bid was disclosed to a competitor. This breach of confidentiality has led SEDIF to stop the negotiations and award the contract based on intermediate bids submitted before the IT issue. This decision was not an easy one to take, and we worked closely with SEDIF on all the possible solutions available to identify and evaluate the risks of each solution. The decision to attribute the contract on the basis of intermediate bids has been challenged by one of the economic operators through a precontractual remedy, before the award of the contract. We successfully represented SEDIF before the Paris Administrative Court, which ruled that SEDIF’s decision was compliant with the French concession contract rules, and especially with the principle of equal treatment between the candidates. This ruling was confirmed by the French Council of State, which ruled that SEDIF had taken the best decision in the specific circumstances of the case. We are proud to have successfully advised SEDIF and defended this solution, even considering the pressure surrounding it. Once the decision to continue the procedure on the basis of the intermediate bids was confirmed, we advised SEDIF on the analysis of these bids and on the adjustments of the concession contract, which was particularly challenging as it was impossible to continue discussions with the economic operators. A considerable amount of work was therefore required before SEDIF could issue the decision to select the concessionaire. This choice was followed by another precontractual remedy, through which the unsuccessful economic operator tried to dispute the concession award procedure on multiple grounds. However, the Administrative Court rejected the claims and fully confirmed the legality of all aspects of the concession award procedure. Considering our involvement at every stage of this procedure, we received this decision with great satisfaction. Following this litigation, the contract was finally signed, but not without a long series of obstacles and several long months of constant mobilisation on our part. As this is such a significant project, providing clean water to so many inhabitants, how does this project align with the values of Lacourte Raquin Tatar? The SEDIF project is an ambitious one which perfectly matches the type of cases that our firm is keen on, for at least three reasons. The first reason is that this project required strong legal engineering, and the provision of legal advice with high added value, which perfectly matches the type of services that we make a priority to provide to our clients. Indeed, we always strive to bring a creative and tailored outlook to every situation, to obtain the best possible results. In the case of the SEDIF project, we have had to reflect a lot on the remuneration mechanisms as well as on the financing arrangements of investments, particularly on the billion-euro construction works for new installations aiming to produce “clean, limescale and chlorine-free water”. Finally, this type of projects requires helping the client to take decisions while taking into account numerous parameters and to reconcile various point of views. I believe that my experience as a mediator helped our client in the management of the project, especially as communication is a key factor of success, as is listening to the client and reformulating their needs to answer them as best as possible. Can you tell us about the final stages of this concession being awarded and whether any challenges arose which had to be addressed in the pressure of the last stretch? There was an incident which changed the parameters of the final stages of the concession award procedure. As a result of an IT issue, part of an economic operator’s 34 LAWYER MONTHLY JULY 2024
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk3Mzkz