Suspension of award of Medical First Responder scientific evaluation to KU Leuven — Federal Public Health Service breached patere legem by rejecting EVapp project reference as too one-sided based on requirements not stated in tender documents — specifications imposed no sub-domain requirements while the contract itself specifically targeted cardiac arrest
The Council of State suspended the award of the Medical First Responder evaluation follow-up contract to KU Leuven RD, ruling that the Federal Public Health Service breached patere legem by rejecting Prior-IT's EVapp project reference as too one-sided because it only covered cardiac arrest, while the specifications imposed no requirements regarding which sub-domains the reference had to cover and the contract itself specifically targeted an MFR system for cardiac arrest situations.
What happened?
The Federal Public Health Service tendered, by open procedure, a service contract for the follow-up scientific evaluation of the Medical First Responder concept. The contract specifically included a cost-benefit analysis of an MFR system for 112 calls indicating cardiac arrest. The selection criteria required a reference for scientific studies on emergency medical care and on Medical First Responder, minimum €100,000 each, from the last three years. Prior-IT submitted its EVapp project reference covering MFR experience in cardiac arrest. The authority acknowledged this as MFR and thus emergency medical care experience, but deemed it 'too one-sided' as it was limited to cardiac arrest only. The Council found this ground deficient: the specifications imposed no requirements on which sub-domains the reference had to cover, and the contract itself was specifically focused on cardiac arrest. By filling in the selection criterion with an experience level not stated in the specifications, the authority breached patere legem. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
Contracting authorities are strictly bound by their own selection criteria when evaluating references. Requirements not stated in the specifications cannot be added at the evaluation stage. When the contract itself targets a specific sub-domain, a reference covering that sub-domain cannot be rejected as too narrow.
The lesson
Contracting authorities: formulate reference requirements with sufficient precision. If you expect a certain breadth of experience, state it upfront. Tenderers: if excluded for an allegedly insufficient reference, verify whether the authority's standards were actually stated in the specifications.
Ask yourself
Are the requirements you impose on references fully stated in the specifications? Are your selection criteria consistent with the specific subject matter of the contract?
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 →