Suspension of award for FOD VVVL archiving and digitisation framework agreement: systematic inconsistency between verbal assessment ('detailed') and awarded score 'good' ('little detail') violates own assessment methodology — re-evaluation after withdrawal request cannot remedy deficient reasoning
The Council of State suspended the award decision for a framework agreement for archiving and digitising paper files (FOD VVVL as central purchasing body, 10-year term), because in 27 of 31 quality criteria the contracting authority described the applicant's offer as 'detailed' yet systematically awarded only the score 'good' (10/20 = 'little detail') instead of 'very good' (15/20 = 'sufficient detail'), and a 're-evaluation' provided after the withdrawal request could not remedy the deficient reasoning — particularly as the contracting authority itself acknowledged that same evening having 'overlooked important issues'.
What happened?
The Minister of Social Affairs awarded a framework agreement for archiving and digitisation of paper files for 18+ federal agencies (10-year term, simplified negotiated procedure). Quality scores (60/100 points, 31 criteria on ordinal scale) carried over unchanged to mini-competitions for sub-contracts. NV M. scored 85.31 points (60/60 quality), NV Y. scored 70 points (30/60 quality). Although NV Y. was one of three selected participants, the Council found it had standing because the quality score advantage made genuine competition in sub-contracts virtually impossible. The 're-evaluation' provided after NV Y.'s withdrawal request was disregarded because: (1) the authority itself acknowledged that evening having overlooked important issues; (2) the re-evaluation applied a comparative method not provided for in the specifications; (3) the Finance Inspectorate's advice was based on the original assessment. In the original assessment, 27 of 31 criteria described NV Y.'s approach as 'detailed' yet scored 'good' ('little detail') — a systematic inconsistency with the specifications' own methodology, which reserved 'good' for 'little detail' and 'very good' for 'sufficient detail'. The suspension was granted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling establishes that tenderers admitted to a framework agreement can still challenge the award when quality scores carry over to mini-competitions, creating an insurmountable advantage. Ordinal scale descriptions in specifications bind the authority under the patere legem principle. Post-hoc re-evaluations cannot remedy deficient reasoning, especially when the authority itself questions their accuracy.
The lesson
When using ordinal scales with defined descriptions for each level, ensure consistency between verbal assessments and awarded scores. A 're-evaluation' after a withdrawal request will not remedy original deficiencies. Tenderers in framework agreements should verify whether quality scores carry over to sub-contract competitions.
Ask yourself
Is there consistency between your verbal assessments and the ordinal scale scores? Does the quality score from the framework agreement carry over to mini-competitions, and how large is the gap between participants?
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 →