Arbitration clause under Concession Agreement prevails over RFP conditions; sole arbitrator appointed despite panel and pre-deposit requirements.

The Concession Agreement prevailed over the RFQ, RFP and LOIA where there was any conflict, so Article 22 operated as the governing arbitration clause between the parties. RFP conditions requiring a panel-based appointment and pre-deposit before invoking arbitration could not override the Agreement and were also inconsistent with the law on unilateral appointment and onerous pre-deposit requirements. In Section 11 proceedings, the Court confined itself to the existence of an arbitration agreement, which was not disputed. The arbitration request was therefore maintainable and a sole arbitrator was appointed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration request was maintainable and whether the dispute had to be referred to arbitration under Article 22 of the Concession Agreement notwithstanding the preconditions contained in the RFP.

Analysis: The Concession Agreement made its terms prevail over the RFQ, RFP and LOIA in the event of conflict, and the dispute resolution clause in the Agreement was treated as the governing arbitration clause between the parties. The conditions in the RFP requiring a panel-based appointment and a pre-deposit before invocation of arbitration could not override the Agreement, and in any event such restrictive conditions were inconsistent with the law on unilateral appointment and onerous pre-deposit requirements. In proceedings under Section 11, the Court confined itself to the existence of an arbitration agreement, which was not in dispute.

Conclusion: The arbitration request was maintainable, Article 22 of the Concession Agreement was held to constitute the arbitration agreement, and a sole arbitrator was appointed.

---