Suspension application under extreme urgency against exclusion of tender for motorway cleaning on E25 rejected – yield of 6.82 km/h for selective litter picking on foot not manifestly unreasonable as assessed abnormal, and ground concerning unequal treatment in price verification inadmissible for lack of standing
The Council of State rejected the suspension application under extreme urgency by SRL LUX GREEN against the exclusion of its tender by SOFICO for a framework agreement for selective litter picking on the E25 motorway (North Luxembourg district), because the first ground challenging the abnormal price assessment was not serious — the contracting authority had not unreasonably found that a yield of 6.82 km/h for on-foot litter pickers was unrealistic and that the cost of the accompanying vehicle was not included in the price breakdown — and the second ground concerning unequal treatment in the price verification of the selected tenderer was inadmissible for lack of standing, since the applicant's own tender had been validly excluded.
What happened?
SOFICO tendered a service contract through an open procedure with price as sole award criterion for a four-year framework agreement for selective litter picking along the E25 motorway over 163.760 km (North Luxembourg district). Seven tenders were received; LUX GREEN was lowest at €258,475 excl. VAT, followed by SOTRALIEGE at €290,357.82. SOFICO questioned LUX GREEN's unit prices under Article 36 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017, first on eight posts (22 January 2025), then specifically on four posts (nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9) regarding yield and working process (10 March 2025). After analysis, SOFICO found the prices for those four posts abnormal on two grounds: the cost of the mandatory accompanying vehicle was not included in the price breakdown for those posts, and the stated yield of 6.82 km/h (163.760 km in three working days) was unrealistic for workers picking up litter on foot, given that normal walking speed without any additional activity is 4-5 km/h. SOFICO also verified SOTRALIEGE's prices on four posts and accepted its justification. LUX GREEN's tender was declared substantially irregular and the contract was awarded to SOTRALIEGE. The Council found the first ground (challenging the abnormal price assessment) not serious: LUX GREEN itself acknowledged normal walking speed is 4-5 km/h, making 6.82 km/h while simultaneously collecting litter unconvincing. The claim that workers used the vehicle for parts of the route contradicted the specifications requiring on-foot coverage with vehicle accompaniment. The second ground (unequal treatment in price verification) was inadmissible: since LUX GREEN's own tender was validly excluded, it had no standing to challenge the assessment of a competing tender. The application was rejected. Costs were reserved.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates the practical application of abnormal price examination for service contracts where yield determines cost. Three points stand out. First, when specifications prescribe a specific working process, the tenderer must base its pricing on that prescribed process, not on an optimistic alternative method. Second, all cost components inherent to a post's execution must be included in that post's price breakdown — shifting costs to other posts undermines the credibility of the price justification. Third, a tenderer whose own tender was validly excluded has no standing to challenge the assessment of a competing tender, even under the banner of equal treatment.
The lesson
Base your pricing on the working process prescribed in the specifications, not on your own optimistic variant. If specifications require on-foot work, the yield must be compatible with realistic walking speed including the time for the actual work. Include all cost components in the posts where they belong — do not shift costs to other posts to keep unit prices artificially low. And know that after valid exclusion of your own tender, you have no standing to challenge the assessment of a competing tender.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: is the yield in your price breakdown realistic given the working process prescribed by the specifications? Have you included all cost components in the posts where they belong, or have you shifted costs to other posts? As a contracting authority: in your price examination, have you tested the stated yield against the working process prescribed in your own specifications? Have you checked whether all cost components are included in the correct posts?
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 →