Following scrutiny of Tamoil's bid – a process that is reported to have given rise to significant issues of contention about the bidder's financials and ownership structure – the JCC laid down a list of "deal-breakers" that the company had to comply with or lose the project. The December meeting was meant to discuss and finalize outstanding issues and pave the way for the signing the contract and officially handing the project to Tamoil. One of the issues on the agenda was the requirement of a performance guarantee in favour of the two governments to underwrite Tamoil East Africa, the local subsidiary company. While Oilinvest (Holding) had provided a deed of guarantee signed on 18 October, officials from the JCC learnt that the project guarantor would change to the Libyan African Investment Portfolio (LAP) "at a date to be given by notice". According to minutes of the meeting, the JCC noted that Oilinvest would no longer be the parent company for Tamoil East Africa – the responsibility for which would have been moved to LAP – and that "there are too many companies involved in the periphery of the selected bidder". Because of this intricate ownership web around the project, the JCC has now given Tamoil East Africa two weeks to produce notarized evidence of the legal existence of each company, evidence of authorization of the companies to invest in the project, as well as the internal ownership relationships between the various entities involved. Tamoil was announced as the successful bidder with the most economically advantageous offer in July after it offered a Capex (capital expenditure cost) of $71.2m and a tariff of $20/cum, edging out China Petroleum and Pipeline Engineering with a Capex of $125m and a tariff of $23.9/cum, and Misa/Shell Uganda with a Capex of $135m and a tariff of $24.1/cum. Tamoil's Capex has since risen to $78.2m after the inclusion of "vital components of the project" that the company had excluded, and the current negotiations are understood to looking at not just the integrity of the Tamoil bid, but whether it still represents value-for-money.