A clarification sheet the contracting authority asked for itself — then ignored: without explanation, the award cannot stand
The Council of State suspends in extreme urgency the award of the design team for the Grand Théâtre in Verviers because the city set aside a clarifying table it had itself requested from a candidate team, without explaining why, and additionally failed to motivate the rejection on scenography.
What happened?
In 2014 the city of Verviers issued a European call for tenders for a design team to restore and refurbish the Grand Théâtre. The award decision of 24 December 2014 went to SCRL L'Escaut Architectures. The team Architectes Associés - Techniques Générales et Infrastructures - Architecture Lejeune et Giovannelli was rejected at qualitative selection on two grounds: their note on each partner's role was 'incomplete' (no clear identification of 'signage design' or 'furniture design' partners), and the minimum conditions for 'scenography' references were 'not met'. The painful detail: Verviers had itself, after receiving the offer, asked the team for an identification sheet of the team. The team delivered a clear table covering precisely those two competences. Yet Verviers rejected the team on those exact points without one word of explanation in the award decision. For the scenography point, the decision simply stated the minimum was 'not met' without analysing the references provided. A posteriori explanations in a brief during the proceedings cannot cure that gap.
Why does this matter?
Two lessons that touch every contracting authority and bid manager. For the authority: if you invite a bidder to complete his file and he does, you must explain in your award decision what you make of that supplement. Silently ignoring it and then rejecting on the very point the supplement addressed is an almost-automatic suspension. For the bidder: keep every reply you send to the authority — those documents are often your best weapon when challenging a rejection.
The lesson
If as a contracting authority you invite a bidder to complete his file on a specific point and he does, your award decision must explicitly state (1) that the supplement was received, (2) what it concretely says, and (3) why it does or does not remove the original doubt. It is not enough to repeat in the evaluation report that 'the minimum is not met' — without that explanation, you might as well not have asked for the supplement.
Ask yourself
For every negative selection decision against a candidate you asked for clarification: can you write one paragraph stating what he answered and why his answer does not save the minimum criterion? If not, write that paragraph before you sign the decision.
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 →