Communicating only points for the price criterion is motivation theatre: without the percentages, nobody can verify your 'rule of three' was correctly applied
The Council of State annuls via the expedited procedure (art. 17 §6 coordinated laws) the STIB decision of 3 May 2023 awarding a tax consultancy contract to Forecast Consulting, because the reasoned decision merely listed points per bidder for the price criterion without showing the proposed percentages or the application of the price formula.
What happened?
STIB (Brussels public transport) tendered specialized tax consultancy services for partial exemption of payroll tax for R&D projects (estimated 431,000 EUR over 4 years — just under European publication threshold). The cahier specified three award criteria: price via a 'rule of three' formula, plus two other criteria of 20 points each. Moneyoak and Forecast Consulting submitted offers; Forecast won on 3 May 2023. On 4 May, Moneyoak received the reasoned decision by email — but for the price criterion it listed only the points per bidder, without proposed percentages or formula application. Moneyoak filed a UDN on 19 May. Forecast intervened, arguing (1) wrong legal basis invoked (art. 4-5 instead of 29/1), (2) no interest since ranking wouldn't change, (3) special-sectors require lighter motivation. STIB argued the missing percentages were in a later 26 May version — a notification defect not affecting legality. On 21 June 2023 (arrest 256.885), the Council rejected all these arguments: other grounds remained validly invoked (motivation law art. 2-3); interest in the moyen is about lesion, not outcome; even with special-sectors flexibility, the motivation was indigent beyond any reasonable threshold. Suspension ordered. When neither STIB nor Forecast requested 'poursuite' within 30 days, the act was annulled under the expedited procedure on 27 November 2023. STIB pays 994 EUR costs; Forecast pays 150 EUR intervention fee.
Why does this matter?
This ruling warns every contracting authority that motivates its price criterion with only point scores. The logic 'I calculated, here are the points' is not enough. A reasoned decision must let the losing bidder reconstruct the calculation — meaning: all bidders' proposed prices (or percentages) and the formula application. A notification defect 'fixed' by a later message does not erase the original motivation defect. Special-sectors softness does not apply to the verifiability of objective price formulas. For evicted bidders: being unable to verify the formula is itself sufficient 'lesion' — you don't need to prove a correct motivation would change the ranking. Procedurally a textbook application of art. 17 §6: win a UDN, and if nobody requests 'poursuite' within 30 days, you get automatic annulment.
The lesson
For contracting authorities: with every price formula (rule of three, min/max, complex) your reasoned decision must include each bidder's proposed price AND the formula application — not just the final points. A separate 'reasoned decision' cannot hide indigence behind notification defects. For losing bidders: check whether the reasoned decision allows you to apply the price formula yourself. If not, you have a strong motivation ground. And if you win a UDN: know that art. 17 §6 gives you an automatic annulment within 30 days, provided respondent and intervener don't request 'poursuite'.
Ask yourself
As losing bidder: can you reconstruct the price criterion scoring from the reasoned decision, using the bestek formula? Are all bidders' proposed prices/percentages in there? If not: you have a motivation ground. For authorities: can a critical reader (auditor, lawyer) reconstruct the price ranking without additional information? If not: your motivation is insufficient.
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 →