Suspension of award for interactive screens framework agreement by FOREM: mere compilation of price data without comparative analysis does not constitute concrete and effective price verification — document drawn up in tempore suspecto cannot remedy deficient investigation
The Council of State suspended FOREM's award decision for a framework agreement for interactive screens and accessories (two lots), because FOREM failed to conduct a concrete and effective price verification: the price tables merely compiled bid data without comparative analysis and contained calculation errors, the market price document was likely drawn up after the filing of the appeal, and the argument that market prices also show large variations did not justify the absence of investigation — while the successful tenderer offered prices at approximately 60% of the average of regular offers.
What happened?
FOREM tendered a framework agreement for interactive screens and accessories in two lots, with an estimated value of €674,000 excl. VAT. Seven tenderers submitted offers. Both lots were awarded to PROWISE BELGIUM on 3 November 2025. ICT LINK, ranked second for both lots, filed a suspension application. The Council found that the price verification was deficient: the price tables (pieces J/K) merely compiled bid data without comparative analysis and contained calculation errors (lot quantities interchanged). PROWISE's global price was approximately 60% of the average of regular offers. For post 7 (webcam), PROWISE's unit price was approximately 30% of the average. Piece L (internet market price exploration) was likely drawn up in tempore suspecto after the filing of the appeal, contained fragmentary data, and only covered post 1. FOREM's post hoc explanation in its observations (own product development vs. Speechi integration) found no support in the administrative file. The suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that price verification requires genuine comparative analysis, not mere compilation of bid data. Documents drawn up in tempore suspecto carry little evidentiary weight. Post hoc justifications not supported by the administrative file cannot remedy deficient price investigations.
The lesson
Price verification tables must include comparative analysis with averages and deviation percentages. When significant price gaps exist, concrete investigation is required. Conduct price verification before the award decision, not after an appeal is filed. Post hoc explanations cannot substitute for a proper investigation.
Ask yourself
Do your price tables contain genuine comparative analysis or merely compile bid data? Was your price verification conducted before the award decision? Does your investigation cover all contract 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 →