A mandatory letterbox outweighs a 55-million framework contract: why Ghent sees the award of its hospitalisation insurance suspended
The Council of State suspends, under extreme urgency, the City of Ghent's decision to award its collective hospitalisation insurance — a 6.5-year framework agreement with a maximum value of 55 million euros — because the winning bidder did not offer the express minimum requirement of a readily accessible letterbox on Ghent territory, providing instead only a weekly half-day walk-in that it expressly reserved the right to scale down.
What happened?
The City of Ghent, acting both as contracting authority and as a central purchasing body for the Ghent Group, AZ Jan Palfijn and AZ Sint-Lucas, placed a services contract in the form of a framework agreement for collective hospitalisation insurance. It was a substantial contract: around 9,900 main insured persons, 3,000 pensioners and thousands of dependants, a term of 6.5 years from 1 July 2026 and an estimated maximum value of 55 million euros. The chosen procedure was the competitive procedure with negotiation, with award criteria of price (70 points), quality of the service proposal (15 points) and added value in extra guarantees (15 points). Three candidates were selected, submitted initial bids, regularised, and produced final bids (BAFOs). The award report of 30 March 2026 ranked the winning bidder (sa A.) first with 92.9 points, ahead of the applicant (nv E.) with 87.65 points; on 2 April 2026 the college of mayor and aldermen approved the award to sa A. The applicant turned to the Council of State under extreme urgency. Its second ground was decisive: under the technical provisions (point IV.12 Basic services), the specifications listed as a mandatory minimum requirement the ‘possibility for insured persons to submit their expenses in person on paper via a readily accessible letterbox on the territory of the City of Ghent’, a service that had to be expressly ‘included’ in the tariff. The words ‘in person on paper’ and ‘letterbox’ were even in bold. According to the applicant, the winner's final bid did not meet this and should therefore have been declared substantially irregular. The city defended a ‘functional’ reading: the aim was that insured persons could submit their expenses in person and on paper in Ghent, and the winner's weekly walk-in sessions in the city offices went further than a mere letterbox. The Council does not follow this. The wording of the specifications is clear at first sight: this is one of the ‘mandatory minimum requirements’ that the service ‘in any event’ and ‘at a minimum’ must meet and that must be ‘included’ — not something the authority that imposed it can relativise. The specifications themselves moreover distinguish the letterbox (minimum requirement) from organising a walk-in session (expressly ‘optional’ and rewarded under the second award criterion). A half-day walk-in per week presupposes that the insured person frees up that time slot and presents in person, and is therefore not equivalent to a physical letterbox where one can quickly, simply, free of charge and with a low threshold deposit paper expenses. Neither the initial nor the final bid of the winner expressly provided for such a letterbox — undisputed by all parties. Worse: the confidentially filed final bid, which the Council was able to inspect, showed that the winner reserved the right to ‘review and gradually phase out’ its weekly physical presence if usage remained structurally low. The intervening party's later statement that there ‘would indeed’ be a letterbox the Council qualified as a post factum statement that the city could not have taken into account in its regularity assessment. By finding the final bid regular, the city acted, at first sight, contrary to article 76 of the Placement Decree and to the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The ground was found serious and the enforcement of the award decision suspended.
Why does this matter?
This arrest shows how a seemingly minor specification detail — a paper letterbox — can topple an award worth tens of millions. The lesson for bidders is twofold. For those competing: an express minimum requirement described in the specifications as ‘mandatory’, ‘minimum’ and ‘included’ is not an aspiration but a nullity threshold; approaching it ‘functionally’ or replacing it with something the authority later calls equivalent does not suffice, and a promise to possibly phase out the service later works squarely against you. For those who lost the contract and contest the winner's regularity: a concrete, specifications-based complaint about a missed minimum requirement is not a ‘fishing expedition’, even where you have not seen the competitor's confidential bid — the Council and the auditorate can inspect it and test your complaint. The arrest also confirms that the authority may not interpret its own specifications more loosely after the fact than it drafted them, and that the distinction between ‘minimum requirement’ and ‘option’ in the specifications is legally hard.
The lesson
Read the technical provisions of specifications as a checklist of nullity thresholds, not wishes. If a service is stated to be ‘mandatory’, ‘minimum’ or ‘included’, your bid must offer it explicitly and unconditionally — for the entire term of the contract. Do not offer an alternative you yourself consider ‘equivalent’, and certainly not a service you reserve the right to scale down later; such a reservation is a counter-indication that undoes even implicit compliance. Watch closely the distinction between minimum requirements and what the specifications label ‘optional’ and reward in the award criteria: these are two different worlds. And if you lose a contract to a competitor you suspect missed a minimum requirement, formulate a concrete complaint grounded in the wording of the specifications — even without sight of its confidential bid, because the administrative court can examine it itself.
Ask yourself
Take your last bid for a services contract. Have you answered every provision stated in the specifications as ‘mandatory’, ‘minimum’ or ‘included’ literally and explicitly — or did you somewhere propose your own ‘functionally equivalent’ solution? Does your bid contain a reservation or a ‘to be evaluated / phased out’ wording for a service the specifications require for the full term? And if you recently lost a contract: did you check whether the winning bid complies with every minimum requirement, and do you dare formulate a concrete complaint about it, even though you did not get to see the competitor's bid?
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 →