Annulment of architectural services award via accelerated procedure: evaluation committee not composed in accordance with specifications – external expert and project management assistant were the same person in breach of article 2.5.11 of the specifications
The Council of State annulled through the accelerated procedure under article 17, §9 the award by Nautisport (autonomous municipal enterprise) of the contract for architectural services for the renovation and extension of the multisports complex in Enghien to the consortium 'Atelier d'architecture D.D.V. – Fally & Associés – BE Pierre Berger', because the composition of the evaluation committee did not comply with article 2.5.11 of the specifications: the mandatory 'external expert' and the 'project management assistant' (committee chair) turned out to be the same person, whereas the specifications — read in combination with clause 1.3.1 — intended these as two separate functions.
What happened?
Nautisport, an autonomous municipal enterprise, tendered architectural services for the renovation and extension of the multisports complex in Enghien. On 13 January 2025, Nautisport awarded the contract to the consortium 'Atelier d'architecture D.D.V. – Fally & Associés – BE Pierre Berger'. SRL Arcadus Architecte and SA Arcadis Belgium, whose offer was not selected, sought annulment on 28 January 2025. The Council of State had already ordered suspension under extreme urgency by ruling no. 262.831 of 31 March 2025, finding the first ground serious. After the suspension ruling, neither Nautisport nor the successful tenderer filed a request for continuation of proceedings within the statutory thirty-day period. The reporting auditor therefore requested application of the accelerated annulment procedure under article 17, §9 of the coordinated laws on the Council of State. Neither party requested a hearing. The Council examined whether the first ground — found serious in the suspension ruling — justified annulment. The first ground concerned a breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti and of article 2.5.11 of the specifications. This provision required the evaluation committee to consist of four persons including an 'external expert', chaired by the 'project management assistant' who was not one of the four members. In practice, the representative of AT Osborne — the firm acting as project management assistant — had served both as committee chair and as the 'external expert'. The Council found that a combined reading of clauses 2.5.11 and 1.3.1 was decisive: clause 1.3.1 already identified the project management assistant (AT Osborne), meaning Nautisport knew this person when drafting the specifications. If the intention was for the chair to also be the external expert, there would have been no reason to separately require an 'external expert' in clause 2.5.11. Nautisport had thus breached the specification and the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti. The award decision was annulled. Nautisport bore costs of €400 court fees, €24 contribution, and €770 procedural indemnity.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates two key principles. First, the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti requires the contracting authority to strictly follow its own specifications — even when the text allows multiple readings, the interpretation most consistent with the specifications as a whole must be chosen. Second, evaluation committee composition is an essential procedural element. When specifications require an external expert, that person must be genuinely external — a project management assistant already involved in the project cannot be considered 'external'. The ruling also demonstrates the accelerated procedure under article 17, §9: when no request for continuation is filed after a suspension ruling, the Council can proceed directly to annulment based on the grounds already found serious.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when specifications prescribe an evaluation committee with an external expert, ensure that person is genuinely external and does not overlap with another function such as chair or project management assistant. When drafting specifications, clearly delineate the different roles on the committee. As a tenderer: when the evaluation committee composition does not match the specifications, this is a powerful ground for challenge — it goes to the heart of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: is the evaluation committee composed exactly as prescribed by the specifications? Are all required roles (including external expert) filled by different persons? Can a committee member genuinely be considered 'external', or is there a contractual relationship with the contracting authority? As a tenderer: have you checked the evaluation report for committee composition? Does it match what the specifications require?
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 →