Urgent suspension request by Lab9 Pro against discontinuation of Apple laptop procurement by Hogeschool PXL rejected — contradictory assessment methodology and ambiguity about zero prices are valid grounds for non-award
The Council of State rejected Lab9 Pro's urgent suspension request against Hogeschool PXL's decision to discontinue the procurement of Apple products (lot 3 of laptop supply), ruling that the contradictory assessment methodology for the 'Discount Percentage' award criterion and the ambiguity about zero prices for alternative service and warranty each constituted valid grounds for discontinuation.
What happened?
Hogeschool PXL tendered laptop supply including an Apple products lot with contradictory tender documents: the discount percentage criterion described two incompatible assessment methods (rule of three on prices versus proportionality rule on percentages). After a prior suspension procedure and withdrawal of an earlier award decision, PXL decided to discontinue the lot. The Council upheld this: the contradiction was evident; the need to correct tender documents is a valid reason under Article 85; withdrawal of the prior award meant the irregularity declaration was also deemed never to have existed; and the ambiguity about zero prices for alternative service/warranty was an additional valid ground.
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms that internal contradictions in tender documents are valid grounds for discontinuation even when no tenderer raised the issue. It clarifies the legal consequences of withdrawing an award decision (irregularity declarations are also voided). It illustrates the multiple supporting grounds doctrine.
The lesson
Carefully check tender documents for internal contradictions. Clarify whether zero prices are acceptable for service criteria. Understand that withdrawing an award also voids irregularity declarations. As tenderer, prepare for discontinuation even as the sole regular tenderer.
Ask yourself
Are assessment methodologies internally consistent? Are award criteria clear about expected pricing? Do you understand the consequences of award withdrawal for prior irregularity declarations?
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 →