Parallel judgment on lot 2 Spy: the contracting authority's broad power to cancel and restart applies equally here
In the same SOFICO saga as judgment 258.032, but for lot 2 (Spy district), the Council of State confirms that Theis Marcel cannot claim the award: Article 85 of the procurement law allows the authority to abandon and restart the procedure with a corrected specification.
What happened?
This judgment mirrors 258.032 — same parties, same day, same reasoning — applied to lot 2 'district de Spy' of the SOFICO framework agreement. Facts run in parallel: December 2020 call for tenders with seven lots (price as sole criterion) and the mandatory annex 2 referring to Joint Committee 124. Eurogreen won lot 2 in August 2021. Theis Marcel obtained a first suspension through judgment no. 251.695 (September 2021), sister of 251.696 for lot 5. SOFICO withdrew and re-awarded Eurogreen in June 2022, only to be suspended again in July 2022 (judgment no. 254.279, sister of 254.278). On 26 August 2022, SOFICO made the identical choice as for lot 5: abandon the award and restart. In March 2023, a new tender followed with specification 22-5124 (no annex 2). Theis Marcel — again the most expensive — lost to Bruno Sandri on 29 September 2023 and challenged in extreme urgency. The three grounds are verbatim those of 258.032: breach of the 'clear act' doctrine, breach of the res judicata of judgments 254.278/279, and insufficient motivation regarding competition. The Council applied the same reasoning: Article 85 confers broad discretionary power; that power is not limited to exceptional cases; the July 2022 judgments did not impose an award to Theis Marcel; and restarting with a less confusing specification was prima facie legitimate. Rejection.
Why does this matter?
A parallel judgment like this shows the Council draws a coherent line across different lots of the same framework agreement. For bid managers it means that each lot is assessed individually, but a principled decision by the authority (here: cancel and restart) typically has the same legal standing across all affected lots.
The lesson
When an authority takes a decision affecting all lots of a framework agreement — like 'cancel and restart' — there is no point starting separate proceedings per lot with identical arguments. Courts will treat them in integrated fashion and consistently reject them. Choose your battles and consolidate where possible.
Ask yourself
About to file several parallel challenges? Check: do facts differ significantly across lots? If the core is identical, consider one consolidated challenge or one test case — faster and procedurally more efficient.
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 →