Parallel urgent suspension request by Siemens against SNCB's AM30 framework contract loses its purpose five days after earlier suspension in Alstom case
The Council of State dismisses Siemens' urgent suspension request against the designation of CAF as preferred bidder for SNCB's AM30 framework agreement because the same decision had already been suspended five days earlier on 17 April 2025 in ruling 263.012 at Alstom's request.
What happened?
On 28 February 2025 the SNCB board designated CAF as preferred bidder for the AM30 framework agreement — one of the largest Belgian rail procurement contracts, up to approximately 4.66 billion euros for electric trainsets. Alstom ranked second and Siemens third were placed in the 'waiting room'. Both Alstom and Siemens filed separate urgent suspension requests. Siemens' case was filed on 14 March 2025 with a hearing on 9 April. CAF and Alstom were admitted as intervening parties. However, on 17 April 2025 — five days before the Siemens hearing outcome — the Council of State already suspended the contested decision in ruling 263.012 on Alstom's application, finding that the evaluation methodology for the 'technical value' criterion was incomprehensible: the link between qualitative labels and awarded point scores could not be reconstructed. The earlier suspension rendered the Siemens request moot. The Council admitted the interventions, declared the appeal without purpose, and ordered SNCB to pay costs (400 euros filing fee, 26 euros contribution, 770 euros procedural indemnity to Siemens). Each intervening party pays 150 euros intervention costs.
Why does this matter?
When multiple tenderers independently file urgent suspension requests against the same award decision, the first ruling can render the others moot. That does not mean you've litigated in vain: the Council typically awards costs against the contracting authority even when the decision is already suspended. Those in the 'waiting room' (2nd or 3rd ranked) have standing to formulate their own grounds — a later suspension may rely on different grounds that could also affect your position upon re-evaluation.
The lesson
If as a non-winning tenderer you suspect that other aggrieved parties will also file appeals, still file your own urgent suspension request and don't wait. Your own appeal protects your position upon re-evaluation after suspension: you then have a file in which the Council has tested your own grounds, and you are entitled to recovery of your costs. File urgent suspension requests within the standstill period — if the award is meanwhile suspended via another procedure, you are not procedurally disadvantaged.
Ask yourself
Are you in the waiting room (2nd or 3rd ranked) and have other tenderers announced or filed appeals? Then file your own urgent suspension request within the standstill period (usually 15 calendar days) and formulate your own grounds — even if there is overlap with the grounds of other applicants. A moot declaration costs you the substantive ruling but not the filing fee or procedural indemnity.
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 →