"Concession" is not the same as "license", so I'd use "concessionaire".

And, in this context at least, it is awkward to say the contract is "held".

The substance of the phrase is that the person (entity or, perhaps, consortium) identified as the potential concessionaire in the bidding process (rather than some other participant in the bidding) is to be the named party in the concession contract. Indeed, it would not be unusual for the concessionaire not to exist at the time of the bidding.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-07-09 13:49:38 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Maria, I\'m not sure your switch to \"was awarded\" is correct. I can\'t tell for sure from the context, but my guess is that the document in which your phrase appears must be the \"pliego\", or bid conditions. If so, your phrase, while couched in the present tense, is speaking to the future.

If so, \"was awarded\" can\'t be right, because the award hasn\'t taken place, but \"is [which in English allows the sense of \"will be\"] the named party\" works.

Indeed, if my guess is correct, the translation might better be rendered \"the concessionaire will be...\"

Note also that the party or group to which the award is made may not be the same as the named party in the contract. As I noted before, the named party may not exist at the time of the award. That is, it may be a company to be formed by the successful bidder or bidding group after the award has been made. It\'s also possible that the \"named party\" may exist at the time of the bid, as a member of a bidding group, with the group getting the award and the member to be the party named in the contract.