One-hour emergency response for Christmas lights in Jette — but the authority forgot to check if that was realistic
The Council of State suspends the award of a holiday illumination contract in Jette because the authority failed to verify whether the one-hour intervention time offered by two tenderers was realistic, despite multiple red flags — including the fact that the offer was submitted by a different legal entity than the one to whom the contract was awarded.
What happened?
The municipality of Jette tendered Christmas tree acquisition and holiday lighting installation via negotiated procedure. Two award criteria: price (70 points) and emergency intervention time (30 points). The winner and a third tenderer both offered one-hour response; the incumbent (Pact Solutions) offered two to three hours based on practical experience. Pact Solutions challenged, arguing one-hour intervention was impossible: both competitors were based in Nivelles (over one hour from Jette), and intervention time includes response time, preparation, parking the boom truck, and the actual repair. The Council found the ground serious for four reasons: (1) the threefold difference in offered delays should have prompted scrutiny; (2) the authority's three defenses were insufficient — two identical offers prove nothing individually, previous contract history requires proof of comparable conditions, and the Laeken depot with electrician wasn't in the administrative file and couldn't handle all emergencies; (3) no explanation was offered for Globall Concept's one-hour claim from Nivelles; (4) critically, the offer was submitted by 'Ilvris Light & Events SRL' (Nivelles) but awarded to 'Ilvris Import-Export Distribution & Gestion' — a different legal entity. Suspension ordered.
Why does this matter?
When a deadline or response time serves as an award criterion, the authority must assess whether offered timelines are realistic. Rewarding unkeepable promises undermines equal treatment. This ruling also highlights the need to verify that the entity submitting the offer matches the entity receiving the award.
The lesson
For contracting authorities: when using time or speed as an award criterion, actively verify that offered timelines are realistic — especially when there are large differences between offers. Document your assessment. Always verify that the entity submitting the offer is the entity you're awarding to. For tenderers: don't offer timelines you can't meet; if a competitor does, challenge whether the authority verified the claim.
Ask yourself
Using response time as an award criterion? Have you verified whether offered timelines are realistic based on objective elements? Are there large differences between offers that require explanation? Does the entity that submitted the offer match the entity you're awarding to?
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 →