Equal scores for different bids: justification must demonstrate distinction
The Council orders suspension because the contracting authority gave all five bids the same quality score without indicating strengths and weaknesses.
What happened?
Infrabel tendered a framework agreement for archaeological research with two award criteria: financial (50 points) and quality of the approach plan (50 points). After negotiations and Best and Final Offer (BAFO), all five submitted bids were evaluated with the same score of 25 points for the quality criterion. The award report only stated that each bid 'meets the requirements of the specifications' without any explanation of strengths and weaknesses. The Council ruled that this does not plausibly demonstrate that a concrete assessment of strengths and weaknesses took place.
Why does this matter?
This ruling sharpens the point that a contracting authority cannot simply give all bids the same score just because they all minimally meet the requirements. The Council requires a concrete, substantive assessment of the differences in quality between bids, even if they are subtle. This certainly applies when the specifications explicitly distinguish between 'meeting requirements' (0.5 pt), 'partially meeting' (0.25 pt) and 'improvement' (1 pt).
The lesson
Justify each award criterion by clearly indicating for each bid which strengths and weaknesses you identified. Use the scale steps from the specifications (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1 point) and explain why a bid falls into which category. Equal scores are only acceptable after a concrete assessment of strengths and weaknesses.
Check yourself
Can you point out for each bid and each sub-criterion which strengths and weaknesses you identified and why your score is exactly what it is?