OEKO-TEX is not the same as EU-Ecolabel — and the contracting authority is not there to repair your tender
The Council of State dismisses an extreme-urgency suspension brought by a furniture bidder whose tender was rejected because, for fabrics requiring 'EU-Ecolabel or equivalent', it offered only OEKO-TEX Standard 100, ruling that proving equivalence is the bidder's job — not the contracting authority's.
What happened?
The Flemish Facility Agency tendered a framework contract for sustainable furniture reuse (specification 2025/HFB/OP/141228). The specification required 'EU-Ecolabel or equivalent' for certain fabrics (polyester, wool, acoustic) and 'OEKO-TEX Standard 100 or equivalent' for others (water-repellent, leatherette) — making the distinction itself. VEVA Collection submitted only OEKO-TEX Standard 100 evidence for the EU-Ecolabel-required fabrics. After a request for clarification under article 66, §3 of the 2016 Public Procurement Act, VEVA confirmed compliance and added supplier self-declarations and references to REACH, Greenguard Gold and ISO standards. The award report (11 February 2026) found the offer substantially irregular: OEKO-TEX tests end-products for harmful substances, while EU-Ecolabel applies a life-cycle approach; the products were also not in the EU-Ecolabel product catalogue. The bid was rejected and the contract awarded to the two remaining bidders. The Council of State (14th Chamber) ruled that under article 53, §6 of the 2016 Act, the bidder must prove equivalence in its tender itself. The mandatory 'sustainable materials form' contained no supporting documents for the sustainability requirements, and the technical sheets cited only OEKO-TEX or no labels at all. Later-supplied evidence (REACH, Greenguard, ISO) was not traceable from the original sheets and could not retroactively be considered. The authority is not required to investigate, request test results or build comparisons that don't follow from the tender itself — that would reverse the burden of proof. All three pleas (narrow interpretation of 'equivalent', insufficient reasoning, breach of competition / file access) were dismissed.
Why does this matter?
For bidders dealing with sustainability requirements, this is a warning. Offering 'another label' and arguing post-hoc that it's essentially the same is not enough. The contracting authority is not a detective: if your tender doesn't prove equivalence itself, it can lawfully be rejected — even if you later supply technical fact sheets and self-declarations under an article 66, §3 clarification request. And when the specification uses two labels for different products, that's strong evidence they aren't interchangeable.
The lesson
When a specification requires 'X or equivalent' and you propose a different label, build the equivalence proof into the tender itself — not in a follow-up email, not in an after-the-fact self-declaration. For each required standard (EU-Ecolabel, OEKO-TEX, ISO, REACH) per product, include a file showing (1) what the required standard mandates, (2) what your alternative mandates, (3) where they overlap and (4) why that suffices here. And check whether the specification distinguishes between two labels for different product categories — if it does, you cannot quietly substitute one for the other.
Ask yourself
For every 'X or equivalent' requirement: can you point — in your tender — to one PDF, paragraph or document that explicitly proves, per product offered, why your label is equivalent? If not, you risk rejection, even if you are intrinsically compliant.
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 →