Les conditions de mention d'un procédé de fabrication dans les cahiers des charges d'un contrat public

The conditions for mentioning a manufacturing process in the specifications of a public contract

by gmorales the 12 March 2016 | Category: Public markets
Les conditions de mention d'un procédé de fabrication dans les cahiers des charges d'un contrat public Les conditions de mention d'un procédé de fabrication dans les cahiers des charges d'un contrat public

Les conditions de mention d'un procédé de fabrication dans les cahiers des charges d'un contrat public CE February 10, 2016, SMC2 St, req.n ° 382148
In this case, the Council of State recalls that if the mention of a particular method or manufacturing process in the specifications is prohibited, it may in some cases be justified by the subject of the contract or, exceptionally, in the case where a sufficiently precise and intelligible description of the subject of the contract is not possible without it and provided that it is accompanied by the words "or equivalent". This judgment gives the opportunity to come back for a moment on the applicable provisions and the reading grid used by the Council of State.

Rule n ° 1: Prohibition to state a particular manufacturing process in the CCTP unless it is justified by the subject of the contract and accompanied by the mention "or equivalent"

The technical specifications are intended to enable the public purchaser to describe with as much precision as possible the characteristics of the services that are the subject of the contract and to facilitate to each candidate the formulation of his offer in such a way that it is best adapted to the needs expressed.

But in any case, those specifications can not have the effect of distorting competition by creating discrimination between candidates. For this reason, they must remain objective and neutral - otherwise translate into references to standards or performance or functional requirements to be achieved - and not refer to a particular manufacturing process.

Article 6-III of the Code des Marches Publics thus recalls the rule according to which the technical specifications of a CCTP must allow "the equal access of the candidates and can not have the effect of creating unjustified obstacles to the opening of the public procurement to competition ".

This is the reason why Article 6-IV of the Code des Marches Publics confirms that the CCTP can not mention a particular method or process of manufacture or a specific source or origin, or refer to a trademark or a specific patent, since such reference or reference would have the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators and thus limiting competition. Article 6-IV, however, provides two exceptions to the rule drafted in these terms: "However, such a reference or reference is possible if it is justified by the subject of the contract or, exceptionally, in the case where a description sufficiently The precise and intelligible nature of the object of the contract is not possible without it and provided that it is accompanied by the words: " or equivalent ""

In any case, article 6-VI of the Code des Marches Publics raises a guard by stating that the public purchaser must accept and analyze the offers that propose one or more processes "equivalent (s)" to the process mentioned in the CCTP of the market.
The article also sets out the procedures for assessing this equivalence without these being considered exhaustive. This can be demonstrated by the production of a manufacturer's technical file, a test report from a recognized body such as an independent testing laboratory or an accredited certification body proving that the process meets all the requirements. point to the performance or functional requirements of the process described in the CCTP. It is therefore up to the applicant to prove that the proposed process in support of its technical offer meets the performance or functional requirements of the planned process by producing the required technical elements. A public purchaser can not therefore declare an offer of a candidate to be irregular on the sole ground that he has proposed a manufacturing process that does not correspond to the particular manufacturing process provided for by the CCTP, since it includes all the elements required by the provisions of article 6-VI of the Code des Marches Publics. The public purchaser will be required to examine the offer and explain the reasons why he considers that the process can not be considered equivalent ...

Rule n ° 2: The reading grid of the provisions of article 6-IV by the administrative judge

This judgment also gives the opportunity to recall the grid of reading used by the administrative jurisdiction in case of litigation. In a judgment of 30 September 2001, Région Picardie, the Council of State considers that the operation of verifying that the technical requirements of a CCTP which mentions a manufacturing process are indeed legal comprises two operations successive: firstly, it is necessary to examine whether or not the technical specification in question has the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators and, secondly, in the event of such an infringement of the competition, to verify whether this specification is justified by the subject of the contract. " Considering that according to the IV of article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics: "The technical specifications can not mention a particular method or process of manufacture or a specific origin or origin, or refer to a trade mark or type, where such reference or reference would have the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators or products, but such a reference or reference is possible if it is justified by the subject of the contract or, exceptionally, in the case where a sufficiently precise and intelligible description of the subject of the contract is not possible without it and provided that it is accompanied by the words: "or equivalent". " whereas, with regard to service contracts, it is necessary, for the application of those provisions, to examine whether or not the technical specification in question has the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators and, in the case of assumption only of such an infringement of competition, if that specification is justified by the subject of the contract or, if that is not the case, whether a sufficiently precise and intelligible description of the object of the contract is not possible without it (EC September 30, 2011, Picardie Region, Req. No. 350431).

