STIB awards a GDPR tool to Infhotep, is suspended, withdraws — and awards the same GDPR tool to Infhotep again
The Council of State holds One Trust Technology's annulment action against STIB's award of a GDPR compliance tool to Infhotep moot because STIB withdrew the award after a successful suspension but then awarded the contract back to Infhotep — while still granting the challenger a €700 procedural indemnity.
What happened?
The Brussels intercommunal transport company STIB had launched a framework agreement for a GDPR-compliance management tool. On 11 May 2020 it declared the offer of UK company One Trust Technology Ltd irregular and awarded the framework to the French company SAS Infhotep. Earlier, judgment 247.892 of 24 June 2020 had already ordered suspension of that award. On 13 August 2020 STIB withdrew the 11 May decision — and immediately re-awarded the same framework to Infhotep. One Trust attacked that second award in extreme urgency (G./A. 231.684/VI-21.851); judgment 248.351 of 24 September 2020 rejected the challenge, and no annulment action was brought. The 13 August withdrawal is thus final, which moots this annulment action against the original 11 May award. The Council treats the withdrawal as a succédané of annulment. STIB bears two roll rights (€200 + €200), two contributions (€20 + €20) and a €700 basic procedural indemnity; no uplift applies because the act was withdrawn. Infhotep bears its own €150 intervention fee.
Why does this matter?
This is a situation SaaS bidders regularly face: your bid is declared irregular, a competitor wins, you suspend in extreme urgency — the authority withdraws, fixes one procedural hurdle, and awards again to the same competitor. Technically the Council treats you as the winning party for costs (succédané of annulment = €700), but on the merits you effectively lose if the second award confirms the first. The lesson: don't measure the dispute only against the original decision. Analyse the whole evaluation (here: why was your bid declared irregular?) and raise every structural defect in your second extreme-urgency action — otherwise you are paying court fees for a Pyrrhic victory. For authorities: withdrawal is the correct tactical move to avoid a pending annulment, but the restart must demonstrably cure the original defects, otherwise a new extreme-urgency suspension will follow.
The lesson
If you win a first suspension and the authority re-awards the same contract to the same competitor: your procedural indemnity on the original decision is secured (succédané of annulment), but the contest over the contract itself shifts to the second award. Make sure your second challenge contains the structural defects in the evaluation framework, not only the 'patch' points of the restart.
Ask yourself
Your extreme-urgency suspended the first award and the authority has re-awarded to the same competitor: do your arguments in the second challenge still cover the structural defects (evaluation framework, irregularity finding, price review) or are they limited to the procedural 'patch' points?
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 →