Regularisation
Regularisation is the correction of errors or gaps in a tender. Not all defects can be regularised — the distinction between substantial and non-substantial irregularities determines whether correction is possible.
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.
A certificate that you'll meet the deadline is not an execution schedule — even if you call it one
The Council of State rejects the suspension request of a contractor whose offer was declared substantially irregular because it submitted a certificate of compliance instead of a detailed execution schedule, and only provided the actual schedule after being questioned — too late in an open procedure.
Redeveloping a €16.5M square at zero public cost: if you don't include everything in the financial plan, you're out
The Council of State rejects a developer's challenge against the declaration of irregularity of its tender for a major public square redevelopment, finding that omitting certain facilities from the financial plan — while including them in descriptive notes — constitutes a substantive irregularity that prevents comparison with other tenders, and the contracting authority was not obliged to allow regularisation.
Iveco challenges DAF's certification on the defence contract — while Iveco itself regularised three items of its own bid
The Council of State rejects Iveco's annulment action against the award of a defence contract for 879 trucks to DAF Trucks: a EURO III certificate based on UNECE Regulation No. 49 is equivalent to the EC type-approval abolished in 2006, and Iveco has no standing to challenge the regularisation of DAF's bid because it itself was allowed to adjust its own bid during negotiations on essential requirements.
A start-up of five ex-employees may invoke their former employer's references — but the contracting authority must actually verify those references
The Council of State annuls the award of an urban planning study contract to SEN5 — a company set up by five ex-colleagues of the applicant — not because they used each other's references, but because the City of Jodoigne accepted a reference list that did not meet the specifications' requirement that the amount per assignment be stated.
If you ask everyone the same question, it's not unequal treatment — even if only one bidder has to adjust
The Council of State rejects Neovision's extreme urgency application against the award to Ecubel of refurbished laptops for Liège provincial schools because the Province could invoke article 76 §5 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017 to allow Ecubel to correct its offer — provided it asked all bidders the same clarification question simultaneously, which it did.
Two small Excel sheets saying '42 hours included' cost you the World Expo — while your competitor's missing offer form does not
The Council of State rejects the extreme urgency application of consortium Voysu against the award of the Belgian pavilion at Expo Osaka 2025 to Dirty Monitor, because BelExpo rightly discarded Voysu's BAFO for two added Excel tabs mentioning 'up to 2 correction rounds' and 'up to 42 hours included' — whereas the offer form that Dirty Monitor forgot to upload was not a substantial irregularity and could be requested afterwards under article 66 §3 of the Public Procurement Act.
If you contest the irregularity finding instead of fixing it, you can't later claim unequal treatment
The Council of State rejects Sportinfrabouw's appeal: it had the same opportunity to regularise as Lesuco but chose to contest the finding of irregularity instead of adjusting its offer — and therefore cannot invoke discrimination.
Submitting new plans after your bid is not 'correcting a material error' — it's modifying your offer
The Council of State rejects the emergency appeal of a design team that, after submitting its design-build offer, sent revised plans and a €40,000 price reduction to 'correct' elevation errors: such structural adjustments are a modification of the offer, not a correction of a material error within the meaning of article 34.
When four out of five bidders deviate from the zoning plan in identical fashion, the problem is not with the bidders
The Council of State suspends under extreme urgency the award of the design-and-build contract for the new Neptunus swimming pool in Ghent because TMVW declared the bids of four of the five bidders substantially irregular — after eight months of negotiations — for a zoning-plan deviation that the specifications never expressly excluded, and then refused the regularisation opportunity the specifications themselves promised.
Track public tenders?
Receive daily relevant tenders tailored to your business. Including AI summaries, competitive analysis and market intelligence.
This page shows all rulings of the Council of State (Belgium's supreme administrative court) on regularisation in public procurement. Each ruling is summarized by TenderWolf in plain language, with a legal lesson and a practical question to ask yourself. View all rulings →