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.
What happened?
CHU Saint-Pierre in Brussels tendered the renovation of its boiler room via open procedure. The specifications required an 'execution schedule' respecting the 340-day deadline. Delta Thermic submitted a document titled 'planning' — but it was merely a certificate stating it would respect the deadline and the November-to-April work restrictions. The authority found this was not a real schedule and questioned the tenderer, who then submitted a detailed phased programme. The authority refused to accept it: in an open procedure, an essential element cannot be supplemented after the submission deadline (art. 66, §3). The offer was declared substantially irregular. The Council upheld the decision. A certificate confirming compliance adds nothing to the commitment already implied by submitting an offer. The schedule must concretely demonstrate feasibility by detailing work phases over time. Once an irregularity is classified as substantial, the authority has no discretion and must exclude — proportionality is not at issue.
Why does this matter?
This ruling draws a sharp line between a formal confirmation and a substantive document. A certificate saying 'I will comply' is not an execution schedule. The ruling also confirms that essential missing documents cannot be supplemented after the deadline in open procedures, and that proportionality does not apply once an irregularity is classified as substantial.
The lesson
For tenderers: if the specifications require an execution schedule, provide a detailed phased programme — not a certificate of compliance. In an open procedure, you cannot supplement essential missing documents after the deadline. For contracting authorities: when the specifications require a schedule as part of the offer, its absence is a substantial irregularity requiring exclusion — no proportionality assessment needed.
Ask yourself
Do the specifications require an execution schedule with your offer? Have you provided an actual phased programme, or just a certificate confirming you'll meet the deadline?
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 →