Catering services for crematoria: eighteen-month-old insurance certificate does not qualify as 'valid current certificate' — tenderer bears responsibility
The Council of State rejects a catering company's challenge against its non-selection for a framework agreement for crematorium catering services, because an insurance certificate dating from eighteen months before the submission deadline is not a valid current certificate — the contracting authority is not obliged to request clarification on deficiencies resulting from the tenderer's own negligence, and submitting recent certificates in judicial proceedings is incompatible with equal treatment.
What happened?
PONTES launched a simplified negotiated procedure for a framework agreement for catering services at the crematoria of Antwerp and Turnhout, estimated at €7 million over seven years. Selection criteria included minimum annual turnover of €1 million, a solvency ratio of 25%, and a valid current certificate of professional risk insurance. Two tenderers submitted offers. GUSTO attached an insurance certificate from August 2023 — over eighteen months before the February 2025 submission deadline. PONTES found neither tenderer met all selection criteria and did not award the contract. The Council rejected all three sub-grounds. On the turnover criterion: PONTES acknowledged a clerical error; GUSTO lacked standing as this ground did not drive the non-selection. On the insurance certificate: a diligent tenderer must understand that a 'valid current certificate' requires a recent document proving coverage at the time of submission. The authority is not obliged under article 66(3) to request clarification on deficiencies caused by the tenderer's own negligence. Submitting updated certificates during judicial proceedings violates equal treatment. On the solvency ratio: this was a superfluous motive since the insurance ground independently supported the non-selection. The ruling also clarified that not specifying a minimum coverage amount for an insurance requirement does not violate article 65(2) of the Royal Decree when the criterion does not lend itself to a uniform level.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies tenderer obligations for selection documents. A 'valid current certificate' means a recent document proving coverage at submission. The authority need not request clarification for negligent deficiencies. Post-decision submission of missing documents violates equal treatment. Not specifying minimum insurance coverage amounts is acceptable when the criterion does not lend itself to a uniform level.
The lesson
As a tenderer: an insurance requirement is not a formality. When a 'valid current certificate' is required, submit a recent document. Request updated certificates from your insurer in time. Do not wait for a negative decision to submit proper documents. As a contracting authority: you are not obliged to request clarification for deficiencies caused by tenderer negligence. Not specifying minimum coverage levels may be acceptable when the criterion does not lend itself to uniformity.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: is your insurance certificate recent enough to prove current validity at the time of submission? Have you verified all required documents for date and completeness? As a contracting authority: have you clearly required a 'current' certificate? Have you considered whether the criterion requires a specific minimum level?
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 →