Three pages of approach against seventeen: an offer that refers to the specifications gets 6 out of 40
The Council of State refuses to suspend the award of a contract for the preparation of the Flemish primary-care conference to Möbius, because Ghent University submitted only three pages of offer for the criterion 'quality of the approach plan' — largely cross-references to the specifications — while Möbius delivered seventeen pages of detailed methodology, making 6 out of 40 versus 40 out of 40 a defensible point allocation.
What happened?
The Flemish Agency for Care and Health tendered a service contract worth 206,000 euros to prepare a 2017 healthcare conference on the reorganisation of primary care. Award criteria: price (40%), quality of the approach plan (40%) and team qualifications and availability (20%). Four bidders: AAA+, Möbius, Ghent University and ShiftN. Final scores: Möbius 75/100, ShiftN 64, AAA+ 61, Ghent University 51 (last). The university did not lose on price (30/40 against Möbius's 20/40) or team qualifications (everyone 15/20). It lost on the approach plan: 6 out of 40 versus 40 out of 40 for Möbius and 34 out of 40 for ShiftN. The Council of State went through every sub-task and found a simple contrast: Möbius dedicated seventeen pages plus an annex on consultation techniques; Ghent University used three pages without sub-task structure. On timing, the university merely noted that the specifications' schedule was 'feasible and realistic' — whereas the specifications precisely asked bidders to refine that schedule. References to SharePoint and 'voting' technology appeared without further explanation. Personnel and qualifications belonged to the third (team) criterion, not the approach plan. The university's challenges on team scores fell on lack of standing — a 24-point gap on second place could not be made up. Petition dismissed; costs of 200 euros court fee and 700 euros procedural indemnity to the Flemish Community.
Why does this matter?
Bid managers know the scenario: strong substantive expertise, a familiar team, a competitive price — and yet a poor score on the methodology criterion. This case makes three things explicit. Qualitative award criteria are scored on what is in the offer, not on what the contracting authority knows or assumes about you. 'Following the specifications' is not an approach plan: if the authority explicitly asks for a sketch with methodology and timing, you must deliver that sketch, not refer back to its own text. Page volume is not a substitute for quality, but three pages against seventeen is an almost impossible defence.
The lesson
When preparing an offer for a contract with 'approach plan' or 'methodology' as a heavily weighted criterion (30-40%): count your page volume for that criterion against what the winner can reasonably be expected to deliver. Do not refer back to the specifications — write it out. Treat every sub-task concretely with methodology and timing, even those that look 'obvious'. Avoid vague terms like 'feasible and realistic' or 'innovative techniques' — name the specific methods, the planning order, and how each phase produces output.
Ask yourself
If your approach plan is shorter than five pages for a contract where the criterion weighs 40%: assume you will lose. Count the sub-tasks in the specifications and give each at least half a page of concrete approach — not 'we will execute X', but 'we execute X in phase Y using methodology Z, followed by W'.
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 →