Same authority, same bidder, same nine-year-old conviction — and a second suspension
On the same day the Council suspends the exclusion of Heyrman-De Roeck under specifications 16EI/15/26, it also suspends a parallel exclusion of the same bidder by the same authority under specifications 16EI/15/71 — for an identical inadequacy of reasoning under the discretionary exclusion ground.
What happened?
Two months before the main judgment 233382, the same waterway authority W&Z publishes a parallel open tender (specifications 16EI/15/71) for the removal of litter and washed-up wood on embankments along the same rivers. Eight bidders — Heyrman-De Roeck is second lowest at €282,000 excluding VAT, behind VDC Aannemingen at €168,750. The award report of 13 November 2015 excludes both VDC (technically irregular offer) and Heyrman-De Roeck. For Heyrman-De Roeck, the motivation is again article 61, §2 of the Royal Decree of 15 July 2011: the 2006 conviction for waste and nature offences. The contract goes to NV De Brandt at €289,720 excluding VAT. Heyrman-De Roeck turns to the Council again. The factual and legal analysis is nearly word for word identical to 233382: the motivation says nothing about the nine-year passage of time, nothing about earlier successful awards in 2011 on the same criminal record, and the supplementary arguments in the brief come too late. The Council again finds the motivation inadequate and suspends both the exclusion and the subsequent award to De Brandt.
Why does this matter?
Two judgments on the same day with identical reasoning show this wasn't a one-off drafting error: the contracting authority had a systematic practice of mechanically treating old convictions as exclusion grounds without documenting the factual weighing. For bid managers: if you are repeatedly excluded by the same authority on the same ground, this precedent is a strong argument — the Council has explicitly stated that consistency and self-cleaning must be weighed. For contracting authorities: copy-paste motivation across parallel files multiplies the risk, because the same counterparty can repeat the same grounds.
The lesson
If you intend to exclude the same bidder on the same grounds in a parallel file, literally rewrite your motivation — don't repeat, but re-evaluate with the specific data of this contract. Otherwise you'll get two suspensions instead of one. Bid managers fighting a repeated exclusion: refer explicitly to the earlier judgment in your brief — an authority that runs the same reasoning again after an earlier suspension will have to justify the move heavily.
Ask yourself
Do you have two parallel files in which you exclude the same bidder on the same ground? Does each award report contain its own, file-specific motivation — or does the same text appear twice?
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 →