Awarding 'excellent' because a bid is better in 'at least 3 domains' — without ever saying which 3 — costs the award
The Council of State suspends Defence's award of the multi-year green-maintenance contract for the Florennes military zone to Krinkels because the formal motivation lists qualitative strengths per bidder but does not allow verification that the score 'excellent' (reserved for offers better than the others in at least 3 domains) was actually attributed in line with the announced evaluation method.
What happened?
On 10 November 2020, the Belgian Ministry of Defence published a European tender for a 48-month multi-year contract for recurring green maintenance of military quarters in three lots: Florennes (lot 1), Liège (lot 2) and Marche-en-Famenne (lot 3). Award criterion: most economically advantageous offer, with PRICE 60% and TECHNICAL 40%. The technical criterion split into five sub-criteria: equipment (8%), personnel (8%), alternative weed-control plan (8%), planning and flexibility (10%) and communication/complaints handling (6%). For each sub-criterion, the tender announced a fixed scoring scale: Excellent (maximum points) — 'the offer surpasses the others in at least 3 domains'; Good — 'better than the others in at least 1 aspect'; Average — 'acceptable but not differentiated'; Insufficient — 0 points. Four bidders for lot 1 Florennes: Artbel, Krinkels, Eurogreen, Demgro. On 25 May 2021, the Minister of Defence awarded lot 1 to Krinkels. Artbel filed an annulment action on 15 June 2021. On 14 July 2021, the Minister withdrew the original decision and replaced it with a new, differently motivated decision — again awarding to Krinkels. Artbel filed an extreme-urgency suspension request against this new decision; Krinkels intervened. The new motivation described each sub-criterion with comparative narrative — for instance for 'Equipment': 'Demgro, Krinkels: very wide and better than the others. Demgro proposes a complete photo report and very detailed technical description; Krinkels does the same and even mentions machine replacement intervals. Both equal in evaluation.' The Council of State found the second branch of Artbel's plea — defective formal motivation — well-founded. The motivation lists items invoked to justify the scores but does not show that the announced threshold (at least 3 domains for 'excellent') was actually applied. Specifically, it cannot be verified from the text whether, for each bidder receiving 'excellent', the contracting authority effectively identified at least 3 domains in which that offer surpassed the others. Suspension granted, immediate enforcement ordered.
Why does this matter?
Many contracting authorities use Likert-type scoring scales ('excellent / good / average / insufficient') with quantitative thresholds — 'better in at least 3 domains' is a classic example. The motivation that follows often consists of a prose summary of each bid's strengths. This ruling sets a hard limit: if your scoring scale imposes a threshold (3 domains, 1 aspect…), your motivation must demonstrate that threshold was met. Not 'Krinkels offers a good description' — but 'Krinkels surpasses Artbel in domain A (equipment scope), domain B (replacement intervals stated), domain C (technical detail), thus reaching the level Excellent'. Whoever fails to write that explicitly risks annulment even when the underlying assessment is correct.
The lesson
When you score an award criterion using a scale with quantitative thresholds ('better in at least 3 domains', 'at least 1 aspect', 'decisive on 2 points'), motivate so a reader can literally count: domain 1 = X, domain 2 = Y, domain 3 = Z. A general narrative describing strengths is not enough. Cutting corners with 'better because broader' bypasses the announced method — and that alone is enough for suspension.
Ask yourself
Contracting authority: review your award motivation and ask — can an informed reader, from the text alone, count whether the announced threshold (3 domains, 1 aspect…) is actually met for each maximum score? If not, rewrite before notification. Bidder: in your application, quote verbatim the evaluation method from the tender and the motivation from the award decision — and pinpoint the gap: 'the tender requires X domains; the motivation names none'.
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 →