If your e-procurement platform shows a different deadline from your email, you cannot brand bids as late
The Council of State suspends the award: Nautisport had announced by email that bids had to arrive by 2 July 2024, but the e-procurement platform itself — where bids had to be submitted — showed 18 July 2024; when Arcadus-Arcadis submitted on 18 July, their bid was rejected as late without any analysis of whose legitimate expectation had been created.
What happened?
Nautisport, the autonomous municipal régie of Enghien, published a contract notice on 23 February 2024 for 'Project Author Mission' services for the renovation and extension of its sports complex (pool + sports hall). Procedure: restricted procedure. Specifications 'Nautisport 2024/01'. Award criteria: price, technical and energy design, architectural design, feasibility. Seven candidates applied, five were invited to bid — including the Arcadus Architecte/Arcadis Belgium grouping. The invitation on 27 May 2024 indicated 23 June 2024 as deadline. On 28 May Nautisport's director (the 'fonctionnaire dirigeant', per the specifications the only person empowered to bind the authority) sent an email moving the deadline to 2 July 2024, 8:00 am. He confirms this in another email of 14 June 2024 to all five candidates. But on 21 June that same director asks a subordinate ('préposé') to publish the invitation on e-procurement (the federal SPF BOSA platform). That subordinate wrongly enters 18 July 2024 as the deadline on the platform. The automatic system email then generated and sent to all candidates mentions 18 July. Arcadus-Arcadis submits on 18 July. On 27 August 2024, Nautisport's board decides to award to 'Atelier d'architecture D.D.V. ; Fally & Associés ; BE Pierre Berger' and to reject Arcadus's offer — 'submitted after the deadline'. The analysis report acknowledges the platform error ('la date limite de remise des offres était erronément mentionnée au 18 juillet 2024') but excludes the bid without analysing the consequences of that error. The Council of State suspends. Core reasoning: first, the 18 July date was disseminated from the platform on which bids had to be submitted (Art. 14 §1 of the 2016 Public Procurement Act — all communication and bid reception must be electronic via that platform). That is not a 'simple email' but an official system communication. Second, Arcadus could reasonably rely on the system date as a new extension; no lack of diligence can be held against them. Third, the platform email went to all candidates — so the others had the same time to prepare. Fourth, bids were only opened on 18 July at 10:00 — so no risk of information leaks or advantage from bids submitted before 2 July. In those circumstances, Nautisport should have weighed equality and proportionality before automatically excluding a bid for 'lateness' based on its own error. Prima facie manifest assessment error. Balance of interests: Nautisport identifies no disadvantage that should prevent suspension. Suspension ordered; implementation of the award to the D.D.V./Fally/Pierre Berger consortium is suspended and the rejection of Arcadus is lifted.
Why does this matter?
This is a classic pitfall that has been cropping up since e-procurement became mandatory: authorities work in parallel with emails and with the platform, and when there are contradictions, they pick the date most convenient. The Council of State draws a clear line here: when the mandatory platform contradicts loose emails, you as authority cannot punish a bidder for your own error without analysing the consequences. The whole electronic procurement system rests on the principle that the platform is the only official source of communication. For bid managers the lesson: if the platform date does not match an earlier communication, you can stick to the platform date — provided you can show you had no reason to question the discrepancy and that your competitors also saw the same platform date.
The lesson
As contracting authority: every date you announce by email must be entered on e-procurement by someone who knows what they are doing. Explicitly check the correspondence between what you communicated by email and what you entered on the platform. If there is a mismatch: correct immediately and communicate the correction, accepting the consequences (extension of the deadline). As a bidder: always save a screenshot of the deadline as it appears on the platform at the moment you submit, including the system email the platform sends. That is your only reliable evidence if the authority later claims an earlier email date was correct.
Ask yourself
Do you have a discrepancy between a deadline by email and one on e-procurement? First: save all system emails from the platform. Second: check whether the platform deadline went to all candidates. Third: are bids only opened after both deadlines? If yes on all three and you submitted on the platform date, you are strong in an appeal — even when the authority argues that an earlier email date was 'the right one'.
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 →