UDN rejected for Ruiselede culture and theatre hall: contractor-architect combination in design & build is not unlawful, evaluation methodology with base score and adjustments is compliant, and delegation of award authority by central purchasing body is valid
The suspension request in extreme urgency against the award of a design & build contract for a culture and theatre hall in Ruiselede is rejected — the submission by a combination of two contractors (joint venture) and an architect does not violate incompatibility rules, the evaluation methodology with a base score of 60/100 and adjustments of ±1.25 or ±2.5 points for notable elements falls within the announced framework, the punctual criticism of scores lacks factual basis or substitutes own insights, and the delegation of award authority by the central purchasing body to a service association is valid.
What happened?
Farys, acting as central purchasing body for the municipality of Ruiselede, tendered a design & build contract for a new culture and theatre hall via competitive procedure with negotiation. This was a second procedure after the first award to V. was suspended and the procedure terminated. Five candidates were selected; only two submitted offers. The combination M. Architects scored 66.06 points, V. scored 63.27. V. raised four grounds. The first argued that combining contractors and an architect violates Article 6 of the 1939 Architects Act. The Council found the winning bidder submitted as a combination without legal personality (not a single joint venture), and the tender documents adequately distinguished between design and construction. The second ground challenged the evaluation methodology: penalizing absent nice-to-haves, undisclosed point scale, and selective element comparison. The Council found nice-to-haves are low-priority objectives (deductions permitted), the ±1.25/2.5 point scale is a logical implementation, and the methodology allows mentioning only notable elements. The third ground contained punctual criticism of thirteen specific assessment points. The Council found most criticisms isolated motives from context, lacked factual basis, or substituted the tenderer's own judgment. The fourth ground challenged Creat Services' authority to take the award decision. The Council found a valid formal delegation from Farys with conditions (positive municipal advice), accepted and published.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that a combination of contractors and an architect for design & build is not inherently unlawful under the architect incompatibility rules, provided tender documents distinguish design from construction. It also confirms that an evaluation methodology with a base score and adjustments need not disclose every detail of the point scale if it logically follows from the announced method, and that a central purchasing body may delegate award authority via formal delegation.
The lesson
As authority for design & build: ensure tender documents clearly distinguish design from construction and reference the Architects Act. For evaluation with a base score: announce the method transparently, but you need not specify every detail if it follows logically. As tenderer: nice-to-haves are objectives — their absence can lead to point deductions. Punctual criticism of isolated motives is unlikely to succeed.
Ask yourself
As authority: do my tender documents clearly distinguish design from construction? Is the Architects Act referenced for the design component? Is my evaluation methodology transparent and logical? As tenderer: have I addressed all nice-to-haves? Is my criticism based on concrete facts or merely my own assessment?
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 →