One signature for two partners, filed in the wrong place: Advisers-Buro II & Archi+I loses to Actiris over the relocation of its head office
In the tender for relocating and refitting Actiris's head office, the Brussels employment agency excluded the bid of the temporary joint venture Advisers-Buro II & Archi+I because it was not signed by both partners, and the Council of State confirmed that an unreferenced, misfiled power of attorney from one architecture firm to the other does not satisfy that signature requirement.
What happened?
In early 2013, Actiris (the Brussels regional employment office) launched a European services tender for the design, development and execution of the relocation of its head office (specifications no. 6-2013). Eight candidates submitted bids, including the temporary joint venture formed by Advisers NV and Buro II & Archi+I CVBA. The specifications expressly required that, for a bid submitted by a temporary joint venture, 'the bid must be signed by each partner' and that the partners designate the person representing them vis-à-vis the contracting authority. The bid submitted by Advisers-Buro II & Archi+I on 3 April 2013 was signed by only one person: Jacques Timmerman, who identified himself on the bid form as 'managing director — Advisers NV, agent of the joint venture'. Elsewhere in the file, tucked away in the qualitative-selection section among the independence declarations, was a power of attorney dated 3 April 2013 in which Geert Blervacq, a partner at Buro II & Archi+I, authorised Timmerman to 'sign all necessary documents and negotiate' for this contract — but the bid form itself made no reference to that power of attorney, and the document itself did not state that Timmerman was signing on behalf of the joint venture as such. On 27 June 2013, Actiris declared the bid irregular: it was not signed by each partner, as required by clause 1.1.10.2) of the specifications and article 93 of the Royal Decree of 8 January 1996, a defect that could not be cured afterwards. The contract went to G2A (Art & Build - Global - Anixton). Advisers-Buro II & Archi+I sought suspension under extreme urgency, arguing in its sole plea that Timmerman's signature, backed by Blervacq's power of attorney, did in fact bind both partners. Actiris countered that neither the bid form nor any other part of the bid showed that Timmerman was signing for Buro II & Archi+I, and that Blervacq, a category-C director under that company's articles of association, did not in any case have the power to represent it alone — only a managing director could do so within the scope of daily management. The Council of State sided with Actiris: the documents showed the bid was signed only by Advisers's managing director, no document contained a mandate from the joint venture itself, and the attached power of attorney was not referenced anywhere on the bid form. Actiris could therefore, without manifest error of assessment, conclude that the bid was not signed by each partner. The request for suspension was dismissed; Advisers-Buro II & Archi+I bore costs of 475 euros.
Why does this matter?
This judgment shows how strictly the Council of State applies the signature requirement for temporary joint ventures, and how little room there is for an 'it was in there somewhere' defence. Article 93 of the Royal Decree of 8 January 1996 (now reflected in amended form in current procurement rules) is not a formality that can be cured after the fact: a missing signature from one partner renders the bid void, full stop. A power of attorney can substitute for that signature, but only if it meets two conditions that both failed here: it must be unambiguously referenced in the bid itself (not simply turn up by chance among other annexes), and it must come from someone who actually has authority to bind the party granting it. Blervacq's status as 'partner' was not enough — Buro II & Archi+I's articles of association reserved representative authority to the managing director. For consortia of architects, contractors or other professionals bidding jointly as a temporary company, this is a classic trap: the practical habit of letting one partner sign 'on behalf of everyone' collides with a rule specifically designed to remove any doubt about each partner's joint commitment.
The lesson
If you bid as a temporary joint venture, preferably have each partner sign the bid form personally. If you rely on a power of attorney, place it prominently in the bid, reference it explicitly on the form itself, and make sure the person granting it actually has authority to represent the company — check the articles of association for who may sign (managing director, corporate body, or someone holding a valid underlying mandate). A power of attorney buried among qualitative-selection documents, with no cross-reference, risks never being 'seen' by the contracting authority — and even if it is seen, it will not save you if its author lacked signing authority. Contracting authorities, for their part, are entitled to stay strict: the Council of State confirms they are not obliged to go hunting through the file for a misplaced power of attorney.
Ask yourself
In your joint-venture bid, does each partner sign individually, or are you relying on a power of attorney? Is that power of attorney clearly referenced on the bid form itself, or is it buried among other annexes? Have you checked whether the person signing the power of attorney is, under that company's articles of association, actually authorised to represent it to third parties — or is he merely a 'partner' without representative power? Do you know that a missing or ambiguous signature in a temporary joint venture constitutes a substantial irregularity that cannot be cured afterwards?
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 →