Four Limburg training organisations lost all their home lots to Randstad and Emino — and the Council of State can't do anything about it
The Council of State dismisses the extreme-urgency suspension by a consortium of four Limburg specialised training, coaching and mediation services against the award of the VDAB GLOW contract because the specification permitted a global ranking of all 18 bidders and because their local entrenchment and 'evidence-based I care' programme do not oblige the contracting authority to award a higher score.
What happened?
In parallel with Ghent University's UDN procedure (see judgment 253392), a consortium of four Limburg specialised organisations — VZW Alternatief, VZW GOB Arbeidskansen, VZW Begeleidingsdienst Limburgs Mijngebied and the intercommunal IGL/LIV — challenged the same VDAB award decision of 11 February 2022. Their joint offer for the five Limburg lots (GLOW-LIM-01 to 05) scored 'good' on G.2, 'sufficient' on G.4, 'good' on G.5 and 'good' on G.6. None of their home lots were awarded: GLOW-LIM-01 and -02 went to Randstad, GLOW-LIM-03 to Emino, GLOW-LIM-04 and -05 to SBS Skill BuilderS — all four ranked higher in the global ranking of 18 bidders. Three grounds, parallel to UGent's. First (formal motivation): summary motivation, identical standard sentences, unclear basis of comparison. Not serious: motivation is coherent for 18 bidders, confidentiality limits concretisation, the 'good'/'very good' difference appears in the added paragraph. Second (per-lot vs. global ranking): same ground as UGent — as regional GOBs working in Limburg they thought their offer would only be compared with other Limburg-lot bidders. Not serious: the specification permits the global interpretation. Third (substantive motivation and care on G.2, G.4, G.5 and G.6): not serious. For G.2 the 'evidence-based I care' programme is distinguishing but the consortium does not show concretely that it offers a 'demonstrable added value' justifying 'very good'. For G.4 they got 'sufficient' (lower than UGent's 'good') because the customisation was 'sufficient but not sufficiently concretised' — assessment of concreteness falls within the authority's discretion. For G.5 their long-standing expertise, regional anchoring and cooperation with local authorities were not undervalued; the competitor's 'very good' came from specifically targeting 'inclusive enterprises' and differentiating types of employers — a differentiation the consortium does not offer. The reference to cooperation with vzw Sterpunt Inclusief Ondernemen did not suffice. For G.6 their 'vanguard' methodology with 'double-loop learning' and R&D team was recognised (hence 'good'), but the winner described a 'system' of KPIs with more detail. Application dismissed, consortium pays €700 procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
For regionally specialised bidders this judgment is particularly painful: four Limburg organisations with decades of local experience lose all their home lots to large national staffing groups. But that is not an unlawful outcome — it is what the specification (and its evaluation methodology) allows. The Council recalls explicitly that its legality review is limited: it does not substitute itself for the contracting authority to re-rate offers. Two specific lessons for regional players. One: local entrenchment and cooperation with local authorities are not in themselves valued higher than a national standard approach — winning happens on what the authority sees as added value (typically: differentiation, inclusive enterprise, KPI systems). Two: 'evidence-based' programmes are not automatically an added value — you must provide the proof with concrete numbers, case discussions and outcome data. Putting a name on a methodology is not enough.
The lesson
As a regional or specialised bidder in a multi-lot contract: don't let your offer drift on 'local entrenchment' or 'long-standing expertise' alone. The authority values these positively but won't push you above 'good'. For 'very good' you need systematic differentiation — by employer types, participant types, contexts — described in an in-depth system (KPI framework, quality system) that 'exceeds expectations'. And if you claim added value (such as an evidence-based programme): document concretely why it is added value — with research figures, outcome data, case discussions showing the effect. 'Good' becomes 'very good' through depth, not through reliance on reputation.
Ask yourself
Open the textual assessment of your last loss. Does each award criterion say 'good' (no 'very good')? Then read the winner's motivation for the same criterion and find the sentence with 'exceeds expectations' or 'demonstrable added value'. Which concrete element is missing in your offer? Document this for your next bid — no vague claims, no reputation arguments, but concrete differentiation and measurable proof.
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 →