Red-light cameras in Wallonia: a 6/10 landing just above the exclusion threshold after a demo run ‘essentially on a PowerPoint’ needs better reasoning — award to FlashRadar2Wal annulled
The Council of State annuls the Walloon Region’s award of lot 3 (red-light cameras) of the Walloon central purchasing arrangement for speed cameras to FlashRadar2Wal, because the decision does not explain why that consortium scored 6/10 for the live demonstration of its management software — just enough to escape exclusion — when the demo ran largely on a PowerPoint and on software other than the software offered, and the police representatives on the evaluation committee had proposed 4/10 and exclusion.
What happened?
In early 2022 the Walloon minister responsible, among other things, for road safety approved specifications MI-08.03.03-21-3358 for a central purchasing arrangement for the supply and installation of enforcement speed cameras and all related equipment to monitor speed and detect red-light violations on Walloon roads. The contract was published on 1 April 2022 in the Belgian Tenders Bulletin and the Official Journal of the EU, as an open procedure in three lots: fixed cameras for instantaneous speed (lot 1), average speed cameras (lot 2) and red-light cameras (lot 3). After three corrigenda, the deadline for bids closed on 3 June 2022. Three tenderers bid for lot 3: Jacops SA, the temporary consortium FlashRadar2Wal (Fabricom, now Equans, with Sensys Gatso Netherlands) and Macq SA. The specifications required each tenderer, after submitting its bid, to give a ‘proof of concept’: a real-time technical presentation of its management software to the evaluation committee. That test formed award criterion B, worth 10 out of 100 points, and ‘on pain of exclusion of the bid’ the score had to be at least 6/10. The presentations took place on 22 June 2022 in Namur. On 14 September 2022 the minister awarded lot 3 to Jacops. Fabricom, Sensys Gatso Netherlands and Macq applied on 29 September 2022 for suspension under the extreme urgency procedure of the award of all three lots, after which the minister withdrew the award of lot 3 on 12 October 2022 because its formal reasoning was inadequate. In a new decision, taken on an unknown date and notified on 5 April 2023, the minister found Jacops’ bid substantially irregular and awarded lot 3 to FlashRadar2Wal. Jacops brought an action for annulment on 14 April 2023. By judgment no. 256.537 of 16 May 2023 the Council of State had already suspended that decision. The crux: FlashRadar2Wal scored exactly 6/10 for criterion B, while the award decision itself acknowledged that its presentation had been ‘essentially on a PowerPoint, and not in real time’, that the partial live element relied on Macq’s M3 software, and that integration of the red-light system offered into M3 was still ‘in development’, so that the management features were demonstrated on the radar supplier’s own software ‘and not at all through the M3 software’. In the evaluation report, the integrated police representatives also noted: ‘In strict compliance with the specifications, the score should be 4, because the presentation is not in real time for the M3 software, which implies the elimination [of FlashRadar2Wal] for this lot.’ On that basis the Council could neither understand nor verify the 6/10. Asking for more explanation in such a context is not a demand for ‘the reasons behind the reasons’, but for an explanation of why that score was nonetheless justified. The fact that Jacops’ own bid had been declared irregular did not remove its interest: the alleged irregularity may have led to the lot going to a tenderer that had also submitted an irregular bid, while only Jacops was excluded. According to the report, Jacops’ presentation was entirely in real time, with an interface integrated into the software, even though communication with the installations could not be shown because Jacops did not yet have any. In the annulment proceedings the Walloon Region filed neither a reply nor a final brief; the intervening parties filed no intervention brief and referred to their earlier submissions. After the report of auditor Esther Rombaux and on the concurring opinion of auditor Marie Lambert de Rouvroit, the 6th chamber (presiding judge David De Roy, councillors Florence Piret and Xavier Close) confirmed on 16 September 2026 the reasoning of the suspension judgment: the second plea is well founded. The Council did not examine the first plea, directed against the exclusion of Jacops’ own bid, as it could not lead to a wider annulment. The award of lot 3 to FlashRadar2Wal was annulled. The Walloon Region bears the 200 euro court fee, the 24 euro contribution and a procedural indemnity of 924 euros for Jacops; the intervening parties bear their 300 euro intervention fee.
Why does this matter?
A minimum score on an award criterion on pain of exclusion is a powerful tool: a bid below it is out, whatever its price. This judgment shows that the contracting authority must then take that threshold seriously in its reasoning. A score landing exactly on the threshold, while the facts in the file — a demo consisting mainly of slides and running on software other than the software offered — point to a lower score, calls for a detailed explanation. All the more so when members of the evaluation committee themselves proposed in writing a lower score and exclusion. Those ‘remarks’ in the evaluation report made the duty to state reasons heavier, not lighter. The judgment also confirms an important procedural point: a tenderer whose own bid was excluded retains an interest in challenging the regularity of the winning bid, because treating one strictly and the other leniently affects equal treatment. Finally, the timeline is instructive: the award was suspended as early as May 2023, but annulment only followed in September 2026. In the meantime, the Walloon Region did not even defend its decision with a brief. For a central purchasing arrangement for speed cameras, that means more than three years of legal uncertainty over one lot.
The lesson
For tenderers: if the specifications require a live demonstration of your software, demonstrate it live, with the software you are offering — not with slides or with a partner’s or supplier’s software. If integration is still in development, it will show and may cost you the threshold score. If your bid was excluded, also look critically at the winner’s score on criteria with an exclusion threshold: if it lands just above while the file points the other way, you have both an interest and a serious complaint. Ask for access to the evaluation report; remarks by committee members can be decisive. For contracting authorities: a minimum score leading to exclusion must be applied consistently. If you award a score exactly on the threshold, explain concretely why the requirements of the specifications are nonetheless met, especially when the award decision itself identifies shortcomings or committee members propose a lower score. Apply the same strictness to all tenderers.
Ask yourself
Can you demonstrate the software offered in your bid fully live on the demo date, with the features the specifications require? Do you know which award criteria carry a minimum score on pain of exclusion, and how to stay safely above it? If your bid was excluded: have you checked whether the winning bid met the same thresholds and requirements? Have you requested access to the evaluation report, including remarks by individual committee members? As a contracting authority: do you justify a score at or just above an exclusion threshold with concrete findings rather than a general formula? Do you address dissenting remarks by committee members explicitly in your award decision?
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 →