'Those guardrail end-pieces are already in our stock' — accepted as a price justification
The Council of State rejects the suspension request from the second-ranked bidder because Fluvius was entitled to accept that a low unit price for steel guardrail end-pieces was explained by the fact that the winning bidder already had them in stock, fully depreciated.
What happened?
Fluvius System Operator and the municipality of Pajottegem launch a joint public works contract of €2.5 million: sewerage works, road repairs, new road construction and pumping stations in the Waardestraat-Nattendries in Pajottegem. Open procedure, price as sole award criterion. Four bidders submit. The temporary association N.-D.W. submits the lowest bid: €2,564,803.76 incl. VAT. Company D.M. ranks second (€2,611,851.89). During price verification, item 319 catches attention — 'steel guardrail end-piece for vehicles, P3 or T100 for H1 steel guardrail construction, 14 units' — with a strikingly low unit price. On 10 December 2025, Fluvius requests a price justification. The winner replies two days later with two arguments: (1) items 318 (the guardrail itself) and 319 (the vertical end-pieces to which the guardrail attaches) are technically inseparable; (2) thirteen of the fourteen end-pieces requested are already in stock with a subcontractor, fully depreciated, so the purchase cost need not be passed on. Fluvius accepts and awards on 15 January 2026 to N.-D.W. Company D.M. appeals to the Council of State under extreme urgency. Two pleas: (1) combining items 318 and 319 breaches Art. 28 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017 (each item its own unit price), and 'in stock' is highly implausible given normal costs; (2) end-pieces for specific motorway applications are very expensive — if they are already in stock, they likely belong to a lower technical class than the specifications require. Both pleas rejected. First plea: the formal reasoning in the award report, with reference to a confidential price justification, is sufficient. Confidential documents (which the Council reviewed) show the winner does own thirteen end-pieces, excluded only the purchase cost but included actual execution costs and a general costs + profit margin. D.M. does not demonstrate a zero price for item 319. 'In stock' is an objective fact that can legitimately explain a lower price. Second plea: the specifications prescribe a minimum performance class (P3/T100); offering a higher class (P4) is not an irregularity. Confidential documents confirm the offered constructions are not of a lower class. Request rejected. Procedural indemnity of €770 against the applicant (once, not twice, as both defendants were represented by the same lawyers with identical arguments).
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms two practical rules in price verification. One: a concise formal reasoning in the award report, referring to a confidential price justification, is acceptable — provided the competitor can still assess whether to appeal. The contracting authority need not disclose all the winner's trade secrets. Two: 'already in stock' is a legitimate justification element if the items are fully depreciated. The low price is then not manipulation but an economic advantage the bidder may pass on. Frustrating for unknowing competitors, but not irregular.
The lesson
If you allege that a competitor submitted an abnormally low price: don't stop at calling the explanation implausible. Prove it is factually wrong (no stock, no depreciation, no subcontractor) or that it conflicts with a mandatory legal provision. 'This is very expensive, so he can't have it in stock' is not enough.
Ask yourself
Faced with a competitor's price justification based on 'already in stock' or 'depreciated'? Explicitly request access to the confidential documents (subcontractor offer, accounting depreciation) in your reply brief. Without that concrete challenge, the Council of State will defer to the contracting authority's finding.
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 →