DIFTAR software IVIO: suspension due to invalid declaration of substantial irregularity of offer with zero prices for required options
The Council of State suspends the award of a public contract for DIFTAR software because the declaration of substantial irregularity of the applicant's offer — which quoted zero prices for five required options — is not properly motivated: the offer does contain a description of the options, the zero price constitutes a valid price commitment, and the comparability of offers is not affected since the total price is the sole award criterion.
What happened?
IVIO (an intermunicipal association for sustainable waste management near Izegem) tendered through competitive dialogue for the development, delivery and maintenance of DIFTAR software — software for differentiated household waste tariffs. The contract comprised a base module for residual and organic waste registration, plus five required options: underground containers, garden waste containers, asbestos collection, bulky waste collection, and recycling park integration. Price was the sole award criterion. Two candidates were invited to submit offers after the dialogue phase. The applicant (NV I.E.) submitted an offer describing the five required options on pages 38-44, with reference to an annex for the full software description. In the inventory, it quoted 0.00 EUR for each required option, arguing these are standard features of its software requiring no additional cost — the full price is included in the base module price. The authority declared the offer substantially irregular under Article 48(2) of the Placement Royal Decree, citing two grounds: (1) no description of the required options, and (2) no prices quoted for the required options. The contract was awarded to the other tenderer. The Council found both grounds invalid. On the first ground, the offer did contain descriptions on pages 38-44, which the authority itself acknowledged. On the second ground, the authority itself admitted the applicant had 'formally complied' by entering 0.00 EUR in the inventory. The Council held that a zero price is a valid commitment. Regarding comparability, the specifications prescribed that the 'price' criterion is assessed on the total price — base contract plus ordered options. Individual option prices are not a separate sub-criterion. The absence of separate option prices does not affect comparability or create manipulation risk. The authority's argument that it needed separate prices to charge member municipalities was based on a specification clause about 'Optimisation of total operation.' The Council found this clause concerned functional requirements for citizen billing, not pricing structure requirements for the offer. The authority identified no specification provision allowing individual municipalities to order options independently. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the status of zero prices for required options. A zero price is a valid commitment. When total price is the sole criterion, individual option prices are not a separate sub-criterion — integrating option costs into the base price does not affect comparability. An authority cannot rely on internal cost allocation needs unsupported by the specifications to declare an offer irregular.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: before declaring an offer with zero option prices irregular, verify whether the tenderer described the options and whether the zero price is a deliberate commitment. When total price is the sole criterion, separate option prices are not an independent assessment criterion. Ensure irregularity grounds are supported by the specifications, not post-hoc internal accounting considerations. As a tenderer: when offering standard features as required options at zero price, ensure your offer contains full descriptions and that the zero price clearly appears in the inventory as a deliberate commitment.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: are your irregularity grounds supported by the specifications? Did the tenderer describe the required options? Is the zero price a valid commitment? Is total price the criterion or are you assessing option prices separately? As a tenderer: have you fully described the required options? Is the zero price clearly and unambiguously recorded in the inventory?
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 →