Mentioning 'our trusted partner' in your method statement = implicitly relying on third-party capacity — UEA or no UEA
T&D Security loses the City of Ghent parking surveillance tender because their method statement names a licensed alarm centre (nv P.G.) as a partner without filing a UEA and capacity-commitment letter for that partner — result: substantial irregularity and mandatory annulment of the offer.
What happened?
The City of Ghent tendered a service contract for surveillance of nine parking facilities operated by its Mobility Department. The work involved static surveillance (resident agents in 'core' garages) and mobile surveillance (two roving agents covering six 'remote' parkings, 24/7). The selection criterion required 'proof of a licence under the Act of 2 October 2017 on private and special security' — without specifying which sub-licences (static, mobile, alarm centre) were required. The technical clauses specified that 'all alarms' from remote parkings must be received by a central dispatch which then sends mobile agents to intervene. Two firms bid: T&D Security and Securitas. T&D was licensed for static and mobile surveillance but not for 'alarm centre management'. Their method statement read: 'T&D Group also works with the independent licensed alarm centre [nv P.G.] as a trusted partner. By combining the in-house dispatch and the alarm centre, T&D Security is highly accessible in case of problems.' For nv P.G., no UEA and no commitment letter were filed — those documents were filed for nv Q.B., which T&D relied on for financial capacity. The award report concluded that T&D was implicitly relying on P.G.'s capacity for the alarm centre function and declared the offer substantially irregular under art. 76, §1, fourth para., 2° of the Royal Decree on Awards 2017. The contract went to Securitas. T&D filed an extreme-urgency suspension. The Council of State (12th Chamber, presided by Inge Vos) rejected both grounds. On transparency: read together, the contract object, the technical clauses on central dispatch and the definition of 'alarm centre' in art. 2, 23° of the 2017 Act let a professional security firm understand that an alarm-centre licence was needed too. On reliance: by presenting the alarm-centre/dispatch combination as their operational solution, T&D effectively relied on P.G.'s capacity — 'incidentally' was not a defence. No UEA + no commitment letter = substantial irregularity = mandatory annulment in an open procedure.
Why does this matter?
Two uncomfortable principles for bid managers are strictly applied here. First: contracting authorities don't have to spell out every sub-licence — a professional in the sector is expected to read the selection criterion through the lens of the applicable legislation and the actual scope of the contract. A reference to 'the Act of 2 October 2017' implies all the sub-licences needed to perform the actual work. Second: whether you are 'relying on a third party's capacity' is determined by what your offer says, not by what you later claim to have meant. A 'trusted partner' fulfilling a regulatory requirement you cannot fulfil yourself is a third party you rely on — full stop. No UEA, no commitment letter = substantial irregularity, and in an open procedure there is no escape clause: art. 76, §3 mandates annulment.
The lesson
As a bidder: for every entity whose capacity, certificate or licence you cite in your offer — even if you call it 'partner' or 'collaboration' — file a UEA and a signed commitment letter. List them in the right field of the bid form and in the UEA. Don't rely on phrases like 'incidentally' for protection. As a contracting authority: a generic reference to applicable licensing legislation is sufficient as a selection criterion, provided the contract object and technical clauses make clear which sub-activities are required.
Ask yourself
Read your own offer through the eyes of an evaluation committee: do you name — anywhere, in the method statement, technical description, CVs, or in a phrase like 'we work with...' — a third party holding a regulatory licence, certificate or capacity that you do not hold yourself? If yes: that party belongs in your UEA bundle, with a signed commitment.
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 →