In this case, the Conseil d'Etat confirmed the solution that had been rendered by the pre-contractual judge considering that the reference by the CCTP to a particular software solution, excluding any other solution, was not justified by the object market, since there was no evidence in the file that only that software would have been able to meet the required technical requirements. Previously, the Conseil d'Etat had already had the opportunity to consider, without however explaining its method of analysis, that specifications of a CCTP that refer to a particular brand of pavers, and that the applicant did not support not that it would not have been able to present a similar offer on a technical level, are not justified by the object of the contract so that the procedure is irregular (EC 11 September 2006, Commune of Saran, req.n ° 293933).

In a judgment dated 20 December 2010, Sté Siorat, the Administrative Court of Marseille also considered that the reference to a particular method of weighing bituminous mixes via a label was not essential to describe the expected requirements relating to to the weighing system, but above all that the process covered by this technical specification was not justified by the subject-matter of the contract since undertakings which did not hold the label and referred to that process could offer guarantees which, without being equivalent, did not was no less sufficient in view of the purpose pursued by the contracting authority (CAA Marseille, 20 December 2010, Sté Siorat, req.no 08MA01775).

In the judgment of February 10, 2016, the object of the disputed market being the construction of a sports hall covered by a canvas, the municipality wanted to choose a fastening system of this cover fabric offering the best guarantees of aging, lower maintenance cost and better aesthetics. To this end, it has retained, by the requirements of Article 4.3 of the special technical clauses (CCTP), the method of fixing the cover fabric "with non-visible and discrete stainless steel profiles", which does not require "no maintenance". The Conseil d'Etat considers that this method of fixing the cover of the structure is justified by the very purpose of the contract. Consequently, the municipality has, in making the choice of this process, not ignored the provisions of IV of Article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics (CMP), which prohibits the mention of a particular manufacturing process except, in particular, if it is justified by the subject-matter of the contract or the principle of equality between the candidates, since the successful tenderer was not the only one to use this technique in this particular process. The solution could have been different if it had not been the case.

Rule 3: The review by the judge of the pre-contractual summary proceedings and the possibility of ordering a technical assessment during the procedure

First of all, it seems useful to recall that the pre-contractual judge has jurisdiction to verify the grounds for the rejection of an offer (CE 28 April 2006, Abraham Construction Public Works, 286443, CE March 21, 2007, St Nantaise des Eaux, req.no. 293933).

Secondly, the judge hearing the application for interim measures also has jurisdiction to verify whether the technical specifications of the CCTP do not have the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators in accordance with Article 6-III and 6-IV of the Code des Marches Publics ( TA Nimes, Ord., December 19, 2014, Phyto-plus, No. 1403724).

That being the case, this type of breach can quickly turn to the debates of technical experts without the judge being able to really convince himself in the short time allowed to decide the debate. This is to forget that it has the possibility, in case of doubt, to apply the provisions of Article R 625-2 of the Code to request a "technical opinion" to verify if the manufacturing process provided by the CCTP market could not be achieved by an equivalent process in order to guarantee freedom of access to public procurement and equality between candidates.

According to the provisions of article R 625-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice "when a technical question does not require complex investigations, the formation of judgment can instruct the person who commits to provide an opinion on the points that it determines. It may, for that purpose, designate a person appearing on one of the tables established pursuant to Article R. 221-9. It may, where appropriate, designate any other person of its choice. The consultant, to whom the file of the proceeding is not delivered, does not have to operate in a procedure contradictory with regard to the parts. The opinion is written down. It is communicated to the parties by the court ".

