A 134-seat planetarium scores the same as a 156-seat one — while the specifications ask for 150
The Council of State annuls the award of an architecture contract for a planetarium because the authority gave the same score to a 134-seat reference and a 156-seat reference for the sub-sub-criterion 'up to 150 seats', without motivation — and a post-hoc rule-of-three calculation cannot serve as justification.
What happened?
Idelux Développement awarded architecture services for a planetarium at the Euro Space Center. The specifications required capacity for up to 150 visitors, with a sub-sub-criterion 'up to 150 seats' scored on 5 points. The losing tenderer had a 156-seat reference; the winner had a 134-seat reference ('La Coupole'). Both received the same score, with the only motivation being that planetariums score higher than audiovisual halls — irrelevant since both references were planetariums. The Council first suspended the award (December 2023). Idelux announced it would withdraw the decision but never did. After over a year without requesting procedure continuation, the Council annulled via the abbreviated procedure. Idelux's argument that correcting the score wouldn't change the ranking (applying a rule of three: 134/150 of maximum) was rejected — the specifications prescribed no evaluation method for this sub-criterion, so the authority cannot assume it would have applied that particular formula.
Why does this matter?
This ruling demonstrates that when a sub-criterion references an objectively measurable element, the evaluation must be traceable. Giving the same score to objectively different offers without motivation is a manifest error or motivation deficiency. Post-hoc reconstruction of a hypothetical evaluation method doesn't remedy the deficiency.
The lesson
For authorities: if a sub-criterion references a measurable element, ensure your scoring is consistent with measurable differences. For tenderers: check whether your references objectively outperform the winner's on measurable sub-criteria — and whether the evaluation report reflects those differences.
Ask yourself
Does your sub-criterion contain an objectively measurable element? Are you scoring all offers consistently with measurable differences? Can you explain the score, or are you giving objectively different references the same score without motivation?
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 →