Fuel cards for 450 vehicles in Kortrijk: Gabriëls was cheapest but loses on EV charging and service — and the Council of State does not recalculate the scores
Gabriëls & Co offered the lowest total price for the City of Kortrijk’s framework agreement for fuel and EV charging, yet finished second with 92.31 % behind G&V Servicestations (93.64 %); its extreme-urgency application, built on a different reading of the ‘per tranche of 5,000 euros’ points deduction, on the allegedly non-neutral choice of an Allego charging point at the Wandelweg and on an overly broad reading of ‘after-sales service’, was dismissed on 22 November 2022 because none of its limbs was serious.
What happened?
The City of Kortrijk launched an open procedure for a ‘framework agreement for the supply of fuel and charging of electric vehicles via fuel/charging cards for the period 2023-2026’. It acted as a central purchasing body for the Kortrijk public welfare centre and its non-profits, the Fluvia emergency zone, the Vlas police zone and the W13 intermunicipal company; some 450 vehicles were covered. The specifications set five award criteria: price (75 points), distance to preferred filling stations (10), card management (5), EV-charging offer (5) and personal after-sales service (5). For price, the cheapest bidder received the maximum and one point was deducted ‘per tranche of €5,000.00 difference’. The two qualitative criteria were assessed with a matrix scoring each offer ‘better’, ‘equal’ or ‘worse’ than the others (3, 2 or 1 point). For EV charging, bidders had to answer three questions, including a concrete calculation: apply your pricing to a charging point near the Wandelweg in Kortrijk, for a plug-in hybrid charging 9.6 kW five days a week. Four tenders came in: G&V Servicestations, Gabriëls & Co, Kuwait Petroleum and Total Belgium. Gabriëls had the lowest total price (4,267,503.02 euros incl. VAT) and scored 75/75; G&V was 13,128.50 euros higher and scored 73 (‘2 full tranches of 5,000 euros’). On EV charging and after-sales service, however, G&V scored the maximum 5 each time, against 2.78 and 3.89 for Gabriëls. In the Wandelweg calculation G&V came to 24.27 euros per week (0.43 euros/kWh through its Allego partnership plus a 3-euro monthly card subscription), Gabriëls to 25.80 euros (0.50 euros/kWh plus a 0.36-euro start-up fee per session). For after-sales service, the city noted for G&V periodic maintenance of filling stations, involvement of the authority in developing the online platform, mobility advice and ‘sponsoring of events in the Kortrijk region’, where Gabriëls’ tender contained ‘no explicit mention’. Final ranking: G&V 93.64 %, Gabriëls 92.31 %, Total 80.53 %, Kuwait Petroleum 77.53 %. On 26 September 2022 the college awarded the contract to G&V for 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2026. On 20 October 2022 Gabriëls applied for suspension under extreme urgency. First limb: ‘per tranche’ means per tranche begun, so that G&V, with a 13,128.50-euro difference, fell in the ‘x+10,000 to x+15,000’ tranche and deserved 72 rather than 73 points; the award report ‘suddenly’ spoke of ‘full tranches’, which was not in the specifications. The Council sided with the city: from the wording ‘per tranche of €5,000.00 difference one point less is awarded’ it prima facie follows that a difference below 5,000 euros yields no deduction, hence one point per full tranche. Second limb: the question ‘where can one charge’ had, according to Gabriëls, been answered with a meaningless reference to each bidder’s app; question 2 on the pricing structure had simply been copied without assessment; and the Wandelweg charging point was not neutral because its operator is Allego, with which G&V had a privileged partnership — Gabriëls’ own chargers in Kortrijk are moreover ten times faster and its price for the exercise came to 21.60 euros. The Council found the reference to an app prima facie relevant, held that questions 2 and 3 are not sub-criteria and could logically be assessed together, and expressly refused to reassess the tenders on their merits on the basis of a comparative table drawn up by Gabriëls itself — and new figures at the hearing: that power belongs to the contracting authority, not the court. On substance, the Council noted that Gabriëls applies its ‘no start-up or hourly fee’ only at its own chargers and does charge such costs at an Allego point; that every bidder has an agreement with Allego; that Allego operates more than 90 % of the charging points in the Kortrijk region while Gabriëls had no charging facility of its own in Kortrijk at submission and now has one address; and that the volatility of charging tariffs is irrelevant because the price also consists of subscription, start-up and roaming costs, which question 3 made precisely comparable. Third limb: counting ‘sponsoring in the Kortrijk region’ as a plus for after-sales service stretched the link with the contract too far, Gabriëls argued. The Council did not explicitly disagree, but found that G&V still scores ‘better’ even without the criticised elements: only its tender mentions involving the authority in developing the management platform and giving mobility advice, and Gabriëls did not address those elements. Its own assets — two contact points, Saturday-morning availability, cover during holidays — had in fact been taken into account under ‘support via fixed contact persons’. All limbs were found not serious; the Council dismissed the application and ordered Gabriëls to pay a roll fee of 200 euros, a contribution of 24 euros and a procedural indemnity of 770 euros to the city. G&V bore the 150-euro fee for its intervention.
