Annulment of Blankenberge evening market concession award: rank-order point allocation with fixed linear deduction steps is unlawful as it amplifies small quality differences and does not assess intrinsic offer value — damages claim rejected for insufficient substantiation
The Council of State annulled the award of the concession for nine evening markets in Blankenberge because the assessment method — rank-order point allocation with fixed linear deduction steps per criterion — reduced assessment to a rudimentary scale that amplified small quality differences, could flatten large ones, and assessed only whether an offer was better rather than how much better, while the damages claim was rejected for insufficient substantiation.
What happened?
The City of Blankenberge tendered a public domain concession for nine evening markets (3 years, 2024-2026). The assessment method for five qualitative criteria used fixed linear deduction steps based on ranking position, varying per criterion (some covering 5 ranks, others 4 or 3). Three offers were received. The Council found this method unlawful: it reduced assessment to a rudimentary scale making large point jumps based solely on ranking position regardless of actual quality differences. It assessed only WHETHER an offer was better, not HOW MUCH better. Tenderers ranked beyond the last step automatically received zero. The damages claim was rejected: future markets allowed restoration in kind, and past losses were not substantiated with accounting evidence.
Why does this matter?
This ruling sets limits on assessment methods for concessions: rank-order scoring with fixed deduction steps is unlawful when it fails to assess intrinsic quality differences. The 10% flat-rate damage calculation from public procurement law does not apply to concessions.
The lesson
Do not use assessment methods that reward ranking position with fixed point jumps. Assess how much better each offer is, not merely whether it is better. Substantiate damages claims with concrete accounting evidence.
Ask yourself
Does your assessment method evaluate intrinsic quality differences or merely ranking position? Can tenderers receive zero despite adequate quality?
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 →