The court checks whether your selection criteria are well formulated, not whether your competitor is better
If selection criteria are poorly defined, you can appeal — but you must show that you yourself were harmed, not just that the winner was poorly chosen.
What happened?
Three architecture firms bid on a crematorium construction in Wallonia. The contracting authority questioned two participants about their references (particularly regarding 'mourning rooms'). After selecting all three, one candidate withdrew and the third was chosen (Triangle). The first two then complained that the selection decision was poorly motivated: no details on how 'mourning room' was interpreted.
Why does this matter?
This ruling shows how critically the court looks at justification — but also how strictly at locus standi (your own interest). You cannot say: the winner doesn't have good references. You must say: I would have scored better if the criterion had been clearly defined.
The lesson
Consider how selection criteria are formulated in the specifications. Are they vague (like 'relevant experience' without a threshold)? Note them as a risk. But if you challenge the selection procedure, argue concretely why you would benefit from a different result.
Check yourself
Am I not just angry that someone else was selected, but can I demonstrate that I could have scored better myself?