Suspension granted: bailiff services Quaregnon — erroneous value estimation failing to account for total service provider remuneration
Suspension granted: the decision of the municipality of Quaregnon to declare Borean & Associés' offer irregular for abnormal pricing (EUR 0.01 per amicable recovery file) and to award the bailiff designation contract to Proximilex is suspended — the municipality manifestly underestimated the contract value by failing to account for the total service provider remuneration for the judicial recovery phase, wrongly qualifying the contract as low-value and dispensing with the price verification procedure under article 36 of the 2017 Royal Decree.
What happened?
The municipality of Quaregnon launched a service contract for designating a bailiff for debt recovery (fiscal and non-fiscal claims), covering both amicable and judicial phases, via low-value procedure (accepted invoice) for 48 months. The flat fee per amicable recovery file was the sole award criterion — judicial phase fees are governed by the legal tariff (Royal Decree of 30 November 1976). The estimated value was EUR 24,793.38 excluding VAT. Three bailiffs were consulted: Proximilex (EUR 24/file), Unilex (EUR 30.59/file), and Borean & Associés (EUR 0.01 incl. VAT/file). The municipality declared Borean's offer irregular for manifestly abnormal pricing — one cent cannot cover amicable recovery costs. The contract was awarded to Proximilex. After a first withdrawal and re-award, Borean filed a new extreme urgency claim. The first plea challenged the value estimation: the contract covers both amicable and judicial recovery, so the 'total service provider remuneration' (article 7 §10 Royal Decree 2017) must include fees paid to the bailiff by solvent debtors in the judicial phase. The municipality completely ignored this component, underestimating the value and wrongly treating the contract as low-value. The Council qualified the contract as a 'mixed contract' under article 21 of the 2016 Act. The estimation is manifestly erroneous. The first plea is serious. Suspension granted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that 'total service provider remuneration' is not limited to what the contracting authority itself pays, but includes fees the provider receives from third parties in the course of contract execution. Underestimating value can cause a contract to be wrongly classified as low-value, bypassing procedural safeguards such as article 36 price verification.
The lesson
As contracting authority: when estimating contract value, account for the total service provider remuneration including amounts received from third parties during execution. This is particularly relevant for contracts involving regulated professions with legal tariffs. As tenderer whose offer was excluded for abnormal pricing in a low-value contract: verify whether the value estimation is correct — if the contract actually exceeds the EUR 30,000 threshold, the formal price verification procedure should have applied.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, did I account for the total service provider remuneration — including amounts received from third parties? Is my estimation documented and based on reliable data? Did I correctly classify the contract against the applicable thresholds?
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 →