Annulment of specifications for postal services — technical specification requiring entities to frank their own mail (stamps or franking machine) is disproportionate and unduly restricts competition by excluding routing service providers ('Port Payé')
The Council of State annulled the IPFBW's approval of specifications for a postal services contract, because the technical specification requiring member entities to frank their own mail using stamps or a franking machine is disproportionate to the subject matter and unduly restricts competition by excluding postal service providers operating through routing and 'Port Payé' franking, in violation of Articles 4 and 53 of the Act of 17 June 2016.
What happened?
The IPFBW (Intercommunale pure de financement du Brabant Wallon), acting as central purchasing body for its member entities (municipalities, CPAS and other public authorities), published a services contract for universal postal services in July 2021 for 48 months. The specifications required tenderers to offer multiple franking methods, including self-franking by member entities using stamps, a franking machine, or a unique identification code. POSTALIA BELGIUM, a postal service provider operating through routing ('Port Payé'), signalled that these requirements excluded it from the market. In the routing model, the service provider franks the mail with its own 'Port Payé' mark, not the entity itself. The IPFBW published a rectification notice but did not modify the franking requirement. POSTALIA filed an annulment action. The Council examined five arguments advanced by the respondent to justify the specification: existing use of franking machines (modest investments cannot justify restricting competition), simplicity of self-franking (insufficient against restriction), control and tracking concerns (refuted by the applicant's electronic platform), urgent mail needs (covered by collection time slots and access points), and specific legal obligations (same reasoning). The Council concluded the respondent had not demonstrated the necessity or proportionality of the specification. The approval of the specifications was annulled.
Why does this matter?
This ruling establishes that technical specifications imposing a particular service delivery mode are disproportionate when legally recognised equivalent alternatives exist and the authority fails to concretely demonstrate why only the prescribed mode can meet its needs. Existing use or modest investments do not justify restricting competition. Companion case to ruling 262.134 (annulment of the award to bpost).
The lesson
As a contracting authority: define functional needs, not prescriptive technical means. When the law recognises equivalent methods, do not prescribe one specific method. Verify whether your specification de facto favours only one provider. As a tenderer: challenge specifications that exclude you when legally recognised alternatives exist.
Ask yourself
Does your specification impose a particular delivery mode when legally equivalent alternatives exist? Have you concretely verified that the prescribed mode is the only one that can meet your needs? Does your specification de facto favour only one provider?
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 →