Awarding points with 'value added' and 'value lost' without saying how many — does not hold up
The Council of State suspended the award to Sefac for tram lifting columns at De Lijn because the evaluation report assigns points using labels like 'value added', 'significant value lost' and 'very large value added' without ever explaining how many points each is worth.
What happened?
De Lijn launched an open tender in 2014 for tram and bus lifting columns, divided into four lots. For lot B (East Flanders trams) two bidders: Euro Trade and Sefac. A first award on 16 July 2014 went to Sefac (82.71 vs 65 points) but was withdrawn after an urgent challenge. A new evaluation report on 2 March 2015 placed both bids 'equally economically advantageous' (70 vs 69.96 points). De Lijn applied article 100, §3 of the Royal Decree on Special Sector Procurement — invited both bidders for an improvement proposal. After improvement proposals, on 1 April 2015, De Lijn awarded to Sefac. Final score difference: 0.52 out of 100. Euro Trade filed an urgent suspension arguing inter alia that the motivation was opaque and arbitrary. The Council of State follows on the third plea. The evaluation report stated: 'Each bidder starts with half the points. Value added or lost relative to non-essential requirements is rewarded or penalised with points.' But what 'value added' or 'value lost' actually meant in points — nowhere stated. Worse: terminology differed per award criterion. For criterion 2 (20 points), 'value added' and 'value lost' (Euro Trade 8.75; Sefac 9.75). For criterion 3 (15 points), suddenly 'significant value lost', 'small value added' and 'limited value added'. For criterion 4 (10 points, starting from 0), 'very large value added' and 'small value added'. How those qualitative labels translated into points — no explanation. For criterion 2 the rule 'start with half the points' was stated, but how it had been applied was 'very unclear'. The Council holds: checking the accuracy and consistency of point allocation is 'compromised'. Breach of formal duty to state reasons. Suspension of the award.
Why does this matter?
For bid managers: if you lose with a minimal point difference and the evaluation report uses vague labels instead of concrete point values, you have a strong weapon. In your access request, ask exactly for the calculation methodology per sub-criterion. For authorities: qualitative assessments ('value added', 'significant value added') are legitimate — but must be linked to a pre-established point scale, or at least applied consistently and motivated.
The lesson
When drafting specifications with qualitative scoring: define in advance how many points a 'value added' is worth, a 'significant value added', a 'value lost'. Keep that scale consistent across all sub-criteria — not 'value lost' one time and 'significant value lost' another without differentiation. And if you use a 'start at X% of points' rule, show in the report how you started from that position for each bid.
Ask yourself
Take the latest evaluation report for a contract with qualitative criteria. Can you reconstruct, for each awarded score, which value addeds and losts led to which number? Could an external reader — a Council judge, say — verify the calculation? If the answer is no, your formal motivation is too weak.
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 →