Rejection of suspension application against award of framework agreement for exhibition stand management: experience acquired through asset transfer from sole proprietorship may be counted, re-evaluation of quality criteria adequately motivated
The Council of State rejected the suspension application by NV C. against the award by Erasmus University of Applied Sciences Brussels of the framework agreement for technical management of a modular exhibition stand to BV M.P., because none of the four grounds was serious: the chairman could decide instead of the board in urgent circumstances, the chosen tenderer could rely on experience from a formerly sole proprietorship through asset transfer, the involvement of a meanwhile retired committee member in the evaluation was demonstrated, and the re-evaluation of quality criteria was adequately motivated per sub-criterion.
What happened?
Erasmus University of Applied Sciences Brussels conducted a negotiated procedure without prior publication for a 48-month framework agreement for technical management of a modular exhibition stand, with price (50 points) and quality (50 points, five sub-criteria) as award criteria. Three tenderers submitted offers. The selection criterion required at least ten years of demonstrable experience in exhibition stand construction and management. BV M.P. was incorporated in 2017 but relied on an asset transfer agreement from a sole proprietorship active since 2007. A first evaluation report of 1 July 2025 gave both NV C. and BV M.P. scores of 80/100. The board decided on 1 September 2025 to re-evaluate. A second report of 3 September 2025 gave NV C. 85.74/100 and BV M.P. 94.50/100. The chairman took the award decision on 9 September 2025 due to the urgency of the upcoming trade fair season, with the board taking note on 30 September 2025. The Council rejected all four grounds: (1) the chairman was competent under the special decree of 13 July 2012 for urgent matters; (2) the authority could reasonably count experience acquired through asset transfer from the sole proprietorship; (3) the retired committee member was demonstrably involved before retirement; (4) the re-evaluation was adequately motivated per sub-criterion and the applicant failed to show the score differences resulted from manifest error.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that a contracting authority may count experience acquired through asset transfer from a sole proprietorship when assessing selection criteria, provided the link between the former activity and the tenderer is adequately demonstrated. It also confirms that a re-evaluation producing significantly different scores is not per se unlawful if motivated per sub-criterion, and that delegation of the award decision to a chairman in urgent circumstances is acceptable when the board subsequently takes note.
The lesson
As a tenderer who restructured from sole proprietorship to company: carefully document the asset transfer and make the continuity of experience explicit in your tender. As a contracting authority: when re-evaluating tenders, motivate per sub-criterion why revised scores differ from the initial assessment, and document the timing of each committee member's involvement.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: have you adequately documented the continuity of experience when restructuring from sole proprietorship to company? As a contracting authority: is each re-evaluation motivated per sub-criterion? Were all committee members effectively involved at the time of evaluation, and is this documented?
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 →