Insurance threshold of €7.5 million per claim for judicial building security contract is not disproportionate
The Council of State rejects the emergency suspension request against Protection Unit's non-selection for a judicial building security contract, ruling that the selection criterion requiring €7.5 million insurance coverage per claim is not disproportionate given the sensitivity of the sites concerned, and that the applicant has not demonstrated discriminatory treatment compared to the successful tenderer G4S, which had voluntarily provided corrective measures regarding an optional exclusion ground.
What happened?
The Belgian State launches an open procedure for a security contract in three lots covering access control and static guarding of judicial buildings (lot 1), mobile guarding and alarm monitoring (lot 2), and guarding of NICC sites (lot 3). The specifications require professional liability insurance of at least €7.5 million per claim. Protection Unit submits an insurance certificate that does not meet this threshold and is excluded. G4S, despite being subject to an optional exclusion ground (€47 million fine from the Belgian Competition Authority for cartel behaviour in the private security sector), provided corrective measures deemed sufficient and is awarded all three lots. Protection Unit raises three pleas: the disproportionate nature of the insurance criterion, the illegality of other selection criteria, and discriminatory treatment compared to G4S.
Why does this matter?
This judgment clarifies several important principles. First, the level of an insurance coverage selection criterion must be assessed not against the contract value but against the potential severity of incidents during execution. For a contract covering security of sensitive judicial buildings (including the Brussels Palace of Justice, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and NICC sites containing criminal evidence and DNA databases), a threshold of €7.5 million may be proportionate. Second, a tenderer who fails to meet a selection criterion cannot usefully challenge other selection criteria it did meet — interest in the plea requires a prejudice caused by the alleged illegality, regardless of its severity. Third, the situation of a tenderer subject to an optional exclusion ground who voluntarily provides corrective measures is not comparable to that of a tenderer failing a selection criterion — the contracting authority has no discretion in the latter case.
The lesson
Carefully verify your tender against each selection criterion, including insurance thresholds. The contracting authority is not required to alert you if your certificate does not meet the requirements — and post-submission regularisation is not possible if the criterion had to be met at the submission deadline. Compare the required insurance threshold not with the contract value but with the risks inherent in its execution. If you are subject to an optional exclusion ground, proactively include corrective measures with your tender.
Ask yourself
Does your insurance certificate meet the minimum threshold required by the specifications? Have you verified that you meet all selection criteria before submitting your tender? If you are subject to an optional exclusion ground, have you included corrective measures with your tender?
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 →