Rejection of challenge to portfolio assessment in stepped system — motivation concrete enough, no right to 'reasons for the reasons'
The Council of State rejects a graphic designer's challenge to their exclusion from the City of Antwerp's freelance partner pool, finding that the qualitative portfolio assessment (35% against a 65% threshold) was sufficiently concretely motivated and that merely contradicting the assessment did not rebut the presumption of legality.
What happened?
The City of Antwerp tendered a framework agreement for a pool of freelance partners through a simplified negotiated procedure with prior publication, divided into 10 lots (2024-2028, unit price contract). Lot 5 concerned print and digital media development (pool of 12 + 3 reserves). The specification used a stepped system: step 1 assessed portfolio quality on 100 points with a 65% minimum threshold; only those passing proceeded to step 2 (hourly price, also 100 points). The final score was calculated as (criterion 1 × 0.55) + (criterion 2 × 0.45). Forty tenderers submitted offers for lot 5, of which 38 were compliant. G.S., a graphic designer who had previously worked as a freelancer for the City, scored 35% — the lowest — with criticism of inaccurate brand identity applications, readability issues, cluttered layouts, insufficient colour and typography balance, uncleaned photo material, and imprecise technical files. Eighteen tenderers reached the 65% threshold. G.S. challenged the assessment in a single ground alleging breach of the duty to motivate, contesting each point and citing previous good assessments in 2014 and 2016. The Council rejected the reliance on Article 5(8) of the 2013 Act (applicable to irregular offers, which G.S.'s was not). On the merits, the Council held that motivation must be read as a whole, that the assessment elements directly related to the contract's subject matter, that G.S. was essentially requesting 'reasons for the reasons' (which the duty to motivate does not require), and that a mere difference of professional opinion does not rebut the presumption of legality. Previous assessments under different specifications were irrelevant.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies key principles for qualitative assessments: concise but concrete motivation suffices without 'reasons for the reasons'; motivation must be assessed as a whole; the presumption of legality is not rebutted by a mere difference of professional opinion; and previous good assessments under different specifications are irrelevant.
The lesson
Motivate qualitative assessments concretely but concisely — name specific shortcomings without providing 'reasons for the reasons'. As a tenderer, contesting each point individually is insufficient — show that the motivation as a whole cannot support the decision. A different professional opinion does not rebut the presumption of legality.
Ask yourself
Is your qualitative assessment concrete enough to give the tenderer insight into the reasons for their score? As a tenderer, can you demonstrate the assessment is manifestly unreasonable, or are you merely offering a different professional opinion?
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 →