The evaluation methodology may surface only in the award decision — and an offer with '…' in its lists will cost you points
The Council of State rejects the appeal: the Region was not required to disclose its evaluation methodology in advance, and the ambiguities in Production's offer (non-exhaustive format list, external DTP graphic designer of unclear cost status, paid hotline) justified the point deductions.
What happened?
The Brussels Region, acting as a central purchasing body for 16 institutions, launched an open procedure on 21 March 2024 for FR-NL/NL-FR translation services. Two offers were deemed regular: Oneliner and Production. Final scores: 84.69 for Oneliner, 80 for Production — a 4.69 point difference. Production challenged 8.5 points across six sub-criteria before the Council of State. Its key argument: the scoring methodology (base 2.5/5 for complete and clear coverage, plus/minus 0.5 to 2 for added value or gaps) was only disclosed in the award decision, not in the specifications. The Council reaffirmed that the contracting authority is not required to disclose its evaluation methodology in advance, provided it is not arbitrary, does not distort the criteria, and is applied to all offers alike. Grievance by grievance: small plus points for Oneliner were justified (neural tools policy, second reviewer available on request rather than only on complaint, internal privacy protocol, longer availability, free after-hours delivery). Deductions from Production's score were justified: its 'non-exhaustive' list of supported file formats with trailing dots did not prove capacity to handle Wordfast .tmx/.txlf files; its external DTP freelancer's cost status was unclear; its hotline operates at extra charge. On subcriterion 1.1 (1.5 points contested) the Council declared the complaint inadmissible for lack of interest: even if Production won those points, it would not overtake the 4.69 gap. Application rejected.
Why does this matter?
Three lessons for every bid manager. One: the authority may reveal its exact scoring method in the award decision rather than the specifications. Two: 'non-exhaustive' lists with '...' are not protection — they are invitations to deduct. Three: when appealing a scoring decision, first count the points. If your contested total cannot overturn the ranking, your grounds are inadmissible regardless of merit.
The lesson
When writing a methodology for a quality criterion, avoid any expression that lets the evaluator doubt: 'other formats', 'non-exhaustive list', '...', 'among others'. Make your lists explicit. Explicitly state which services are free and included in the base price — referring to a general 'ancillary services included' clause is not enough. And before appealing on points: check whether the contested total closes the gap to the winner.
Ask yourself
In your last offer for a methodological quality criterion: is there any '...', 'non-exhaustive', 'among others', or 'on request at tariff'? If the evaluator applies a plus/minus point logic, where can they detect uncertainty in your offer? And could you close a 4-5 point gap if you appealed?
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 →