A scoring formula that amplifies point differences is allowed — provided the tender documents disclose it upfront
The Council of State rejects an appeal against the award of a €125 million Flemish postal services framework agreement and rules that tender documents may rescale scores on a qualitative criterion so the best bid automatically receives 100% — even if this significantly amplifies the point differences.
What happened?
The Flemish Facilitair Bedrijf agency tendered a framework agreement for universal postal services, max value €125 million, divided into 15 lots via a sui generis procedure. Lot A1 (complex buildings, max €8M) was awarded to Ipex; lot A2 (simple buildings, max €6M) went to Bpost. Postalia Belgium, ranked third, filed an emergency suspension request. Postalia raised three grounds. First, the scoring formula: for the quality criterion (40 points) the tender provided that the best 'provisional global score' would automatically receive the maximum and other bids would be rescaled pro rata — amplifying the differences. Second, the assessment of its liability proposal: Postalia's detailed proposal received a 'minus', Ipex's vague proposal a 'limited plus'. Third, execution capacity: Ipex and its subcontractor GMS allegedly lacked the logistical infrastructure to process the Flemish government's postal volumes digitally. The Council of State rejected every ground. The scoring formula was clearly described in the tender so Postalia could account for it; the contracting authority has broad discretion to set its assessment method, particularly to avoid letting the purely quantitative price criterion dominate. The global assessment rested on six elements — selective criticism of one element cannot unseat the global score. Capacity complaints are opportunistic, not legality-based. The appeal was dismissed; Postalia was ordered to pay €994 in costs and Bpost €150.
Why does this matter?
Losing bidders instinctively focus on the one place where they scored lower — that single 'minus' on liability, that one line on flexibility. This judgment makes two things clear: (1) under a global assessment the score rests on the interplay of all elements, not on one of them, and (2) any clause in the tender about score calculation or reweighting creates an expectation you cannot escape later. Realistically assessing your chance to challenge an award means understanding the score architecture as a whole, not one local rating.
The lesson
Before challenging an award on your qualitative score, ask yourself: would I be ranked first if this single element were corrected? If not, your ground is weak. Complaining about one of six elements while losing globally is a knife without a handle. And if the tender contains a recalculation or normalisation formula, simulate its effect upfront across multiple scenarios — pleading 'unexpected effects' afterwards is a losing argument.
Ask yourself
Did you test the scoring formula with realistic scenarios before submitting? Concretely: if a competitor scores 10% higher on a quality criterion, how many points do you lose net after rescaling? If you cannot answer that on submission day, you are behind.
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 →