Things are happening in Las Palmas. The Gran Canaria Tourism Board is embroiled in a new irregular contracting scandal. The Canary Islands Advisory Council has issued an unfavorable opinion on the validation of a multi-million euro verbal contract, forcing the tourism agency to declare the services provided by the company (...) for the organization of Convention ETAF 2025 null and void. Remember? A congress of hundreds of travel agents from the US and Canada that took place in southern Gran Canaria in October 2025.
In a resolution obtained by Maspalpomas24H, the Advisory Council urges the consulting authority, in this case the President of Tourism of Gran Canaria, Carlos Álamo, to adopt the necessary measures to bring its contracting activity into compliance with current legislation, eradicating once and for all these irregular contracting practices that call into question the management of public funds allocated to the island's tourism promotion. This episode casts a shadow of doubt on internal administrative processes at a crucial time for the image of the sector in Gran Canaria.
The case, which reveals negligent management within the entity dependent on the Gran Canaria Island Council, dates back to October 2025. According to the administrative file (EXP. 174/2026 RO), Gran Canaria Tourism verbally commissioned the aforementioned company to carry out various services for the aforementioned event, held at Expo Meloneras between October 4 and 8, 2025.
The problem arose when the contracting company submitted the corresponding invoice for a total amount of €45.349,78 (€42.382,97 plus €2.966,81 in IGIC). When attempting to process the payment, the agency's management department tried to justify the transaction as if it were a minor contract. However, the agency's Delegated Audit Office detected serious irregularities and issued a suspensive objection in December 2025.
In the report-proposal of resolution prepared by the agency itself to try to save the situation, it was argued that, although the determinations of the Public Sector Contracts Law (LCSP) had been breached by not processing the appropriate tendering procedure, "in no case could this service be dispensed with because it is an essential service in the fulfillment of the purposes of this public body."
This attempt at retroactive justification has been rejected by the Advisory Council. In its opinion, which Maspalomas24H has obtained, the regional legal body points out that the value of the contract (€45.349,78) far exceeds the legal limit established for minor service contracts, which is set at €15.000 (excluding IGIC) in the Public Sector Contracts Law (LCSP).
Therefore, it concludes that the administrative action has "clearly, manifestly, and ostensibly" incurred the grounds for annulment established in Article 47.1.e) of Law 39/2015, on the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations: "Decisions issued completely and absolutely disregarding the legally established procedure." The Advisory Council emphasizes that "any kind of bidding process for this purpose" has been bypassed, and the service has been provided "without any formal legal basis."
The company, for its part, has expressed its agreement with the initiation of the official review procedure for the payment of the invoice, arguing that the services were "effectively provided by its client to the full satisfaction of the Administration." Given the evidence of service provision and the contractor's good faith, and to prevent "unjust enrichment" on the part of the Administration, the Advisory Council considers it appropriate to continue the proceedings until their settlement. This means that Gran Canaria Tourism will have to pay the company for the cost of the work performed, but through an extraordinary annulment procedure, not through the ordinary contractual process.
This new ruling highlights a recurring irregularity within the autonomous agency, which the Advisory Council has already flagged on numerous previous occasions. The common practice of these "verbal agreements" to circumvent public procurement law and pay invoices "after the fact" represents, according to the advisory body, a "flagrant violation of the principles of transparency and competition" that should govern public procurement.
