Suspension of paper framework agreement: origin certificate does not cover all offered paper types
The Council of State suspends the award of a framework agreement for eco-friendly office paper because the contracting authority failed to adequately verify whether the submitted 'Origine France Garantie' certificate covered all specific paper types in the chosen tenderer's offer, while at least one paper type is produced in Brazil.
What happened?
The Belgian Federal Procurement Service (FOD BOSA) launched an open procedure for a framework agreement covering eco-friendly paper and envelopes across five lots. The dispute concerns lot 1: circular office paper A3/A4. The specifications used a mathematical evaluation method via a structured Excel file that tenderers had to complete. The final formula was Q²/P (quality score squared divided by price). The quality score comprised five award criteria: A (Price), B (Sustainability — offered labels), C (Circular economy), D (Additional sustainable elements) and E (ISO 26000/SDGs). For each criterion, tenderers received points based on yes/no answers with predetermined point values. Two tenderers submitted offers. The contract was awarded to NV L.B. with a total score of 431.63 versus 415.93 for NV P. The difference lay in two criteria: price (NV P. was EUR 60,636 cheaper) and criterion B Sustainability (NV L.B. scored 4,000 versus 3,000 for NV P., a difference of 1,000 points). On criteria C, D and E, both tenderers achieved identical scores (5,000, 11,000 and 13,400). NV P. sought suspension under the extremely urgent necessity procedure, raising a single ground with two sub-grounds. The first sub-ground concerned formal reasoning. NV P. argued that the award decision contained only total scores without insight into sub-scores per criterion, preventing verification of whether its offer was assessed with equal rigour. The Council rejected this criticism. Because the specifications used a strictly mathematical method via the structured Excel file — with yes/no questions and fixed point values per answer — NV P. could immediately derive from the communicated total scores why each result was obtained. The 1,000-point difference on criterion B logically meant that NV L.B. offered CO2-neutral produced paper for two more paper types (eight versus six, at 500 points each). On criteria C, D and E, both scored identically, which was equally directly derivable. The first sub-ground was not serious. The second sub-ground illustrated the alleged lack of transparency through two concrete issues. First, the interpretation of 'CO2-neutral produced'. NV P. argued this required the production process itself to be emission-free, without compensation. The Council ruled that the common meaning of CO2-neutral production allows for carbon offsetting — it is currently standard environmental practice for companies to compensate their emissions to achieve CO2-neutrality. The specifications had not restricted this concept to production without any emissions. The chosen tenderer had submitted valid compensation certificates. NV P., who had not raised questions about the interpretation during the procedure, could not retroactively impose a restrictive reading. This point was not serious. Second, the origin guarantee. Under award criterion D, the specifications asked whether the paper mill was located within a radius of less than 1,000 km from the centre of Brussels. An affirmative answer yielded 1,000 extra points. NV L.B. answered affirmatively and submitted an 'Origine France Garantie' certificate from Bureau Veritas. However, the Council found that this certificate listed product types and brand names in general terms and could not be linked one-to-one to all specific paper products that NV L.B. offered. That the French origin guarantee might not cover all offered paper types was supported by additional evidence from NV P. — an email from the manufacturer showing that the paper type Rey Light A3 75 gsm was not yet produced in France but was produced in Brazil. Yet NV L.B. offered this paper type. The Council ruled that the contracting authority had accepted the origin certificate without further verification, without examining whether it actually covered all paper types offered by NV L.B. This did not meet the required standard of care. At minimum, the authority should have questioned the chosen tenderer about this. The allocation of 1,000 points for the origin question was careless. Without those points, NV L.B. would score 10,000 on criterion D instead of 11,000, causing the final formula to reverse: 415.93 for NV P. versus 406.05 for NV L.B. The ranking would flip. The second sub-ground was serious to that extent. Execution of the award decision was suspended.
Why does this matter?
This ruling sets a strict standard for certificate verification in procurement procedures. When specifications award points based on product characteristics substantiated by third-party certificates — here an origin guarantee — the contracting authority cannot settle for superficial acceptance. A generic certificate listing product categories does not automatically prove that every specific product variant in the offer falls within its scope. The authority must actively cross-verify: check each offered product against the precise coverage of the certificate. The lesson extends beyond origin: for any criterion based on third-party evidence, from eco-labels to ISO certifications, the same diligence is required.
The lesson
Never accept certificates and origin declarations as blanket proof for the entire offer. Check for each offered product or variant whether the certificate actually applies. When a certificate lists product categories or brand names in general terms, investigate whether the specific products from the offer fall within that scope. Request clarification from the tenderer when in doubt. Document the cross-check in the award file — particularly with a mathematical evaluation method where points automatically follow from answers, it is all the more important that the underlying supporting documents actually hold up.
Ask yourself
Do you systematically verify whether submitted certificates and labels cover all offered product variants? With a mathematical evaluation method, do you verify the accuracy of the yes/no answers against the underlying supporting documents? Do you query the tenderer when a certificate is worded in general terms and cannot be linked one-to-one to the offer content?
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 →