If two of three bidders had to fix their offers, 'a number of offers had irregularities' is not a motivation
The Council of State suspends the award of lot 6 of De Watergroep's framework agreement for grounds maintenance because the award report only mentioned that 'a number of offers' had been regularised, without specifying which bidders, which issues, and what the outcome was — while in fact two of the three bidders had received regularisation requests.
What happened?
De Watergroep (Flemish water utility) issued a framework agreement for grounds maintenance across six lots, each for one year renewable seven times. Three bidders competed for lot 6 (East Limburg). On 27 February 2026 the contract went to NV K. The losing bidder BV G. filed an extreme-urgency suspension with the Council of State, attacking the formal motivation. The award report stated under 'Regularisations': 'Some ambiguities/gaps/irregularities were identified in a number of offers, related among other things to (minimal) cooperation with sheltered workshops. De Watergroep asked the relevant bidders for clarifications/regularisations. The submitted regularisations were then analysed.' Under 'Regularity examination' followed the bare conclusion that the offers were regular. From the confidential documents it emerged that in reality two of the three bidders — all bidders except BV G. — had received a regularisation request and had submitted adapted offers. The Council held that when the regularity examination reveals special circumstances — as here, where the majority of offers had to be regularised — a more detailed motivation is required. The contracting authority must then specify per bidder which irregularities were found, why they were qualified as non-substantial, which regularisations were requested, and what the outcome of the analysis was. The vagueness 'a number of offers' and 'among other things cooperation with sheltered workshops' did not suffice. That the analysis existed in confidential documents did not save the motivation: the purpose of the formal duty to state reasons — enabling the applicant to consider an appeal with knowledge of the facts — is not achieved by an analysis that only surfaces during litigation. A posteriori clarifications in the authority's observations could not cure the defect either. The suspension was granted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling sets a clear threshold: as soon as regularisations take place during the regularity examination — especially on essential elements such as an award criterion — the contracting authority must motivate this explicitly and in detail in the award report itself. For bidders: you have the right to insight into which competitors received regularisations and for what. For authorities: it is tempting to use vague wording that sweeps procedural untidiness under the rug, but that is precisely what makes an award vulnerable to suspension.
The lesson
If as a contracting authority you send a regularisation request to more than one bidder — especially regarding an award criterion — then the award report must name, per bidder: what the defect was, why it was non-substantial, what was asked, what was received, how it was evaluated. 'Some ambiguities' is not a motivation. As a bidder, if you read that regularisations took place without any detail and you were not approached yourself, this is one of the strongest grounds on which to build a suspension.
Ask yourself
If your award report mentions that 'a number of offers' or 'certain bidders' were asked for clarification, without names, specific issues and analysis outcome: update it. Certainly if those regularisations touched an award or selection criterion. Threshold: if more than one bidder received a regularisation request, detailed motivation is not optional.
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 →