Bibliographic citations
Azaña, A., (2023). Informe sobre Expediente Arbitral 1908-308-18 CARC-PUCP (Consorcio Puentes del Norte vs Provias Nacional) [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25522
Azaña, A., Informe sobre Expediente Arbitral 1908-308-18 CARC-PUCP (Consorcio Puentes del Norte vs Provias Nacional) []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/25522
@misc{renati/20595,
title = "Informe sobre Expediente Arbitral 1908-308-18 CARC-PUCP (Consorcio Puentes del Norte vs Provias Nacional)",
author = "Azaña Chumacero, Antony David",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2023"
}
The present report consists of an analysis of the Majority Arbitration Award issued in Case 1908-308-18 CARC-PUCP. This arbitration has its background in the signing of Contract No. 012-2017-MTC/20 between Consorcio Puentes del Norte and Provias Nacional, under the lump sum and competitive bidding modality, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Public Procurement (Legislative Decree No. 1017) and its regulation approved by Supreme Decree No. 184-2008-EF, in force at that time. The controversy can be summarized as follows: The Consortium argues that it duly complied with the delivery of the Technical File despite having a higher construction budget than initially offered due to changes in the original contract conditions. On the other hand, Provias Nacional argues that the Consortium did not present an appropriate Technical File since the construction budget exceeded the initially offered price. In order to figure out whether the Consortium fulfilled the obligation to prepare a Technical File per the requirements of the Entity, we will analyse whether there was a valid justification to support the submission of said File as told by the Consortium. Therefore, we will compare the arguments of the Consortium, the Entity, and the Majority Arbitration Tribunal. Additionally, we will analyse the nature of the contract modality, the plain rigidity of the integrated terms, and whether there is any legal mechanism that allows for the preservation of the Contract or if its resolution is proper.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License