Politics never entered the room
In a parliamentary chamber in Navarre, a veteran public works official spent nearly three hours defending the integrity of a contested contract award, insisting that technical judgment and political influence occupy separate worlds. The Belate tunnel duplication project—awarded to an Acciona-led consortium in December 2023—has become a focal point for questions about whether procurement processes can truly remain insulated from power. López's testimony reflects a tension as old as public institutions themselves: the difficulty of proving a negative, of demonstrating that what did not happen, did not happen.
- Rumors that Acciona would win circulated with unusual intensity inside the department, unsettling the presumption of a clean, open competition.
- A general director's unexplained 60-day delay in signing the final report, combined with three dissenting votes and a non-suspensive objection, has kept investigators focused on the moments after the board concluded its work.
- López insists five independent technical evaluators cannot be collectively manipulated, yet acknowledges he cannot account for whether pressure reached his colleagues.
- The parliamentary commission is probing whether political figures—including Socialist leaders with ties to infrastructure negotiations—shaped outcomes that were supposed to be purely merit-based.
- The investigation remains open, with the testimony of a single board member neither closing the case nor confirming wrongdoing, leaving the process suspended between suspicion and proof.
José Francisco López García, who has led Navarre's Studies and Projects Service since 2011, appeared before a parliamentary commission for nearly three hours to defend the procurement process that awarded the Belate tunnel duplication contract to an Acciona-led consortium in December 2023. His central argument was simple: politics never entered the room. The technical evaluators scored the bids on merit, the voting procedures followed standard protocols, and he personally witnessed no interference.
Yet López did not deny the atmosphere surrounding the process. Rumors that Acciona would prevail had circulated among staff with unusual intensity—he called it normal in procurement, though conceded this case stood out. When asked whether board president Jesús Polo had ever pressured him to alter his scoring, López said no, while acknowledging he could not speak for his colleagues. He also noted, without apparent irony, that since his own evaluation already favored the Acciona team, there would have been little reason to approach him.
The board's structure was itself unusual—eight members rather than the typical five, combining technical experts with legal advisors. López defended this as broadening perspective, though it extended the timeline. Reports were redrafted four times, which he called routine. Less routine was the general director's decision to take more than 60 days to sign the final resolution, a delay López could not explain. After the board formally closed, members reconvened without the official monitor present, ostensibly so the director could inform himself before signing a document that carried dissenting votes.
López said he had never heard of Servinabar, one of the winning consortium's partners, and did not recall seeing prominent Socialist figures at the department during the board's work. He received no requests favoring any company—in this process or any previous one. Whether other board members faced pressure, he could not say. If they had, he called it grave. The investigation continues.
José Francisco López García sat before a parliamentary commission investigating public works contracts in Navarre, and for nearly three hours he defended the integrity of a process that had drawn scrutiny from multiple directions. As a member of the procurement board that awarded the Belate tunnel duplication project to a consortium led by Acciona in December 2023, López carried the weight of questions about whether politics had infiltrated what should have been a purely technical decision.
López, who has directed the Studies and Projects Service since 2011, was direct in his denials. He had seen no interference. The procurement board, he insisted, operated on technical grounds alone—politics never entered the room. When asked about the appointment in 2019 of Jesús Polo, the board's president, to lead a newly created Infrastructure Service, López said it did not surprise him. Nor did it trouble him that Polo's career had been extended to age 73. These were administrative decisions, separate from the work at hand.
Yet López acknowledged what others in the department had whispered: rumors circulated that Acciona would win. He characterized this as normal in procurement processes, though he conceded that in this case the talk had been unusually intense. The difference, he argued, was that such gossip did not sway the technical evaluators. When pressed on whether Polo had ever approached him to change his scoring, López said no—though he noted he could not speak to whether Polo had contacted other board members. He also could not explain why, if pressure existed, Polo would have needed to approach him at all, since his own evaluation apparently already favored the Acciona-led team.
The board itself was structured differently than typical procurement committees. Rather than five members, this one had eight: five technical experts who scored the bids, and three legal advisors. López defended the larger size as bringing diverse perspectives, though he acknowledged it lengthened the process. He dismissed the notion that five people could be manipulated into changing their evaluation. The scoring criteria were standard. The tender documents resembled those used in other projects. When the president presented his report, no one objected that his scoring had been altered, and all members voted in favor.
But the timeline raised questions. After the initial report was drafted, the process accelerated sharply—López attributed this to the timing before summer holidays and to a European directive on infrastructure projects whose final extension had expired in 2019. Navarre faced potential sanctions if the contract remained unsigned. In one brainstorming session, López himself had proposed eliminating the highest and lowest scores from board members, since no solution satisfied everyone. That idea went nowhere.
López noted that redrafting reports multiple times, as happened here on four occasions, was routine in public works procurement. Board members discussing the competing companies was also unremarkable. What was less typical was the general director taking more than 60 days to sign off on the report—López could not explain why. After the board formally closed, its members met again without the official monitor present. López said the general director wanted to inform himself before signing a resolution that carried a non-suspensive objection and three dissenting votes. He insisted that no one discussed eliminating those dissents.
Tensions had emerged among board members as the process unfolded. López had never heard of Servinabar, one of the winning consortium partners, nor of several other bidding companies. He did not recall seeing Socialist leaders Santos Cerdán or Ramón Alzórriz at the department during the board's work, though Cerdán had attended a Madrid meeting with the Ministry about infrastructure. No specific company was discussed there, López said, and he could not remember what role Cerdán played. He received no requests favoring any participating company—not in this process, not under any previous government. He had no personal interest in any bidder and believed no one else did either. Whether other board members faced pressure to change their scores, he could not say, but if they had, he called it grave.
Notable Quotes
The procurement board operates on technical grounds alone—politics never enters the room— José Francisco López García, board member
It is impossible to manipulate five people to modify the result— José Francisco López García
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
You testified that rumors about Acciona winning were more exaggerated than usual. What made this case different?
The intensity was unusual. In any procurement process, people talk. But here, the talk was louder, more persistent. That said, I maintain it didn't influence the technical evaluation.
Yet the board was larger than typical—eight members instead of five. Why add legal advisors to a technical decision?
Different perspectives. Though I'll admit it also made the process longer and more complex. The department made that choice, not us.
You proposed eliminating the highest and lowest scores to break a deadlock. That sounds like you were searching for a way to reach consensus, not following a predetermined outcome.
Exactly. We had no solution that satisfied everyone. I was trying to find a path forward. It wasn't adopted.
The general director waited over 60 days to sign. You don't know why?
No. It's not typical. But I can't speak to what was happening at that level.
You said tensions grew among board members. What kind of tensions?
Disagreements. Friction. The process wore on people. But that's different from saying someone was pressured to change their vote.
If no one was pressured, why did three members file dissenting votes?
Because they disagreed with the outcome. That's their right. It doesn't mean the process was corrupted.