Stratec v SOFICO: an authority that misreads a price justification cannot reject the bid as substantially irregular — award of mobility framework agreement to Sweco suspended
The Council of State suspends, under the extreme urgency procedure, SOFICO’s decision to declare Stratec’s lowest bid for a mobility consultancy framework agreement void and to award the contract to Sweco, because SOFICO wrongly inferred from Stratec’s price justification that its unit prices were not based on the estimated quantities in the bill of quantities — a factual error that brings down the decision, since it rested on the combination of two equally weighted grounds.
What happened?
SOFICO, the Walloon company that provides supplementary financing for infrastructure, published on 2 December 2025 in the Belgian Tenders Bulletin and the Official Journal of the EU a framework agreement for ‘socio-economic, environmental and technical assistance in the field of mobility and transport’: external experts helping SOFICO, on request, to design and implement mobility policy. The contract was awarded through an open procedure under specifications SOF-25-ECOTRANS, with price as the sole award criterion. On 16 January 2026 four bids were received: Stratec SA for EUR 108,750.00, Sweco SRL for EUR 170,440.00, Tractebel Engineering SA for EUR 242,564.97 and the Traject-TML consortium for EUR 256,200.00, all excluding VAT. On 27 February 2026 SOFICO awarded the contract to Stratec. On 18 March 2026 Sweco emailed its surprise at Stratec’s particularly low price, after which SOFICO withdrew its award decision on 27 March 2026. On 8 April 2026 it asked Stratec to justify all its prices, with particular attention to 8 of the 12 items in the bill of quantities. Stratec replied within the deadline, on 20 April 2026, with a document justifying the items identified. On 6 July 2026 SOFICO asked Sweco to extend the validity of its bid until 31 July 2026, which Sweco did without reservation on 8 July. On 13 July 2026 SOFICO’s board of directors decided that Stratec’s bid was substantially irregular and awarded the contract to Sweco. Stratec received that decision by email on 28 July and by registered letter on 5 August 2026. SOFICO found two defects in the bid: the rates for overheads and profit varied from item to item (in breach, according to SOFICO, of Article 28 of the Royal Decree on Award), and the unit prices had allegedly not been calculated on the estimated quantities of the bill of quantities but on ‘the hypothesis of actual consumption of the items differing from that provided for in that inventory’. Stratec applied for suspension under the extreme urgency procedure on 19 August 2026. The Council of State (6th chamber sitting in summary proceedings, presiding judge David De Roy, with the concurring opinion of first auditor Muriel Vanderhelst) examined only the third limb of the second plea, concerning the second defect. First, the Council read the reasoning: it did not show that each defect on its own undermined the comparability of the bids. Both grounds were therefore equally weighted, and it was their combination that supported the finding of nullity. Next, the Council rejected SOFICO’s position that Stratec had to prove a manifest error of assessment: this was not an assessment, but a finding of fact that Stratec disputed. And that finding was wrong. Reading the document of 20 April 2026 as a whole, and not merely the passages SOFICO quoted, showed that Stratec had indeed justified its prices on the estimated quantities in the procurement documents. Its considerations on a ‘contractual’ and an ‘economic’ logic, with a calculation based on other quantities, were included only ‘for information and as a supplement’, to confirm the sustainability of the bid. Whether that supplement was useful or relevant to a price justification did not matter; SOFICO had not, in any event, ruled on whether the prices were normal. The plea was serious; the Council did not need to examine the other limbs and pleas, including the complaint about varying overhead and profit rates. SOFICO identified no adverse consequences of a suspension. The Council suspended the decision of 13 July 2026, ordered immediate enforcement of the judgment, kept the bids, Sweco’s email and Stratec’s price justification confidential, and reserved the costs, including the procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
The judgment addresses a common scenario: a competitor complains about a low price, the authority withdraws its award, requests a price justification and then declares the bid void — not because the prices are abnormal, but because the justification itself supposedly reveals irregularities. The Council of State sets two important limits. First, what the authority infers from a price justification is a finding of fact, not an assessment. The court therefore reviews it fully for accuracy, not merely for manifest unreasonableness. A justification must be read as a whole; lifting a few sentences out of context to conclude that the prices rest on quantities other than the bill of quantities risks a factual error. Second, where a decision rests on several grounds, the reasoning must make clear whether each one suffices on its own. If it does not, the grounds are treated as equally weighted, and the failure of one is enough to bring down the whole decision. That is what happened here: the Council did not even have to rule on the varying overhead and profit rates — the ground that at first sight seemed the weightier one. It is also striking that SOFICO never ruled on whether the prices were normal, even though that was the very reason for reopening the procedure.
The lesson
For tenderers: when asked for a justification under Article 36 of the Royal Decree on Award, justify your prices strictly on the quantities in the bill of quantities. Additional scenarios or ‘economic’ readings can strengthen your case, but label them expressly as supplementary, so nobody can infer that your bid rests on other quantities. If your bid is nonetheless rejected, check whether the authority is stating a fact or making an assessment — a factual error is much easier to prove than a manifest error of assessment. For contracting authorities: read a price justification as a whole, and assess it primarily for what it is meant to show: whether the prices are normal. If you want to declare a bid void on several grounds, state expressly that and why each defect on its own undermines the comparability of the bids. Otherwise, a single untenable ground is enough to have the whole decision suspended.
Ask yourself
Is your price justification based solely on the estimated quantities in the bill of quantities, with alternative calculations clearly labelled as supplementary? Do you justify all the prices the authority asks about, and not only the items it expressly identifies? If your bid is rejected: is this a finding of fact you can refute with the documents, or an assessment subject only to marginal review? As a contracting authority: have you read the price justification in full, and not only the passages supporting your conclusion? Does your decision state, for each defect, why it undermines the comparability of the bids on its own? After requesting a price justification, have you actually ruled on whether the prices are normal?
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 →