Suspension of asbestos removal contract award for insufficient motivation of qualitative assessment — mere point allocation without descriptive evaluation insufficient
The Council of State suspends the award of a works contract for asbestos removal to the firm Valens, because the award decision motivated the assessment of tenders on the qualitative criterion 'Organisation and method' exclusively through point scores and a detailed scoring table, without any descriptive evaluation with concrete references to the content of the tenders — preventing the applicant from understanding why it received zero points on two decisive sub-criteria while Valens received 1.875 points each.
What happened?
The Communauté française (French Community) tendered through an open procedure a works contract for the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials at a site comprising multiple buildings, including greenhouses (building 8), administrative blocks, a university college and a caretaker's lodge. The specifications provided two award criteria: price and 'Organisation and method' (30 out of 100 points). The qualitative criterion was subdivided into 'Planning and safety' (10 points) and 'Method' (20 points). 'Method' was further divided: 5 points for the working method per building (five buildings × 1 point) and 15 points specifically for building 8 (the greenhouses). The 15 points for the greenhouses were further split: 7.5 points for the correct choice of working method and 7.5 points for dealing with the heritage character of the listed site — itself subdivided into 3.75 points for handling existing glazing and 3.75 points for special precautions for the valuable heritage. Three tenderers submitted offers, including S.B.M.I. and Valens. S.B.M.I. ranked first on the price criterion. However, Valens scored higher on the qualitative criterion. The award decision stated the global scores and described the evaluation methods, referring to 'the table in annex for more detail'. That table provided the detailed breakdown of scores, but without any descriptive explanation. On most sub-criteria, all three tenderers received maximum scores — without any explanation of which elements of their tenders led to those maximum scores. On two of the three sub-sub-sub-criteria specific to 'Method building 8', Valens received 1.875 points each while S.B.M.I. received zero — again without any motivation. This point difference was decisive for the final ranking, placing Valens first. S.B.M.I. applied for suspension in urgent proceedings, pleading breach of the formal duty to state reasons. The Council reiterated that the duty to state reasons serves a dual purpose: enabling the addressee to understand the reasons and enabling the Council to review their correctness, admissibility and relevance. For qualitative award criteria, mere allocation of scores does not constitute sufficient motivation — reasons must be expressed through descriptive evaluation with concrete references to the tender content. Here, the award decision contained only global scores and a detailed scoring table without further explanation. S.B.M.I. could not identify what elements the authority had retained to give all tenderers maximum scores on most sub-criteria, nor what elements led to the differentiation on the two decisive sub-sub-sub-criteria. Even the administrative file offered no explanation. The poverty of the motivation was all the more serious given the decisive impact of the point difference on the final ranking. The plea was serious. In the balance of interests, the respondent identified no negative consequences of suspension outweighing its advantages. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling reaffirms a core principle of the duty to state reasons in public procurement: for qualitative award criteria, mere allocation of points — even a detailed breakdown across sub-criteria — does not constitute sufficient motivation. A descriptive evaluation is required that explains, with concrete references to the content of the tenders, why each tenderer received its score. This applies a fortiori when the point difference is decisive for the final ranking: the greater the difference and its impact, the more pressing the duty to provide reasons.
The lesson
A detailed scoring table is not a motivation. For qualitative award criteria, the contracting authority must describe per (sub-)criterion which concrete elements from each tender led to the score. The motivation must be sufficient for the tenderer to understand why it received its score, and for the Council of State to be able to review the assessment. Ensure in particular that point differences decisive for the final ranking are adequately explained.
Ask yourself
When I read my award decision, do I find per qualitative (sub-)criterion a descriptive evaluation with concrete references to the content of the tenders? Or do I only see point scores and tables? Could an unsuccessful tenderer understand from my motivation why it received fewer points on each (sub-)criterion than the chosen tenderer?
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 →