Suspension in UDN: contradictory motivation for non-selection of PwC regarding turnover proof — evaluation report acknowledges turnover declaration suffices but demands additional evidence
The suspension of PwC Enterprise Advisory's non-selection for lot 2 (Control and Audit) of the competitive procedure with negotiation for federal IT security services is ordered in extreme urgency — the evaluation report contains contradictory motivation by acknowledging that a turnover declaration suffices (per article 67 §1 2° AR Placement) while simultaneously demanding additional evidence, and equal treatment of candidates cannot be verified.
What happened?
The Minister of Finance launched a competitive procedure with negotiation for federal IT security services (SECaaS). For lot 2, eight candidates applied including PwC. The selection required minimum annual turnover of 100,000 euros in the relevant activity domain in Europe. PwC submitted a sworn declaration with turnover figures and two European project references (660K and 350K euros). The contracting authority requested additional evidence from all candidates. PwC argued that a sworn declaration normally suffices, citing article 67 §1 2° AR Placement, and that invoices contain confidential client data. The evaluation report explicitly cites article 67 §1 2° as sufficient proof but then requires additional evidence — a contradictory motivation. PwC's references were not addressed in the reasoning. The Council of State found this constitutes a prima facie violation of the formal motivation obligation. Equal treatment could not be verified: at least one selected candidate appeared to have provided only a similar turnover declaration. Suspension ordered.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that a turnover declaration 'generally' suffices under article 67 §1 2°. A contracting authority that acknowledges this but then demands additional proof without adequate reasoning creates a contradictory motivation violating the formal motivation obligation. All candidates must be treated equally when additional evidence is requested.
The lesson
As contracting authority: if you require additional proof beyond what article 67 §1 2° provides, motivate why a turnover declaration is insufficient. Avoid contradictions in your evaluation report. As tenderer: even if you believe a sworn declaration suffices, provide as much evidence as possible to avoid non-selection.
Ask yourself
As contracting authority, is my motivation consistent? Do I acknowledge the declaration suffices but then demand more? Did I address the candidate's arguments? Are all candidates treated equally?
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 →