In a judgment dated May 6, 2014, the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal has already had the opportunity to apply the provisions of Article R 625-2 of the Code to request a technical opinion to verify whether the procedure CCTP could not be produced by an equivalent process in order to guarantee freedom of access to public procurement and equality between candidates: " 3. Considering that the technical opinion referred to in paragraph 2 was required in order to clarify, firstly, whether the provisions of the CCTP applicable to the contested market have the effect of making it impossible to fix a textile roof by mechanical profiles and to put it in tension without resorting for this purpose to a technique of which the patent belongs to the company SMC2 and if alternative solutions are conceivable, on the other hand, if the provisions of the same CCTP, as they impose a fastening system which, "non-visible and discreet", and not requiring any maintenance, prohibits the fixing of the cloths by ropes, halyards, bungees or any assimilated system without guarantee of similar aging, and exceed the needs inherent to the realization of the work and, finally, whether, and to what extent, the reference to the recommendations for the use of professionals in the CCTP may have tainted inconsistencies technical specifications of the market, having regard to the other provisions of that that the consultant filed his report on November 7, 2013 »(CAA Versailles, MC.B, Req.No. 11VE01594 before concluding that the requirement of a specific process for the manufacture of metal profiles is such as to limit access to public control and restrict play. competition).

Similarly, in a judgment dated 8 July 2010, the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal also applied the provisions of Article R 625-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice to request a technical opinion intended to verify the relevance of the reference to a manufacturing process described in the form of a label to describe the services provided by the market with regard to the freedom of access to public procurement and the equality of candidates:

" Considering that under the terms of Article III-3 of the special technical clauses: - The asphalt mixes will be delivered with a delivery note in accordance with the recommendations of Fascicle 27 and the coated standards. / - The weighing system set up on asphalt mixing plants must comply with the essential requirements of Directive 90/384 / EEC of June 20, 1990 transposed into French law by Decree No. 91-330 of March 27, 1991. / - The voucher will contain the following information: voucher number, name or business name of the producer, name of the work site or customer or delivery address, name of the carrier and number of the vehicle, designation of the material produced in accordance with the standard, date of delivery and time of departure of the manufacturing plant, total weight of the truck in load, mass of the empty truck, mass of the product material delivered. / - The weighing system shall be AQP (Association Qualité Pesage) or any other equivalent type. ;
Whereas it is common ground that these technical specifications are intended to ensure the reliability and indisputable certification of the quantities of coated mixes delivered on the delivery notes at the end of the asphalt mixing plant; that a reference to the AQP label, known to professionals in the sector, allows the administration to express in a clear, intelligible and precise way its high level of requirement in this field; that this label reflects the inviolable character of the mentions of weighing carried on the delivery notes; whereas the disputed market amounts to approximately EUR 1,5 million, two-thirds of which consists of the supply and implementation of asphalt mainly payable per tonne; that given the financial masses at stake based on the quantities of materials delivered, the reference to the AQP label is justified by the purpose of the contract; that the special technical clauses included in its article III-3 the obligatory mention recognizing the possibility of proposing an equivalent reference; that however, SOCIETY SIORAT argues that the reference to this label AQP has been a brake on the free play of competition particularly penalizing for small and medium enterprises of the sector by arguing that this label is not an objective specification and that she could not propose an equivalent system; that the state of the file does not allow the Court to make a decision knowingly on this means;
Considering that under Article R. 625-2 code administrative justice: When a technical issue does not require complex investigations, the formation of judgment can instruct the person it commits to provide a notice on the points it determines. The consultant, to whom the file of the proceeding is not delivered, does not have to operate in a procedure contradictory with respect to the parts. The notice is recorded in writing. It is communicated to the parties by the court;
Whereas, on the basis of those provisions, it is necessary to order a preliminary order in the form of a technical opinion for the purposes specified below and to reserve until the end of instance, the rights and means of the parties over which it is not expressly
"(CAA Marseille, July 8, 2010, Sté Siorat, req.no 08MA01775 before concluding the illegality of this reference likely to limit access to public order and restrict the game of competition).

