School logo on cleaners' uniforms is no hidden sub-award criterion — three rounds of re-awarding confirm it
The Council of State rejects Iris Facility Solutions' suspension claim against GO! Scholengroep Huis 11: assessing 'staff policy', 'wearing the school logo on work clothes' and 'mandatory refresher training' under the award criterion 'quality control' does not create hidden sub-criteria as long as those elements were listed in the specifications as attention points.
What happened?
GO! Scholengroep Huis 11 issued a cleaning contract for its school buildings. Three bidders. The 'quality control' award criterion (20 points) used a notable scoring method: the most complete offer gets 20, others lose 3 points per missing element. The specifications listed concrete aspects: number and frequency of controls, communication, flexibility, material condition, and — critically — staff policy. ISS Facility Services scored 20/20, Iris Facility Solutions 17/20, Jette Clean 14/20. ISS won, Iris filed for extreme urgency. This was already the third award decision: the first (6 April) was withdrawn, the second (3 May) was challenged and also withdrawn. The third, 14 June 2023 with revised report, was now under review. Iris's three sub-pleas: (1) 'staff policy' was a hidden sub-criterion with unknown weight; (2) wearing the school logo on cleaning uniforms had no link to quality control; (3) the score reasoning was deficient. The Council rejected all three. An aspect listed in the specifications as an evaluation element is not a sub-criterion just because it is systematically assessed per offer. The school logo legitimately counts because the school 'highly values cohesion' and considers that cleaning staff identifying with the school improves quality — within wide discretion. Reasoning was concrete: the report identified per element what was missing (no school logo, lesser working conditions, no mandatory annual refresher, only digital time registration without manual fallback). Iris argued its 'communication logbook' allowed manual time registration, but that logbook was in annex T (site organisation) not annex W (time registration). Second plea on environmental friendliness/sustainability (10 points): both got 10/10. Iris was 2.31 points behind on 100. To win, she needed ISS to lose at least 2 elements (= 2 points lost, since 2 points per missing element). One missing element would only drop ISS by 2 points — insufficient to bridge 2.31. Iris couldn't show even one missing element, let alone two. No legal interest → inadmissible. Application rejected.
Why does this matter?
Two important principles for those evaluating or preparing tenders. First: an award criterion with listed attention points is not a collection of stealth sub-criteria, even when each is assessed separately. The difference lies in independent weighting: sub-criteria carry numerical weight, attention points exist to surface differences without their own score. Second: under a 'deduction per missing element' method, an applicant before the Council of State must not only show that one element of the winner is debatable, but that enough elements are missing to flip the ranking.
The lesson
As contracting authority: list your evaluation elements explicitly under each main criterion in the specifications and reuse the same list in your evaluation report. The wording 'quality control will be assessed inter alia on the basis of [list]' shields you from the hidden sub-criteria reproach. As bidder: under a 'missing element' deduction method, calculate in advance whether the gap to the winner can be bridged per missing element — a suspension on one debatable element does not save you if the margin exceeds one deduction unit.
Ask yourself
Read your evaluation report after assessment: under each main criterion, do you address the same aspects as in the specifications? Do you give each aspect its own score (= sub-criterion, weight required) or do you use them to surface differences between offers (= attention point, no weight required)? As applicant: do the math — how many elements would the winner need to miss for your score to overtake?
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 →