Annulment of planetarium architectural services award via accelerated procedure: insufficient motivation for awarding the same score to references with 134 and 156 seats respectively on the sub-criterion 'up to 150 seats'
The Council of State annulled through the accelerated procedure under article 17, §6 the award by Idelux Développement of the joint public services contract for the design of a planetarium at the Euro Space Center in Transinne to SCRL Alinéa Ter, because the evaluation report's motivation did not explain why the chosen tenderer's offer (reference: 'La Coupole' planetarium with 134 seats) received the same score as Nové Architectes' offer (reference: planetarium with 156 seats) on the sub-criterion 'up to 150 seats', and the justification in the observations note constituted inadmissible ex post motivation.
What happened?
Idelux Développement tendered joint architectural services for a planetarium at the Euro Space Center in Transinne. The specifications required capacity for 'up to 150 visitors'. The first award criterion included a sub-criterion evaluated on three elements each worth 5 points: '10K', '3D', and 'up to 150 seats'. On 20 September 2023, Idelux awarded to SCRL Alinéa Ter (93.78 points) over SRL Nové Architectes (90.5 points) — a difference of only 3.28 points. By ruling no. 258.204 of 13 December 2023, the Council ordered suspension under extreme urgency. The serious ground concerned the 'up to 150 seats' sub-criterion: Nové had a 156-seat reference while Alinéa Ter had 'La Coupole' with only 134 seats, yet both received 5/5. The evaluation report only stated that planetarium references received more points than audiovisual hall references — insufficient to explain equal scores when capacities differed. Idelux's argument that 134 was 'close to the target' was ex post motivation. Its simulation applying a rule-of-three was rejected as the specifications contained no scoring method. After the suspension ruling, no party requested continuation within 30 days. Despite announcing withdrawal in January 2024, Idelux never formalised it. The Council applied the accelerated procedure and annulled the award. Idelux bore costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates that evaluation motivation must be specific enough per sub-criterion to explain why two tenders receive the same score when underlying data objectively differs. A generic formula distinguishing reference types is insufficient when the sub-criterion specifically assesses capacity. Ex post justification in observations cannot cure the original motivation deficit. The ruling also demonstrates the effectiveness of the accelerated procedure when the authority fails to act after suspension.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: motivate each sub-criterion specifically enough to explain score differences or similarities, especially for quantifiable elements. After a suspension ruling, decide promptly on continuation or withdrawal. As a tenderer: check the evaluation report per sub-criterion. When your reference is objectively stronger on a measurable element but receives the same score, this is a strong ground for challenge.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: is your motivation specific enough per sub-criterion to explain the scoring? Have you decided promptly after a suspension ruling? As a tenderer: have you reviewed the evaluation per sub-criterion? Are there measurable elements where your references are objectively stronger but scored the same?
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 →