Event expert culture EventFlanders: references as assessment element within quality award criterion and score reduction after interview
The Council of State rejects a challenge against the award of a consultancy contract for a culture event expert at EventFlanders, because the specifications treat references not as an independent sub-criterion but as an assessment element for evaluating the proposed individual's experience, and because the authority was not required to further assess the applicant's references after the interview revealed the proposed expert could not clarify his specific role in those references.
What happened?
Tourism Flanders tendered for culture and sport event experts for EventFlanders. Lot 2 concerned the culture expert position. Award criteria were price (40 points) and quality (60 points), with a minimum quality score of 42/60. The quality criterion was assessed using three documents: the offer form, extended CV, and minimum three references. The contract was intuitu personae — the expert as an individual would perform the work. The specifications allowed interviews that could only maintain or increase the initial quality score. Three offers were submitted. The applicant (BV E.) proposed J.V., while CommV E. proposed B.H., who had worked as EventFlanders' event expert since 2018. After initial assessment, the applicant scored 42/60 and CommV E. scored 54/60 for quality. After interviews, the applicant's score was lowered to 24/60 because J.V. appeared unfamiliar with the assignment, couldn't clarify his role in the listed references, and raised concerns about full-time availability. The contract was awarded to CommV E. (total score 84.12). Three grounds were raised. First: references cannot serve as both selection and award criteria. The Council held that references here are assessment elements (not sub-criteria) used to evaluate the proposed expert as 'personnel' under Article 81(2)(3)(b). Using the same references for selection and award serves different purposes. Second: unequal assessment of references and unmotivated interim scores. The Council held that the authority need not further assess references when the interview revealed the expert couldn't clarify his role. Interim scores before the interview need not be separately motivated. Third: jury bias (members who worked with the chosen expert), improper score reduction, and factual inaccuracies. The Council found sufficient safeguards existed (standardised questions, approval by multiple departments). The score reduction complaint lacked standing (even at 42, the applicant's total of 82 was below the chosen tenderer's 84.12). Interview findings were conclusions, not literal transcriptions. All three grounds were not serious. The application was rejected.
Why does this matter?
References can serve simultaneously as selection criteria and assessment elements within an award criterion, provided they serve different purposes in each context. An assessment element is not a sub-criterion and needs no separate weighting. When an interview reveals the proposed expert cannot clarify their role in listed references, further assessment is unnecessary. In consultancy contracts performed intuitu personae, jury members who previously worked with a proposed expert are not automatically disqualified if sufficient procedural safeguards exist.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when using references for both selection and quality assessment, ensure specifications clearly identify references as assessment elements, not sub-criteria. Use standardised interview procedures and multi-level approval to avoid appearance of bias. As a tenderer: ensure the proposed expert can clearly articulate their specific role in listed references during any interview. References the expert cannot explain lose their assessment value.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: are references framed as assessment elements rather than sub-criteria? Do you have standardised interview procedures? Is the post-interview final assessment adequately motivated? As a tenderer: can your proposed expert clearly explain their role in the listed references? Do they understand the contract's subject matter?
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 →