A 'low-value contract'? Then your cost estimate must be on paper before you launch — otherwise the award collapses like a house of cards
Bpost awarded a contract for LED-light beanies without publication as a 'low-value contract', but could produce no prior value estimate in the administrative file — the Council of State definitively annuls the award through the fast-track procedure.
What happened?
On 5 September 2024, Bpost — a public-law company subject to the special sectors regime — awarded a contract for 'beanies with LED lamp' to Veys Bedrijfskleding BV. No publication, no consultation, no competition. The legal basis invoked: it would qualify as a 'low-value contract' (marché de faible montant) under the 30,000-euro threshold of article 162 of the 17 June 2016 Public Procurement Act. That regime allows a contracting authority to contract with almost no formalities — even via a simple accepted invoice. One problem: T-REX SAFETY, a specialised Brussels firm, had previously bid on a similar Bpost contract (reference 2023-9-022). It now discovered that Bpost had handed out an identical type of supply via a private deal. On 13 December 2024, the company took the case to the Council of State: Bpost had misused the low-value procedure to artificially exclude competition. By judgment no. 261,778 of 17 December 2024, the VIth Chamber suspended the award. The first ground — breach of, among others, articles 16 and 162 of the Public Procurement Act and article 7 of the Royal Decree of 18 June 2017 on the special sectors — was judged serious. Article 16 imposes an obligation on every contracting authority: the value of the contract 'must be estimated'. Article 7, §3 of the Royal Decree expressly forbids choosing an estimation method 'with the intent of subtracting the contract from the publicity rules'. Anyone wishing to rely on the low-value exception must therefore be able to prove at least one thing: that an estimation method was set and applied upfront, traceable in the procedure file. Bpost fails this test. In its submission (paragraph 70), it invokes considerations supposedly justifying a value below 30,000 euros excl. VAT. But these considerations appear only in the Council of State proceedings — not in the administrative file, which is the very evidence of what the authority had in mind when awarding the contract. 'No trace of any value estimate of the contract concerned, prior to its launch, can be detected' — so the Council summarises it. Bpost then fails to file a request to continue the procedure within the thirty-day deadline after notification of the suspension. On 27 January 2025, the auditor moves to the fast-track procedure of article 11/2 of the general procedure regulation — the route that, via article 17, §6 of the coordinated Council of State laws, allows a suspended decision to be annulled in short order. Bpost tries in early February 2025 to submit a response memorandum, but it arrives out of time and is set aside. On 7 May 2025, the VIth Chamber — acting president Florence Piret, clerk Vincent Durieux — delivers the verdict: the award decision of 5 September 2024 is annulled. Bpost bears the costs, including a procedural indemnity of 770 euros (not increased, because article 11/2 excludes the 20% surcharge).
Why does this matter?
'Low-value contracts' (under 30,000 euros excl. VAT) feel administratively light: no publication, no formal procedure, just an invoice. That's also where the risk lies. This judgment draws the line at which such a contracting authority gets caught short: even under this formality-free regime, the estimation obligation of article 16 is not optional. An authority that cannot produce an estimate in the file has no file. And without a file, there is no way to justify the award if it is challenged — even if the contract might in fact have been below the threshold. For bid managers: this is a gap in the contracting authority's armour that you can exploit. If you see a contract awarded to a competitor under the low-value regime while you were previously consulted for similar contracts, a simple inspection of the administrative file can suffice: was an estimation method set before the award? If not, the award is challengeable through suspension by extreme urgency. For contracting authorities — particularly in the special sectors like post, water, energy — the message is even sharper: the internal note in which you justify why a contract stays under 30,000 euros is not a formality. It is the very evidence that you did not choose to bypass competition.
The lesson
If you want to launch a contract under the 'low-value' regime (<30,000 euros excl. VAT), make sure three things are in the administrative file before the award: (1) the estimation method you chose, (2) the figures to which you applied it, (3) a short justification of why the result stays below the threshold. Explaining it afterwards before the Council of State is not enough — the estimate must exist at the moment of the award, not only in your later written submissions.
Ask yourself
If your organisation awards a contract privately as 'low-value': is there a document in the file, dated before the award, that expressly motivates the estimate? If the only evidence is the final invoice or purchase order — with no substantiation of the chosen estimation method — then the contract is legally vulnerable to any challenge.
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 →