Suspension of irregularity declaration: both rejection grounds lack sufficient basis — ISO27002 requirement unclear and interpreted similarly by regular tenderers — 9-month maximum execution period at odds with construction planning and not respected by majority of tenderers
The Council of State suspended the National Lottery's decision to declare irregular the tender of the temporary association NV W.-BV V. for the design and execution of office fit-out works at the Brouck'R building, as both rejection grounds were not supported: the ISO27002 ground lacked factual basis since the tenderers had described security measures and regular tenderers understood the requirement similarly, and the 9-month execution period was not transparent given unclear specifications and tension with the construction planning.
What happened?
The National Lottery issued a competitive procedure with negotiation for a framework agreement covering office fit-out design and execution, change management and relocation for the Brouck'R building (~11,000m²). The tender of NV W.-BV V. was declared substantially irregular for two reasons: not describing ISO27002 physical security measures and not respecting the 9-month maximum execution period. The Council found the ISO27002 ground lacked factual basis — the tenderers had described measures in their annexes, and the specification's overlap between requirement 3.2.4 (ISO27002) and requirement 3.2.3/Annex M (detailed security measures per zone) created confusion. Regular tenderers had adopted a similar approach. The 9-month period was unclear: it referenced an 'indicative' timeline, conflicted with a later-added construction planning showing works until end September 2026, and the majority of first offers were rejected for the same reason. Both grounds were serious; suspension was granted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling demonstrates that when a majority of tenders are rejected on the same requirement, it strongly indicates the specification was unclear. An indicative timeline combined with a binding maximum execution period creates tension when a later-added construction planning questions feasibility.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: ensure minimum requirements are clear and consistent across all specification documents and annexes. When most tenders are rejected on the same ground, the specification was likely unclear. As a tenderer: if multiple offers are rejected for the same reason, the transparency principle may have been violated.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: are your minimum requirements clear and internally consistent? Does a binding deadline reference an indicative annex? Are most tenders being rejected on the same ground? As a tenderer: is the timeline realistic given all annexes?
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 →