A line item at €0 doesn't automatically make an offer irregular — the contracting authority must first prove that item is non-negligible
The Council of State suspends the rejection of an offer in which one line item (steel mounting brackets for fire extinguishers) was priced at €0, because La Sambrienne failed to motivate why that item was non-negligible and did not identify which specific requirement from the tender documents was allegedly breached.
What happened?
On 12 April 2024, La Sambrienne — a social housing company in Charleroi — publishes an open tender for fire extinguisher maintenance (tender PA24005). The inventory contains dozens of items, including item 3.52: replacement of steel mounting brackets for 6 and 9 kg extinguishers. Safe & Sound submits its offer on 24 April with €0.00 for item 3.52. When questioned on 21 May, Safe & Sound explains the brackets are 'consumables' already included in the extinguisher supply item. On 18 June, the contracting authority formally requests price justification under article 36 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. Safe & Sound confirms on 20 June: brackets are replaced for free during routine inspections, labour and travel costs counted as zero because covered elsewhere. On 18 July, La Sambrienne rejects all three selected offers as 'substantially irregular' and relaunches the market through a competitive procedure with negotiation. The motivation against Safe & Sound rests on three pillars: (1) the bidder confuses items by integrating costs from one into another, (2) a €0 price makes comparison with other bidders impossible since they did price this item, (3) breach of 'tender document requirements' under article 76 §1 paragraph 4, 3° of the Royal Decree. Safe & Sound files an extreme urgency application on 5 August. The 6th Chamber suspends the decision on 22 August 2024. The reasoning is devastating: (a) whoever rejects an offer for abnormally low pricing on a line item must first state in the decision whether that item is non-negligible — nowhere does La Sambrienne's decision or evaluation report perform this step; (b) the inventory as a whole is an essential document, but not automatically a 'minimum requirement' or 'substantial requirement' — you must identify the concrete requirement being breached; (c) the tender's award criterion was the global total price — so a zero on one line item does not prevent comparison of total amounts.
Why does this matter?
Bidders often use €0 or very low prices on certain items for strategic reasons — usually because the cost is already embedded elsewhere or because these are minor consumables. Contracting authorities tend to react nervously and reject such offers as 'abnormally low' or 'irregular'. This judgment makes clear that this reflex is not enough: the authority must first demonstrate the item is non-negligible, and must concretely identify which substantial tender requirement is breached. A €0 price on a negligible item is perfectly acceptable if the bidder can reasonably motivate that the cost sits elsewhere.
The lesson
As contracting authority rejecting an offer for an abnormally low price on one item? Your decision must contain three things, in writing: (1) why that specific item is non-negligible (with your criteria), (2) which concrete requirement from the tender is breached — with paragraph reference, (3) why that requirement is a 'minimum' or 'substantial' requirement. If any of these three is missing, your decision will be suspended in emergency proceedings.
Ask yourself
If you want to reject an offer as a contracting authority due to a zero or abnormally low price on a single item: have you explicitly written in your motivation (a) whether that item is negligible or not, and (b) which specific, numbered requirement from the tender is breached? If the answer is 'no' or 'implicit', rewrite your decision — the current one won't hold up in emergency proceedings.
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 →