What the specifications say, you must price — even if you think it doesn't belong there
A tenderer who expressly confirms during price clarification that coordination of works in the other lots is not included in its offer is rightly declared substantially irregular — even if it believes the specifications do not require such coordination.
What happened?
The municipality of Kalmthout tendered the construction of a gymnasium in three lots. The technical specifications for lot 1 (architecture and structural work) included post 01.01.77 'Coordination of the various works', requiring the contractor to coordinate works 'in the other lots', with an extensive task description 'for all lots'. The cost was to be included in the lump sum price of post 01.01.70 'site facilities'. During the price investigation, the cheapest tenderer expressly confirmed that coordination with the other lots was not included in its offer — in its view, the specifications did not require it. After repeated questioning, the authority declared the tender substantially irregular. Two of three tenderers were excluded for the same reason.
Why does this matter?
This judgment makes clear that a specification clause does not become ambiguous merely because multiple tenderers misread it. The Council assesses clarity from the perspective of a 'normally careful tenderer specialised in the relevant field' — not from the percentage of tenderers who understood the clause. The judgment also confirms that a contracting authority need not frame its needs as a formal pilot contract: it may define the coordination obligation according to its own needs, including in a less comprehensive form. Finally, it illustrates that the duty to state reasons in price investigations is proportional: when no abnormal prices are found, the evaluation report need not reproduce the investigation in extenso.
The lesson
Reading the specifications as a whole is not optional but mandatory. When a post expressly refers to coordination of works in the other lots and formulates a task description 'for all lots', a tenderer cannot maintain that this concerns only internal coordination. Anyone who doubts the scope of a specification clause must ask questions before submission — not impose their own reading through the price clarification.
Ask yourself
Have we read the specifications as a whole, or do we read each post in isolation based on customary practice in the sector? If a post refers to 'the other lots' or 'all lots': have we actually included the coordination cost in our lump sum price? If we doubt the scope of a specification clause: do we ask a question before submission, or do we silently fill it in according to our own interpretation?
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 →