RESA cannot stop green maintenance procurement procedure without solid grounds
Suspension ordered: RESA stopped a green maintenance procurement procedure based on insufficient, inaccurate and contradictory grounds.
What happened?
RESA Innovation et Technologie launched a competitive negotiated procedure for green space maintenance around network cabins in 4 lots. After a first procedure was stopped, a second was launched. Three tenderers were selected. After negotiations and BAFOs, the contract was awarded to Devillers on 15 January 2024. Following appeals by Jardiparc and Krinkels, RESA withdrew the award on 7 February 2024 (insufficient price verification) and ultimately decided on 3 April 2024 to stop the entire procedure. Four grounds were invoked: (i) the selection criterion 'about fifty sites' was allegedly imprecise, (ii) the IT platform award criterion allegedly did not match the adjudicator's real intention, (iii) the price inventory (occasional works) needed revision, (iv) the offer validity period had allegedly expired. The Council examined each ground. The first was insufficiently pertinent: 'about fifty' means 50-59 and is not imprecise enough to justify stopping. The second was contradicted by the file: RESA actually performed qualitative evaluation of functionalities in the 15 January decision, the criterion explicitly mentions 'evaluation of functionalities', and this ground appeared for the first time at the final stage — a sudden change of intention after opening of tenders requires reinforced justification. The third lacked precision in the formal motivation and later explanations were belated and inaccurate: being a unit price contract, quantities are presumed and RESA remains free to order only actually needed services. The fourth was factually incorrect: calculating the validity period including the suspension under Article 8, §2, showed offers were still valid on 3 April 2024. Suspension was ordered.
Why does this matter?
Stopping a procurement procedure falls within discretionary power but cannot be based on inaccurate, insufficient or contradictory grounds. A change of intention regarding tender evaluation after opening of tenders requires reinforced justification. Belated explanations in observations cannot remedy insufficient formal motivation.
The lesson
Before stopping a procedure: verify the accuracy of each ground invoked, including deadline calculations. Do not change position on your award criteria after opening tenders without reinforced justification. Motivate precisely in the decision itself, not in subsequent notes. For unit price contracts, presumed quantities do not justify stopping the procedure.
Ask yourself
Are my grounds for stopping the procedure accurate and verifiable? Have I changed position on my criteria after opening tenders? Is my formal motivation sufficiently precise without needing subsequent supplementation?
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 →