Two sister companies, one signature and a score of 5/10 on a 0-2-4-6-8-10 scale: double suspension
The Council of State suspends the award of a 6.7 million euro framework contract for police trousers to Sioen Nederland because the federal police inadequately reasoned the link between Sioen NV and Sioen Nederland BV, and because one competitor (Seyntex) received intermediate scores on an evaluation scale that only allowed even-numbered points.
What happened?
Late 2021, the federal police launched a framework contract (cahier 2022 R3 083) for 'new generation' police trousers for the integrated police and defence — estimated 6,720,780 EUR HTVA, open procedure, 7 award criteria. Twelve bidders. On 14 July 2023, the contract was awarded to Sioen Nederland BV (83.33/100), followed by Sioen NV (71.35), Seyntex NV (66.40) and Cerbul SRL (65.19, fourth). Cerbul filed an extreme-urgency suspension. The opening plea: Sioen Nederland BV and Sioen NV are part of the same group (Sioen Industries — Sihold), Sioen NV is the sole shareholder of Sioen Nederland, two of the four directors sit on both boards, and B.V. — sitting on both boards — signed both offers. Yet both offers were declared regular with the brief reasoning: 'the offers of Cerbul SRL, Seyntex NV, Sioen NV, Sioen Nederland BV are regular'. The contracting authority had questioned Sioen NV about the link (confidential piece C.2) but didn't reflect that analysis in the award decision. First hurdle: standing. Cerbul ranked fourth — even if both Sioen entities fell, Seyntex (third) would remain. But Cerbul, in an additional letter of 22 August, raised a second grievance: for two award criteria ('comfort/ease of use' and 'aesthetics/look'), the evaluation methodology (set on 21 October 2021, before publication) provided a 6-tier scale — 0/2/4/6/8/10 points, each with a specific description. Seyntex however got 5/10 for BOTH criteria. Cerbul calculated: 4/10 instead of 5/10 on the first criterion meant 9 points instead of 7.2 after weighting, a gap of 1.8 points — already enough to put Seyntex below Cerbul. The Council of State followed Cerbul on both fronts. On linked companies: the CJEU (C-531/16) prohibits automatic exclusion, BUT when objective indicators exist (same group, common directors, identical signatory) the contracting authority MUST actively verify whether the offers are autonomous and independent. And that verification must translate into specific reasoning — a mere 'OK' or 'regular' doesn't suffice when the file itself contains doubt-raising elements. On intermediate scores: by awarding 5/10 where the methodology only foresaw even values, the authority implicitly added intermediate tiers AFTER the methodology was set — breaching the equality principle and patere legem quam ipse fecisti. Both pleas serious. Award suspended.
Why does this matter?
Two lessons for the price of one judgment. First: for procurers using pre-structured point scales (value scales, tiers) — deviating means breaching your own methodology. The 'we wanted more nuance' trick fails if the original methodology explicitly said 'the following scale'. Second: with linked bidders both submitting, the Council demands much more than an email and a 'regular'. The award decision must show that you actually tested and weighed the bidders' answers. For bid managers: if your competitor represents linked companies, ask in your post-award debrief for the specific reasoning — it's often missing.
The lesson
If you set an evaluation scale with tiers (e.g. 0/2/4/6/8/10), stick to it strictly — no intermediate scores 'for more nuance'. Want 11 levels? Write 0 to 10. With linked companies: question them, document their answer, and reason in the award decision itself why you find their offers regular. A general 'are regular' under a table is a time bomb.
Ask yourself
Before signing your award decision: (1) does your award report contain a score that does NOT appear in the original methodology tiers? If yes: explicitly justify the methodology change or correct to the right tier. (2) Do two or more bidders have common directors, the same shareholder or the same signatory? If yes: does your award decision contain a specifically reasoned paragraph on why their offers were found autonomous and independent? Neither? Suspension likely.
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 →