In the above case, the work in the pre-protocol agreement ensured that all consortium members were able to follow the “unsurprising” bidding process, with a common vision of how to manage each step of the process, giving the project manager the confidence to meet a tight deadline. Although there were preliminary investments in this process, this ultimately meant that members were organizing properly to meet the deadlines of the tendering process and that they did not present any problems as a result of the offer. In preparing a pre-auction agreement, members should focus on the following issues: The applicant relied on e-mails proving the existence of the pre-offer agreement, in particular an e-mail from the defendant stating that the defendant was working on the plaintiff`s prior agreement to partner with the defendant and HC, and sought the applicant`s best offer on the basis of such a pre-agreement. Taking the time necessary to prepare a pre-offer agreement (sometimes called an agreement) governing members` operations during the tendering process can go a long way to facilitating effective communication between consortium members and saving time and money for all. The Tribunal therefore found that there was no pre-purchase agreement or subcontracting between the parties allowing the applicant to pay. The Tribunal found that no prior agreement had been reached between the applicant and the defendant, which is included in and/or attests to all four documents. The defendant pointed out that the applicant`s case was based on an agreement derived from the four documents and the conduct of the parties. It submitted that such a conclusion could not be reached and that, on the basis of the facts, no prior agreement had been reached and that the applicant and the defendant had only been preliminary interviews and were still confirmed at the stage of assessing the applicant`s suitability to be the subcontractor of the defendant for the performance of the subcontracting work. This agreement contains any obligation and agreement between the parties regarding the purpose of this agreement and brings together all discussions, negotiations and, if necessary, prior agreements between them, with the exception of the prior agreement reached between them on 24 May 2000.
According to the Court of Justice, the confidentiality agreement makes it clear that the parties are not bound by a current or future contract, with the exception of the continuation and continuation of negotiations on the applicant`s participation as a specialized subcontractor proposed in the tender for the main contract. The Tribunal found that the negotiations between the parties regarding the conditions for the applicant`s participation and appointment as a subcontractor and the applicant`s work after the subcontracting to the defendant were not clearly related to the fact that a binding sub-order had been concluded. This work was ultimately part of the ongoing process of due diligence and analysis of the defendant`s offer with respect to the appropriateness of the applicant`s appointment as a subcontractor. In light of these explicit provisions and in light of the fact that the applicant has the burden of proving the existence of the pre-offer agreement, the Tribunal stated that very convincing and clear evidence was needed to accept that, despite the recognition made by the parties in the confidentiality agreement, they actually concluded and concluded the pre-auction agreement. The Court will not involve a contract lightly, as there is no clear conduct applicable to the contract to be concluded. The court stated that there was no clear agreement on the part of the defendant that it would enter into a contract with the plaintiff if the defendant received the sub-contract.