A 'senior' on your CV without dates: De Watergroep may award 'good' instead of 'very good'
The Council of State rejects D-Studio's appeal against the award of a BIM framework agreement to BIM Plan: for the 'project team experience' quality criterion (30 points), an authority may rate an offer 'good' (10/30) when concrete dates are missing from CVs — the 'senior' label on its own is not proof.
What happened?
De Watergroep (Flemish water utility) tendered a framework agreement for 'BIM (Building Information Modelling) implementation guidance' under ISO 19650, with a 5-year maximum value of EUR 1,675,000, not split into lots. Three regular offers remained: D-Studio (EUR 1,270,400 — lowest price, 38.74/40), BIM Plan (EUR 1,439,692.80 — 34.19/40) and Geo-IT (EUR 1,230,400 — 40/40). The quality criterion 'Project team experience' (30 points) was scored on an ordinal scale: excellent = 30, very good = 20, good = 10, sufficient = 0. D-Studio scored 'good' (10), BIM Plan 'very good' (20), Geo-IT 'sufficient' (0). On the third criterion 'Methodology' D-Studio and BIM Plan both scored 20. Final: BIM Plan 74.19, D-Studio 68.74, Geo-IT 50. On 28 February 2024 BIM Plan was awarded the contract. D-Studio filed an extreme-urgency suspension with two grounds. The first attacked the 'good' rating: it argued the team had the required experience and the motivation was contradictory. The Council went through the award report in detail. For three proposed individuals (S.B., R.D., K.N.) concrete dates were missing from CVs. D-Studio argued that the label 'senior' implies more than 5 years' experience (as the specifications themselves defined: senior = 5+ years, medior = 3-5 years). The Council rejected this: a bidder must show in its offer, with CVs, how many years a candidate has in the specifically required role — so the authority can verify whether the 'senior' or 'medior' qualification is justified. For F.M. (BIM Modeller Medior), the CV showed activity since September 2021 — 'more than 2 years' at offer date (October 2023), while 'medior' presumed at least 3. A justified negative point. D-Studio also proposed the same persons for several back-up roles (V.M. as back-up of both BIM-Adviser Medior and — as second back-up — BIM-Coordinator Senior; A.L. as back-up of both BIM-Coordinator Medior and BIM Modeller Medior). The Council confirmed this was rightly a negative point: in case of dropout, no real redundancy. By comparison, BIM Plan proposed distinct people for each function, with clear dates. The motivation for 'good' (10/30) was therefore sufficient. Legal certainty arguments (because the authority had not asked for clarifications during earlier stages) failed: questions during selection concern selection, not award, and silence during negotiations cannot be construed as a fixed position. The second ground attacked the criteria themselves: D-Studio argued price (40 points) did not in practice weigh more heavily than the two quality criteria (combined 60), because the price formula clustered scores closely while the ordinal scale produced large jumps. The Council confirmed weights and methodology were known in advance, that an ordinal scale with four values is common and acceptable, and that having the lowest price does not automatically lead to award — that is exactly how price-quality balance works. Both grounds were dismissed; the suspension was rejected.
Why does this matter?
The ordinal scale — excellent / very good / good / sufficient, mapped to 30 / 20 / 10 / 0 points — is widespread and stands as long as the verbal motivation supports the score. This ruling shows how sharp the difference between 'good' and 'very good' can be, and what an authority may invoke. Bidders: never trust labels (senior, medior, expert) when bidding on an 'experience' criterion. Make every CV concrete with start and end dates. Provide a separate back-up for each role — recycling the same name costs points. State per reference what specific role you played (advice, coordination, implementation) and how many years it produced. Procedural insight: missing questions during negotiation or selection cannot be invoked as 'the authority found it OK' — authorities may stay silent and only formalise their assessment in the award report.
The lesson
When bidding on a contract where 'project team experience' is an award criterion, write explicit dates (from-to) per role per project on every CV. Do not rely on 'senior' or 'medior' labels — they set a minimum, but without factual support an authority will doubt them. Give each function a unique back-up. Describe per reference project what specific role you or your team member played — not just 'we were involved'. And do not expect a flaw to be raised during negotiations: it's up to you to spontaneously build a careful offer.
Ask yourself
Pick a recent or upcoming offer for a 'project team experience' criterion. For every proposed person: are there concrete start/end dates per role? For every function and back-up: is it ANOTHER person? For every reference project: is the specific experience (advice / implementation / coordination / management) named? Three yeses = you're solid. One no = points loss ahead.
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 →