G4S loses by 1.38 points and receives three 'negatives' — the Council finds two of them indistinguishable from weaknesses in the winning bid
The Council of State suspends the award of security services for the South Tower to Seris Security because the reasons given for three negative marks against incumbent G4S do not explain why it scored 3.5 points less than the winning bidder on the quality criterion — when the same weaknesses appear in the winning bid too.
What happened?
The Federal Pension Service had launched a restricted-procedure tender for reception and security services at its South Tower headquarters, with two award criteria: price (60%) and 'organisation of the service' (40%). On 7 March 2022 only two candidates were selected: incumbent G4S Secure Solutions and challenger Seris Security. G4S offered the lowest price but lost by 1.38 points overall: Seris 94.38/100, G4S 93.00/100. The gap came entirely from the quality criterion — where G4S scored 3.5 points less out of 40. The quality reasoning cited three specific negatives for G4S: (1) it would not 'exactly' explain how guards are scheduled and rotated; (2) on pre-contract measures it would merely refer to 'the current partnership' — whereas the new contract 'differs fundamentally' on many points; (3) the frequency of inspections ('on a regular basis') would not be specific enough. G4S filed an extreme-urgency challenge on 10 May 2022. The second plea — breach of the duty to state reasons and of the duty of care — prevailed. The Council reads the actual bids and finds: (a) On scheduling and rotation: G4S describes concretely how the roster works, while Seris leaves it entirely to a 'planning tool' whose output will only become apparent later. The motive that G4S did not 'exactly' explain is prima facie untenable. (b) On pre-start measures: G4S is the incumbent — its guards are already on site. 'No special implementation measures needed' is not a defect but a fact. The authority only states in its reply that the new contract 'differs fundamentally' (SLA, language skills, six-monthly evaluation) — but those motives are a posteriori and are not in the award decision itself. Moreover, G4S's bid actually does address SLAs and other new requirements. (c) On the frequency of inspections: the same observation ('frequencies not clearly indicated') is made about Seris Security. A qualitatively identical weakness cannot justify a point gap. The Council also finds that G4S's 'improvement proposals' section (monthly knowledge tests, split patrols, G4S Login communication tool) was dismissed as 'unclear whether applicable to the current or the new agreement' — while any reasonable reading shows they apply to the new contract and in fact implement the new specifications. Conclusion: the global descriptive reasoning cannot explain why G4S scored 3.5 points less. The factual basis of the award collapses. The Council suspends the award to Seris Security. Auditor Ann Eylenbosch had advised the opposite — the Council departs from that advice.
Why does this matter?
This ruling touches two themes bid managers often see combined: the weak position of the incumbent provider 'who has nothing new to implement' and the dangers of 'global' reasoning without per-element scoring. As an incumbent, you can legitimately rely on the absence of an implementation plan not being a negative — unless the authority can concretely identify in what respects the new contract differs fundamentally and why that requires implementation efforts you do not describe. As a challenger, do not rely on a glossy planning tool to substitute for a concrete plan. And for all bidders: if you receive a negative mark that applies equally to the competitor, that motive is challengeable. The reflex 'I lost by 1.38 points, not worth litigating' is wrong here — it is 3.5 out of 40 on the quality criterion alone, and that difference must be fully justified by reasons that show the comparison between bids.
The lesson
If your debriefing gives you three negatives on a criterion and at least one of them describes a weakness that is also present in the winning bid, you have a serious plea — even when the overall margin is small. Ask counsel to place each negative alongside the competitor's bid: reasoning can be 'global', but negatives are specific and must each stand on their own.
Ask yourself
You lose a quality criterion by 3-to-5 points and the reasoning lists three negatives: do those negatives apply to you exclusively, or do they (almost verbatim) also describe the winning bid? If the latter: extreme urgency is worth pursuing.
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 →