Cancelling a procedure because the specifications are unclear is allowed — even if you weren't confused
The Council of State confirms: a contracting authority may decide not to award a lot and to relaunch with improved specifications, and a bidder saying 'but I understood it' is not enough to overturn that decision.
What happened?
Same tender as judgment 231.422 — pressure ventilators for emergency services — but now lot 2 (electric motor). Two bidders: Fire Technics and Vanassche FFE. During evaluation on 7 October 2014 the rear protection grille of Fire Technics' EX520 ventilator turned out to be non-compliant with an essential requirement (mesh > 10 mm). Fire Technics replied it was a demo with an old grille and that the final prototype would comply — 'the specifications nowhere require ventilators to be shown before award'. In a preparatory note to financial inspection, the FPS admitted: article 1.15.1 of Document B used the word 'prototype test' instead of 'sample test in accordance with essential requirements'. That word 'prototype' could cause confusion between testing during award and testing during performance. On 23 April 2015 the FPS decided: do not award lot 2, relaunch via a new procedure with improved specifications. Fire Technics appealed: arbitrary, a pretext to give Vanassche a second chance, and she herself 'had no confusion'. The Council of State dismissed six pleas. Article 35 of the law of 15/06/2006 expressly allows abandoning award and relaunching. Condition: factually and legally acceptable reasons. The need to improve specifications is such a reason — and that need was here plausible. The word choice 'prototype' vs 'sample' could objectively cause confusion — Fire Technics' own letter ('only at the prototype stage must the right ventilator be shown!') in fact confirmed it. That Fire Technics herself 'wasn't confused' does not suffice. No prior complaints from Vanassche required: nowhere does the law say cancellation only after complaints. Article 25 (apply award criteria) does not apply either: by halting the procedure the authority never reaches that stage. And the claim that lot 3 with almost identical requirements went smoothly as 'proof' of misuse of power — does not show that lot 2 could not objectively cause confusion.
Why does this matter?
For bid managers who had just submitted a strong bid: cancellation feels unfair — especially when you knew you could win. But the threshold to overturn it is high. Not your own state of mind ('I wasn't confused'), but whether a reasonable authority could objectively suspect confusion. For authorities: this judgment is a green light to improve specifications — but motivate the cancellation carefully and concretely, or you'll be in trouble.
The lesson
If a contracting authority cancels and relaunches your procedure, look critically at the specifications themselves — not at your own experience with them. Was the wording ambiguous? Did clauses contradict? Is there objective reason for confusion? If yes, you have little chance before the Council. If no: ask exactly what the authority intends to improve, and check whether it matches the facts in the administrative file.
Ask yourself
Suppose an authority halts the procedure where your bid was 50 points ahead. Can you point to three concrete passages in the specifications that are unambiguous and internally coherent? Or is there wording that — honestly — allows two readings? That second scenario is what the Council accepts as 'sufficient reason'.
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 →