Delpiazzo: Defense Intended Contract With Cardama Not to Take Effect Before False Guarantee Emerged

Lawyers representing Delpiazzo Abogados appeared before a special bicameral commission investigating the procurement of two patrol boats, an 82 million euro operation whose contract was rescinded by the current government. Carlos and José Miguel Delpiazzo presented their firm's role as advisors to the Ministry of Defense (MDN) during the process.

The firm's involvement centered on advising the MDN, then led by Senator Javier García, on the contract with the Spanish shipyard Cardama. The lawyers detailed their work in preparing the contract, assisting in its execution, and handling subsequent requirements, including those related to the guarantees that Cardama was obligated to provide. They noted that their firm was selected through a bidding process.

“

There were certain sensitive improvements regarding Cardama's initial claim. In this negotiation, there was a good reception from the ministerial authorities, and substantial progress was made regarding the version initially claimed by the shipyard.

José Miguel Delpiazzo highlighted that during negotiations, Cardama initially sought to avoid providing a performance bond, but Uruguayan regulations (TOCAF) mandated it. He stated that the shipyard's initial demands were significantly improved during negotiations, and favorable aspects were achieved, such as stipulating Uruguayan law for dispute resolution. He confirmed that key contacts within the Ministry of Defense included the former Secretary of State Fabián Martínez and Finance Director Damián Galo.

The lawyers also addressed a report their firm prepared in August 2024. This report concerned the non-enforcement of the contract, signed in December 2023, due to Cardama's failure to provide guarantees after months of attempts. The Delpiazzo lawyers clarified that this document was requested by the Ministry of Defense itself and that, shortly after, three alternative guarantee options emerged, including one from Eurocommerce that was ultimately accepted. The firm asserted that the intention for the contract not to take effect occurred days before the false guarantee surfaced.

“

There was an intention by the Spanish shipyard to 'suppress' the faithful performance guarantee (for 5% of the contract value), but as Uruguayan regulations (TOCAF) required it, they were told no.