UDN rejected: non-selection for meeting management platform due to insufficient references — reworked references fail to address questions about data/document management and tenderer's own role
The suspension request in extreme urgency against the non-selection of CO-DEX.EU for the framework agreement for a development platform and meeting management application of the Province of Vlaams-Brabant is rejected — all three pleas (equal treatment/transparency, duty to state reasons, due diligence) are not serious: the contracting authority reasonably found that the reworked references did not demonstrate that the projects involved data and document management in a back-end system and that the tenderer's own role remained unclear.
What happened?
The Province of Vlaams-Brabant tendered a framework agreement for a development platform and meeting management application for its governing bodies via simplified negotiated procedure with prior publication. The selection criterion for professional competence required at least two qualitative references for similar projects involving web application development with information (metadata and documents) managed in a back-end system and role-based functionality differentiation. Four tenderers submitted offers including CO-DEX.EU. On 3 May 2024, the authority emailed CO-DEX.EU noting that references were too summarily described, that it was unclear whether metadata and documents were exchanged with a back-end system, and that collaboration with integrators made it unclear what share CO-DEX.EU had performed itself. CO-DEX.EU submitted reworked references on 15 May 2024. On 4 July 2024, the authority decided not to select CO-DEX.EU: the reworked references still did not indicate data and document management, nor clarify the tenderer's own role versus subcontracting. The Council of State found all three pleas not serious. The authority's assessment was reasonable: the technical features cited by CO-DEX.EU covered at most limited sub-aspects of the required information management system. The transparency principle does not require the authority to define terms used in a clarification request. The duty of diligence does not oblige the authority to contact reference persons — the burden of removing ambiguity lies with the tenderer. The micro-enterprise argument was an excess reason not present in the contested decision.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates the contracting authority's wide margin of appreciation in assessing selection criteria. References that are implicit about essential elements (back-end data/document management, own contribution versus collaboration) can reasonably be found insufficient. A clarification request serves the transparency principle, and the authority need not further define its terms. The authority is not obliged to contact reference persons — the burden lies with the tenderer.
The lesson
As tenderer: be explicit, not implicit, about required elements in your references. When receiving a clarification request, answer each question point by point rather than merely rewriting references. Clearly state your own role in collaborative projects. If the request seems unclear, ask a counter-question. As contracting authority: formulate selection criteria clearly and document concretely which essential elements are missing in your decision.
Ask yourself
As tenderer: do my references explicitly address each element of the selection criterion? Did I answer each clarification question point by point? Is my own role in collaborative projects clearly described? As authority: are my selection criteria clear enough? Did I request clarification before non-selection? Are my reasons concrete and sufficient?
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 →