Overview
- The UCO material published Friday revealed internal Red.es emails in which evaluators wrote that 'Barrabés is the good one' and discussed lowering top scores to ensure his offer won.
- Investigators say evaluators agreed to hide that Barrabés’s bids lacked a required 'Libro Blanco', and then rated his UTE with top marks on the judged criteria.
- The UCO concluded the UTE The Valley–Barrabés was the main beneficiary of a 'decisive arbitrariness' in subjective scoring and sent its report to the European Public Prosecutor and to Judge Juan Carlos Peinado, who opened judicial inquiries.
- The contested adjudications total more than €10 million and include recommendation letters from Begoña Gómez, raising political sensitivity and intense media scrutiny.
- The evidence illustrates how subjective evaluation rules can be abused: investigators found scores fixed first and wording altered later, and some evaluators expressed shame at the manipulation which could lead to criminal charges for prevarication and fraud against the EU.