The same fact can weigh on two award criteria — as long as those criteria measure genuinely different things
Alinea Interieurarchitectuur claimed it was 'sanctioned twice' for the Flemish House in London project because its lack of international experience cost points on both 'design team' and 'references' — the Council of State replies dryly that this is not a double sanction, but the same factor being relevant for two distinct assessments.
What happened?
The Flemish Facility Agency wanted to redesign the interior of Flanders House in London (Cavendish Square, near Oxford Circus). The study contract for an interior architect was awarded via a negotiated procedure without prior publication. Twelve firms were invited; three submitted offers: Alinea Interieurarchitectuur, Lene Van Look and RKD Architects. Award criteria: price (50 points), design team (20), references (20), vision on circular and future-proof design (10). For the three qualitative criteria the tender documents used a published rating grid: +++ Outstanding (100%), ++ Excellent (90%), + Very good (80%), 0+ Good (65%), 0- Sufficient (50%), - Insufficient (30%), -- Bad (0%). Three procedural twists. First: Alinea filed its offer on 3 January 2019 — when the deadline was 4 January. That same day the authority extended the deadline to 11 January, to address a bidder's question and inform all bidders equally. Alinea left its already-filed offer in place and later argued that competitors had 'an extra week' to refine theirs. Second: the award notification was sent to 'nv Alinea' instead of 'nv Alinea Interieurarchitectuur'. Third: the application's heading did not mention extreme urgency — a typo the Flemish Community tried to exploit. On 20 February 2019 the contract was awarded to RKD Architects for EUR 72,030 incl. VAT. RKD won with 77.5/100, Alinea was second with 72.5/100. Alinea — which had bid the lowest price — lost ground on two qualitative criteria: 10/20 on 'design team' (0- Sufficient = 50%) and just 6/20 on 'references' (- Insufficient = 30%). The reasoning: Alinea had no foreign project experience, had not yet appointed UK consultants, and showed a 'very classical' design vocabulary at odds with the intended style for Flanders House. RKD by contrast had named a UK consulting architect and engineer-architect based in London. Alinea raised four grounds: notification defect, unequal treatment via deadline extension, arbitrary scoring grid, and double sanction for a single fact. President Dierk Verbiest of the XIIth chamber dismisses every one. On the deadline extension: the eProcurement platform allows withdrawing and re-submitting offers — Alinea chose not to. On the scoring grid: a published descriptive scale linked to fixed percentages is 'a plausible and fairly common evaluation method'. On the double sanction: the same factor may bear on different criteria when those criteria measure different aspects. Application dismissed.
Why does this matter?
Three takeaways for anyone drafting or evaluating offers. First: a deadline extension does not disadvantage you as an early filer — you can always withdraw and re-upload on the eProcurement platform. A complaint on that ground will fail. Second: the +++/++/+/0+/0-/-/-- grid is fully lawful, even if it looks superficial. The Council even notes that publishing the grid in advance is exemplary in transparency. Third — and most important: a contracting authority may let the same factual finding weigh on multiple award criteria, provided those criteria measure genuinely different aspects. 'No foreign experience' is relevant to the design team (can this team work in London?) and to references (has this team done anything similar?). Bidders alleging 'double sanction' must show the criteria actually overlap — not merely that the same fact pulls down both.
The lesson
If you bid on a foreign contract and have not yet appointed local partners, remember that this can hurt across multiple criteria. Invest beforehand in a UK, Italian or French consultant and put their name in your offer — not 'to be appointed later'. If you have already filed and the authority extends the deadline, withdraw and re-upload an improved version. If you don't, a later complaint about unequal treatment will go nowhere. And as a contracting authority: a +++/++/+/0+ grid is fine, as long as you publish it in advance and pair it with a written evaluation per criterion. A common factor (weak experience, high price, small team) may weigh across criteria when those criteria measure different dimensions.
Ask yourself
You filed an offer before the deadline, and the authority extended it afterwards to circulate additional information. Did you withdraw your offer on the platform and re-submit using the new information? And: does your offer for a foreign contract name a concrete local partner — or does it still say 'to be appointed'?
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 →