The judge of the National Court José de la Mata, who investigates the alleged irregularities that surrounded the projection of the City of Justice in the Community of Madrid, has agreed to charge Commissioner Andrés Gómez Gordo for signing three contracts related to the security of the Precinct at the time when he was its Director of Security between 2007 and 2009. The judge investigates in this case alleged crimes of embezzlement, prevarication, influence peddling and corporate crimes.
The National Court investigates the hole of 100 million in the City of Justice of Esperanza Aguirre
Gómez Gordo is a policeman closely linked to the Popular Party. He worked as the person in charge of the security of this project that was launched by the Government of Esperanza Aguirre and which was never completed due to his connection with Francisco Granados. Later, he was appointed General Director of Documentation and Analysis of the Junta de Castilla-La Mancha when María Dolores de Cospedal was regional president, between 2011 and 2015. And as of that year he returned to active service and dedicated himself to closely monitoring the driver Sergio Ríos, the mole of the political brigade in the vicinity of Luis Bárcenas that he had met years ago, when they both worked for Granados. Gómez Gordo is being investigated in the Kitchen operation, also in the National Court.
To date, the one who was Second Vice President and Minister of Justice and the Interior of the Community of Madrid, Alfredo Prada; the architect and technical general director of the Isabelino Baños project; the technical deputy director Mariano José Sanz Piñar; the director of the financial area of the Madrid Justice Campus (CJM), Alicio de las Heras; as well as Felix José García de Castro, María Lourdes Manóvel and Paloma Mateo Martín.
Gómez Gordo now joins this list. De la Mata recalls that the commissioner was the Director of Security from December 2007 to October 2009 and that he signed together with the technical director Isabelo Baños the valuation reports of various offers submitted to the different tenders.
Specifically, the magistrate focuses on three hiring processes in which he participated. The first contract was for consulting and assistance for the implementation of a comprehensive security system in the City of Justice, which was tendered by open procedure and awarded by competition in 2007.
The basic bidding budget was 155,000 euros and the execution period was 12 months, and up to nine companies were presented, of which two (Technosafe and IDOM) offered more advantageous economic offers than the one that was finally awarded, TECISA 74 SL. In fact, Technosafe’s offer was classified as “reckless withdrawal” and was rejected without the contracting authority summoning her in court to explain or provide documentation.
The evaluation report of the offers was made by Gómez Gordo in February 2008, and the judge notes in his order of July 13, 2020, advanced by The reason and to which Europa Press has had access, which did not use a scoring system “but rather a too generic rating”. In addition, it clarifies that the permanent Contracting Board of the Campus of Justice did not intervene in this award.
After signing that agreement with the security consultancy by Prada, Gómez Gordo seven days later drafts an extension report and modifies the contract, increasing it by 87,507 euros. This figure coincides with the contract extension proposal presented by Tecisa 74 a few days later. “Which shows that the expansion and modification would have been agreed by both parties,” says the judge.
“The contracting body, violating the meaning and purpose of the tender, proceeded to modify the object of the contract from the same day it was formalized by means of an extension of it, which entailed an increase in the price of the contract in an amount greater than 64 percent, “the magistrate also recalls.
The same route followed another of the tenders, that of the hiring of the surveillance and security service at the campus of the Justice Campus construction works. There is also no evidence that there was a contracting table for this case or qualification and evaluation of the offers, when the base budget for the tender published in the tender was 205,170 euros.
De la Mata’s order indicates that almost twenty offers were presented, and that Gómez Gordo in January 2008 prepared a report estimating that the most favorable offer was that of Serygur SA for an amount of 183,552 euros, when really the cheapest offer was de Seguridad Integral Madrileña for an amount of 172,096 euros, and which was scored with zero points as an “abnormally low or disproportionate” offer.
As with the previous company, which was qualified in this way, no additional information was required to document the viability of the offer, nor was it requested clarification for a technical report. In fact, the contract was signed between Serygur SA and Prada in February 2008 for an amount of 183,552 euros, which amounts to 205,170 plus VAT.
Gómez Gordo, approximately one years after that award, considers “essential and justified” that the service be extended for the time strictly necessary and for a monthly amount of more than 15,000 euros until a new award is made (this time with a bid amount of 318,000 euros). But the same contract is extended a second time in March 2010 at the proposal of the CEO Miguel Giménez de Córdoba.
The contract for ticket control
Regarding the contract for the management service of entry control and management of the database in the works of phase 1 of the Campus of Justice, in the same way, there is no record that a contracting table will be established for the opening of the tender, which was estimated as a base of 59,280 euros.
Only two companies are present, Serygur Servicios SL and CODE Servicios SA. Gómez Gordo once again prepares a report in March 2008 and estimates that the best offer is that of Serygur Servicios SL and rejects the other for not meeting experience and knowledge requirements in occupational risk prevention despite the fact that the offer was more than 3,000 cheaper euros.
As with the previous contract, Gómez Gordo a year later considers it essential to extend it at a rate of 4,913 euros per month, and the same happens a year later, already in March 2010.
For these three contracts, the judge considers that he should be investigated in order to offer explanations about them, given that “from the actions carried out it is incidentally that he could have participated in the facts under investigation of the case.”