Luis Alberto Meler’s testimony to the judge investigating the Les Naus protected-housing award in Alicante puts a specific explanation at the centre of the dispute: the bid was filed in just one day because the tender specifications were “very simple,” elDiario.es reports. That account should be tested against the procurement record, rather than accepted or dismissed on instinct.
The same report says rival developers who competed with Fraorgi, the successful company, gave a conflicting account as witnesses. They said the required documentation would normally take substantially longer to prepare, making such speed practically impossible. The disagreement matters because it concerns a checkable procedural question: what the tender required, which documents were submitted, and when they were assembled.
Meler also denied contacts with Alicante City Council. That denial is part of his reported testimony; it neither settles questions about the procedure nor establishes misconduct. Equally, the competitors’ objection is not itself proof of preferential treatment. The supplied material does not include the full tender, a document timeline, or the complete witness evidence.
The inquiry should therefore turn on those records. If the specifications were genuinely simple, the paperwork may account for the speed. If they required materials that usually take longer to produce, the gap between the accounts will need a stronger explanation. In a protected-housing award, an accessible procurement trail is more valuable than treating conflicting testimony as a verdict in advance.
Sources
- elDiario.es · Source date: 2026-11-09
Independent editorial content. WUA is not affiliated with any political party. 2026-11-09