ICT management Sint-Truiden: annulment – assessment methodology with sub-criteria and own scoring scale not established in advance, and rule of three incorrectly applied distorting the ratio between award criteria
The Council of State annuls the award decision of the city of Sint-Truiden for ICT infrastructure management, user support and equipment supply, because the contracting authority used an assessment methodology with sub-criteria and a separate 10-point scoring per element that was not established in advance nor announced in the specifications, and because it applied the rule of three to rescale the highest-scoring tender to 100%, thereby distorting the ratio between the award criteria.
What happened?
The city of Sint-Truiden tendered ICT services via an open procedure with two award criteria: price (50 points, rule of three) and approach plan (50 points). The specifications only stated that the second criterion would be assessed based on the proposed approach for the technical specifications (chapter 3), without specifying any assessment methodology. In the award report, the authority had converted three of the five chapter 3 sections into separate sub-criteria, each scored on 10 points with sub-elements also on 10 points, using an ordinal scale not mentioned in the specifications. The winning tenderer Trius scored 17.7/30 raw points on quality. The authority then applied the rule of three: Trius's score was rescaled to 100% (= 50/50 points), and the other tenderers were proportionally recalculated. This produced final scores of 79.5% for Trius and 69.2% for Appsys. The Council found both grounds of the plea well-founded: (1) the assessment methodology with sub-criteria and separate scoring was not established in advance — the specifications suggested a global qualitative assessment, not a systematic sub-criterion scoring; (2) rescaling the highest score to 100% via the rule of three distorted the ratio between criteria — with correct calculation, Appsys would have scored 61.33/100 versus 59/100 for Trius. The moral interest of a passed-over tenderer suffices for an annulment action even after contract execution. Annulment ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies two key rules: an authority cannot use a post factum assessment methodology with sub-criteria and point allocations not announced in the specifications; and the rule of three must not be applied to quality criteria by rescaling the highest score to 100%, as this distorts the specified ratio between price and quality.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: specify your sub-criteria and scoring methodology in the specifications before tender opening. Do not apply the rule of three to quality criteria by rescaling the top score to 100%. As a tenderer: an undisclosed assessment methodology is a serious ground for annulment, even after contract execution.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: is my assessment methodology established before tender opening? Are sub-criteria and their weights in the specifications? Am I applying the rule of three correctly? As a tenderer: does the methodology in the award report match the specifications?
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 →