25 references earn 10 out of 20 — when the contracting authority adds a hidden sub-criterion after the opening
The Council of State suspends the award of the design of the Terhagen community centre because AGB Rumst, after opening of the bids, split the fourth award criterion into two weighted sub-criteria — a split that gave Evolta (25 references) only 10/20 and the winner Signa (2 references) 9/20.
What happened?
In April 2016 AGB Rumst (an autonomous municipal company) published a restricted call for tenders for the full architectural and supervisory design of a new community centre in Terhagen — estimated at 315,000 euros ex. VAT. Eight bids were opened on 14 July 2016. The fourth award criterion (20 points out of 100) read 'verifiable references concerning the construction of public buildings' with a single mention that projects above 2.5 million euros (incl. VAT) over 2011-2016 would be considered. In the evaluation report of 8 August 2016, however, that criterion was suddenly split into two sub-scores: max. 10 points for 'experience with public procurement projects matching the criteria above' and max. 10 points extra for 'experience with one or more similar projects'. Evolta submitted 25 references — schools, offices, sports infrastructure, healthcare buildings — none qualifying as 'similar' (community centre). It scored 10/20. Projectbureau Signa submitted only 2 references, one of which (Het Bolwerk in Vilvoorde) was treated as 'similar'. It scored 9/20. The final ranking gap was 0.75 points (Signa 77.64, Evolta 76.89). The Council (12th Chamber, councillor Pierre Barra) accepted that a contracting authority may indeed look at the qualitative dimension of references — that is foreseeable — but ruled it was not foreseeable that a bidder without similar references could earn at most half the points. That amounts to 'more than a superficial or detail change' to the published criterion. Crucially, Evolta argued at the hearing it would have bid jointly with a partner who had similar references if it had known. Award suspended.
Why does this matter?
When a contracting authority splits an award criterion into weighted sub-criteria after the bid opening, it breaches transparency — even if it calls this 'internal structuring'. For bidders: suspension is achievable even on a tiny score gap, provided you can show the unannounced method would have changed your bid strategy. For authorities: a 'qualitative' element on references is allowed, but the tender documents must announce it clearly — especially when it can halve a bidder's score.
The lesson
If a competitor with far fewer references than you scores high on the references criterion: compare the tender wording with the evaluation report. Did a 'quality component' surface that wasn't explicit in the bid documents? Was a silent halving applied to bidders without a 'similar' project? Then a suspension is on the table — even on tiny score gaps, as long as you can show the unannounced method would have shaped your bid (e.g. choice of partner).
Ask yourself
Your reference criterion shows 'verifiable references' with a single weighting (e.g. 20 points). In the evaluation report two sub-scores suddenly appear: 'number of references (max. 10)' and 'similar references (max. 10)'. Result: a bidder with 25 unmatched references scores 10/20, while a bidder with 1 similar reference scores 9/20. Red flag.
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 →