A cursory answer to the price inquiry clears the field itself: Adede loses the mine-clearance contract for the Flemish beaches
The Maritime Services and Coast agency excluded Adede's bid for detecting and clearing explosives on the Flemish beaches because its daily rate for detection on the water was abnormally low and its justification failed to rebut that, and the Council of State upheld the assessment: the justification was cursory and unsupported, the authority could base its judgment on confidential third-party price data without disclosing it to Adede, and since this single ground of exclusion sufficed, the pleas against the two other grounds no longer had any interest.
What happened?
Through an open procedure, the Flemish Region sought a contractor for detecting and clearing conventional and toxic explosives — mines, grenades, projectiles, bombs — along the beaches of the Flemish coast, down to at least two metres below beach level, with assistance to the bomb-disposal unit DOVO and to archaeological services. Four bidders submitted offers. On 18 August 2022 the agency asked Adede for a price justification for four items, including item 6, ‘detecting explosives on the water'. Adede replied with a technical line of reasoning — a sailing speed of 3 knots, four hours of detection within a favourable tidal window, line spacing of 4 to 6 metres, time for launching the survey vessel and running a test line — from which it concluded that 2 hectares per survey day was realistic, and gave a daily rate with components. The agency did not accept the justification: a comparison with recent unit prices for similar contracts from several market parties and with the other bid prices pointed to an abnormally low, possibly speculative unit price offering no guarantee of quality performance. Together with two other grounds — a reservation concerning the required 25-tonne cranes and an incomplete price build-up for item 13, which omitted the excavator needed for approach works — the bid was declared substantially irregular, and on 28 October 2022 the contract went to Braet. The Council of State recalled that a price inquiry is a serious matter: a bidder who is questioned knows his bid is at stake and may not confine himself to vagueness. Adede's justification was rather cursory, at least as to the price components, and referred to no supporting documents. That the agency set other elements against it — market prices, the significant deviation from the other prices — did not mean it had ignored the technical justification. The complaint that the third-party price data had not been disclosed foundered on confidentiality: such data — unit prices of market parties and prices of other bidders — fall under article 13, § 2 of the law of 17 June 2016, so the agency rightly withheld them; the administrative file did contain a confidential comparison table. The semantic argument that ‘marine offshore conditions' does not fit a beach contract did not convince either: those words simply referred to detection ‘on the water', as opposed to the beach items 4 and 5. Since the abnormal-price ground alone carried the exclusion, the pleas against the crane and item 13 grounds lost their interest. The claim was dismissed; Adede bears the roll fee of 200 euros, the contribution of 24 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros, Braet its intervention fee of 150 euros.
Why does this matter?
The judgment bundles three lessons on the review of abnormally low prices, each of which decides cases on its own. First, the burden of substantiation: the Council repeats that a price inquiry is no routine form but a serious matter — the bidder must justify his price specifically, with concrete underpinning and as fully documented as possible. A technical story about sailing speeds and tidal windows is not enough if the price components themselves remain cursory and every supporting document is missing. Second, the adversarial dimension: article 36, § 3, third paragraph of the 2017 placement decree says third-party information is to be submitted to the bidder, but the Council reads that duty together with the confidentiality rule of article 13, § 2 of the law of 17 June 2016 — unit prices of other market parties and bidders are confidential and must therefore not be disclosed. Whoever answers a price inquiry must reckon with the authority holding a comparison table he will never see. Third, procedural economy: where a bid is excluded on several independent grounds, it suffices that one ground stands — the pleas against the remaining grounds lose their interest. For a niche market like explosives clearance, with few players and wide price differences, that is a sharp warning: the abnormal-price ground is the authority's most robust anchor for an exclusion decision.
The lesson
If you receive a request for price justification, treat it as an examination on which your bid can fail: disclose every price component in figures, attach supporting documents — subcontractor quotes, labour costs, equipment costs, reference projects with comparable unit prices — and anticipate that the authority will set your price against confidential market prices you will never see. So argue not only why your approach is technically feasible, but also why your price is in line with the market or explicably lower. For contracting authorities, the judgment confirms a solid method: inquire specifically, compare with recent unit prices from several market parties, document that comparison in a (if need be confidential) piece in the administrative file, and build your exclusion decision on several independent grounds — then it suffices that one holds.
Ask yourself
Do you answer price inquiries with a complete, documented cost build-up per component, or does it remain a technical story without evidence? Do you realise the authority may test your price against confidential third-party price data without showing it to you, and that you can only offset that information asymmetry by supplying market references yourself? Before going to the Council of State, do you check whether you can dismantle every independent ground of exclusion — not just one or two? And as an authority: is your price comparison documented in the file, so that it survives the marginal review?
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 →