Picking up litter at 6.8 km/h — the tenderer promises it, but the authority doesn't buy it
The Council of State rejects the suspension request of a highway maintenance contractor whose offer was excluded for abnormal pricing, because the proposed productivity — 163 km of litter picking in three days, or 6.8 km/h while walking and bending — is prima facie unrealistic.
What happened?
SOFICO tendered a framework agreement for highway maintenance in North Luxembourg: selective waste collection along roadsides, central reservations, on/off ramps and interchanges. Five bids were submitted; Lux Green ranked first on price. The special price investigation found the proposed productivity unrealistic. For post 1 (lateral roadside litter picking over 163.76 km), Lux Green proposed two workers over three 8-hour days — averaging 6.8 km/h while walking and stopping to pick up litter. In a first justification, no van was included; in a second, a van was added but its cost wasn't reflected in the price breakdown. The authority concluded: the price decomposition is incorrect and the productivity is unachievable. The offer was declared irregular. The Council found the authority's assessment not manifestly unreasonable. The applicant itself acknowledged normal walking speed is 4-5 km/h. A second ground (unequal treatment in price analysis) was inadmissible because the applicant's own offer was independently declared irregular.
Why does this matter?
This ruling shows how concrete a special price investigation can and should be. The authority didn't rely on abstract comparisons but tested the physical feasibility of the proposed productivity against reality.
The lesson
For tenderers: your price justification must be internally consistent and realistic. If your productivity implies walking faster than physically possible while picking up litter, it won't convince anyone. For contracting authorities: the special price investigation may and should be concrete — test proposed productivity against the physical reality of the work.
Ask yourself
Does your price breakdown imply physically unachievable productivity? Is your justification internally consistent — are all resources you mention reflected in your price calculation?
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 →