Why does this matter?
In a single case this judgment shows three things bidders systematically underestimate. First, the rule for reading price formulas: ‘one point less per tranche of 5,000 euros difference’ means per full tranche, not per tranche begun. Anyone defending another reading must show that the authority applied the specifications in a manifestly wrong way — and that failed here, even though the word ‘full’ only surfaced in the award report. Second, the limits of judicial review: the Council of State expressly refuses to re-score the tenders on the basis of a comparison table drawn up by the applicant. Anyone whose case rests on ‘my price is actually lower’ rather than on a demonstrable flaw in the assessment leaves empty-handed. Third, how a concrete calculation case in the specifications — here the charging point at the Wandelweg — objectifies the assessment of a criterion as hard to compare as EV charging. That this point happens to be operated by Allego, with which the winner had negotiated better tariffs, does not make the case non-neutral as long as every bidder can charge there and the case is representative of actual use (Allego operates more than 90 % of the charging points in the region). A bidder who, in its application, stresses only the advantages at its own chargers and stays silent on the costs at other operators’ points undermines its own credibility. The judgment also carries a discreet signal for authorities: the Council did not address whether ‘sponsoring events in the Kortrijk region’ belongs under after-sales service, but saved the assessment only because the winner also scored better without that element. On its own, that plus point could have tipped the case.
The lesson
For bidders: read price formulas the way a cautious authority applies them — ‘per tranche’ means per full tranche — and ask questions during the procedure if the formula is ambiguous, not only before the Council of State. Build an extreme-urgency application on a demonstrable flaw in the assessment (an element not assessed, a criterion absent from the specifications, a wrong figure), not on your own recalculation of the scores; the Council does not re-score. If the specifications prescribe a concrete case, answer it fully and candidly, including where your tariffs are less favourable: here Gabriëls’ own calculation showed that it does charge start-up and roaming costs at an Allego point, which undercut its argument. And before you litigate, work out whether the correction you seek actually reverses the ranking — here the gap was 1.33 points and the first limb alone would have changed nothing. For authorities: a calculation case in the specifications is a strong tool to bring hard-to-compare offers (charging tariffs, roaming fees, subscriptions) to a common denominator; choose it to be representative and document why. In the assessment matrix, rely only on elements demonstrably linked to the performance of the contract; a plus such as ‘sponsoring’ survives review only if the winner stays ahead without it. And write ‘per full tranche’ in the specifications if that is what you mean — it saves you a lawsuit.
Ask yourself
Do you know that a points deduction ‘per tranche of X euros difference’ is read by the Council of State as per full tranche, so that a difference below X yields no deduction? Does your criticism rest on a flaw in the assessment, or only on your own recalculation of the scores asking the Council to re-score the tenders? Did you answer the calculation case prescribed by the specifications fully and consistently, including for other operators’ charging points where you do charge fees? Does the correction you seek, all limbs combined, actually deliver first place? And as an authority: can you explain, for every element you count as a plus in the assessment matrix (such as sponsoring), what it has to do with the performance of the contract, and does your ranking hold if you remove that element?
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 →