Urgent suspension request for Defence image uniforms framework agreement rejected — exclusive competence of DLD laboratory for technical evaluation — Article 55 not applicable — dimension tolerance does not apply to fabric mass — new plea raised too late
The Council of State rejected the urgent suspension request by the Logistik Unicorp/Van Moer consortium against the declaration of substantial irregularity of their offer for the Defence image uniforms framework agreement (competitive dialogue, max 12 years), ruling that the Defence DLD laboratory had exclusive competence for technical evaluation per the specifications, Article 55 of the 2016 Act did not apply, and a new plea about price verification was inadmissible as it was raised on the morning of the hearing.
What happened?
Belgian Defence published a competitive dialogue for a 12-year framework agreement for image uniforms. Two consortia were selected: LogVM (Logistik Unicorp/Van Moer) and SKX (Seyntex/Xandres/Kashket). After both first-round offers were found irregular, dialogue was reopened. LogVM's second offer was declared substantially irregular: (1) fabric mass 275 g/m² exceeded the 270 g/m² maximum per DLD laboratory testing, and (2) fitting capacity of 88 instead of 100 soldiers per cluster per day. The Council rejected all three pleas: Article 55 did not apply as the specifications provided for the authority's own verification; the 5% tolerance applied only to dimensions, not mass; the second irregularity need not be examined as the first sufficed; the regularity control of SKX's offer was adequate; and a new plea about price verification raised on the morning of the hearing violated procedural loyalty.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies the relationship between Article 55 and specifications providing for the authority's own verification procedure, confirms that tolerance margins for dimensions do not apply to mass, and enforces strict procedural loyalty requirements for new pleas.
The lesson
When specifications provide for the authority's own laboratory testing, your own test results cannot override them. Raise new pleas immediately after receiving the administrative file, not on the hearing day.
Ask yourself
Do specifications provide for the authority's own technical evaluation? Ensure your products actually comply. Discovered new grounds after receiving the file? Communicate immediately.
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 →