Suspension application under extreme urgency by ASFALYS-KPMG consortium against award of ICT services lot 1 to Deloitte rejected – single ground regarding self-assessment system for quality criterion not serious: criticism too vague and theoretical, complaints partly late, waiver of verification obligation not established
The Council of State rejected the suspension application under extreme urgency by the ASFALYS-KPMG consortium against the award by the Prime Minister of lot 1 of a public service contract for specialised ICT services (IT23001, service integration and management) to Deloitte Consulting & Advisory, because the single ground was not serious: the criticism of the self-assessment system for the quality criterion — where tender conformity was evaluated based on questionnaires completed by the tenderers themselves — was too vague and theoretical as the applicants failed to identify concretely which sub-criteria led to a manifest error of assessment, the complaints raised at the hearing regarding scores were late, and the postulate that the contracting authority had waived its verification obligation could not be established.
What happened?
The Belgian State (represented by the Prime Minister) tendered a service contract through an open procedure with European publication for specialised ICT services (contract IT23001). Lot 1 concerned service integration and management, including the SIAM framework. Three tenders were submitted: by the ASFALYS-KPMG consortium, Deloitte Consulting & Advisory BV, and INNO.COM BV. All were selected and found regular. Evaluation was based on quality (60 points) and price (40 points). For quality, the specifications provided that conformity would be assessed based on self-assessments via questionnaires. Scores: ASFALYS-KPMG 94.75 total (54.75 quality + 40.00 price); Deloitte 98.23 (58.26 + 39.97); INNO.COM 93.45 (57.75 + 35.70). Lot 1 was awarded to Deloitte. The single ground argued that the self-assessment system violated Article 81 §3(2) of the 2016 Act, which requires award criteria to include specifications enabling concrete verification. The Council held the criticism was vague and theoretical: the applicants failed to identify specific sub-criteria leading to manifest error, complaints about scores raised at the hearing were late, and the postulate of waiver of verification could not be established prima facie. The ground was not serious. Costs were reserved.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the limits of contracting authorities' freedom in designing award criteria using self-assessment questionnaires. A self-assessment system is not per se unlawful. Challenges must concretely identify which specific sub-criterion led to a manifest error. Complaints that could have been raised in the application but were only raised at the hearing are inadmissible as late.
The lesson
When challenging an award decision based on award criteria, concretely identify which specific criterion or sub-criterion led to an error. General theoretical criticism of the assessment system is insufficient. Include all complaints in the application itself — those raised at the hearing based on previously available information are late. Support any claim that the authority waived its verification obligation with concrete evidence.
Ask yourself
As an applicant: do you concretely identify in your application which specific award criterion or sub-criterion led to a manifest error, or is your criticism abstract? Have you included all complaints in the application? As a contracting authority: does your self-assessment system include specifications enabling concrete verification? Have you verified information accuracy when in doubt?
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 →