Winning a suspension ruling doesn't guarantee you'll get the contract — the authority can terminate the entire procedure
The Council of State rejects an appeal against the termination of a procurement procedure for a Medical First Responder study, because a prior suspension ruling that found the selection criterion at least ambiguous is in itself a sufficient ground to terminate and redraft the tender specifications.
What happened?
The Belgian Federal Public Health Service tendered for the follow-up of a scientific evaluation on Medical First Responders via an open procedure. The specifications required bidders to demonstrate references for two categories of scientific studies — emergency medical services and Medical First Responder — with a minimum value of €100,000 per reference. BV P. submitted four references. Two were rejected (triage software, B-Fast). The other two — the EVapp Hoogstraten pilot project and a citizen assistance research line — were treated by the authority as a single reference ('the EVapp project'), deemed relevant but insufficient because it was 'limited to cardiac arrest.' BV P. was not selected; the contract was awarded to KU Leuven on 11 December 2023. The Council of State suspended the award on 26 January 2024 (ruling no. 258.619). The Council found that the specification could not be read as requiring two separate references — or was at least ambiguous. Moreover, the 'limited to cardiac arrest' reasoning was unsound: the contract itself concerned precisely that subdomain. The authority had violated the patere legem principle. The authority then withdrew the award and terminated the procedure (decision of 22 February 2024), citing the need for new specifications to address the Council's observations. BV P. challenged the termination, arguing the suspension ruling hadn't found a fundamental flaw in the specifications, that reassessment was possible, and that the authority was really trying to tighten the selection criterion. At the hearing, BV P. added that the same contract had since been awarded informally to KU Leuven. The Council of State rejected the appeal. The reference to the suspension ruling — which found the criterion at least ambiguous — sufficed as a termination ground. The authority's discretion includes deciding that specifications need revision. The duty to state reasons doesn't extend to providing 'reasons for the reasons.' The informal award was a post-decision fact that couldn't affect the legality assessment ex tunc. The damages claim was also rejected.
Why does this matter?
This ruling clarifies that a contracting authority's discretion to terminate a procedure under Article 85 of the Public Procurement Act is broad. A suspension ruling finding a specification ambiguous is sufficient ground. The authority need not prove it cannot repair the specification without termination. For bidders: even winning a suspension doesn't guarantee selection or award.
The lesson
As a bidder: don't assume that winning a suspension ruling will automatically lead to selection or award. The authority can terminate the entire procedure and restart with new specifications — and citing the Council's findings is sufficient. As a contracting authority: you have broad discretion to terminate after a suspension, as long as you reference the Council's findings.
Ask yourself
If you've won a suspension ruling: has the contracting authority terminated the procedure based on that ruling? If so, realize that the Council is unlikely to find that termination unlawful — even if the suspension ruling validated your interpretation of the specifications.
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 →