20 points for 2% of the contract value: how a skewed scoring system and exclusive negotiations sank a €6 million vaccination security contract
The Council of State annuls the award of all nine lots of a security contract for Walloon vaccination centres to Securitas, because the Walloon health agency negotiated exclusively with Securitas and used an absurdly disproportionate scoring system where a €10,000 post carried half the weight of a €6 million post.
What happened?
In spring 2021, at the peak of Belgium's vaccination campaign, the Walloon health agency AviQ urgently needed security for newly established vaccination centres across Wallonia. It launched a framework agreement for security services — split into nine lots — via a negotiated procedure without prior publication, justified by the pandemic's 'imperative urgency'. Several security companies submitted bids, including Protection Unit (formerly F.A.C.T. Security) and market leader Securitas. Price counted for 60 of 100 points, split into two items: remote surveillance (sensors on refrigerator doors and temperature monitors for vaccines) worth 20 points, and physical guarding worth 40 points. After an initial analysis — of which no trace exists in the administrative file — AviQ identified Securitas as the 'presumed winner' for all nine lots. It then negotiated exclusively with Securitas, asking them to lower their rates and improve their approach to high-security risks. Securitas submitted an improved 'best and final offer' (BAFO), which was then compared with the original bids of other tenderers who were never given the opportunity to improve theirs. The Council of State annulled the award on two grounds. First: the principle of equality. When you ask one tenderer in a negotiated procedure to improve its offer, you must give all others the same chance. Second: the scoring was manifestly disproportionate. The remote surveillance post — worth barely €10,000 (<2% of total value) — received 20 of 60 price points, while physical guarding — worth over €6 million (>98%) — received only 40 points. This allowed tenderers to dominate the ranking by bidding extremely low on the small post, even if their price for the main service was higher.
Why does this matter?
This ruling addresses two problems that arise constantly in practice. First, exclusive negotiations with one tenderer happen more often than acknowledged, especially in urgent procedures. The pandemic made the temptation to act fast particularly strong, but the Council confirms unequivocally: urgency does not excuse inequality. Second, disproportionate scoring is subtler but equally dangerous — it distorts competition and invites strategic bidding that undermines the goal of identifying the economically most advantageous tender.
The lesson
Two lessons in one ruling. For contracting authorities: if you decide to negotiate improvements with one tenderer, give all others the same opportunity — or compare only original bids. Never compare an improved BAFO with unimproved initial offers. And when designing your specifications, check whether the point allocation per item is proportionate to its economic value. For tenderers: if you see that a competitor was allowed to negotiate exclusively, or if the scoring in the specifications is grossly disproportionate to the value of the items, you have strong grounds to challenge the award.
Ask yourself
When evaluating offers after negotiations: are you comparing one party's BAFO with unimproved offers from others? That's a problem. When drafting your specifications: does each item's point weight roughly reflect its economic value, or could a tenderer dominate the ranking by bidding strategically low on a minor post?
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 →