Renfe’s contract for the Fevemocho 31‑train line has sparked serious questions about transparency and process.
Across public procurement circles and business discussions within the administration, experts describe the order as highly unusual. Observers note that the contract resolution appears to be treated as a fixed outcome, with compensation arranged for the concessionaire, CAF of the Basque region. The central figure repeatedly blamed is Renfe, while the Ministry of Transport maintains that the contract is proceeding, no new tenders are required, trains are slated for completion in 2026, and the European aid of 150 million remains secure.
Emilio Menéndez, who heads the port of Gijón and has contributed to several works on public procurement, flags several unusual aspects. He highlights that some details of the administrative clauses and technical requirements are kept confidential and not accessible through the Public Sector Contracting Platform. These hidden elements raise questions about how specifications are disclosed and who has access to them.
The Ministry of Transport explains that the lack of published specifications on the platform stems from the law reserving certain information for bidders in a negotiated procedure. It is suggested that a tender notice must invite new participants if others wish to bid, underscoring the idea that contracting authorities cannot know every specialized company worldwide. When requests for specifications or additional information arise, these would be directed to the contracting authority for clarification.
Industry observers note that access to pages can vary. In practice, several contracts awarded through this procedure have detailed specifications readily available, while a small number show inaccessible documents from certain public bodies. This pattern has been observed by a local newspaper’s informal audit of more than twenty contracts, where only a couple lacked accessible specifications.
Renfe’s contract publication remains confidential
There is a persistent claim that Renfe declined to publish the train contract two years prior citing confidentiality. The contract, valued at 190 million euros and awarded to CAF, is framed as more than a simple supply; it involves a manufacturing component and an integrated project detailing the trains to be procured. Critics argue that the contract file would be incomplete without the necessary project revisions, suggesting that the absence of a finalized production plan compromises delivery. This situation, according to observers, points to potential deficiencies attributable to the contracting authority.
A key step involves closely reviewing the re‑evaluation report to confirm which trains will pass site tests and whether condition checks for circulation have been conducted. Some argue that, if these verifications have not occurred, the contracting authority should consider termination for fault attributable to the public entity and seek appropriate compensation for the contractor.
Audits question the use of public funds for Cantabria and Asturias trains
The delays have extensive financial implications. Projections suggest that several hundred million euros could be redirected toward other investments, with substantial sums potentially tied up in unspent funds and European aid. The investigation underscores concerns about governance, the efficiency of procurement processes, and whether missteps in tender handling have undermined project outcomes. A prominent figure in the discourse holds that Renfe’s performance contributed to the setbacks, while also noting governance and oversight responsibilities held by authorities such as port and transport entities responsible for public works and services.
Secrecy around train specifications remains controversial
In early 2021, Renfe refused a request to publish detailed tender specifications for the 31‑train line serving Cantabria and Asturias, citing the confidentiality of the content. The request, submitted via the Transparency Portal, followed Renfe’s award of the contract to CAF for 190 million euros. The rejection cited the sensitivity of employment and exploitation plans and the cost of preparing such information, arguing it could reveal trade secrets to competitors. The rationale highlights a broader tension between transparency and protections for sensitive commercial information, a debate that continues as the project progresses and the documentation landscape evolves.
Across major train procurement programs, the tendency is to balance openness with safeguards for competitive advantage. The ongoing discussion centers on whether public access to tender documents would meaningfully improve accountability, and how best to align procurement rules with legitimate business protections while ensuring public confidence in the process. This case remains a focal point for reviews of how confidential elements are handled in large-scale transportation projects.