I Public Law I When the Scoring of Criteria Reveals a Incomplete Examination of Bids

Grenoble Administrative Court, November 14, 2025, No. 2510707

1) Facts and Procedure

Excluded from a public works contract, the applicant company argued that two of the three criteria used by the contracting authority (“technical value” and “environmental performance”) were insufficiently precise, allowing the public buyer discretionary power and ultimately selecting a bid solely on the basis of the price offered by the candidate.

2) Decision reached by the court

The judge of the summary proceedings division of the Grenoble Administrative Court annulled the award procedure.

Firstly, contrary to the contracting authority’s claim, the environmental performance criterion was not specified in the Special Conditions of Contract (CCAP), thus preventing candidates from knowing the elements used by the contracting authority to assess their bids against this criterion.

On the other hand, the fact that the two highest-ranked bidders received virtually identical scores for the two aforementioned criteria demonstrates that the buyer ultimately considered only the price criterion. Indeed, the criteria used were far too vague to justify assigning such precise and identical scores to the two bidders (26.79/30 for the technical criterion and 6.67/10 for the environmental performance criterion).

3) Key takeaways from this decision

1/ Like any criterion, the environmental criterion should not be a “general” criterion but must be sufficiently precise and relevant to the actual execution of the contract.

2/ The scoring system can reveal procedural irregularities to the judge. While assigning the same scores to candidates is not in itself irregular, this circumstance, combined with other flaws, can lead the judge to conclude that the evaluation of the bids was not conducted properly.