The Council has issued a statement asserting that the contracting board's actions complied with current regulations and that the evaluation of bids was conducted with “transparency and technical rigor.” This declaration comes after an external legal report, commissioned by the City Council itself, pointed out deficiencies that could invalidate the procedure.
According to the municipal version, the contracting board, primarily composed of highly qualified officials, is the competent body for evaluating proposals and acted autonomously. External reports, according to the City Council, were used solely as supporting elements in decision-making, given the technical complexity of the water contract.
The external legal advisor notes deficiencies in the way the second technical advisor was incorporated into the bid evaluation, which, in their opinion, would have significant legal consequences for the procedure, which they consider "null and void.
However, the external legal opinion highlights that the power to use external experts, although provided for in regulations, is subject to specific requirements when they intervene in the evaluation of subjective criteria. The report recalls that Article 326.5 of the Public Sector Contracts Law requires, in such cases, authorization from the contracting body, explicit record in the file, and public disclosure of the identity and experience of the intervening technicians.
One of the main discrepancies lies in the incorporation of the second technical consultancy, Are Asesores. While Aymed, the first company, was formally appointed in September 2025 and published on the Contracting Platform, the inclusion of Are Asesores does not appear on the platform at the time of evaluation, nor is there an express agreement for substitution or withdrawal of the previous assignment. This difference in treatment is one of the key aspects that the legal report considers relevant for legal purposes.
The City Council emphasizes that the board did not automatically adopt any of the reports but conducted its own autonomous evaluation. Nevertheless, the session minutes and final scores reveal that the decisive technical difference between the bids occurred after receiving the second report, which introduced a different methodological framework. The legal report specifies that if external assistance does not meet legal requirements, the evaluation act could be affected.
Regarding transparency, the City Council highlights that both reports have been published for the knowledge of bidders. However, the legal report clarifies that the transparency required by regulations is prior to the evaluation, to allow bidders to know who is evaluating their bids and to exercise rights such as the recusal of technicians. Subsequent publication, while informative, does not replace this prior disclosure.
Finally, the municipal statement omits mention of an email, published by this newspaper, exchanged between Aymed and the head of the Mayor's cabinet, offering different possible versions of the technical report. This unrefuted exchange suggests the existence of different report scenarios before the board session, which contextualizes the subsequent request for a second evaluation.
