Annulment action rejected: all five grounds against award of lot 2 restoration works at Collégiale Sainte Croix in Liège dismissed – contracting authority's discretion respected, no irregularities in chosen tenderer's offer, stone choice and inter-lot collaboration are valid award criteria
The Council of State rejected the annulment action by Monument Hainaut SA against the award by the City of Liège of lot 2 (masonry) of the restoration works on the exterior envelope of the Collégiale Sainte Croix to the temporary association Galère-Liégeois, after all five grounds were dismissed: the regularity check was adequately motivated, the site installation outside designated 'available zones' was not an irregularity, the missing calculation note concerned the execution phase rather than the tender, the time-lapse was a valid photographic report, and the award criteria (stone choice, inter-lot collaboration, presentation quality) were linked to the contract's subject matter.
What happened?
The City of Liège tendered restoration works on the exterior envelope of the Collégiale Sainte Croix, divided into lots including lot 2 (masonry). Monument Hainaut SA and the temporary association Galère-Liégeois both submitted tenders. On 30 December 2022, the city awarded lot 2 to the temporary association. Monument Hainaut sought annulment on 20 February 2023, raising five grounds. The first concerned the regularity check — rejected as sufficiently motivated. The second concerned (1) site installation outside 'available zones', (2) missing calculation note, (3) lack of motivation on irregularities, and (4) absence of price verification — all rejected. The third concerned a time-lapse video with the test piece and anonymity — rejected as the time-lapse was a sequence of photographs constituting a valid photographic report. The fourth concerned the evaluation of the stone choice for the test piece — rejected as the jury legitimately assessed the consequences across different sub-criteria. The fifth concerned allegedly extrinsic award criteria — rejected as linked to the contract's subject matter. All grounds were dismissed. Monument Hainaut bore costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling is rich in lessons for complex heritage restoration procurement. 'Available zones' in specifications are not necessarily exclusive. A calculation note mentioned as an execution modality is not necessarily a mandatory tender element. A time-lapse may constitute a valid photographic report. Using the wrong stone type in a test piece can legitimately affect scores across multiple sub-criteria. Award criteria evaluating inter-lot collaboration are not extrinsic when the lot includes site coordination.
The lesson
As a tenderer in heritage restoration: use exactly the materials required by the specifications for test pieces. Do not assume 'available zones' are exclusive without clear specification language. As a contracting authority: clearly state whether site zones are exclusive or indicative, and ensure the boundary between tender elements and execution modalities is clear.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: did you use exactly the required materials for the test piece? Did you interpret the 'available zones' plan correctly? As a contracting authority: is the distinction between tender elements and execution modalities sufficiently clear? Are award criteria linked to the specific lot's subject matter?
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 →