Suspension application rejected: all three grounds against award of framework agreement for vehicle towing in Antwerp lack seriousness – price investigation adequate, digital workflow not a minimum requirement, award criteria evaluation within discretionary margin
The Council of State rejected the application for suspension under extreme urgency by the Partnership D.A-M against the City of Antwerp concerning the award of the framework agreement for towing and storing vehicles based on violations to NV D., after all three grounds were found not serious: the price investigation for item 13 (collection fee of €0.10 versus €0.85) was adequate given the nature of the service and the incumbent provider's cost advantage, the 'expectation' of a fully digital system in the specifications was not a minimum requirement whose deviation leads to substantial irregularity, and the evaluation of the award criteria 'service delivery' and 'sustainability' fell within the contracting authority's discretionary margin.
What happened?
The City of Antwerp, acting as purchasing intermediary, tendered a framework agreement for vehicle towing — towing and storing vehicles based on violations, administrative impoundments, abandoned vehicles and administrative seizure — through a competitive procedure with negotiation. Two candidates were selected: the Partnership D.A-M and NV D. (the incumbent service provider). After three negotiation rounds with adjusted tenders (BAFOs), the tenders were evaluated on five award criteria: price (45 points), collection price (5 points), service delivery (50 points), sustainability (10 points), and digital support (10 points). NV D. scored 107 points against 102.54 for the Partnership. On 12 September 2025, the municipality awarded to NV D. The Partnership filed for suspension under extreme urgency on 1 October 2025 raising three grounds. The first concerned the price investigation for item 13 (collection fee: €0.10 vs €0.85 — 88.35% difference). The Council rejected this: a proper general price investigation had been conducted; with only two tenders, one does not provide an evident benchmark for the other; the item concerned a largely immaterial service aspect well suited to automation; and the incumbent had a legitimate cost advantage from existing infrastructure. The second concerned alleged substantial irregularity of the chosen tender due to lack of a fully digital real-time tracking system. The Council distinguished between an 'expectation' and a 'minimum requirement': 'the contracting authority expects that something can' is not a pass/fail requirement. Manual data entry of vehicle information via a tablet was inherent to towing operations. The third concerned the evaluation of award criteria 'service delivery' and 'sustainability'. The Council rejected this: the applicants cited selectively from the motivation; the overall assessment and scoring fell within the contracting authority's discretion. All grounds were rejected. The applicants bore costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is instructive on multiple fronts. With only two tenders, one does not provide an evident benchmark for declaring the other abnormally priced. The distinction between an 'expectation' and a 'minimum requirement' in specifications has legal consequences — 'expects that something can' is not a pass/fail criterion. Manual data entry is not incompatible with a digital workflow requirement. An incumbent provider's existing infrastructure can justify lower pricing. The Council does not substitute its own assessment for the contracting authority's — only a prima facie unlawful, careless, or unreasonable evaluation can lead to suspension.
The lesson
As a tenderer: a large percentage price difference on one item does not automatically indicate an abnormally low price — consider absolute amounts and context. Do not selectively cite unfavorable passages from the evaluation — the Council assesses the overall motivation. As a contracting authority: formulate specifications carefully — the difference between 'expecting' and 'requiring' has legal consequences. Ensure the price investigation is documented in the administrative file, even if not extensively in the award report.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: is your abnormal pricing argument based on percentage differences alone, or have you considered absolute amounts and context? Are you citing selectively or reviewing the full motivation? As a contracting authority: is the distinction between 'expectations' and 'minimum requirements' clear in your specifications? Is the price investigation sufficiently documented in the administrative file?
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 →