How is it possible that a destination that emerged more than years ago falls into these errors? Trust. The management of public services in Gran Canaria's tourism hub is under intense scrutiny. The San Bartolomé de Tirajana City Council has initiated an ex officio review procedure to declare the nullity of a contract amounting to €805.230,43, corresponding to the services of "beach attendants and hammock attendants" provided between December 2024 and May 2025.
This is not a simple administrative error: it is a flagrant exposure of institutional malpractice and the illegal extension of a contract that expired almost two decades ago. The crux of the scandal is the centralized services contract, which was initially awarded in 2003 and definitively expired in June 2007, including its extensions. However, the company has continued to provide its services "without contractual coverage" until at least May 2025, with the tacit consent of the City Council.
The internal justification, according to a report from the Department of Tourism, appeals to the "impossible temporary suspension" of an essential service. However, the Mayoral Decree initiating the review is forceful: the contract is null and void for "totally and absolutely disregarding the legally established procedure" (Art. 47.1.e) of the Public Sector Contracts Act (LCSP), which the Public Sector Contracts Act (LCSP) expressly prohibits. The City Council, de facto, operated with massive and illegal "verbal contracting" for years, ignoring the obligation to tender.
By declaring the nullity, the Administration seeks to clear the legal defect, but must compensate the company for the work performed. This is one of the most important political decisions of the process: The City Council proposes to pay €776.726,74 in compensation, but following the doctrine of the Council of State, this sum only covers the actual costs of the service, ignoring the industrial profit. Deduction of Industrial Profit: Since the invoices included a 4% Industrial Profit, the proposed resolution establishes the deduction of this margin, penalizing the company for operating without a valid contract. This measure is justified by the "prohibition of the venire contra factum propium" and the pursuit of "the contractor's indemnity," not its profit from a void contract.
Official sources point out that the Maspalomas case highlights a much broader governance issue. The justification for the illegal continuation of the contract is based on an "extraordinarily complex and delicate" situation—which includes labor court rulings, a redundancy plan (ERE), and the "manifest impossibility of assuming the cost of the service in the short or medium term"—exposed to a systemic risk to municipal finances.
An internal report warns of "serious losses for the Municipal Treasury" if the contractor were to invoke the Law against Late Payments, which could lead to claims for interest and, potentially, liability against the "personal assets of the authorities and/or officials responsible for the damage." The Mayor's Office has belatedly initiated a procedure for a new administrative concession for the sunbed service (after obtaining authorization from the Coastal Authority in March 2025), with the expectation of awarding the contract by late 2025 or early 2026. However, the urgent ex officio review reveals that legality in Gran Canaria's tourist jewel has, for too long, remained a mere administrative fiction.
