Rejection of suspension application: global evaluation method with qualitative plus and minus points correctly applied — scores 'very good' and 'more than adequate' consistent with tender document descriptions — discretionary margin not exceeded
The Council of State rejected the suspension application by BV B. against the award by the Federal Pensions Service of a contract for a digital mental wellbeing tool, because the contracting authority had correctly applied the global evaluation method announced in the tender documents, the plus and minus points were inherent to that method and did not require separate weighting, and the scores of 'very good' (36/40) and 'more than adequate' (28/40) corresponded to the percentages and descriptions in the specifications.
What happened?
The Federal Pensions Service conducted an open procedure for a digital mental wellbeing tool framework agreement. Award criteria were price (60 points) and quality (40 points). The specifications listed non-exhaustive evaluation elements and provided for a global evaluation using descriptive scores from 'outstanding' (100%) to 'very poor' (0%). BV B. scored 36/40 on quality ('very good': many plus points, no minus points) but only 47.88/60 on price. BV P. scored 28/40 on quality ('more than adequate': plus points but also major minus points) and 60/60 on price, winning with 88 vs 83.88 total. BV B. challenged the evaluation method, arguing the specifications prescribed percentages while the evaluation used plus/minus points, that these were not summable, and that sub-criteria should have been used. The Council found the global method was correctly applied: plus/minus terminology was inherent to it, the scores (36/40=90%='very good', 28/40=70%='more than adequate') matched the specification descriptions, not every element needed separate scoring, and the regularity check need not be reproduced in full.
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms that a contracting authority may use a global evaluation method with descriptive scores and is not required to use sub-criteria with separate weightings. Qualitative plus/minus terminology is inherent to such methods. The allocated score must correspond to the description in the specifications. Not every evaluation element needs to be mentioned for both offers.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when using a global evaluation method, ensure the descriptive scores clearly describe each level. Verify that allocated points correspond to the described percentages. As a tenderer: understand whether the specifications use sub-criteria or a global method. With global evaluation, individual plus/minus points don't require separate mathematical scores.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: do your qualitative descriptions match the global score? Can the score be traced to the specification percentage? As a tenderer: do you understand how the evaluation is structured — global or sub-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 →