Not examining the cheapest tender while you budgeted for 25% indexation — that's not price verification
The Council of State annuls the award of an auditor contract by the Walloon agency AViQ because the contracting authority extensively analyzed the more expensive tenders but said nothing about the remarkably low price of the winner — which was at the same level as the previous contract, despite the estimate including 25% indexation.
What happened?
The Walloon health agency AViQ tendered for the appointment of an auditor for the 2022-2024 financial years (ref. 22/078/MP/COMPT/C). Three firms submitted offers: RSM Interaudit, Callens Vandelanotte & Theunissen, and L&S Réviseurs d'Entreprises. On 9 March 2023, AViQ awarded to L&S. The award decision devoted extensive attention to explaining price differences. RSM was the most expensive — nearly double the hours. Callens was pricier than L&S due to more senior staff hours. Conclusion: 'Prices do not appear intrinsically abnormal.' But AViQ had estimated the contract value based on the previous contract plus approximately 25% indexation. L&S's price was at the level of the lowest prices from the previous contract — as if no indexation had occurred. Yet the award decision contained not a word about L&S's price itself. The Council of State had already suspended the award on 21 April 2023 (ruling no. 256.325). The auditor confirmed this position and proposed annulment. AViQ did not react: no continuation requested, no response filed, no hearing requested. Two years later, the Council annulled the award via the accelerated procedure under Article 30, §3. Costs for AViQ: €400 registration, €48 contributions, and €924 procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
Price verification is not a formality discharged by declaring all offers 'not intrinsically abnormal.' The contracting authority must concretely examine every offer — especially the cheapest one. This ruling confirms that price verification limited to explaining the more expensive offers is insufficient.
The lesson
When comparing three tenders and the cheapest wins: devote at least as much attention to explaining the low price as to explaining the high ones. Especially if the winning price matches the previous contract while you budgeted 25% indexation.
Ask yourself
If the winning tender is suspiciously close to or below the previous contract price, while your estimate included significant indexation: does your award decision contain a concrete analysis of why that price is still market-conforming?
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 →