What 'equivalent dimensions' means is in the specifications — not in your head: three projects with two Ku/Ka 6m Cassegrain antennas isn't an example, it's the definition
The Council of State rejects the extreme-urgency action of Spanish company Indra Sistemas against its non-selection for the Defense satellite antenna procurement (Singa IV): when the specifications precisely define what 'projects of equivalent dimension' means, the bidder cannot afterwards rely on a broader reading based on its general sector experience.
What happened?
Belgian Defense published on 1 October 2021 contract notice MRMP-C/P n°21CP828 — acquisition of equipment for the Signal Intelligence programs (Singa IV) including a multi-year maintenance contract, governed by the Defense Procurement Act of 13 August 2011. For technical capacity, the specifications (annex A1, rubric 3.b) require the candidate 'to provide proof of at least THREE projects of equivalent dimension in the past FIVE years', with the express precision: 'A project is accepted if it concerns an installation of at least TWO antennas of at least 6m (remotely controllable Cassegrain antenna in Ku or Ka band)'. Indra submitted its candidacy on 25 October 2021 with five references. On 10 March 2023, Defense decided not to select Indra on two grounds: (i) a tax fraud conviction on the criminal record (Tribunal Correctionnel of Madrid, 2019) and (ii) insufficient technical capacity: of the five references presented, only one met the requirements. Two references (1 and 4) concerned X-band antennas, one (2) a K/S antenna, and one (5) a maintenance contract. In its action, Indra raised four pleas — three against the tax-fraud ground, and a fourth against the technical-capacity exclusion. In that fourth plea, Indra argued that 'equivalent dimension' should be interpreted broadly, that its 500 SATCOM stations for the Spanish Defense Ministry and its maintenance experience were 'equivalent' given its sector expertise. The Council ruled that the specification does not give an example but a definition. By writing 'A project is accepted if it concerns…', Defense formulates the precise conditions a project must meet to count as 'equivalent'. A broader reading conflicts with the clear wording of annex 1A, rubric 3.b. Indra does not dispute that only one of its five references meets these conditions. The motivation is therefore clear, precise, adequate and consistent with the file. The first three pleas — concerning the tax-fraud ground — could not be examined: since the technical-capacity ground alone fully justifies the exclusion, Indra has no interest in challenging the other ground. Action rejected.
Why does this matter?
Many bidders — especially large players with broad sector experience — assume 'equivalent projects' is a soft requirement that their global expertise can satisfy. This ruling is a sober reminder: when the specifications explicitly define what 'equivalent' means, that definition covers everything. Sector knowledge, market reputation, or an impressive 'similar work' reference list does not help if the projects submitted don't meet the exact specifications. The ruling also reinforces a strategic principle: when an exclusion rests on multiple independent grounds, and one of those grounds alone fully justifies the exclusion, attacking the others without first knocking down the load-bearing one is futile.
The lesson
When you compile a reference list for a defense or complex technical contract, read twice what words the specifications use: are 'two 6m Ku/Ka antennas' an example or a definition? Rule of thumb: if the specifications write 'A project is accepted if…', it's a definition. Submit projects that exactly meet that definition — or motivate in detail why yours are equivalent (and be ready to defend that under judicial scrutiny). And if you face two exclusion grounds, focus your application on the load-bearing one — not on the most spectacular.
Ask yourself
Read your tender's technical capacity requirement aloud. Does it contain phrases like 'is accepted if', 'must provide proof of', followed by specific quantitative criteria? Then it's not an example — do your three references meet those criteria exactly? If not, motivate in writing in your candidacy why they are equivalent, project by project.
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 →