Application rejected: evaluation of tenders for bicycle leasing framework agreement by City of Hasselt withstands scrutiny – global assessment and more detailed explanation by chosen tenderer justify higher score, verification of selection criteria apparent from administrative file
The Council of State rejected the application for suspension under extreme urgency by NV C.B.L. against the award decision by the City of Hasselt for a framework agreement for bicycle leasing for staff and teaching staff of Groep Hasselt, because neither ground was serious: the criticism of the tender evaluation on the award criteria 'process flow' and 'quality' was unfounded as scores were based on a global assessment and the chosen tenderer had provided a more detailed explanation (particularly regarding teaching staff), and the verification of selection criteria and exclusion grounds was sufficiently apparent from the evaluation report and administrative file.
What happened?
The City of Hasselt tendered a supplies contract through an open procedure: a framework agreement as a purchasing centre for bicycle leasing for staff and teaching staff of Groep Hasselt. The specifications required as a selection criterion at least two similar references from the last five years, including one from a public authority with teaching staff. Award criteria were: price (40 points), process flow (40 points), and quality of services (20 points). Four tenderers submitted offers; one was excluded for insufficient references. After evaluation, NV J. scored 87.06 points, C.B.L. 79.00, and BV C.V. 74.72. On 12 September 2025 the contract was awarded to NV J. In a first ground, C.B.L. criticised the evaluation on the second and third criteria, arguing elements from its offer were not considered while similar elements appeared in the winning bid's evaluation. The Council rejected this: scores were based on global assessment, and the winning bidder had provided significantly more detailed explanations, particularly regarding teaching staff. C.B.L.'s claim that the evaluation matrix contained mere descriptions without actual appreciation was also rejected: qualitative wording demonstrated genuine assessment. In a second ground, C.B.L. argued verification of selection criteria was unclear. The Council found sufficient evidence in the summary table and administrative file. Both grounds were not serious; the application was rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates three key principles: (1) the contracting authority has broad discretion in evaluating tenders against award criteria — the Council checks only whether the assessment rests on adequately externalised and sound reasons; (2) when specifications announce a qualitative assessment method, the evaluation matrix need only use qualitative wording constituting genuine appreciation — explicit offer-by-offer comparison is not required; (3) verification of selection criteria need not be set out extensively when no issues arise — a summary table with 'OK' suffices if the administrative file supports it.
The lesson
As a contracting authority, use qualitative wording in your evaluation matrix that constitutes genuine appreciation (not mere factual listing), and ensure the administrative file supports verification of selection criteria. As a tenderer, direct criticism at the assessment as a whole rather than isolated elements; demonstrate that the global assessment exceeds the boundaries of careful evaluation. Note that a more detailed explanation may yield a higher score even with comparable service offerings.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: does your evaluation matrix contain qualitative wording constituting genuine appreciation alongside descriptions? Are selection criteria and exclusion grounds verified and substantiated in the administrative file? As a tenderer: are you criticising the assessment as a whole or just isolated elements? Did you provide sufficiently detailed explanations for qualitative award criteria?
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 →