40 or 52 points? Luxpro contests the weighting of an award criterion but would drop a place on its own reading — the Council of State rejects the extreme-urgency suspension
Luxpro sought, under extreme urgency, the suspension of the award to Cuisimat of lot 1 (kitchen equipment) of the IFAPME contract for the Belgrade training centre, complaining that IFAPME had scored the second award criterion on 52 instead of 40 points; the Council of State held that the tender documents already provided that 52-point breakdown, that the figure ‘40’ was a mere clerical error, and that Luxpro had no interest in its complaint — because its own reading would drop it from second to third place — and rejected the application.
What happened?
On 12 December 2025, IFAPME — the Walloon Institute for work-linked training and the self-employed and SMEs — launched a supply contract for the ‘Acquisition, delivery and installation of catering-trade (Métiers de bouche) equipment’ for its new centre in Belgrade, through an open procedure with European publicity. The contract was divided into five lots; Luxpro submitted an offer for lot 1 (specific kitchen equipment). Under the specifications, lot 1 was to be awarded on the best price-quality ratio, on two criteria: the total tender amount on 60 points, and the additional warranty period (in months) on 40 points, distributed over nine items. The imposed warranty was two years (24 months from technical acceptance); a bidder offering an additional period earned points per sub-criterion. By decision of 9 March 2026, notified to Luxpro on 10 March 2026, IFAPME awarded lot 1 to Cuisimat. Luxpro sought suspension under extreme urgency; Cuisimat, as the beneficiary, intervened. In its single plea, Luxpro reproached IFAPME, in a first branch, with having ‘modified’ the weighting of the second criterion when assessing the offers — no longer on 40 but on 52 points — and, in a second branch, that this criterion was imprecise and understood differently by the bidders. The Council of State first declared the plea partly inadmissible: as to articles 36, 83 and 84 of the law of 17 June 2016 because it did not indicate how they had been infringed, and as to the law of 17 June 2013 because no specific provisions were identified. On the substance, it found that the contract documents already provided, for the second criterion of lot 1, a per-item breakdown totalling 52 points, while elsewhere mentioning a maximum of 40 points for that criterion and 60 for price. IFAPME acknowledged that both the specifications and the reasoned award decision contained a clerical error (‘erreur de plume’) where they stated ‘40 points’ and a total of ‘100 points’. For all the other lots, the maximum of the second criterion (40 points) was each time the sum of the points per item; on the same logic, that sum for lot 1 was 52 points, so the second criterion had to be scored on 52 and the total on 112. It could therefore not be maintained that IFAPME had ‘modified’ the weighting; prima facie the complaint rested entirely on a factually inaccurate premise. The reasoned decision moreover appeared adequately reasoned despite the clerical error, which had not prevented Luxpro from assessing, in full knowledge, whether to bring an action. The Council added that, even on Luxpro’s own reading — ‘reducing’ the scores on 52 back to 40 — the only admissible method (a rule of three) would harm Luxpro: its offer would drop from second to third place. It therefore had no interest in the denounced ‘modification’, which in fact gained it a place, and it did not indicate concretely how it would have prepared its offer differently — on the contrary, in the second branch it disputed Cuisimat’s additional 36-month period as less realistic than its own 12 to 13 months. The first branch was therefore not serious. As to the second branch, the Council held that the second criterion was clearly stated in the specifications: it valued the additional warranty period (in months) on top of the imposed 24 months, as confirmed in the performance clauses (‘2 years (24 months) + the additional warranty period’) and in the offer form. All bidders had understood the criterion in the same way, and Cuisimat’s 36 months were indeed additional (its quote stated ‘garantie 24 + 36 mois’). Luxpro brought no concrete element that a total warranty of 52 months would be unrealistic, whereas Cuisimat justified it by its suppliers’ warranties and reliability, its product experience, sector practice and the supervised, less intensive use of the machines in a training centre. The second branch too was not serious. The Council maintained the confidentiality of pieces A to F of the administrative file and of Cuisimat’s offer. It admitted Cuisimat’s intervention, rejected the application for suspension under extreme urgency and ordered the immediate execution of the judgment. Cuisimat bears the 150-euro intervention fee; Luxpro bears the other costs — the roll fee of 200 euros, the contribution of 26 euros and the procedural indemnity of 770 euros awarded to IFAPME. The judgment was delivered on 28 April 2026 by the VIth chamber sitting in interim relief (Florence Piret, councillor of State, acting president; Vincent Durieux, registrar).
Why does this matter?
The judgment is instructive because it exposes a common bidder mistake: seizing on a points discrepancy in the specifications without recomputing one’s own ranking. Three lessons stand out. First, the doctrine of the clerical error: specifications stating ‘40 points’ while the sum of the sub-points is 52 contain an obvious material slip that the bidder, given the clear per-item breakdown, could recognise; such a slip does not vitiate the award so long as it did not prevent the bidder from assessing its rights. Second, the rule that the maximum of an award criterion is the sum of the points allotted per item — a consistency test the Council here applies systematically across the lots. Third, and most practically, the interest requirement: whoever contests an irregularity must show that it harms them. Luxpro’s own reading would, through the only correct recomputation (a rule of three), drop its offer a place; it therefore had no interest in its complaint and could not sustain the suspension. The judgment finally recalls that an award criterion valuing an additional warranty period on top of the legal 24 months is clear where the specifications, performance clauses and offer form are consistent, and that a mere assertion that a competitor’s period is unrealistic does not suffice without concrete support.
The lesson
If, as a bidder, you wish to contest a points distribution or the weighting of an award criterion, first recompute your own ranking under both readings. The Council of State requires an interest in the plea: if the reading you defend would itself drop you a place, you have no interest and your complaint fails — exactly what happened to Luxpro. Point also to concrete harm: explain how you would have prepared your offer differently had the weighting been known to you beforehand; a purely principled reproach does not suffice. A visible clerical error in the specifications (here ‘40’ instead of ‘52’) is moreover no licence for annulment: if the correct distribution follows from the per-item points, you may not present it, against the evidence, as a genuine modification. As an authority, the lesson is: ensure that the sum of your per-item points matches the announced maximum of the criterion, and formulate an additional-warranty criterion consistently in the specifications, the performance clauses and the offer form — a slip survives only if the documents together leave no doubt as to the real weighting.
Ask yourself
Before contesting a points weighting, have you recomputed your own ranking under both readings — and do you remain better placed? Do you show concretely what harm the contested weighting causes you, and how you would have prepared your offer differently had it been known beforehand? Do you realise that a visible clerical error in the specifications, whose correct meaning follows from the per-item breakdown, does not invalidate the award so long as you could assess your rights? As an authority: does the sum of your per-item points match the announced maximum of each criterion, and is your additional-warranty criterion consistent across the specifications, the performance clauses and the offer form?
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 →