Tennis concession: delegation to executive bureau validated, all pleas rejected
The Council rejects the annulment action against the award of a tennis management concession, validating the delegation of powers to the executive bureau of the autonomous municipal enterprise and dismissing grievances about award criteria and motivation.
What happened?
The autonomous municipal enterprise ANSPORTS of the city of Ans awarded the concession for managing the F. Heine tennis complex (lot 1: tennis activities) to K6 Suvius. The concession fell below the threshold of Article 3, §1 of the Concession Contracts Act. Sofialex, the former concessionaire ranked third, filed an annulment action with two pleas. The first plea alleged the executive bureau's incompetence — the Council found the board of directors had validly delegated after setting the essential elements. The second plea had three branches: alleged discrimination between bidders (unfounded in fact), challenge to award criteria (assessment elements are not sub-criteria requiring weighting; partial overlap does not prevent comparison), and inadequate motivation (motivation by reference valid; calculation errors had no influence on ranking with over 20 points difference). All pleas were rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates the Council of State's review of below-threshold concessions, subject to general principles of transparency and equality. It clarifies that assessment elements for an award criterion are not necessarily sub-criteria requiring weighting, and that delegation to the executive bureau is valid when the board of directors has previously established the essential elements.
The lesson
A well-framed delegation works: the board sets the framework, the executive bureau executes. Assessment elements that specify a criterion are not sub-criteria — they need not be weighted if they are simply indications of what the offer should cover. And a calculation error that does not change the ranking does not lead to annulment.
Ask yourself
Is the delegation of powers formalized, with the board having set essential elements before delegating? Do my award criteria clearly distinguish between weighted criteria and simple assessment elements? Have calculation errors in the award report been checked and their impact on ranking assessed?
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 →