'Yes / no / in order': checkboxes in a table are no motivation for technical regularity — certainly not when the Synergrid homologation is wobbly
The Council of State suspends RESA's 10 million-euro award for 60,000 LED luminaires to Axioma-Lightwell and Schreder because the evaluation report substantiates the technical regularity of the winning tenders merely with three checkboxes reading 'non', 'non' and 'en ordre' — whereas at the hearing it emerged that the driver in the winning offer is not the one with which the luminaire obtained its Synergrid 005 homologation.
What happened?
RESA — the Liège electricity grid operator — launched a tender at the end of 2021 for the supply of 60,000 LED luminaires for public lighting under a competitive negotiated procedure in the special sectors (art. 120 of the 2016 Belgian procurement act). Two lots: lot 1 for 40,000 luminaires (estimated at 6.67 million euros), lot 2 for 20,000 (estimated at 3.33 million). Six candidates were selected, five submitted tenders, three were allowed to submit a Best and Final Offer with negotiation on price only. On 16 November 2022 the board of RESA Innovation et Technologie awarded lot 1 to the Belgian-Dutch joint venture Axioma-Lightwell for 5,609,000 euros net, and lot 2 to Schreder BE for 2,996,264 euros net. Signify Belgium — the third BAFO bidder — filed an extreme-urgency action on 5 December 2022 with, as its first and decisive ground: the authority never truly examined the technical regularity of the offers. Clause III.1 of the specifications required the luminaire to be 'homologué 005-Synergrid' prior to award (Synergrid is the federation of Belgian grid operators, which certifies luminaires for a specific combination of housing + LED module + driver). Yet in the evaluation report, all that appeared was a table with, for each offer, checkboxes 'substantial irregularities? non' and 'non-substantial irregularities? non' with 'en ordre' as the only comment. No technical conformity analysis, no checklist, no report. In an earlier email of 30 November 2022 RESA had in fact written to Signify that the standstill would be extended by three months 'afin de nous permettre d'effectuer les tests requis des échantillons de luminaires, comme le prévoit notre cahier des charges' — an express written admission that those tests had not yet been carried out. On 1 December 2022 RESA tried to retract this email with 'considérez ce mail comme nul et non avenu'. At the hearing the icing on the cake came: the driver that Axioma-Lightwell offered is not the same driver (different brand and different model) as the one accompanying their luminaire in the official Synergrid list C4-11-3-a (v2015). Without an answer to that simple question, RESA could not possibly conclude with a single 'en ordre' box that the Synergrid 005 homologation was secured. The Council finds prima facie that RESA breached its verification obligation and formal motivation duty; serious ground; suspension ordered.
Why does this matter?
Many contracting authorities build their evaluation report in Excel with a column system where each offer is ticked 'OK / not OK', with 'in order' or 'conform spec' as motivation. Where no competitor points to a concrete irregularity, in practice that often passes. This ruling shows that as soon as one technical requirement in the spec calls for explanation — and a homologation requirement with detailed specifications is precisely such a requirement — the authority must provide that explanation in the evaluation report itself. For bidders who cannot see competitors' offers (confidential) this is moreover a rescue: you do not need to prove the irregularity concretely, it is enough to point to a prima facie difficulty overlooked in the report. The Council then inspects the confidential documents — and finds the driver discrepancy.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: build a genuine technical regularity analysis into your evaluation report, per offer. Not 'in order' but a concrete finding per specification (which certificate, which document, which feature of the offer). This holds especially for homologation requirements (Synergrid, ECE, ETA, CE+, …) that depend on a specific combination of components — check that every component in the offer matches the one for which the certificate was issued. And: stop sending emails saying 'we still have to do tests' before the standstill; once written, it is on the record. As a bidder: when the evaluation report only contains 'en ordre' or 'non' boxes with no backing, ask explicitly for the technical regularity check — and read homologation certificates with a fine comb (for which combination was it delivered?).
Ask yourself
Does your evaluation report contain, per regularity question, only a 'yes/no' box or a standard phrase such as 'en ordre' or 'conform spec'? And does the tender concern a homologation requirement (Synergrid, ECE, CE+ for specific combinations)? If both answers are 'yes': your motivation is exposed and you have probably not checked whether the homologation covers the exact components in the offer.
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 →