Urgent suspension request by Pure Advocaten against substantial irregularity declaration for legal services tender Sint-Niklaas rejected — identical rate for senior and junior rightfully questioned — correction mechanism on hours modifies lump-sum pricing — speculative commitment
The Council of State rejected Pure Advocaten's urgent suspension request against Sint-Niklaas's decision to declare its tender for legal services (social law, tax law, building law and administrative law lots) substantially irregular, ruling that the price inquiry was justified given the identical hourly rate for senior and junior staff combined with a low rate, that the price justification was insufficient, and that the practice of reducing junior hours 'as needed' modified the lump-sum pricing of the price-list contract and rendered the commitment uncertain.
What happened?
Sint-Niklaas tendered legal advisory services through a negotiated procedure without prior publication, divided into nine lots by legal discipline. Pure Advocaten submitted an identical hourly rate for senior and junior staff at a low price level. The city requested price justification under Article 36 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. Pure Advocaten responded that prices were correct, work met the highest quality standards, juniors worked under senior supervision, and junior hours would be corrected 'as needed' to not exceed what a senior would have needed. The city declared the tender substantially irregular: the mere confirmation was insufficient; the correction mechanism modified the lump-sum unit prices of a price-list contract; the approach was speculative without concrete parameters; and the commitment was uncertain. The Council upheld this assessment: lump-sum unit prices must remain truly lump-sum; a correction mechanism effectively transforms them into variable prices; deontological rules on moderate billing do not override tender document requirements; and the price justification must be concrete and substantiated, not a mere confirmation.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that lump-sum unit prices in price-list contracts must remain genuinely lump-sum — tenderers cannot introduce correction mechanisms that de facto create a different pricing model. Price justifications must be concrete and substantiated. Professional deontological rules do not create exceptions from tender document requirements.
The lesson
Respect the lump-sum character of unit prices — do not introduce correction mechanisms that modify the pricing method. Offer differentiated rates for different profiles. Build concrete, substantiated price justifications rather than mere confirmations. Verify as contracting authority whether uniform rates conceal mechanisms that undermine lump-sum pricing.
Ask yourself
Are your unit prices genuinely lump-sum or do you apply correction mechanisms? Do your rates per profile reflect actual costs? Is your price justification concrete and substantiated? As contracting authority: have you verified that uniform rates do not conceal pricing modifications?
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 →