Appeal rejected: concrete aggregate (concrete rubble 20/40) is not prohibited recovery material but recycled material — interpretation of specification ban on recovery materials for artificial grass field construction
LESUCO's annulment appeal against the award of three artificial grass fields in Sint-Pieters-Leeuw to NV K. is rejected — the Council of State rules that concrete aggregate 20/40 (commercially called 'concrete rubble') is not recovery material within the meaning of the specification ban, but recycled material that has undergone a specific process, and the contracting authority's interpretation is not unlawful.
What happened?
The municipality of Sint-Pieters-Leeuw tendered works for three artificial grass fields via open procedure with price as sole criterion. The specifications prohibited the use of 'recovery materials' in the crushed stone foundation. NV K. (Krinkels) offered a 25 cm base layer of 'concrete rubble 20/40' and was ranked first. LESUCO, ranked second, argued this violated the ban since concrete rubble is recovery material. The municipality responded that concrete aggregate 20/40 is recycled material — not recovery material — as it undergoes specific processing (crushing, sieving, cleaning) and requires BENOR certification. The Council of State upheld this interpretation: the ban on recovery materials does not automatically exclude recycled or secondary raw materials that have undergone processing. The contracting authority has discretion in interpreting its own specifications. The motivation obligation was also met: there is no requirement to explain in detail for every aspect why an offer is not irregular when no issues arise. The appeal was rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling distinguishes between recovery material and recycled material in procurement specifications. A ban on recovery materials does not automatically exclude recycled materials that have undergone specific processing and meet quality standards. The contracting authority has discretionary power in interpreting its own technical specifications. The ruling also confirms that the motivation obligation does not require detailed positive reasons for finding an offer regular.
The lesson
As contracting authority: if you ban recovery materials, define the term or clarify whether recycled materials processed through specific methods also fall under the ban. As tenderer: if a specification is ambiguous and affects your pricing, seek clarification before submission rather than assuming the most restrictive interpretation.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, have I sufficiently defined the terms in my technical specifications? Is it clear whether the ban on recovery materials also covers recycled aggregates? As tenderer, did I seek timely clarification on ambiguous specifications affecting my pricing?
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 →