Annulment of access control system award via accelerated procedure: contracting authority failed to organise the product presentation required by the specifications – breach of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and transparency principle
The Council of State annulled through the accelerated procedure under article 17, §9 the award by the Municipality of Gerpinnes of the supply and installation of access control systems in municipal buildings to Telecom Security, because the municipality never organised the oral product presentation that the specifications required from tenderers — under penalty of nullity of their tender — in breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the transparency principle and the principle of legitimate expectations.
What happened?
The Municipality of Gerpinnes tendered the supply and installation of access control systems for various municipal buildings. The specifications contained two award criteria: price (50 points) and technical quality and user-friendliness (50 points). For the second criterion, clause I.10 required tenderers, after qualitative selection, to present the proposed equipment 'under penalty of nullity' of their tender. Based on this presentation, the technical department would assess material quality and platform user-friendliness. On 30 December 2024, the municipality awarded to Telecom Security without organising the presentation. DAO Systems obtained suspension by ruling no. 262.375 of 17 February 2025. The municipality argued that the mandatory site visit (clause I.6) had allowed tenderers to present their products. The Council rejected this: the site visit was required before tender submission to familiarise tenderers with the locations, serving an entirely different purpose than the post-selection product presentation. By omitting the presentation, the municipality breached the patere legem quam ipse fecisti, transparency, and legitimate expectations principles. After the suspension ruling, the municipality did not request continuation within 30 days. The Council applied the accelerated procedure and annulled the award. The municipality bore costs.
Why does this matter?
This ruling illustrates that when specifications provide for a specific procedural step for evaluating an award criterion — here an oral product presentation — the contracting authority must actually organise it. This applies even more strongly when the specifications attach a nullity sanction. A site visit before submission cannot replace a post-submission presentation — both serve different purposes. The transparency and legitimate expectations principles are engaged when tenderers prepare their offers expecting a presentation that the specifications themselves announced.
The lesson
As a contracting authority: when specifications provide for a product presentation or demonstration as part of the evaluation method, it must actually be organised. A pre-submission site visit cannot replace a post-submission presentation. When a procedural step is imposed 'under penalty of nullity', the specifications acknowledge its essential character. As a tenderer: when the specifications provide for a presentation that was never organised, this is a powerful ground for challenge.
Ask yourself
As a contracting authority: do the specifications provide for a product presentation, demonstration or oral examination? If so, was it actually organised? Have you skipped any procedural step marked as essential? As a tenderer: were all evaluation steps described in the specifications actually carried out?
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 →