A scoring scale from 'weak' to 'excellent' without further explanation — prima facie transparent enough
The Council of State rejects the suspension request of a postal services company challenging the award of a framework agreement, ruling that a qualitative evaluation method with an ordinal scale (weak/moderate/good/very good/excellent) is sufficiently transparent when the specifications contain evaluation elements and technical provisions that define the framework.
What happened?
The Belgian Federal Public Health Service awarded a framework agreement for postal services. The losing tenderer challenged the award on three grounds. First, it argued the evaluation method was insufficiently transparent: the sub-criterion 'processing and reporting' used an ordinal scale (weak/moderate/good/very good/excellent) without defining these qualifications. The Council found the method sufficiently transparent because the specifications contained explicit evaluation elements and technical provisions that together formed one coherent assessment framework. A non-exhaustive list of evaluation elements does not prevent the authority from considering additional elements, provided these are aspects of the relevant sub-criterion. Second, the tenderer argued the winning bidder lacked a sufficiently broad ISO 27001 certificate. The Council ruled the selection criterion targets the tenderer as an economic operator, not each individual establishment. A certificate covering headquarters and appendix locations suffices. Third, the tenderer challenged the price investigation, basing its doubts solely on 'irregularities' alleged in the first ground — which was itself found not serious. The Council ruled this lacked factual basis. Notably, the Council stated twice that the transparency principle is not a general principle of good administration — making arguments based on it inadmissible.
Why does this matter?
This ruling provides a clear overview of three common grounds for challenging procurement awards — and explains why they often fail. Ordinal scoring scales are widespread, and tenderers frequently complain about them. The Council confirms that a global qualitative assessment is prima facie sufficiently transparent when the specifications contain evaluation elements and technical provisions providing guidance.
The lesson
For tenderers: an ordinal scoring scale without further definition is not inherently unclear if the specifications contain evaluation elements and technical provisions framing the assessment. Read the specifications as a whole. Don't build arguments on the transparency principle as a standalone principle — the Council doesn't accept it. For price investigation challenges, bring your own concrete evidence rather than relying on other grounds that may not hold up.
Ask yourself
Are you building an argument on the 'transparency principle' as a standalone principle of good administration? The Council doesn't accept that. Complaining about an ordinal scale? First check whether the specifications as a whole — including technical provisions — provide sufficient guidance.
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 →