The provisions of Article R 625-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice form part of the investigative measures that the judge of interim relief is authorized to take to verify that the manufacturing process required by the CCTP is not such as to eliminate certain candidates and is well justified by the purpose of the contract. Very recently, in a pre-contractual injunction dated August 22, 2014, Sté Vision IT Group, the judge of the pre-contractual judicial recourse made use of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure equivalent to those of Article R 625-2 of the Code of Justice. to request an expert's opinion on the validity of an electronic signature certificate giving rise to the irregularity of the tender (TGI Paris, Ord 22 August 2014, Sté Vision IT Group, n ° 14 / 56668-).
Like the judge of the pre-contractual judicial injunction, the judge of the pre-contractual administrative recourse is thus perfectly competent to make use of the provisions of the article R 625-2 of the Code of administrative justice and it is a pity that none has never used this possibility either automatically or at the initiative of the parties would only to appreciate the equivalence of processes in terms of functionality or performance ...

Where a procedure has a certain degree of technicality, the judge hearing the application for interim relief may systematically seek the opinion of an expert in order to answer the technical questions whose answer is necessary for the resolution of the dispute in so far as on the one hand the 20-day time limit for ruling is not prescribed on pain of nullity of the proceedings and, on the other hand, that it would not be serious to claim, except in a particular case, that a time-limit of a week or ten days would be an excessive blow to the general interest and this in the name of the interest of ensuring quality justice. The judge will nevertheless be more inclined to grant the defendant's request since the applicant, as we know, does not have the right to an effective remedy in pre-contractual relief, the signature of the contract terminating a possible appeal , which, some have understood, is very damaging ...

Board of state
N ° 382148
Mentioned in the tables of Lebon collection
7th / 2nd SSR
Ms Sophie Roussel, rapporteur
Mr Olivier Henrard, public rapporteur
SCP TIFFREAU, MARLANGE, BURGADE; SCP DIDIER, PINET; SCP GARREAU, BAUER-VIOLAS, FESCHOTTE-DESBOIS, lawyer (s)
Reading of Wednesday, February 10, 2016
FRENCH REPUBLIC

Considering the following procedure:

The company ACS Production has asked the Administrative Court of Montreuil, on the one hand, to cancel the contract relating to the construction of a indoor sports hall at the Léo Lagrange stadium concluded between the town of Bondy and Jean Lefebvre companies and SMC2 and, secondly, to condemn the municipality of Bondy to pay him the sum of 191 502,78 euros in compensation for the damage it believes to have suffered as a result of its foreclosure. By a judgment n ° 1000737 of March 29th, 2011, the administrative court of Montreuil rejected this request.

By a judgment n ° 11VE01594 of July 18, 2013, the administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, on the appeal of the company ACS Production, on the one hand, rejected the conclusions for the purpose of compensation presented by the company ACS Production, d On the other hand, before deciding on the rest of the claims in the application, it first ordered a hearing in the form of a technical opinion on the basis of Article R. 625-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice. .

By a new judgment n ° 11VE01594 of May 6, 2014, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, on the one hand, canceled, the judgment of March 29, 2011 of the administrative court of Montreuil as it rejected the conclusions of the ACS company directed against the construction market of a covered sports hall at the Léo Lagrange stadium and, on the other hand, canceled this market.

1 ° Under the n ° 382148, by a summary appeal and a complementary memory, registered with the secretariat of the litigation of the Council of State on July 3rd and October 3rd, 2014, the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre ask the Council of State:

  1. to set aside the judgment of the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal of 6 May 2014, in so far as it partially upholds the conclusions of ACS Production;
  2. settling the case on the merits, dismiss the appeal of the company ACS Production;
  3. to charge the company ACS Production the sum of 5,000 euros under Article L. 761-1 code administrative justice.

2 ° Under no. 382154, by a summary appeal and a supplementary memorandum, registered at the litigation secretariat of the Conseil d'Etat on 3 July and 6 October 2014, ACS Production asks the Conseil d'Etat:

  1. to set aside the same judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, in so far as it rejects its claims for the demolition of the structure built in execution of the canceled contract;
  2. to charge the commune of Bondy, companies Jean Lefebvre and SMC2 and MB..A ..., expert, the global sum of 4 000 euros under Article L. 761-1 code of administrative justice.

