Urgent suspension of SEPPT occupational health services contract French Community — zero delay for document transmission after health evaluation is impossible and renders evaluation formula inapplicable — substantial irregularity — balance of interests rejected
The Council of State urgently suspended the French Community's award of an occupational health services contract (SEPPT) to CESI, ruling that CESI's offer contained substantial irregularities by proposing zero delays for document transmission and IT interface updates for three sub-criteria, which was impossible under the specifications requiring these operations to take place after the health evaluation appointment, and rendered the evaluation formula Cmax × (Mmin/M) inapplicable since dividing zero by zero is undefined.
What happened?
The French Community tendered occupational health services (SEPPT) for its 7,000+ employees via a negotiated procedure with prior publication, structured as a four-year framework agreement. Two offers were submitted: CESI (winner, 259.71 points) and Cohezio (incumbent, 250.16 points out of 300). For three sub-criteria of the 'delays and availability' criterion (document transmission and IT interface update, each calculated 'from the end of the health evaluation appointment'), CESI proposed a delay of zero and received maximum points, while Cohezio proposed 0.02 hours (1.2 minutes) and received zero points. The Council found that the specifications required these operations to take place after the appointment, making a zero delay not just unrealistic but impossible. The evaluation formula Cmax × (Mmin/M) was inapplicable since 0/0 is undefined. The authority itself admitted it had not followed the formula strictly, giving CESI maximum points while applying it to Cohezio (resulting in zero). CESI's offer contained substantial irregularities distorting the comparison of offers and violating equal treatment. The Council rejected the argument that Cohezio's own delays were unrealistic: the Council cannot declare an offer irregular when the authority itself did not do so. Since only two offers existed and Cohezio's was declared regular, the authority had no choice but to award to Cohezio. The balance of interests was rejected: the authority itself had terminated the existing contract and set the deadline without accounting for possible litigation.
Why does this matter?
This ruling addresses three key issues: zero delays in tender offers are impossible when specifications require post-appointment operations; the common formula Cmax × (Mmin/M) fails mathematically with zero values; and authorities cannot invoke urgency from contract expiry when they themselves set the termination date without planning for potential litigation.
The lesson
Ensure evaluation formulas remain applicable if a tenderer proposes zero delay. Define minimum delays in specifications. Do not terminate existing contracts without planning for litigation timelines. As tenderer, do not propose impossible delays and challenge competitors' irregular offers.
Ask yourself
Does your evaluation formula work with zero values? Have you defined minimum delays? Have you planned for litigation before terminating the existing contract? Are the proposed delays realistic under the specification terms?
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 →