A retracted award does not reset your UDN clock: you have 15 days for the replacement decision — not one more
The Council of State declares ARAMIS's extension of its extreme-urgency action to the replacement award decision of 21 October 2023 inadmissible due to lateness (filed on day 18 whereas article 23 of the 17 June 2013 act allows only 15 days), and shelves the case sine die regarding the retracted original decision of 13 October 2023.
What happened?
RTBF launched a public services tender for IT and media business consultancy (26 lots, framework agreement, bestek POE2023.027). ARAMIS submitted an offer for lot 8 (BackEnd Java/Full Stack Dev). On 13 October 2023, five participants were designated for lot 8; ARAMIS was not. Decision communicated 16 October. ARAMIS filed a UDN action on 31 October. Meanwhile, on 21 October, RTBF retracted its own decision and replaced it with a new award decision (minor ranking corrections, but ARAMIS still not retained). New decision communicated 23 October. On 10 November, ARAMIS filed a supplementary request to extend her action to the 21 October decision. The Council ruled: (1) The first decision is effectively retracted; that part of the action loses its object but is shelved sine die until retraction becomes definitive. (2) The extension to the 21 October decision is inadmissible: article 23 of the 17 June 2013 act imposes a 15-day deadline from communication of the decision. Communicated 23 October, filed 10 November = 18 days. Too late. Moreover, ARAMIS already knew about the new decision when she filed her original UDN on 31 October — extensions are only allowed for acts posterior or unknown at the initial filing. Costs reserved. Confidentiality of offers maintained.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is a playbook for the 'retraction + new decision' cycle in UDN procedures. Contracting authorities regularly retract their own award decisions — sometimes to avoid a UDN, sometimes to fix a correctable defect. For an evicted bidder who has already filed a UDN against the first decision, it seems logical to 'take along' the new decision via an extension of the action's object. This ruling makes clear: that doesn't work. The 15-day clock runs afresh from communication of the new decision, and an 'extension' within a pending action cannot bypass it.
The lesson
If the authority retracts and replaces its award decision while your UDN is pending: (1) file an entirely new UDN against the new decision, (2) do not rely on automatic extension, (3) stay within 15 days of communication of the new act. If you already know of the replacement decision when filing your first UDN: include it in your initial petitum as explicit co-object — you will have no escape route via a later extension request.
Ask yourself
Has your award decision been retracted while your UDN action is pending? Calculate when the new decision was communicated and count 15 calendar days. Have you filed a new UDN within that deadline? If not, stop relying on 'extension' and seek legal advice on alternative procedures (e.g., ordinary annulment with damages).
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 →