Considering the other parts of the files;

Viewed:

  • the code of public contracts;
  • the code of administrative justice;

After hearing in open session:

  • the report of Mrs. Sophie Roussel, master of petitions,
  • the conclusions of Olivier Henrard, public rapporteur;

The word having been given, before and after the conclusions, to the SCP Tiffreau, Marlange, of the Burgade, lawyer of the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre, to the SCP Didier, Pinet, lawyer of the company ACS Production and to the SCP Garreau, Bauer-Violas, Feschotte-Desbois, lawyer of the commune of Bondy;

Considering the note under advisement, recorded on January 22nd, 2016, presented by the company ACS Production under n ° 382154;

1. Considering that it appears from the documents in the file submitted to the judges of the merits that the town of Bondy launched on October 20, 2009 an open call for tenders for the construction of a covered sports hall at the Leo Lagrange stadium; that the contract was awarded on December 1, 2009 to a joint consortium composed of the companies Jean Lefebvre and SMC2; that the company ACS Production, candidate ousted, asked the administrative court of Montreuil the cancellation of the contract as well as the indemnification of the damage which she felt to have undergone due to its eviction; that his application was rejected by a judgment of March 29, 2011; that, by a judgment of July 18, 2013, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, on the appeal of the company ACS Production, rejected the compensatory conclusions presented by this company and, as regards the conclusions for cancellation contentious market, after having rejected all means except the one from the breach of Article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics, ordered, before say right, a technical opinion on the basis of Article R 625-2 of the Administrative Justice Code; that, by a judgment of May 6, 2014, the same court annulled the judgment of March 29, 2011 of the administrative court of Montreuil as he rejected the conclusions of the company ACS Production directed against the market and pronounced it cancellation; that it also charged to the commune of Bondy the expenses of the technical opinion and rejected the conclusions presented by the company ACS Production tending that it is enjoined the demolition of the work and that a title executory issued by the municipality of Bondy against the company SMC2 for the restitution by the latter of the total amount collected for the performance of the contract;

2. Considering that, on the one hand, under n ° 382148, the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre appeal in cassation against this judgment, insofar as it is partially entitled to the conclusions of the company ACS Production; that, on the other hand, under No. 382154, the company ACS Production appeals in cassation against the same judgment, insofar as it rejects the surplus of its conclusions; By the cross-appeal presented under the same number, the town of Bondy also appeals against this judgment, in so far as it is partially entitled to the conclusions of the company ACS Production; that these appeals must be joined to rule by a single decision;

Appeal No. 382154:

3. Considering that under IV of Article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics: "The technical specifications may not mention a particular method or process of manufacture or a specific source or origin, or refer to a mark, a patent or a type, since such reference or reference would have the effect of favoring or eliminating certain economic operators or certain products. However, such a reference or reference is possible if it is justified by the subject of the contract or, exceptionally, in the case where a sufficiently precise and intelligible description of the subject of the contract is not possible without it and the condition that it be accompanied by the words: "or equivalent";

4. Considering that it is for the judge, when he notes the existence of defects vitiating the validity of the contract, to appreciate the consequences; it is incumbent upon it, after having taken into consideration the nature of the illegality which may be committed, either to pronounce the termination of the contract or to modify certain of its clauses, or to decide on the continuation of its execution, possibly subject to measures by the contracting authority, either to award compensation for the damages suffered, or finally, after having verified whether the annulment of the contract would not involve an excessive infringement of the general interest or the rights of the contracting parties, of cancel, totally or partially, if necessary with a delayed effect, the contract;

5. Considering that the Administrative Court of Appeal found that the requirements of Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the technical clauses of the challenged contract, excluding any system of fixing the roofing of the building by ropes, halyards, bungees or any system assimilated, could not be satisfied without resorting to the technique of fastening by metal sections whose patent belonged to the company SMC2 and that the aforementioned provisions of Article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics had been ignored; that it has, for this reason, annulled the contested contract; that, however, it appears from the documents in the file submitted to the judges of the merits that, on the one hand, the municipality of Bondy has made the choice to adopt a technology then innovative fixing of the cover fabrics to improve aesthetics of the structure and to avoid the maintenance constraints imposed by the method of fixing by ropes, halyards or bungees and, secondly, that the requirements in question, motivated by that choice, were not intended to promote the SMC2 business; that, consequently, the commune of Bondy is justified to support, by its incidental appeal, that the administrative court of appeal of Versailles incorrectly qualified the facts by estimating that the illegality raised was, in the circumstances of the case, particularly serious and of such a nature as to justify the cancellation of the contract;

