Suspension claim for Cirque Royal cleaning contract rejected — no qualified electronic signature on deposit report
Claim rejected: Nadeco's extreme urgency suspension claim against the second award of the Cirque Royal cleaning contract to Group Cleaning Services is rejected — Nadeco's offer, submitted on e-Tendering with a simple PDF file of a manuscript signature instead of a qualified electronic signature, is affected by a substantial irregularity, and the price verification conducted by the contracting authority after the suspension of the first award is adequate.
What happened?
On 20 March 2023, the Régie foncière of the City of Brussels launched an open procedure for the maintenance and cleaning of the Cirque Royal for 36 months (specifications RF/22/PO/930). The original specifications allowed offers to be submitted both by email and via the e-Tendering platform. Nadeco sent its offer by email on 2 June 2023, and the Régie confirmed receipt the same day. However, the Régie then contacted Nadeco by phone requesting resubmission via e-Tendering, which Nadeco did on 7 June 2023. The same day, a corrective notice was published in the BDA: the tender documents were modified (now RF/22/PO/930bis) and only offers submitted via e-Tendering would be accepted. Eight tenderers submitted offers. The evaluation report excluded four tenderers for failing qualitative selection criteria, Nadeco for lacking a qualified electronic signature on its deposit report, and Jette Clean for abnormal prices. On 11 January 2024, the college awarded the contract to Group Cleaning Services. Nadeco filed an extreme urgency suspension claim on 31 January 2024. By ruling no. 258,954 of 29 February 2024, the Council of State suspended the award decision because the contracting authority had not verified the unit prices of the offers from Aronia and Group Cleaning Services. On 28 March 2024, the college withdrew the award and instructed a new analysis. During the re-examination, the Régie questioned Group Cleaning Services on 4 April 2024 about an apparently abnormal price item (Saturday-Sunday-public holiday flat rate for 'The Club & annexes' zones). Group Cleaning Services justified its price on 16 April 2024 by reference to student labour costs. The new award report maintained Nadeco's exclusion: its e-Tendering offer contained a PDF document 'Signature Nader_11' displaying a manuscript signature, which is clearly not a qualified electronic signature within the meaning of Article 43 §1 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. On 25 April 2024, the college again awarded the contract to Group Cleaning Services for EUR 359,740.26 including VAT. Nadeco filed a new extreme urgency claim on 21 May 2024. The Council rejected the claim. On the first plea (signature): (1) the opening minutes confirm Nadeco did not apply an eID signature to its deposit report but used an 'external signature file' — a simple PDF with manuscript signature that does not constitute a qualified signature; (2) the email offer is inadmissible for lack of interest, as the modified specifications required e-Tendering submission and the email offer is affected by the same substantial irregularity. On the second plea (price verification): (1) the report contains a comparative price table, an estimate, CP 121 wage scales, and identification of suspicious items — the verification is concrete and effective; (2) Group Cleaning Services' justification is simple and quantified (hourly student cost + Saturday/Sunday/public holiday surcharges + supplies, overhead and margin), the acceptance motivation is adequate. On the third plea (Aronia's offer irregularity): inadmissible — Nadeco, whose own offer is irregular and whose pleas against the awardee were rejected, has no interest in challenging the second-ranked tenderer. Nadeco bears the costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that simply uploading a PDF file containing a manuscript signature on the e-Tendering platform does not constitute a qualified electronic signature within the meaning of the eIDAS Regulation and Article 43 §1 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. The resulting irregularity is substantial and necessarily entails nullity of the offer in an open procedure. The ruling further confirms that a modification to tender documents — here the obligation for exclusive submission via e-Tendering — is fully enforceable from publication, even if a tenderer had already submitted its offer under the previous modalities. Finally, regarding price verification after suspension, the ruling illustrates that a comparative price table with clear reference criteria (estimate and sectoral wage scales) constitutes concrete and effective verification under Article 35 of the Royal Decree.
The lesson
Always sign the deposit report on e-Tendering with a qualified electronic signature (eID or qualified certificate) — a scan or photo of a manuscript signature uploaded as a PDF does not constitute a qualified signature under any circumstances and results in automatic nullity of your offer in an open procedure. Check corrective notices in the BDA and OJEU: a modification to tender documents is enforceable against you from publication, even if you had already submitted your offer. As contracting authority: after a suspension for insufficient price verification, document your new analysis traceably — comparative table, reference criteria, and clear motivation for accepting or rejecting justifications.
Ask yourself
Have I signed my deposit report on e-Tendering with a genuine qualified electronic signature (eID) rather than a simple PDF file of a manuscript signature? Have I checked the latest corrective notices before considering my offer as properly submitted? As contracting authority, is my price verification sufficiently documented and traceable to withstand a challenge?
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 →