The cheapest and best-quality bid still loses. The culprit: how the price criterion was split
The Council of State dismisses Canon's challenge against the award of the Farys printer fleet framework to Ricoh, despite Canon submitting both the lowest overall price and the highest-quality offer — because Farys split the price criterion into three sub-criteria (devices 50%, management software 10%, additional services 5%) based on a documented market study and needs survey, and the weights stand 'in reasonable relation' to the likely importance of each component.
What happened?
In March 2022 Farys launched a competitive procedure with negotiation for a five-year framework for the entire printer fleet, with a potential value of EUR 45 million (maximum EUR 54 million). After elimination of Xerox, Canon and Ricoh remained for lot 1. The specifications split the 65-point price criterion into three sub-criteria: device purchase/rental/maintenance (50%), management software (10%), additional services (5%). The 'Quality of offer' criterion weighed 35%. Final offers produced a striking pattern. Devices: Canon EUR 28.25M, Ricoh EUR 30.75M — Canon cheaper. Management software: Canon EUR 2.91M, Ricoh just EUR 820,014 — Ricoh 72% cheaper. Additional services: small advantage to Ricoh. On quality, Canon scored 95/100 across all three sub-criteria, Ricoh 87.50/80/90. But the weighting structure flipped the result: Ricoh higher on price (34.68 vs 30.32), lower on quality (30.13 vs 33.25), final 64.81 vs 63.57. Canon lost by 1.24 points despite being globally cheaper and qualitatively higher. Two pleas: disproportionate sub-criteria weighting (Canon argued real distribution was 94/6/0.14, not 77/15/8) and Ricoh's near-quarter-of-Canon software price should have triggered a price justification. Both rejected. On weighting: weights must reasonably reflect the LIKELY importance of each performance, not the actual prices submitted. Farys substantiated the weights with figures from the previous framework (8% software share, doubling to 15% in six months), a needs survey of buyers and a market study consulting Canon herself. On the price gap: an obvious technical explanation — Canon offers cloud-based software (more expensive due to licensing) while Ricoh offers server-based (cheaper). Specifications required no more than server-based; Canon's cloud choice was strategic and rewarded in the quality scoring. The price check was documented in confidentially filed Excel tables. Action dismissed, costs EUR 994 against Canon plus EUR 150 against intervener Ricoh.
Why does this matter?
This judgment is a masterclass in how splitting the price criterion can flip a tender outcome. A bidder who only optimises overall price and quality may still lose because of sub-criterion weights. The lesson for bidders: study a split price criterion as carefully as the award criteria themselves, and tune your strategy to it — not just to minimising total price. For contracting authorities it is encouragement to substantiate weightings firmly with prior contract data and needs surveys. The technical explanation for the 72% price gap — cloud vs server-based — shows that a substantial price difference need not be an abnormal price if there is demonstrable technological distinction behind it.
The lesson
If you bid on a contract whose price criterion is split into sub-components with different weights, calculate before submission what an aggressive price on a low-weighted component yields against a lower price on a high-weighted one. And during the pre-tender phase, ask for the substantiation of the weights — if it is missing or weak, that is a foothold. But do not expect the Council of State to automatically correct because actual price distribution diverges from the weighting structure.
Ask yourself
With a split price criterion: did the contracting authority substantiate the weight ratio with (a) figures from previous contracts, (b) a needs survey among potential buyers, or (c) a market study? If not, raise it before the question deadline — not at award.
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 →