Hockey field conversion Evere: comment in offer about connecting to existing pipes does not render offer irregular when unit price covers full replacement
The Council of State rejects a challenge against the award of works for converting a hockey field in Evere, because the chosen tenderer's comment that sprinkler cannons would be connected to existing pipes does not render the offer substantially irregular — the unit price is comparable to other tenderers and covers full replacement, and the final execution method will be decided during works after inspection of the existing system.
What happened?
The Municipality of Evere tendered for converting a half-wet hockey field to a fully wet hockey field. The specifications required replacing underground pipes from the existing pump to new sprinkler cannons. The chosen tenderer (NV L.) attached a comment stating sprinkler cannons would be installed on existing pipes. The authority treated this as an unaccepted proposal and retained the offer at the quoted price for full replacement. The applicant (second-ranked) argued this made the offer substantially irregular. The Council found that NV L.'s unit price was comparable to other tenderers, no alternative price was given, and the comment did not affect the pricing. The specifications themselves provided that the final execution method would be decided during works after inspection. A second ground challenged the technical evaluation: equal scores for three sub-criteria and the counting of thinner fibres (90 µm) alongside the specified 160 µm fibres for the 'fibres per m²' criterion. The Council found that 160 µm was a regularity requirement, while the award sub-criterion 'number of fibres/m²' specified no thickness. Equal scores were justified where all tenderers offered identical FIH-certified values. Both grounds were not serious.
Why does this matter?
A comment proposing an alternative execution method does not render an offer substantially irregular when the unit price covers the full specified works and is comparable to other tenderers. The authority may qualify the comment as an unaccepted proposal. Equal scores for sub-criteria are justified when offers are objectively equivalent.
The lesson
As a tenderer: avoid comments proposing alternative execution methods if your pricing covers the full specified works — they create unnecessary regularity debates. When challenging a competitor's comment, demonstrate that it affected pricing. As a contracting authority: when an offer comment proposes a non-conforming method but the price covers full works, you may reject the comment and retain the offer.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: does the unit price cover the full specified works despite the comment? As a tenderer: can you demonstrate that a competitor's comment actually affected their pricing rather than being merely an execution proposal?
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 →