Ten new waste trucks for nearly the same price as three new and seven old ones — still not an abnormally low price?
The Council of State rejects the claim of the incumbent waste collector that the winning tenderer cannot possibly offer a comparable total price with ten new trucks when the claimant used only three new and seven depreciated ones, because the total price exceeded the estimate, deviated less than 15% from the average, and truck costs were not a visible line item.
What happened?
Waste management intermunicipal IVVO tendered household waste collection services. Three bids were received: the winner at €3.62M, the incumbent at €3.72M, and a third at €5.3M. The incumbent deployed 3 new + 7 depreciated trucks; the winner deployed 10 new trucks. The incumbent argued this was impossible without abnormally low pricing. The Council found the general price investigation sufficient: the winning price exceeded the estimate (based on the incumbent's current contract), stayed within 15% of the average, and truck costs were embedded in unit prices per municipality — not visible as a separate line item. The method of depreciation varies by tenderer. The authority acted within its discretion in concluding no abnormal pricing existed.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates the limits of price investigation in public procurement. The general price investigation is a first filter, not a deep audit. When the total price exceeds the estimate and stays within a reasonable range of the average, the authority may conclude no special investigation is needed. What a competitor infers from the structure of another's offer does not replace what the authority may conclude from the actual price comparison.
The lesson
For tenderers: the fact that you understand why your own price is low (depreciated equipment) does not make a competitor's price with new equipment automatically abnormal. The authority may compare total prices against the estimate and average — not against your cost structure. For contracting authorities: document your general price investigation in the file, even when concluding prices are normal.
Ask yourself
Challenging an award based on abnormal pricing? Is your argument based on your own cost structure, or do you have concrete evidence that the competitor's total price is not market-conform?
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 →