In a global qualitative assessment, isolated sub-elements don't count separately — and a concise selection report suffices when no issues arise
The Council rejects both grounds: criticizing a few sub-elements is insufficient to undermine a global qualitative assessment, and the contracting authority need not set out the selection examination in extenso when no problems arise.
What happened?
The City of Hasselt awards a framework agreement for bicycle leasing to NV J., scoring 87 points against 79 for the applicant. The difference lies mainly in the second award criterion 'process flow' (36 vs. 24 points). The applicant criticizes that four elements from its offer (velopass, free transfer of lease, Peppol invoicing, interim reporting) do not appear in the evaluation matrix, that an equal score on the third criterion is unjustified given its offer's advantages, and that the evaluation matrix merely describes without truly assessing. In a second ground, it argues the selection of the chosen tenderer did not go beyond the ESPD.
Why does this matter?
This judgment clarifies two key points for daily tender evaluation. First: in a global qualitative assessment with pre-announced scales (insufficient to excellent), you don't need to score each sub-element separately — it's the overall rating that counts. A tenderer pointing to four isolated elements for which it wasn't explicitly rewarded does not thereby undermine the global score. Second: when selection screening reveals no problems, a concise table with 'OK' suffices. The report need not set out that examination in extenso.
The lesson
A tender that is more detailed and better addresses the contracting authority's specific needs (here: teaching staff) may legitimately score higher, even if another tender performs better on individual sub-points. The evaluation matrix is not a checklist — it's an instrument for global assessment.
Ask yourself
Do you use a pre-announced assessment method with clear scales for qualitative award criteria? That gives you solid cover when challenged. Does your evaluation matrix contain evaluative wording ('detailed', 'handy', 'strong added value') beyond factual descriptions? That's the difference between a mere summary and a genuine assessment. Does your selection report for the chosen tenderer need to be extensive when no problems arise? No — a concise table with 'OK' suffices, provided the administrative file supports the examination.
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 →