One reviewer does 80% of the hours in a 'college of two': no problem according to the Council of State
The Council of State rejects the extreme-urgency suspension against FOREM's re-award to KPMG/Joiris, even though one signing reviewer would perform 584 of the 730 'reviewer hours' — the requirement of a 'college of reviewers' is assessed at the firm level, not at the level of the individual signing reviewers.
What happened?
In April 2015 FOREM launched a 36-month tender for a college of statutory auditors covering both annual accounts and certification of European funds (FSE, EASI, FEM). The specifications expressly required 'at least two firms', given the size of the budgets. Three award criteria: volume of working hours (35 pts), price (35 pts), audit approach and intervention planning (30 pts). Four temporary associations submitted bids, including the applicants (RSM Interaudit + MKS) and the intervening parties (KPMG + Joiris Rousseaux). FOREM awarded the contract to KPMG/Joiris on 23 December 2015. That decision was already suspended by the Council in judgment no. 233.900 (23 February 2016). On 29 March 2016 FOREM withdrew that decision and re-awarded to the same combination. RSM/MKS again filed an extreme-urgency suspension. They raised three challenges to the 'volume' criterion: the bid was unrealistic (one signing reviewer would deliver 584 of the 730 hours = 80%), the criterion itself encouraged speculation, and the price would be abnormally low given the reviewer hours. Plus a fourth complaint: the motivation of the 'audit approach/planning' criterion, where all bidders received the maximum 30/30, would be stereotypical and not genuinely comparative. The Council rejects all complaints. 584 hours equates to about 2.5 hours per day on average — not manifestly impossible. The criterion 'hours weighted by function level' is not manifestly unreasonable. The price complaint is particularly weak: KPMG scored only 22.34/35 on price (third place), while the applicants themselves obtained the maximum (35/35) — their own price was therefore lower, which obviously undermines the claim that KPMG's price was 'abnormally low'. And the four-page motivation of the methodology criterion sufficiently refers to the content of the bids to explain why no distinction could be made. Suspension request rejected. 700 euros in procedural costs awarded against the applicants (350 each).
Why does this matter?
Many service tenders require cooperation between several firms, offices or partners — under names like 'college', 'consortium', 'partnership'. What does that requirement mean concretely? Can one partner deliver 80% of the hours? This judgment gives a clear answer: the Council assesses collegiality at the firm level, not at the level of the individual signing reviewer. As long as the overall share of each firm in the total hours is broadly equivalent, the requirement is met — even if the lead person of one firm carries far more weight than that of the other. Bid managers working with consortia can take this into account when allocating hours. At the same time, the judgment warns that the Council gives little weight to pure speculation: claiming a bid is 'unrealistic' must be backed by concrete numbers, not by general assumptions about how a sector should function. Finally, the price complaint is a useful reminder: you cannot easily accuse a competitor of being 'abnormally low' if your own price is lower. The complaint and your own bid must be coherent.
The lesson
If you want to challenge a competitor's bid as 'unrealistic' or 'irregular', start with numbers — not principles. How many hours are concretely impossible? Based on what benchmark? Here the Council itself converts the hour volume to 'roughly 2.5 hours per day' and concludes this is perfectly feasible for a motivated reviewer. If you cannot make such a concrete counter-calculation, your complaint stays at the level of 'speculation' and will not succeed. And check your own position before you attack a price as 'abnormally low': if your bid is cheaper, your complaint is broken from the first argument.
Ask yourself
Does the specification require cooperation between several firms or offices? How do you interpret that requirement? If your planning has one partner delivering 75-85% of the hours, can you justify — firm by firm, not person by person — that the overall workload is balanced? And conversely: if you challenge an award because the winning combination works 'unevenly', can you compare the overall hour volume per firm, not just the hours of the signing reviewers?
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 →