6. Considering that the findings for an injunction presented by the company ACS Production before the court are incidental to the conclusions it has submitted tending to the cancellation of the contract; that the annulment of the judgment under appeal as, by this judgment, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles annulled the contract in dispute entails, consequently, on the main appeal of this company and without it being need to examine his means, the annulment of the judgment in so far as he rejects his conclusions for the purpose of injunction;

7. Considering that it follows from the above that the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles of May 6, 2014 must be annulled;

Appeal No. 382148:

8. Considering that it follows from what has just been held above that the appeal of the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre against the judgment in so far as it cancels the contract at issue, has lost its purpose; that there is, therefore, no need to rule

9. Considering that it is necessary, in the circumstances of the case, to settle the case on the merits pursuant to Article L. 821-2 code administrative justice;

10. Considering that it follows from the investigation that the object of the contested contract is the construction of a sports hall covered by a canvas; that the municipality wanted to choose a fixing system of this cover fabric offering the best guarantees of aging, lower maintenance costs and better aesthetics; that to this end, it has retained, by the prescriptions of Article 4.3 of the special technical clauses, the method of fixing the cover fabric "by stainless steel profiles (...) nonvisible and discreet" , which requires "no maintenance"; whereas this method of fixing the cover of the structure is justified by the very object of the contract; that, consequently, the commune has, by making the choice of this process, not unrecognized the provisions of the IV of the article 6 of the code of the public contracts quoted above nor the principle of equality between the candidates;

11. Considering that it follows from the foregoing that the company ACS Production is unfounded to maintain that it is wrong that, by the judgment impugned of March 29, 2011, the administrative court of Montreuil rejected his request for cancellation of the contract; that it is necessary, consequently, to reject its conclusions for the purpose of injunction;

The conclusions presented under Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code:

12. Considering that the provisions of Article L. 761-1 code administrative justice prevent the amount requested by the company ACS Production under No. 382154 to be charged to the municipality of Bondy, which is not the losing party in this instance; that on the other hand, it is appropriate, in the circumstances of the case, to accede to the conclusions presented by the commune of Bondy under this number in application of these provisions and to put at the expense of the company ACS Production the sum EUR 4,500; that, in the circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to grant the conclusions presented in the same way by the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre, as well as those presented by the company ACS Production against the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre;

DECIDE:
--------------
Article 1: The judgment of the administrative court of appeal of Versailles of May 6, 2014 is canceled.
Article 2: There is no need to rule on the conclusions of the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre directed against this judgment.
Article 3: The conclusions of the company ACS Production tending to the annulment of the judgment of the administrative court of Montreuil of March 29, 2011 as it rejected the request for cancellation of the contract concluded by the commune of Bondy with the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre are, as well as its conclusions for the purpose of injunction, rejected.
Article 4: The company ACS Production will pay to the commune of Bondy the sum of 4,500 euros in application of the provisions of article L. 761-1 code administrative justice. The same conclusions presented by the companies ACS Production, SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre are rejected.
Article 5: This decision will be notified to the companies SMC2 and Jean Lefebvre, the company ACS Production and the municipality of Bondy.

summary : The object of the disputed market being the construction of a sports hall covered by a canvas, the municipality wanted to choose a fastening system of this cover fabric offering the best guarantees of aging, a lower maintenance cost and better aesthetic. To this end, it has retained, by the prescriptions of Article 4.3 of the special technical clauses (CCTP), the method of fixing the cover fabric with non-visible and discrete stainless steel profiles (...) which is requires no maintenance. This method of fixing the cover of the structure is justified by the very object of the market. Consequently, the municipality has, in making the choice of this process, not ignored the provisions of IV of Article 6 of the Code des Marches Publics (CMP), which prohibits the mention of a particular manufacturing process except, in particular, if it is justified by the subject of the contract, or the principle of equality between the candidates.