Rejection of suspension application against award of photovoltaic solar panel contract: price criterion based on total of summary measurement state is clear, PVsyst calculation note suffices as objective yield verification
The Council of State rejected the suspension application by BV M. against the award by UZ Gent of the photovoltaic solar panel contract to BV E., because none of the three grounds was serious: the price criterion based on the total of the summary measurement state was clear and did not allow unlimited freedom of choice, the requirement to submit a PVsyst calculation note with the tender provided for objective yield verification, and the contested decision was adequately motivated following a thorough internal technical review after the withdrawal of the first award decision.
What happened?
UZ Gent conducted an open procedure for the supply and installation of photovoltaic solar panels on a parking garage. The specifications set functional requirements for the panels but left the layout, orientation and tilt angle to the tenderers' expertise. Award criteria were price (60 points) based on 'the total of the summary measurement state' and expected annual yield in kWh per PVsyst in the first year (40 points). Tenderers had to submit a PVsyst calculation note with their tender. Eight tenders were received. A first award decision to BV E. was withdrawn on 23 July 2025 after UZ Gent found BV M.'s grounds prima facie serious enough to investigate. After internal technical review, UZ Gent re-awarded to BV E. on 2 October 2025. BV E. scored 99.04 points (60 on price, 39.04 on yield) while BV M. scored 91.65 (56.86 on price, 34.79 on yield). The Council rejected all three grounds: (1) the price criterion clearly referred to the total of the summary measurement state, not to price per kWp — no unlimited freedom of choice; (2) the mandatory PVsyst calculation note provided objective verification of the expected yield, and the chosen tenderer's yield fell within a plausible range between the other two regular tenderers; (3) the contested decision was adequately motivated, expressly referencing the thorough technical review conducted after the withdrawal.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies three points regarding award criteria for technically complex contracts. First, when specifications explicitly link the price criterion to the total of the summary measurement state, there is no room for an alternative reading based on price per installed capacity. Second, requiring a calculation note using specialized software (PVsyst) with the tender suffices as an objective verification mechanism. Third, when an authority withdraws a first award decision to investigate a tenderer's grounds and subsequently reaches the same award after internal review, this is an acceptable approach provided it is expressly motivated.
The lesson
As a tenderer: read the specifications carefully to determine on what basis the price will be assessed. When the specifications refer to 'the total of the summary measurement state', do not assume that price per kWp is relevant. Ensure your PVsyst calculation note is complete and realistic. As a contracting authority: describe the price criterion unambiguously and provide an objective verification mechanism for technical award criteria such as a mandatory calculation note.
Ask yourself
As a tenderer: have you correctly understood on what basis your price will be assessed? Is your PVsyst calculation note complete and does the stated yield correspond to the installed capacity you offer? As a contracting authority: is it immediately clear to a specialized tenderer on what basis the price is assessed? Do you provide an objective verification mechanism for technical award criteria?
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 →