An item on the Synergrid list is a combination, not a single component — swap the driver and you're no longer on the list
The Council rejects Schreder's extreme-urgency application against Eandis' decision to declare all seven bids for LED street lighting (lots 1, 2 and 3) substantially irregular because the offered combination of luminaire, LED module and driver does not appear as such on the Synergrid 005 list — even though the separate driver is itself 005-certified.
What happened?
In late 2016 Eandis launches an open call for tenders for LED street-lighting fittings (nine lots, project EAN16AL014). The specifications under point 1.5.1 lay down as a 'substantial rejection criterion' that 'for lots 1-2-3-4 the offered fitting must appear on the Synergrid 005 list' — failure renders the bid void. Schreder bids on lots 1, 2 and 3 with its Ampera Mini, Midi and Maxi luminaires, all of which are on the 005 list. But Schreder has swapped one component: the driver. Where the Synergrid-listed versions use a 'Xitanium Prog/Prog+ LED Xtreme' driver, Schreder offers the newer 'Xitanium FULL Prog LED Xtreme Xi FP', invoking two specifications passages: technical specification TVS E-OV-008 mentions the 'offered family member' on the C4/11.3-A list without naming the driver, and TVS E-OV-004 under 'Heat management' allows 'another 005-certified (set) driver in the certified 005 fitting if the original measured Tc value does not exceed the certified version'. On 7 June 2017 Eandis awards the contract to Philips Lighting; Schreder ranks second. Schreder appeals and wins: ruling 238.805 of 11 July 2017 suspends the award because Philips only got listed two months after submitting its bid — prohibited regularisation. On 30 August 2017 Eandis withdraws the award and re-runs the regularity review — strictly this time. The 22 August 2017 award report states: 'In light of that same ruling Schreder Uitrusting's bid must also be rejected as the offered LED fittings for lots 1-2-3 did not appear on the Synergrid 005 list at the time of submission'. All seven bids for the three lots are declared void, no award, fresh procedure. Schreder goes back to the Council. The crux: is a fitting on the Synergrid list the same as that fitting with a different 005-driver inside? The Council goes back to the source — technical specification 005 itself — and quotes point 2.1: 'Synergrid publishes a list of fitting types recognised as compliant with these technical specifications. This list is valid for a specific combination of luminaire, LED module, driver, etc.' A fitting on the list is by definition a specific combination. Swap one component and the combination is no longer on the list. The TVS E-OV-008 passage about the 'offered family member' changes nothing — it does not mean another driver may be substituted. The deviation under point 12 'Heat management' of TVS E-OV-004 is theoretically possible, but Schreder seems not to invoke it in its bid: it submits test reports in the constellation as listed in Synergrid 005 (without the different driver), contradicting any reliance on the deviation. Nor does it submit list C4/10-A from which Eandis could verify that the new driver is 005-certified — mandatory technical documentation under title 3.1 of the specifications. The crucial test report with the new driver is only drawn up on 3 October 2017 — days before the appeal, long after the submission deadline. Eandis could not possibly have considered it. Application rejected, Schreder pays €200 court fee and €700 procedural indemnity to Eandis.
Why does this matter?
For bidders in markets with compliance lists (Synergrid for energy, BCCA for fire safety, ANPI for intrusion detection) this is the crucial takeaway: 'being on the list' does not mean 'the main device is on the list', but 'the exact combination as you offer it is on the list'. The temptation to offer a newer or better component because it is also separately certified leads straight to nullity — substantially irregular, not amenable to regularisation. And even if the specifications contain a deviation clause (such as point 12 on heat management here), three things must be done before the deadline: (1) expressly invoke the deviation, (2) supply all technical documentation supporting the deviation conditions, (3) submit test reports in the actually offered configuration — not in the standard configuration. For contracting authorities the ruling confirms that a strict second review after a suspension order is fully defensible: if the first award fell on regularisation grounds, you may re-test ALL bids against the same strict standard, including that of the original applicant.
The lesson
If you bid on a contract where 'inclusion on a compliance list' is a substantial rejection criterion: don't check whether your main product is on the list — check whether the exact configuration you are offering appears as such. Swap one component (driver, ballast, controller, software version) and that is by definition a different product on the list — even if both components are separately certified. If you want to offer a variant via a deviation clause in the specifications, before the deadline you must deliver three things: an explicit reference to that clause, all supporting technical evidence, and test reports in the actually offered configuration. Producing test reports afterwards does not work — that is prohibited regularisation.
Ask yourself
Am I about to bid with a product whose component (driver, ballast, controller, firmware version) differs from the version on the Synergrid or comparable list? Three checks: (1) does the exact combination as I offer it appear explicitly on the list? (2) if not, does the specifications contain a deviation clause I can invoke? (3) do I have today all supporting evidence AND test reports in the offered configuration? Any 'no' = substantially irregular — don't bid, or adjust the bid.
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 →