Twenty-four hours after EL TIEMPO revealed the name of a security company that, according to complaints, the Civil Aviation Authority (Aerocivil) would favor with a million-dollar contract, the entity suspended the million-dollar process.
This newspaper learned of the resolution with which the administrative director of Aerocivil, Edilson Arenas, revokes the administrative act that opened the bidding process.
The firm
What was sought to be contracted were security services at 30 airports across the country and administrative buildings of the entity. The contract amounted to 78 billion pesos.
And several security sector unions warned about alleged inconsistencies in the process and possible favoritism towards a company.
EL TIEMPO had access to minutes of hearings of the process and observations from several interested parties where it is stated that the company allegedly being favored is Amcovit Ltda., which according to interested parties was the only one that met a key condition of the process.
The terms required that the firm awarded the contract have offices in all the cities where the service was to be executed. In fact, they warned that in previous bids, airport security was divided by several regions so that multiple interested parties could participate and not at a national level as was intended to be advanced.
The memorandum
After the publication of this newspaper, last Wednesday, July 15, Daniel Felipe Suárez Estrada, director of airport services, sent a request to revoke the opening of the bidding to Bismark Andrés Rodríguez, acting director of airport operations, and to Edilson Arenas, administrative director.
“After the opening of Public Bidding Process No. 26001276 H3 of 2026 and the clarification and risk hearing, the Secretariat of Airport Services undertook a thorough review of the pre-contractual documents in light of the multiple observations received for this purpose. During this examination, various structural inconsistencies were identified that compromise the technical, legal, and financial coherence of the process, directly affecting the clarity and sufficiency of the terms of reference,” reads the document known by EL TIEMPO.
Among the findings for which the revocation request was sent, the need to validate the prior studies of the bidding is highlighted: “In this regard, it is crucial to verify key aspects such as service coverage, the sufficiency of supervision mechanisms, the proper distribution of contractual risks, and the required technical and operational capacity of the future contractor.”
And among the grounds for restructuring the process, they mention that the lack of technical, legal, and financial coherence in the pre-contractual documents directly impacts the participation rules, generating ambiguity and imbalance for potential bidders.
They even request verification of the effective plurality of bidders due to the requirements related to territorial coverage, which as EL TIEMPO revealed was one of the alerts made by several interested parties in the process.
“It is imperative to verify that the participation requirements, especially those related to territorial coverage, infrastructure, or specific capabilities, do not unduly restrict the attendance of potential bidders,” reads the revocation request.
And they emphasize that the decision to move from a lot-based contracting scheme to a unified national contracting model requires robust and explicit technical and financial justification in the process documents.
They add: “The entity must precisely document how the unified model will contribute to better management of public resources, standardization of processes, and greater coherence in contractual execution at the national level. The absence of a detailed motivation based on solid data could call into question the transparency and objective selection of the process, as it does not show that the decision was made in favor of the public interest and administrative efficiency.”
In fact, they mention that an adjustment is necessary in the correspondence between the identified needs for the contractual object and the human and material capacities expected from the bidders: “For example, professional profiles must align with the functions and responsibilities that will actually be required for execution, and technical means must be strictly necessary to guarantee the quality and efficiency of the service or work. Documentary supports, in turn, must be clear and reasonable, avoiding excessive demands that complicate the preparation of bids without adding significant value to the evaluation.”
