UDN rejected: second site visit due to construction holiday does not render port works award unlawful — date of site visit is organizational aspect, no information asymmetry demonstrated
The suspension request in extreme urgency against the award of the Noordkasteeldok redevelopment to D.B. is rejected — organizing a second site visit on 8 April 2024 for three selected candidates unable to attend on the tender-specified date of 3 April due to construction holiday is not unreasonable, the date of the site visit is an organizational aspect not prescribed on penalty of exclusion, all candidates effectively conducted a site visit, and the alleged information asymmetry is not substantiated with concrete evidence.
What happened?
The Port of Antwerp-Bruges launched a negotiated procedure with prior call for competition (special sectors) for the redevelopment of the Noordkasteeldok. The tender prescribed a mandatory site visit on 3 April 2024, with offers from non-attendees to be excluded. Three of seven selected candidates reported they were unavailable on 3 April due to construction holiday. A first site visit took place on 3 April with four candidates (including TM Lareco-Biggelaar); a second on 8 April with the other three. No rectification notice was published. Questions and answers were communicated to all via addendum 2. After negotiations, the top three were all second-visit attendees. The Council rejected both pleas: the visit date is organizational, not substantive; organizing a second visit for candidates on construction holiday is not unreasonable; no duty to inform first-visit attendees of the second visit; and the alleged information asymmetry finds no support in the file — in the initial offers, the applicant had the third-lowest price, dropping to fourth only after negotiations.
Why does this matter?
This ruling distinguishes between the mandatory site visit obligation (prescribed on penalty of exclusion) and its date (organizational aspect). A second site visit for candidates unable to attend due to construction holiday is permissible without a rectification notice. Information asymmetry cannot be inferred from price rankings alone. The purpose of a site visit is site inspection, not competitor identification.
The lesson
As authority: you may organize a second site visit for candidates unable to attend due to construction holiday, without rectification notice, provided all candidates can perform a visit and Q&As are shared with all. As tenderer: price rankings alone don't prove information asymmetry — you need concrete evidence of actual additional information. The purpose of a site visit is site inspection, not identifying competitors.
Ask yourself
As authority: were all selected candidates given the opportunity to conduct a site visit? Were Q&As communicated to all? As tenderer: did I conduct the mandatory site visit and attach the certificate? Can I demonstrate information asymmetry with concrete evidence beyond mere price rankings?
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 →