Paliseul finds the grounds maintenance ‘materially impossible’ for one person, but does not say why: award annulled
The Council of State annuls the decision of the municipality of Paliseul to declare L.F.’s bid for the 2025/2026 parks and gardens maintenance irregular and to award the contract to someone else, because the irregularity rested solely on the bare assertion that it was ‘materially impossible’ for one person to do the work within the hours stated — an argument the municipality only tried to substantiate before the Council and then dropped by not requesting the continuation of the proceedings.
What happened?
The municipality of Paliseul, together with its public social welfare centre (CPAS), tendered a public services contract for ‘entretien parcs et jardins – 2025/2026’, divided into three lots. L.F. submitted a bid for all three lots. The municipality asked him to justify his prices, and he supplied an estimate of working hours, noting that the actual hours would depend on the weather. By a decision of 7 April 2025 the municipal executive declared his bid substantially irregular for all three lots and awarded the contract to another bidder. The bid evaluation report, which formed part of the decision, consisted on this point of a single sentence: ‘il apparaît qu’il est matériellement impossible pour une seule personne et dans les délais estimés par l’entreprise d’effectuer correctement le service requis’ (it appears materially impossible for a single person, within the time estimated by the firm, to perform the required service properly). This was said to create ‘uncertainty as to the bidder’s commitment to perform the contract in accordance with the specifications’. L.F. went to the Council of State on 24 April 2025. By judgment no. 263.432 of 26 May 2025 the Council suspended, under extreme urgency, the finding of irregularity and the award; it declared the challenge to the implicit refusal to award him the contract inadmissible, because L.F. had not shown that the contract should have gone to him. The municipality then requested continuation of the proceedings and pleadings were exchanged. First auditor and head of section Christian Amelynck concluded in his report that the decision should be annulled. The municipality did not request continuation within thirty days, filed no final brief and did not ask to be heard. The Council therefore used the expedited route of article 30, § 3 of the coordinated laws. On the merits, it repeated what the suspension judgment had already said: an authority that requests a price justification must give precise reasons for its decision on that justification, all the more so because it enjoys a wide margin of appreciation. The ‘particularly laconic’ finding of impossibility was supported by nothing: no comparison with the resources and hours stated by the other bidders, no own estimate based on past maintenance of the same green spaces, no reference to comparable contracts. The fact that L.F. had described his hours as only an estimate was not mentioned in the evaluation report; the municipality only raised it before the Council, and reasons cannot be supplemented after the fact. The Council annulled the decision of 7 April 2025 declaring the bid irregular and awarding the contract to another bidder. For the part concerning the implicit refusal, it recorded a discontinuance: L.F. had not requested continuation after the suspension judgment and had brought no new elements. The municipality bears the roll fees of 400 euros, the contributions of 52 euros and the procedural indemnity of 770 euros.
Why does this matter?
The judgment confirms on the merits what the suspension judgment had foreshadowed, in a very common situation: a small bidder — here a natural person — bids low, the authority considers this unrealistic and declares the bid irregular. That is allowed, but the decision must show what the assessment rests on. The Council itself indicates what such reasoning might look like: a comparison with the hours and resources deployed by competitors, an own estimate based on experience with the same parks, or a reference to similar contracts. One sentence saying that something is ‘materially impossible’ is not enough. The procedural side is just as important. After the suspension judgment the municipality still requested continuation, but after the auditor’s report it gave up; the Council then annuls via the expedited procedure, without further debate. Conversely, the bidder lost his claim against the implicit refusal to award him the contract, because he never showed that the contract was his due and did not request continuation after the suspension. The outcome is typical of procurement litigation: the award falls, but the bidder does not automatically get the contract.
The lesson
Authorities that declare a bid irregular after a price inquiry must explain in the evaluation report itself why the prices or the stated hours are not feasible: with figures from the other bids, an own estimate or experience with the same contract. What you only put forward in your brief before the Council of State does not count. And an authority that does not request continuation after an unfavourable auditor’s report in effect accepts the annulment. Bidders can successfully challenge a laconic finding of irregularity on the ground of inadequate reasoning, even if they themselves presented their hours as an estimate. If you also want the implicit refusal to award you the contract annulled, show concretely that the contract should have gone to you, and request continuation in time after a suspension judgment, or a discontinuance will be presumed.
Ask yourself
As an authority: is the reason why you reject a price justification stated in the evaluation report itself, with concrete data (hours and resources of other bidders, own estimate, comparable contracts)? Are you aware that arguments raised only in the proceedings before the Council of State can no longer cure defective reasoning? Do you know that failing to request continuation within thirty days of an auditor’s report recommending annulment leads to annulment via the expedited procedure? As a bidder: besides the finding of irregularity, have you also challenged the implicit refusal to award you the contract, and can you show that the contract should have gone to you? After a suspension judgment, have you requested continuation in time for every part of your action you wish to keep?
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 →