'The Price Bureau looked at it' is not a price check — especially not when that opinion itself asks for your own analysis
The Council of State suspends an award by the Walloon Region to Colas Belgium for road works in Biercée because the contracting authority motivated its price check with the bare statement that 'the Price Bureau intervened' — while that bureau's own opinion expressly required a separate analysis from the road directorate that nowhere appears in the file.
What happened?
The Walloon Region launched in open procedure a works contract for the rehabilitation of the village crossing through Biercée (Thuin), N599 Bk 4.900 to 6.400. Estimated value: € 763,966.79 (excl. VAT) — below the European threshold, Belgian publication only. Three bidders: Colas Belgium, Travexploit and TRBA. After correction of arithmetic and purely material errors, Colas's offer rose from € 1,104,384.91 (incl. VAT) to € 1,140,385.69 (incl. VAT) — still the lowest, and on 13 June 2023 it was awarded. Travexploit ranked second and filed an extreme-urgency suspension. The award decision said about price-checking only: '2.6. Verification of unit prices — Considering that the Price Bureau intervened; Considering that after verification, the unit prices submitted by Colas Belgium SA are considered normal'. Only after consulting the administrative file did Travexploit see the Bureau's actual opinion: Colas's offer was 13.04% above the generalised estimate and the divergent items represented 6.11% of the total. Conclusion: 'globally acceptable' — but expressly 'subject to your own analysis, based on specific elements of which we may have no knowledge'. The award report stated only that 'the analysis carried out at Territorial Direction level revealed no significant incoherence' — but that analysis was nowhere in the file. Travexploit raised a 'new ground' in its hearing note after seeing the file. The Council accepted it: it built on the third branch of the second ground and the parties could fully debate it. The Region's standing objection — that a suspension would not give Travexploit a real chance at the award — was rejected: under the law of 17 June 2013, interest in a ground is no longer assessed by 'chance of award' but by article 14: did the applicant have an interest in obtaining the contract, and was it harmed or threatened with harm by the alleged illegality? An inadequate motivation harms the applicant by definition, by depriving them of the ability to mount an informed appeal and of the safeguard against administrative arbitrariness. On the merits: 'the Price Bureau intervened' is stereotyped and inadequate. Read as motivation 'by reference', the conditions for such reference were not met — the opinion was neither attached nor summarised. Read as a motivation of the authority's own, no trace of the authority's own analysis exists in the file: the Bureau itself called for one, the report claims it found no significant incoherence, but the analysis itself is missing. Additions in the note to the Council are a posteriori motivation. Suspension granted, immediate execution ordered.
Why does this matter?
Many contracting authorities believe they can cover a price check with a one-liner if behind the scenes some external or internal service (price bureau, technical cell, expert) was consulted. This judgement says: not enough. If you cite an opinion, at least state its relevant conclusions, attach it, or summarise its substance. And if the opinion itself contains a reservation — for example 'globally acceptable subject to your own analysis' — that own analysis must be traceable somewhere in the file. The judgement also reaffirms an important principle on standing: under the law of 17 June 2013, you do not need to demonstrate that a suspension would give you a real chance of award. It suffices that you are harmed by the alleged illegality — and an inadequate motivation harms you by definition, because it prevents you from preparing an informed appeal.
The lesson
If you cite an external or internal service in your award decision to underpin a price check, state the substance of the opinion or attach it. If that opinion includes a reservation requiring 'your own analysis', make sure that analysis — at least in the administrative file — is findable. As an applicant: if you only see the file after filing and discover the motivation does not match the actual price check, raise a 'new ground' in your hearing note — the Council will accept it if the parties can debate it. Argue interest based on the harm the motivation defect inflicts on you, not on your ranking.
Ask yourself
Does your award decision cite an opinion or intervention from a third service (price bureau, expert, technical cell) without attaching it or quoting its essence? Then your motivation is vulnerable. Did that opinion itself reserve the question for 'your own analysis'? Then that analysis must at least be in the administrative file. As an applicant: did you find elements in the file that contradict or supplement the motivation? Add them as a new ground in your hearing note — flag it in time so the other party can reply.
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 →