A 'loose list of grievances' is not a ground — an urgent suspension petition cannot be repaired later through a reply note
The Council of State rejects Frontforce's urgent suspension request against the award of dispatching software by the Flemish Brabant West rescue zone to Verdi: a petition that merely lists points without explaining why a recalculation would change the ranking does not meet the structure and specificity requirements — and what is missing in the petition cannot be added via a reply note.
What happened?
The Flemish Brabant West rescue zone launches a competitive procedure with negotiation for zonal dispatching software. On 2 December 2019 the zone college selects three candidates from five: Intergraph Belgium, Ferranti Computer Systems and Verdi. Frontforce is also a candidate (the case concerns Frontforce NV, not Verdi). The specifications (reference 2019-013 phase 2) use four award criteria: price (40 points, rule of three), demo (30 points, judged on working functionalities, user-friendliness and overview), total of functionalities at 24 months (20 points), and maintenance/support (10 points). Technical specifications use three star levels: *** functionalities must be shown at the demo, ** must be available after 12 months, * after 24 months. On 16 June 2020 Frontforce is informed by registered letter and email that the contract is not awarded to it. Attached: the evaluation report and annexes. On 1 July 2020 Frontforce files an urgent suspension request. Frontforce raises two grounds: **First ground — insufficient reasoning.** Frontforce states that reasons must be 'in the act itself' and that 'the mere mention of failure to meet best price-quality is too general'. The Council rejects this briefly: contrary to Frontforce's claim, an award decision may take account of reasons in other documents (Cass. 12 October 2015, S.13.0026.N) — provided those documents are referred to, are known to the addressee and are themselves adequately reasoned. The contested decision refers to 'the qualitative selection, regularity examination and comparison of bids' as described in the attached evaluation report. The judgment Frontforce relies on (Cass. 25 September 2003) did not even concern the Formal Motivation Act. And the claim that Frontforce had not received the report is incorrect: it was a PDF in the email of 16 June and with the registered letter — and knowledge appears from the substantive argument in the second ground itself. **Second ground — breach of equality and due diligence.** Frontforce lists five functionalities for which points should be 'corrected', plus three functionalities (21, 31, 36) that according to it were 'fully shown' during the demo. Further criticism on four user-friendliness aspects ('Pre-alarm/alarm/end alarm', map layers, person/post-bound functions, app overview). The Council delivers a series of methodological taps — instructive for anyone drafting a petition: 1. *No structure.* Frontforce 'formulates loose grievances' without making clear whether they concern award criterion 2 (demo) or 3 (functionalities at 24 months). 2. *No impact analysis.* Frontforce does not even attempt to make plausible that a recalculation of points would tip the ranking in its favour. An urgent-suspension judge does not take a request seriously without such a simulation. 3. *No concrete substantiation in the petition itself.* The five functionalities for which recalculation is sought are 'merely listed'. Frontforce only tries to explain concretely in its reply note why the assessment is incorrect — but 'can no longer admissibly remedy this defect afterwards'. The petition itself must contain the argumentation. 4. *Wrong reading of the specifications.* For functionalities 'functions post/person bound' (no. 36) and 'app overview', Frontforce claims they are functionalities 'with 2 stars' that need only exist after 12 months and therefore cannot be assessed in the demo. The Council follows the contracting authority: they are *** functionalities in annex 1 of the report, so they had to be shown at the demo. Frontforce's reading of the specifications is simply wrong. 5. *Own interpretation of specifications.* For functionality 21 'Vehicles with current status and the time at which', Frontforce believes the contracting authority wrongly read 'time at which' as 'time how long' — whereas specification 12,h) literally asks: 'the current vehicle status and the time how long one has been at that status'. 6. *Discretion not respected.* For user-friendliness of 'pre-alarm/alarm/end alarm' and 'map layers' Frontforce wants only the operator to be considered, not the administrator. The Council does not read the specifications so narrowly — assessment across multiple user roles (operator, planner, officer, administrator) is defensible. The Council holds that Frontforce's arguments 'seem to reflect own insights into the scope of the specifications' — an assessment by the Council would exceed its legality review. Neither ground is serious. Urgent suspension rejected, costs of €920 to Frontforce.
Why does this matter?
For anyone preparing an urgent-suspension petition this judgment reads as a manual of what NOT to do. A petition is not an agenda for later explanation — it is the complete statement of your grounds. The Council reads the petition as the closing piece: anything you only try to add via a reply note is too late. For bidders considering proceedings against an award decision concerning points on sub-criteria, an impact analysis is also crucial: simulate in the petition itself which extra points you would obtain on which functionalities, and show that this tips the ranking. Without that simulation you are challenging an assessment without consequence, and the Council does not engage with that.
The lesson
When preparing an urgent-suspension petition against an award where points on award criteria are contested, follow this checklist: (1) group your criticism by award criterion and sub-criterion — no loose list; (2) for each contested point loss give a concrete reason why the assessment is wrong — not 'we should have got more'; (3) include an impact calculation in the petition itself: 'if these X points are awarded, my total becomes Y, which tips the ranking'; (4) keep your criticism strictly within what the specifications literally say — your own interpretation of what a requirement 'really means' will be rejected as an appreciation judgment; (5) do not count on a second round via the reply note — what appears there for the first time no longer counts.
Ask yourself
Have you a petition for urgent suspension ready to file? Test it as follows: would an outsider reading only your petition (no annexes, no reply note) see which award criteria you contest, on which functionalities or sub-criteria the error lies, and how many extra points you should receive? Is it shown in a simple table or arithmetic that those extra points place you first? If any answer is 'no': you are in the same poor starting position as Frontforce — a judgment finding your grounds 'not serious'.
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 →