Five arguments, zero hits: why a losing towing company runs into the limits of its own case
The Council of State rejects all five grounds raised by a towing company challenging the award of a towing contract to its competitor — from a missing enterprise number to alleged environmental violations and a disputed price investigation.
What happened?
The city of Scherpenheuvel-Zichem tendered a contract for towing and storing vehicles on administrative order, also on behalf of the city of Diest, via a negotiated procedure without prior publication. Two companies submitted bids. The incumbent operator (BV H.T.), a family business, offered the lowest price — lower than three years earlier despite inflation. It justified this by pointing to its low cost structure as a family business without external staff costs, investments in newer trucks with lower fuel consumption, and comparable rates charged to national insurance companies. The city accepted the justification and awarded the contract. The losing tenderer raised five grounds: (1) the city's failure to include its enterprise number on documents — rejected for lack of prejudice; (2) the financial director's visa predating the formal signing of the evaluation report — rejected because no rule requires the visa to await formal signing; (3) the winner's alleged lack of an environmental permit for its storage site — rejected because the specifications did not require this as a selection or eligibility criterion; (4) the contract allegedly creating confusion between administrative and judicial towing and exceeding the city's powers — rejected because judicial towing was explicitly excluded; (5) insufficient motivation of the price investigation — rejected because the acceptance rested on three concrete, verifiable grounds. All five grounds were dismissed.
Why does this matter?
This ruling shows that the Council of State scrutinises not only the quality of the contracting authority's price investigation but also the quality of the challenger's arguments. Anyone contesting a price investigation must concretely demonstrate why the motivation is flawed — vague references to general inflation or tariffs from a different context do not suffice.
The lesson
If you want to challenge a competitor's price justification, bring hard numbers. General references to inflation, tariffs from a different domain, or vague comparisons with other authorities are not enough. The Council of State expects you to concretely demonstrate why the contracting authority's motivation does not hold up.
Ask yourself
Want to challenge a competitor's price justification? Do you have concrete, quantified evidence showing the contracting authority's motivation is flawed — or are you relying on general arguments about inflation and market prices?
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 →