Suspension of geophysical soil survey framework agreement award to Ghent University — non-selection of TM Terra Engineering for lacking resistivity projects under company name inadequately motivated — technical capability to apply techniques must be assessed based on executing team members' experience not solely on company-name projects — competition restricted as three of five tenderers not selected
The Council of State suspended the Flemish Region's award of a geophysical soil survey framework agreement to Ghent University, ruling that rejecting TM Terra Engineering for lacking electrical resistivity projects in the company-name portfolio was inadequately motivated, since the capability to apply geophysical techniques can only be assessed through the education and experience of the individuals who will execute the contract, and the interpretation led to the aberrant result that projects by former team members no longer employed would qualify but current team expertise would not.
What happened?
The Flemish Region tendered a framework agreement for geophysical soil survey requiring four techniques (magnetometry, resistivity, GPR, EMI) proven by a portfolio of completed projects. Three of five tenderers were not selected for lacking resistivity evidence. Terra Engineering's team member P. had completed five resistivity projects while employed elsewhere, but the authority rejected these as not being company-portfolio projects. The Council ruled that technical capability to apply techniques can only be assessed through team members' qualifications, not solely company-name projects, and that the interpretation disproportionately restricted competition.
Why does this matter?
When a selection criterion requires the ability to apply specific techniques, competence must be assessed through executing team members' experience — a company-name portfolio alone is not pertinent. Restricting evidence to company-name projects can disproportionately limit competition.
The lesson
Tenderers: clearly link team members' individual project experience to required techniques. Authorities: when requiring technical capability, consider that it can only be proven through individuals' experience — limiting evidence to company-name projects may be disproportionate.
Ask yourself
Does your selection criterion allow team members' individual experience as evidence? Does your interpretation restrict competition by requiring company-name projects only?
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 →