Suspension request by Waterways Assistance against ADN expertise framework agreement award to G.V. rejected — assessment elements within quality criterion are not sub-award criteria — internal scoring document with weightings does not relate to challenged decision — emphasis on certificate renewal for extra experience not unreasonable — post-opening experience excluded — use of case study as internal document does not prove it was better
The Council of State rejected Waterways Assistance's urgent suspension request against De Vlaamse Waterweg's award of lot 2 (ADN expertise) of a cascade framework agreement, ruling that the assessment elements (required experience, extra experience, case study) were not sub-criteria with own weightings but part of a global evaluation, that an internal scoring document with separate weightings did not relate to the challenged decision, that emphasising certificate renewal in assessing extra experience was not unreasonable given rapidly changing ADN legislation, and that use of the case study as an internal working document did not prove it was better than the first-ranked tenderer's.
What happened?
De Vlaamse Waterweg tendered ADN expertise services by open procedure as a framework agreement with up to four contractors per lot in cascade ranking. Award criteria were price (50 points) and expert quality (50 points). After a first award was suspended and withdrawn, a new evaluation maintained the same ranking: G.V. first (86.74/100) and Waterways Assistance second (83.41/100). The 5-point quality gap was explained by G.V. demonstrating extra experience broadly (ADN certificate renewal every five years, recent classification society work) versus Waterways Assistance only partially (ADN safety advisor training followed but no exam taken). G.V.'s case study was also assessed as clearer and more complete. The first plea alleged hidden sub-criteria with weightings — rejected because the authority made a global assessment without arithmetic aggregation and the internal scoring document did not relate to the challenged decision. The second plea alleged insufficient consideration of experience and unequal treatment — rejected because the evaluation did consider all relevant experience, post-opening experience could not count, emphasis on certificate currency was reasonable given rapidly changing ADN legislation, and internal use of the applicant's case study did not prove it was better.
Why does this matter?
Assessment elements within an award criterion are not sub-criteria if the authority makes a global assessment without arithmetic aggregation. An internal scoring document inconsistent with the award report does not relate to the challenged decision. Emphasis on certificate currency is reasonable in rapidly changing regulatory domains. Post-opening experience cannot be considered.
The lesson
Tenderers: ensure your expert holds current certificates — completing training without sitting the exam can make the difference. Don't cite post-opening experience. Authorities: use assessment elements for global evaluation and ensure the award report reflects the final assessment, not internal scoring documents with separate weightings.
Ask yourself
Does your expert hold current certificates or only completed training without examination? Does your award report reflect a global assessment without arithmetic aggregation per element?
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 →