Solar panels on 72 social housing units: Council of State suspends award because contracting authority blindly accepted a 7-day execution deadline
The Council of State suspends the award of a REPOWER EU contract for solar panels on 72 social housing units in Grâce-Hollogne, because the contracting authority accepted a 7-working-day execution deadline without verifying whether that deadline was realistic for the full scope of work — not just panel installation, but also wiring, inspections, safety lines, and as-built documentation.
What happened?
The Société du Logement de Grâce-Hollogne (SLGH) launched a public works contract in November 2025 for installing solar panels on 72 social housing units, funded by the European REPOWER EU programme. Seven bids were received; three were excluded (social security debts, missing asbestos documentation) and one was declared null (partly in Dutch). Three regular bids remained: Klinkenberg (€241,047, 50 days), Reno.Energy (€250,519, 7 days), and Enersol (€343,430, 71 days). Award criteria were price (80%) and execution deadline (20%). Reno.Energy won with 93% versus Klinkenberg's 83%, entirely due to the massive gap on the deadline criterion: 7 days earned the maximum 20 points, while Klinkenberg's 50 days scored only 2.8%. On 25 February 2026, Klinkenberg appealed to the Council of State. The core issue: those 7 days. Reno.Energy claimed it could install 500 panels with 5 teams of 3 people, 25 panels per team per day. But the specifications required much more than just placing panels: installing and certifying safety lines, getting layout approvals, wiring and inverter installation, scheduling appointments with 72 residents for indoor work, electrical inspection by a certified body, as-built documentation, and training with report. The engineering firm A+ CONCEPT asked Reno.Energy to justify its short timeline, but only examined the panel installation itself — not all those other obligations. The Council ruled that the award decision's reasoning was inadequate: nowhere did it appear that the contracting authority assessed whether the deadline was realistic for the complete scope of work. Additionally, bidders were compared on an unequal basis: Reno.Energy counted in working days, Klinkenberg in calendar days — while the specifications expressly prescribed calendar days. SLGH unsuccessfully invoked the balance of interests: it risked losing its European subsidy if the contract was delayed (deadline 15 June 2026). But the Council held that SLGH failed to prove that subsidy conditions would become unattainable upon suspension, and — crucially — that it also failed to demonstrate that Reno.Energy could actually execute the contract within the promised deadline. The suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling matters for several reasons. First, it confirms that a contracting authority using 'execution deadline' as an award criterion must verify the realism of the offered deadline — not just for the most visible part of the work (panel installation), but for the full scope including inspections, wiring, administrative requirements, and third-party dependencies. Second, it shows that the argument 'we'll lose our EU subsidy' doesn't automatically work as a balance of interests. The Council demands concrete evidence, not merely a retroplanning. Third, it illustrates how an unequal basis of comparison — working days versus calendar days — can invalidate an entire award.
The lesson
When a competitor offers a spectacularly short execution deadline that dominates the deadline criterion: check whether the contracting authority verified the realism for the full scope of work, not just the main activity. And verify whether all bidders offered in the same unit — working days versus calendar days can make the difference between winning and losing.
Ask yourself
Do you use 'execution deadline' as an award criterion? Make sure your specifications are crystal clear about the unit (calendar or working days), and that your verification of deadline realism covers all activities in the specifications — not just the most obvious ones.
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 →