Want to challenge a technical evaluation? First calculate whether your grievances can bridge the score gap — otherwise you lose your standing
The Council of State rejects Frontforce's appeal against the award of a dispatching software contract to BV Verdi: one branch was declared inadmissible because a hypothetical recalculation showed that the 7.11-point score gap could not be bridged even if all grievances were upheld.
What happened?
The Vlaams-Brabant West Emergency Services Zone tendered software for zonal dispatching via competitive procedure with negotiation. Four award criteria: price (40), demo (30, 60% threshold), functionalities at 24 months (20, 60% threshold), maintenance (10). The contract was awarded on 8 June 2020 to BV Verdi with 87.11/100 versus Frontforce 80/100. Frontforce challenged. First plea (lack of formal motivation): rejected — motivation by reference to the inspection report, attached to the registered notification, is admissible. Second plea (equal treatment, due care, material motivation), in four branches. First, third and fourth branches (relating to the demo criterion) rejected on the merits. Second branch (challenging the scoring of five general functionalities under criterion 3): the Council does the crucial calculation. Maximum scores for the five contested functionalities total 9.1667 points (out of 240); Frontforce had 2.5. If all grievances were upheld, Frontforce would gain at most 6.6667 extra points, which translates to 4 extra points on the criterion conversion (from 12/20 to 16/20). The total score gap is 7.11 points. Four points cannot bridge that. Frontforce has no remaining standing for this branch — declared inadmissible. Appeal rejected; restitution damages also rejected (article 25/3 §3 general procedural regulation).
Why does this matter?
Mandatory reading for bidders considering a challenge against a technical evaluation. The Council always performs a calculation: if all your grievances were fully upheld, would you win? If not, your branch is declared inadmissible for lack of standing — even if the grievances were substantively meritorious. Before launching, run an internal calculation per criterion and per functionality. Calculate the maximum potential extra points and check whether they bridge the gap. If not, focus on other levers: defects in the specifications, fundamental procedural flaws, or grievances against the regularity of the winning offer.
The lesson
Before filing an annulment claim against a technical award, run a hypothetical recalculation. For each contested rating: how many points can I maximally gain if the Council finds my grievance valid? Sum these maximum gains, compare to the score gap. If the potential gain does not bridge the gap, don't only raise substantive grievances — find arguments against the entire evaluation methodology or against the regularity of the winning offer.
Ask yourself
Make a table: per contested functionality or scoring rule, your current score, the maximum score, the difference. Add all differences and check whether they bridge the total point gap. They don't? Substantive attacks on individual scores will be insufficient — you need to attack the whole methodology or the regularity of the winning offer.
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 →