'Per-lot ranking' can also mean 'global ranking with per-lot derivation' — and if you don't clarify in advance, the authority decides
The Council of State dismisses Ghent University's suspension against the award of the VDAB GLOW contract because the specification allowed all 18 bidders to be ranked globally — not per lot — meaning Divergent lost its two East-Flemish lots to organisations that bid for other provinces.
What happened?
The Flemish Employment Service (VDAB) launched the framework agreement 'Growing and Learning On the Workfloor' (GLOW) — intensive coaching and mediation of jobseekers via workplace learning — divided into 26 territorial lots across the five Flemish provinces and Brussels. Simplified negotiated procedure with prior publication. Maximum five lots per bidder, max two 'regionally different' lots per province. Eighteen bidders, including Ghent University with its Divergent service for two East-Flemish lots (GLOW-OVL-01 and -02). After negotiations and BAFOs, VDAB applied one global evaluation framework: per award criterion a rating ('very good', 'good', 'sufficient', 'acceptable', 'limited', 'nil') for each bidder, then one global ranking of the 18 bidders (four scored under 60% and were excluded). Based on that global ranking, each bidder's preference order, and the per-bidder maximum, VDAB on 11 February 2022 allocated all 26 lots. Divergent ended joint fifth at 85 points, but by the time her turn came, GLOW-OVL-01 and -02 had already gone to Randstad and Groep Intro — both higher in the global ranking. Ghent University filed extreme-urgency suspension on three grounds. First (formal motivation): per-criterion motivation is summary and contains nearly identical standard sentences for different bidders; sometimes the difference between 'good' and 'very good' is just an added paragraph. Not serious: the Council holds that the summary motivation is coherent for 18 bidders, that confidentiality limits concretisation, and that 'good'/'very good' differences appear in the added paragraph (e.g. for G.6 'very good' was justified by an 'KPI system'). Second — the key ground — breach of the specification by global instead of per-lot ranking. UGent argued she should have been compared only with bidders for the same East-Flemish lots, not with general players from other provinces; she would have drafted differently. Not serious: the Council finds the specification clause 'per-lot ranking is made by adding the criterion points' allows both interpretations — either 26 separate rankings or one global ranking with per-lot derivation. The award criteria (G.1-G.6) are described in general terms without per-lot differentiation; one offer form per bidder, one score; point 2.15 refers to 'ranking of final scores' without per-lot comparison. Global interpretation is 'better consistent' with the whole specification context. UGent moreover does not show concretely what she would have phrased differently. Third (material motivation): not serious given the Council's limited review of substantive offer assessments. The 'good'/'very good' difference on service quality was justified: the other bidder described a 'developed KPI system', UGent did not mention KPIs in her CRM. Application dismissed, UGent pays €700 procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
For anyone bidding on multi-lot contracts — and in 2022 most service framework agreements of VDAB, municipalities and Defence are — this is a bitter reminder: 'per-lot ranking' can be ambiguous, and if the authority chooses the global interpretation, you don't lose to your local competitors but to a player from another province. For regionally specialised bidders (such as a GOB working only in East Flanders) this interpretation has major consequences: you compete against general players (Randstad, Groep Intro) bidding across all Flanders. For contracting authorities: if you split a contract into lots, be glass-clear in the specification about evaluation methodology — write either 'one global assessment with per-lot derivation' or 'each offer is compared only with offers for the same lot'. Ambiguity does not cost you a suspension — the Council gives the authority margin — but causes confusion and frustration for selected bidders. For bidders: ask the question explicitly during the clarification phase, or draft your offer assuming the global variant.
The lesson
For every multi-lot contract: read at least twice whether the evaluation methodology is per-lot or global. Look explicitly: how is the ranking made, how is the award allocated, does the offer assessment refer to 'bidders per lot' or 'all bidders'. Find contradictions — 'per-lot ranking' versus 'mutual comparison of all bidders' — submit a formal question during the clarification phase and keep the answer. When in doubt: draft your offer as if you are ranked against all bidders, not just your local competitors. Otherwise you build your competitive advantage on wrong assumptions about your opponents.
Ask yourself
Open the specification of the multi-lot contract you are working on. Search 'ranking'. Does it appear in an ambiguous context (e.g. 'per-lot ranking is made by adding the criterion points' — can mean both 'separate ranking per lot' and 'separate ranking derived from the global one')? Ask for clarification. No time? Build your offer on the assumption you are compared against all bidders.
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 →