Eurogreen suspension claim against lot 1 green spaces maintenance zone West award to Krinkels rejected: abnormal prices and negligible items
Claim rejected: Eurogreen's extreme urgency suspension claim against Bruxelles Environnement's decision to exclude its offer for lot 1 (Parc Elisabeth – Basilique) of the green spaces maintenance zone West contract for abnormal pricing at item 0.8.1.3 and to award to Krinkels is rejected — the sole plea is not serious in any of its three branches: the method for determining negligible items based on average prices is not unreasonable, the output of 204 lamp posts per gardener per day at 2 minutes 35 seconds per post is unrealistic, and Krinkels' price justifications are acceptable.
What happened?
The Minister of Climate Transition of the Brussels-Capital Region launched a service contract for green spaces maintenance – zone West, divided into two lots (lot 1: Parc Elisabeth – Basilique; lot 2: Peupleraie Nestor Martin and Zavelemberg), via open procedure, estimated at EUR 1,184,000 excluding VAT. Price was the sole award criterion. Five tenderers submitted offers for lot 1, including Eurogreen and Krinkels. After a complex procedural history involving three award decisions and two withdrawals — where Krinkels was first excluded for abnormal prices (suspended by ruling No. 257,390 for inadequate motivation regarding negligible items), then Eurogreen was re-awarded but again withdrawn — the third evaluation (report 22 April 2024) declared Eurogreen's offer substantially irregular for abnormal pricing at item 0.8.1.3 (maintenance of lamp post masts): the output of 204 posts per gardener per day (1 post every 2 minutes 35 seconds including movement, without break) was deemed unrealistic. The contract was awarded to Krinkels on 2 May 2024. The sole plea (three branches) was found not serious in all branches: the method for negligible items (2% threshold of average total prices) is not unreasonable, the assessment of the output is not a manifest error, and Krinkels' price justifications are acceptable.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the contracting authority's broad discretion in abnormal price control and determining negligible items. The method based on average prices of all selected tenderers (2% threshold of average total prices) is accepted. The formal motivation duty does not require the authority to explain the reasons for its reasons — it suffices that the criteria applied are communicated and not manifestly unreasonable.
The lesson
As contracting authority: define a clear method for negligible items and apply it uniformly. Verify that outputs in price justifications are realistic for all services in the item, including ancillary tasks and movement. As tenderer: ensure your outputs are realistic and cover all services in the item. Submit supporting evidence with your price justification, not for the first time before the Council of State.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, did I define and motivate a clear method for negligible items? Did I verify that outputs in price justifications cover all services described in the specifications? As tenderer, did I submit all my supporting evidence with the price justification?
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 →