Annulment appeal rejected: decisions on scoring and organization of second round for ambulance service convention are preparatory acts — inadmissible
Life-Care's annulment appeal against the decision not to award separate points for the 'motivation' criterion and to organize a second round after tied scores in the procedure for an extra 112 ambulance service convention in the Ghent-South region is rejected as inadmissible ratione materiae — the contested decisions are preparatory acts that do not immediately and effectively prejudice the applicant, as they do not exclude but actually admit the applicant to the second round.
What happened?
The Federal Public Health Service launched a call for candidates for an additional 112 ambulance service station in the Ghent-South region. Four candidates submitted applications. After evaluation, inspectors found all motivations equal in strength and could not award separate points for the 'motivation' criterion. Life-Care and Service 112 Lochristi tied. A second round with additional questions was organized. Life-Care sought annulment of both decisions (no points for motivation and second round organization). The Council of State held these are preparatory acts: the applicant was not excluded but admitted to the second round with all chances still open. The legality of preparatory decisions can be challenged in an appeal against the final award decision. Appeal inadmissible. The intervention of Service 112 Lochristi was rejected as late (filed 6 days after the 30-day deadline).
Why does this matter?
This ruling confirms that procedural decisions during an award process that do not exclude the applicant but admit them to the next phase are preparatory acts not amenable to annulment. Their legality can be challenged when appealing the final decision. The ruling also strictly applies the 30-day intervention deadline.
The lesson
As candidate: if you are admitted to the next phase, the preceding procedural decisions are generally preparatory acts not subject to annulment. Wait for the final decision and challenge the legality of preparatory steps then. As third party: strictly respect the 30-day intervention deadline.
Ask yourself
As candidate: does the contested decision actually exclude me, or does it admit me to the next phase? Can I challenge its legality later when appealing the final decision?
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 →