Taxi transport for wheelchair users FEDASIL: suspension due to insufficiently precise inventory items enabling price speculation
The Council of State suspends the award of a public contract for taxi and wheelchair transport from the Grimbergen reception centre, because two inventory items — 'WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORT' without any destination indication and 'transfer to other centres (e.g. Jabbeke)' with an unjustified average distance of 60 km — were insufficiently precise to exclude price speculation, violating the transparency principle and the requirement of genuine competition.
What happened?
FEDASIL launched a procurement for taxi transport (including wheelchair-adapted vehicles) from its Grimbergen reception centre, for four years. The sole award criterion was the lowest price. The inventory contained six items, including item 4 'ROLSTOELVERVOER' (wheelchair transport) with 832 trips but no destination, and item 6 'transfer to other centres (e.g. Jabbeke)' with no specified average distance. Taxi Radio Bruxellois asked clarification questions. For item 4, FEDASIL answered: 'Same routes as the others (Saint-Luc/Jan Portaels/St-Pierre) but with a wheelchair-adapted vehicle.' For item 6, FEDASIL said: 'Take an average of 60 km per trip' — without justification, while Jabbeke is 103 km from Grimbergen (200+ km round trip vs. 120 km based on the stated average). Six tenderers submitted offers. VICTOR CAB was ranked first. The Council found the first ground serious. For transport services, tenderers must know not only the estimated number of trips but also destinations, to calculate realistic prices. Item 4's bare title provided no destination. The clarification left ambiguity about whether DVZ Brussels (item 5) and other centres (item 6) — representing 434 trips, nearly 10% of the total — should be included. Item 6's unjustified 60 km average worsened the confusion. FEDASIL's hearing explanations were a posteriori justifications unsupported by the file. The claim that Taxi Radio had the lowest price for item 6 was factually incorrect. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies precision requirements for inventory items in price-only procurements. For transport services, items must specify not just trip quantities but also destinations and distances — without these, tenderers cannot estimate essential pricing parameters, enabling speculation. Clarifications provided during the tender period must be coherent with the specifications and may not worsen ambiguity.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when price is the sole criterion, all inventory items must be precise enough to exclude speculation. For transport services, specify destinations and justified average distances, not just trip quantities. Ensure clarification answers are consistent with the specifications and documented. As a tenderer: when inventory items are imprecise, document your clarification questions and answers. Unresolved ambiguity may constitute grounds for appeal if the unclear items affected the final ranking.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: are all inventory items precise enough to exclude speculation? Do transport items specify destinations and distances, not just quantities? Are clarification answers consistent and substantiated? As a tenderer: do inventory items contain vague descriptions enabling divergent pricing strategies? Have you documented your clarification questions and the answers received?
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 →