Suspension of award of video software for fire service dispatching — zero price for implementation item renders scoring formula unworkable and grants disproportionate advantage
The Council of State suspends the award of a services contract for video call software for Brussels fire service dispatching (NC 112) to Bliksund Denmark, because the chosen tenderer entered a zero price for item 1 (implementation and commissioning) while services were clearly still required, rendering the scoring formula (lowest price / offered price × weight) unworkable — all other tenderers automatically received 0 points on this sub-criterion — and granting a disproportionate advantage by shifting costs from item 1 to item 2.
What happened?
The Brussels Fire and Emergency Medical Services (DBDMH) tendered a services contract for video call management software for NC 112 and fire dispatching. The contract was divided into two items: item 1 (implementation and commissioning of the software) and item 2 (use, maintenance and support including training for four years). The price criterion (30 points) was subdivided into sub-criterion 2.1 for item 2 (25 points) and sub-criterion 2.2 for item 1 (5 points), using the formula: (lowest price / offered price) × weight. Bliksund Denmark entered a zero price for item 1 and €39,300 for item 2. Corevas entered €15,000 for item 1 and €35,000 for item 2. Corevas's total price (€155,000) was lower than Bliksund's (€157,200). The zero price made the formula's numerator always zero: all other tenderers automatically received 0/5 points while Bliksund received 5/5. The Council found that when a post forms a separate award sub-criterion, all services under that post must be priced within it. The technical analysis report showed Bliksund still needed to perform implementation work and that training costs (an item 1 activity) were placed under item 2. This distorted the relative weighting and gave Bliksund a disproportionate advantage. The zero price also rendered the formula unworkable. The plea was serious. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling has two key implications. First: when a post forms a separate award sub-criterion, all services under that post must be priced within it. Shifting costs to another post to achieve a zero price distorts the weighting. Second: a zero price that renders the mathematical scoring formula unworkable (all other tenderers automatically receive zero) prevents fair comparison and may constitute substantial irregularity. The authority must actively address this — silent acceptance is unacceptable.
The lesson
Test your scoring formulas against boundary values: what happens if a tenderer enters a zero price or extremely high price? If a tender makes your formula unworkable, treat this as possible substantial irregularity and justify whether you declare the tender void or allow regularisation (Article 76(5)). Also verify that costs are not artificially shifted between items when items form separate award sub-criteria — this distorts the weighting and may constitute competition distortion.
Ask yourself
Have I tested my scoring formulas with extreme values (zero prices, very high prices)? If a tenderer enters a zero price for a post that forms a separate award criterion, have I investigated whether services are truly not required? Have I checked whether costs have been shifted to other items?
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 →