Challenging a points-table gap in the specifications — when your own bid sits in that gap, you lose standing
The Council of State dismisses an extreme-urgency challenge by Dolmans Landscaping against Eandis's awarding of green-maintenance contracts because the specification gap Dolmans attacked — no points for 'exactly 50%' sheltered-workshop capacity — applied to Dolmans itself on the disputed lot, removing its standing.
What happened?
Eandis tendered a framework contract for green maintenance around buildings and cabins, divided into twelve lots, via negotiated procedure with prior publication (special sectors). The award criteria: price (80 points), 'sustainability and CSR' (10 points), capacity (10 points). The CSR criterion had three sub-criteria, including 'social measures': 5 points for more than 50% sheltered/social workshop capacity, 3 points for 25-50%, 1 point for under 25% but above zero. The scale did not specify points for 'exactly 25%' or 'exactly 50%'. Dolmans Landscaping, ranked third on lot 4 and second on lot 7 (by a margin of 0.09), challenged the awarding to Groenservice Marissen, arguing the gap was a defect and that Marissen had received 5 points despite offering 'exactly 50%'. Eandis's confidential offer disclosure revealed that Marissen actually offered 6 out of 11 workers from sheltered workshops — 54.5%, not 50% (the company director listed above the work crew, with a separator line, did not count as deployed personnel). Crucially, Dolmans's own confidentially-filed offer for lot 7 disclosed exactly 50% sheltered-workshop capacity. Dolmans was attacking a gap in which it sat itself. Challenge dismissed for lack of standing.
Why does this matter?
Threshold-based point scales (exactly 25%, 50%, exactly 5 years of experience) look orderly but contain fracture lines. The ruling teaches two lessons. One: before challenging a specification flaw, check whether your own bid sits in the contested category — otherwise you lose standing and pay costs. Two: sheltered-workshop and social-economy capacity is increasingly used as an award element, and the counting method (who counts as 'deployed personnel'?) is an operational detail that decides outcomes.
The lesson
Before challenging an ambiguity or gap in the specifications: scan your own bid surgically on the same point. Sitting in the disputed zone yourself? You're litigating against yourself and will fail the standing test. And when offering social-economy capacity: document precisely who counts as 'deployable personnel' and who does not — typography details (line breaks, font sizes) can become interpretation arguments.
Ask yourself
Does your offer count sheltered-workshop workers at exactly 25%, 50%, or another threshold mentioned in the specifications? Shift the count by one person up or down — not by manipulation, but through careful delineation of who is 'personnel for this contract' — to escape the fracture line. And explain in the offer how you counted.
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 →