AV infrastructure for training centre PLOT: suspicions about technical compliance are not enough without proof
The Council of State rejects an AV supplier's challenge against the award of a contract for audiovisual infrastructure in a provincial training building, finding that an alleged notification defect does not affect the award decision's legality, the technical assessment motivation is adequate, and challenging the certification criterion is inadmissible due to lack of interest given a score difference of only 1.5 out of 100.
What happened?
The Province of Limburg launched an open procedure for the supply and installation of audiovisual infrastructure in PLOT, its new training building in Genk. The scope covered smartboards, LED screens, video bars, cameras, microphones, control panels and associated infrastructure for classrooms, meeting rooms and an auditorium. This was already the second procurement procedure. A first procedure was terminated after two successive withdrawals of award decisions, which had led to two Council of State rulings. The Province prepared a new procedure with new specifications. Eight companies submitted tenders. The contract was awarded to BV M. (94.43/100) over the applicant BV F. (92.75/100), a difference of 1.68 points. BV F. sought suspension under extreme urgency on three grounds. First, regarding notification: the award decision itself was not attached to the notification, only the award report. The Council rejected this: a defect in notification after the decision does not affect the decision's legality. The purpose was achieved — BV F. was informed of the award and its reasons through the award report. Second, regarding the technical assessment of the winning tender. BV F. doubted whether BV M.'s LED screens and cameras met technical specifications, and argued the motivation was too general. It had repeatedly asked the Province for screenshots from specification sheets, which were refused to protect commercial confidentiality. The Council rejected this: the award report contained detailed qualitative assessment with concrete elements. The formal motivation duty does not require the authority to provide additional technical details. Moreover, BV F.'s concerns related to specification compliance rather than the sub-criterion assessment — and the Council, having reviewed the confidential tender, found BV M.'s offer appeared compliant. Third, regarding the 'Certified organisational quality' sub-criterion (5/100 points). BV M. scored 4/5 (two certifications plus one pending), BV F. scored 2.5/5 (one certification plus two pending). BV F. invoked the CJEU Lianakis ruling, arguing certifications are selection rather than award criteria. The Council found this inadmissible for lack of interest: the score difference on this sub-criterion was only 1.5/100, while the total difference was 1.68 points. BV F. failed to show the ranking would change even without this criterion. All grounds failed. The application was rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms three practical principles. First, a notification defect — even failing to attach the award decision itself — does not affect the decision's legality if its purpose was achieved and the tenderer knows the reasons. Second, the formal motivation duty does not require the authority to disclose additional technical details (screenshots, specification sheets) at a losing tenderer's request. Doubts about a competitor's technical compliance are insufficient — the applicant must make the irregularity plausible, not merely claim inability to verify. The Council takes into account that it could review the confidential tender itself. Third, challenging a sub-criterion that produces only a marginal score difference is inadmissible if the applicant cannot show the ranking would change without that criterion.
The lesson
As a losing tenderer challenging the winning offer's technical compliance: mere doubts are insufficient. You must present concrete elements making it plausible that the offer fails to meet minimum specifications. The authority's refusal to share confidential product information is not unlawful — it protects the chosen tenderer's commercial interests. Choose your grounds strategically: if a sub-criterion produces only a small score difference and the total gap is barely larger, challenging that criterion will be inadmissible for lack of interest. Focus on the components where the most points were at stake. As a contracting authority: a detailed, substantively motivated award report is your best protection. Have an external expert confirm technical compliance — and document it.
Ask yourself
As a losing tenderer: do you have concrete elements showing the winning offer is non-compliant, or are your concerns based solely on suspicions and inability to access confidential documents? Have you calculated the score impact — would successfully challenging the disputed criterion actually change the ranking? As a contracting authority: does your award report contain sufficient concrete elements per sub-criterion, or is it limited to generalities?
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 →