Listing technical differences and then giving everyone 24 out of 30: that is how you neutralise your own quality criterion
The Belgian Council of State annuls the award of an artificial-turf pitch contract because the contracting authority listed clear technical differences between the three bids in its award report, but then gave all three an identical 24/30 for 'quality' — and only a 0.5-point difference for 'guarantees' despite warranty differences of up to ten years.
What happened?
The Arendonk municipal authority (Autonoom Gemeentebedrijf Arendonk) launched an open procedure for the construction of an artificial-turf pitch at Sports Park Heikant, estimated at €613,196 to €629,521 incl. VAT. Three bidders competed: Sportinfrabouw, Scheerlinck Sport and Lesuco. The award criteria were price (50 pts), turf quality (30 pts), maintenance cost (15 pts) and warranties (5 pts). The contract was first awarded to Sportinfrabouw in May 2019 for €617,803.43; after Scheerlinck Sport lodged an appeal, the decision was withdrawn and on 31 October 2019 the contract was re-awarded to the same bidder based on a revised award report. For the quality criterion, that new report meticulously listed the technical differences between the bids: Sportinfrabouw's backing fabric (260 g/m²) and Lesuco's (252 g/m²) were nearly twice as heavy as Scheerlinck's (160 g/m²); Scheerlinck offered a thicker fibre (410 micron vs 362-366); Sportinfrabouw offered more fibres per m² (133,686). Every strength and weakness was spelled out. Yet the authority concluded that the bids were 'overall equivalent' and gave all three — both their basic and their variant offers — the same score of 24/30. For the warranty criterion, the contrast was even starker. Scheerlinck offered 25 years of factory warranty on the shock pad (vs 20 for Sportinfrabouw), a 10-year FIFA Quality guarantee (vs 5) and an additional 10-year warranty on the equipment (fencing, goals, dugouts) against corrosion — something neither competitor offered. The authority still awarded Scheerlinck only 4.5/5 versus 4/5 for Sportinfrabouw: a difference of just half a point. The Council of State sided with Scheerlinck. Award criteria, the ruling emphasises, are not technical specifications you either meet or fail — they are yardsticks for comparing bids, and documented differences must translate proportionally into the scoring. A uniform score across the board is possible, but only after a concrete trade-off of pluses and minuses has been made and explained. The XIIth chamber annulled the 31 October 2019 award decision and ordered the authority to pay costs.
Why does this matter?
For bid managers, this is the classic pattern to spot when drafting a challenge: an award report that dutifully lists technical differences and then 'reasons them away' with phrases like 'overall equivalent' or 'each bid has pluses and minuses'. Such phrases are not an assessment; they are an escape hatch. For contracting authorities, the lesson is equally sharp: if you include a 30-point quality criterion and spend three pages discussing technical differences, you have committed yourself to carrying those differences through to the numbers. A ten-year extra FIFA warranty is not a rounding error to be absorbed by half a point on five.
The lesson
If you are the losing bidder and the award report says 'all bids have pluses and minuses' while awarding identical scores for the quality criterion, put two things side by side: the concrete technical differences the report itself names, and how those differences are reflected in the scoring. If the differences are spelled out but the scores are identical, you have a formal motivation ground. If you are the contracting authority: a 30% quality weighting plus an acknowledged 260 g/m² vs 160 g/m² backing fabric cannot add up to an identical score without a concrete, written trade-off explaining why the pluses and minuses mathematically cancel out.
Ask yourself
Take your award report and count how often all bidders receive the same score for a quality criterion. If that happens, find the paragraph describing the differences between bids. For every named difference (heavier fabric, longer warranty, extra feature): does it say explicitly why this difference produces no or only a specific point difference? If not, you are running the risk that the Council of State will find you have neutralised the criterion.
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 →