Rejection of extreme urgency suspension against award of renovation works for Park Groot Schijn caravan site — correction of material error in item 50 (heat pump boilers, typo '4' instead of '1' on numeric keypad) correctly applied under art. 34 KB — material error may also be discovered and corrected during price investigation — motivation in award report and supplementary email sufficient
The Council of State rejected the extreme urgency suspension claim by TM L.-H. against the City of Antwerp's award of renovation works for the Park Groot Schijn caravan site (Deurne) to NV A., where the contracting authority correctly corrected a purely material error in item 50 (heat pump boilers) under Article 34 KB — the tenderer had typed '4' instead of '1' when copying price data from its subcontractor's offer (keys directly above each other on the numeric keypad), making the unit price approximately four times higher than intended, and the Council held that a material error discovered during price investigation may still be corrected.
What happened?
The City of Antwerp tendered renovation works for the Park Groot Schijn caravan site in Deurne through an open procedure with price as sole award criterion. Five tenders were received, including from TM L.-H. and NV A. During price investigation, the authority identified an apparently abnormal high unit price for item 50 (heat pump boilers) in NV A.'s offer and requested justification. NV A. explained it was a material error under Article 34 KB: when copying the price from its subcontractor's offer, it typed '4' instead of '1' (keys directly above each other on the numeric keypad), making the price roughly four times higher than intended. This was supported by the subcontractor's offer and identical overhead percentages. After correction, NV A. moved from second to first place. The Council rejected all three grounds: the concept of 'material error' does not require the mistake to be apparent from the offer itself; no provision prevents correction of material errors discovered during price investigation; and the motivation in the award report, supplemented by a subsequent email, was adequate.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies key principles on correcting material errors: the error need not be apparent from the offer itself; the authority may use price investigation findings to return to the correction phase; the authority has discretion in assessing whether a material error occurred; and supplementary motivation that elaborates on (without contradicting) the award report satisfies formal motivation requirements.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when price investigation reveals a possible material error, you may return to the correction phase under Article 34 KB. Document thoroughly how the error was identified and what evidence supports the tenderer's actual intention. As a tenderer who made a material error: substantiate your explanation with pre-existing evidence (subcontractor offers, identical overhead percentages). As a competing tenderer challenging the correction: it is insufficient to argue the error was not apparent from the offer — you must demonstrate that the correction effectively constitutes a new tender.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: have you verified the tenderer's actual intention through global analysis and comparison with other offers and market prices? Is the correction supported by evidence that existed before tender submission? Have you adequately documented the correction in the award report? As a tenderer: can you demonstrate that your overhead percentage and calculation method in the price justification are identical to those in your original offer?
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 →