If you bid as part of a consortium, you can't suddenly litigate alone — even if the procurement platform only shows your number
The Council of State declares Victor Cab's urgent suspension request against the award to Blue Cabs inadmissible because the offer for the Brussels disabled-passenger taxi contract worth €59.4 million was filed by the eighteen-company consortium 'GOE Victor Cab' — not by Victor Cab Ltd alone — despite the e-procurement system showing only the latter's company number.
What happened?
On 25 March 2025, the board of Brussels public transport operator STIB awarded the 'TaxiBus' contract — taxi transport for disabled persons in the Brussels-Capital Region, reference CW27772, estimated value €59,375,000 over up to five years — to Blue Cabs as primary contractor and to Victor Cab as secondary. Procedure: negotiated procedure with prior call for competition, special sectors. On 16 April 2025, Victor Cab Ltd filed an urgent suspension. STIB immediately raised an inadmissibility objection: both the candidacy and the offers (initial + BAFO) were filed not by Victor Cab Ltd alone, but by 'GOE Victor Cab', a consortium of eighteen companies for which Victor Cab Ltd was the lead. Victor Cab pushed back hard: the bid form named her as bidder, the opening minutes mentioned only her company number (0631.785.348), invitations were addressed to her, and the electronic deposit reports on publicprocurement.be mentioned only Victor Cab Ltd. The Council reads the file very differently — and very thoroughly. The candidacy systematically refers to 'GOE Victor Cab' with eighteen subsidiaries; all ESPDs reference the consortium; financial statements of all eighteen companies are attached; Victor Cab Ltd is explicitly designated as 'leader of the GOE'. The 300+ page initial offer systematically refers in all technical documents to 'the GOE Victor Cab' performing the work — not Victor Cab alone. The BAFO is titled 'Attestation d'engagement élargie du GOE Victor Cab'; throughout, it is the GOE that 'commits' and 'attests'. The Council's prima facie conclusion: candidacy and offers were filed by the GOE. The fact that only Victor Cab Ltd's company number appears in procedural documents and the e-procurement system stems from incorrect data entry by the consortium itself when filing the candidacy — and cannot override the substantive content of the offer documents. STIB could have requested correction but didn't; that doesn't change the legal reality. The Council also notes that Victor Cab Ltd alone fails to meet the minimum turnover selection criterion — proof that STIB could never have accepted she filed alone. The late claim that the seventeen other companies were 'subcontractors' is contradicted by every document in the file. Result: Victor Cab Ltd has prima facie 'no vocation to obtain the contract' and fails the admissibility conditions of article 15 of the Law of 17 June 2013. Application rejected, €770 procedural indemnity to STIB.
Why does this matter?
Consortia of economic operators are commonly used to meet demanding selection criteria — combined turnover, complementary technical capacity, geographical coverage. But those who bid together must litigate together. A single member cannot alone challenge an award decision, not even as lead. And certainly not when that member alone fails to meet the selection criteria. This ruling is particularly instructive because the Council refuses to be misled by procedural fog (incorrect numbers in opening minutes, e-procurement systems showing only the lead) and looks to the substantive reality of who actually committed in the offer. The lesson for bid managers: bidder status is not determined by what the procurement platform shows, but by what the offer documents say.
The lesson
If you bid as a consortium, arrange an explicit litigation mandate for the lead before submission, allowing them to represent all members in any subsequent appeal. Otherwise, every procedural step — urgent suspension, annulment, damages — requires bringing all eighteen (or however many) companies back on board and naming them in the application. And if you notice that the opening minutes or digital report only show your number even though you bid as a consortium: request a written correction immediately, before the award decision. Otherwise you cannot later argue you 'really filed alone'.
Ask yourself
Has your consortium given the lead a written mandate to litigate on behalf of all members before submission? If not: any urgent suspension must name all members in the application — otherwise your appeal is inadmissible.
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 →