42 hours included' cost you the World Expo — while your competitor's missing offer form does not
The Council of State rejects the extreme urgency application of consortium Voysu against the award of the Belgian pavilion at Expo Osaka 2025 to Dirty Monitor, because BelExpo rightly discarded Voysu's BAFO for two added Excel tabs mentioning 'up to 2 correction rounds' and 'up to 42 hours included' — whereas the offer form that Dirty Monitor forgot to upload was not a substantial irregularity and could be requested afterwards under article 66 §3 of the Public Procurement Act.
What happened?
In June 2023, BelExpo — the General Commissariat for International Exhibitions, an autonomous accounting unit within the FPS Economy without separate legal personality — launched a prestigious service and supply contract: the design, production, installation, maintenance and dismantling of all components of the visitor journey in the Belgian pavilion at Expo Osaka 2025. The procedure: competitive procedure with negotiation. Three consortia were selected: Creneau, Dirty Monitor and Voysu (Vo Communication + You Studio + Supa Ninki). On 5 June 2024, all three submitted their BAFO. On 28 June 2024, BelExpo rejected the BAFOs of Creneau and Voysu and awarded to Dirty Monitor. Voysu filed an extreme urgency application on 12 July 2024 with a single plea in two branches. First branch: BelExpo wrongly found Voysu's BAFO substantially irregular. The issue was in the inventory: Voysu had added two additional Excel tabs not provided in the original template, including one called 'Offre Voysu' with a 'remarque' column containing mentions like '2 correction stages included' and '42 hours included'. BelExpo interpreted these as maximum quantities — reserves that undermine the fixed lump-sum price, limit the commitment, and make offers incomparable. Voysu replied these were only transparency information so BelExpo could verify price realism — never intended as a limit. The Council of State rejects that reading. Article 76 §1 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017 gives the contracting authority discretion in qualifying irregularities. The concrete phrases '2 stades de correction compris' and '42 h comprises' can only be read as upper limits, which disturbs the global lump-sum price and makes the commitment incomplete or uncertain — therefore substantially irregular under article 76 §1, third paragraph. If Voysu truly wanted to provide price breakdown information (not requested), it should have clarified what happens if more than 2 corrections or more than 42 hours are needed. Moreover: Voysu's initial offer did not contain those remarks, so no legitimate expectation can arise. Second branch: Dirty Monitor's BAFO was missing 'annex 11' — the signed offer form. Voysu argued this was substantially irregular and could not be regularized. BelExpo had considered it a likely download error (the e-Procurement filing report mentioned the document was there), that all essential information was in other documents, and on 13 June 2024 asked Dirty Monitor to provide the signed form — which happened immediately (signed on 5 June 2024). The Council of State agrees. Article 76 §1 fourth paragraph does not automatically classify a missing offer form as substantial. The procurement documents did not classify it as a cause for nullity. The authority had to evaluate in concreto whether the absence was discriminatory, prevented comparison or made the commitment uncertain — and did so. Article 66 §3 of the Public Procurement Act explicitly allows requesting missing documents, provided equality and transparency principles are respected. Using article 66 §3 does not imply that the missing information was essential. Voysu moreover fails to identify concretely which essential information from the offer form was absent from the other BAFO documents. Rejection. Costs reserved.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is a double lesson on what truly matters in offer regularity review. First: as a bidder, you must NEVER add tabs or columns to a prescribed inventory, especially not with quantitative limits — 'for transparency' does not count as an excuse. The moment you write 'X hours included', you set an upper limit, which does not fit a global lump-sum price. The contracting authority has significant discretion to qualify this as substantial irregularity. Second: a missing document in the BAFO is not automatically fatal. If the procurement document does not classify it as ground for nullity, if essential information is present in other documents, and if there are reasonable signs of a download error, the authority may invoke article 66 §3 to request the document — and that is no admission that something essential was missing. For bid managers: the balance is delicate. Too much self-added content in standard forms can cost you, too little care with standard forms can hurt you.
The lesson
Never add your own tabs or columns to a prescribed inventory with phrases like 'X hours included' or 'Y corrections included' — not even for clarification. This is by default read as a reserve limiting your lump-sum commitment and may be punished as a substantial irregularity. If you want to communicate a risk assessment, ask the contracting authority explicitly and get written response before the BAFO deadline. As contracting authority: make clear in your specifications or attribution guide which documents, if absent, lead to nullity — such a clause excludes post-submission regularization and gives certainty to all bidders.
Ask yourself
As bidder: does your inventory or offer form contain one or more 'remarks' or clarifications with concrete numbers ('X hours', 'Y iterations', 'Z revisions') not explicitly requested by the specifications? If so: remove them or ask the authority in writing before the BAFO. As contracting authority: do your specifications or attribution guide contain a list of documents whose absence leads to nullity? If not, you will have to motivate in concreto why a missing document is or is not substantial.
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 →