Suspension of Ieper municipal cleaning services contract 2026-2031: stereotypical boilerplate that price justification is detailed and based on ABSU-UGBN wages insufficient as reasoning for accepting abnormally low price — additional grounds in observations brief cannot remedy lack of formal motivation — general price investigation for second-ranked tenderer for lot 6 also inadequate
The Council of State suspended the award of lots 4, 5 and 6 of the cleaning contract for Ieper's municipal services and local police 2026-2031 to NV K., because the reasoning for accepting the price justification — where total prices were 22 to 27% below average — consisted of identical boilerplate for all lots stating the justification was detailed and based on ABSU-UGBN wages, which is prima facie insufficient as formal motivation in a fraud-sensitive sector with complex pricing, while the general price investigation for the second-ranked tenderer for lot 6 was also inadequate.
What happened?
The City of Ieper tendered a cleaning services contract for municipal buildings and local police (2026-2031), divided into seven lots. For lots 4, 5 and 6, the chosen tenderer NV K. submitted total prices 22-27% below average. In this fraud-sensitive sector with price weighing at least 50%, a mandatory price inquiry was conducted under Article 36 §4 of the Royal Decree of 18 April 2017. The acceptance of the price justification was motivated identically for all lots with the boilerplate: 'The justification is (very) detailed (the cost is an hourly rate based on ABSU-UGBN wages) and is accepted.' The Council found this insufficient: it was a stereotypical formula providing no substantive assessment. Additional grounds raised in the observations brief could not remedy this defect as they were absent from the administrative file. The trade secrets argument did not preclude a more concrete assessment under Article 10 of the Act of 17 June 2013. Excel files revealed unexplained social charge reductions (subsidized contracts), and components beyond the hourly rate (working hours, productivity) were not assessed. For lot 6, the general price investigation for the second-ranked tenderer was also inadequate. Suspension was ordered for all three lots.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that boilerplate acceptance of price justifications is insufficient in fraud-sensitive sectors. The contracting authority must take a substantive position on all price components, not just hourly rates. Trade secrets do not exempt the authority from its motivation obligation.
The lesson
As contracting authority: provide substantive, concrete reasoning for accepting abnormally low prices. A stereotypical formula is insufficient. Assess all price components including working hours, productivity and social charges. Keep your reasoning in the administrative file, not just in your head. As tenderer: boilerplate acceptance of abnormally low prices is a strong basis for suspension proceedings.
Ask yourself
Does your award decision contain a substantive assessment of the price justification or just boilerplate? Have you assessed components beyond the hourly rate? Is your reasoning 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 →