(19 de agosto de 2026)-La Junta de Supervisión Fiscal (JSF) notifica al gobierno que recibe carta “profundamente preocupante” El asunto tiene que ver con el contrato de cinco mil millones de dólares de generación temporera de energía.
La Junta de Supervisión Fiscal notificó anoche a la administración de la gobernadora Jenniffer González que recibió una carta “perturbadora” de parte de la empresa ERock, en la controversia por el contrato de generación temporera de energía por cinco mil 900 millones de dólares. La misma de Enchanted Rock LLC que se publica a través de redes sociales – alega un esquema de falsificación de firmas, falsas representaciones y hasta intentos de extorsión por parte de Power Expectations, que le habían informado al Gobierno ante la firma de un acuerdo.
August 18, 2026
Osvaldo Carlo Linares, Esq
President
Third-Party Procurement Office (3PPO)
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Sent Via Email: ocarlo@recomspr.com
Re: Denial of Due Process, Failure to Provide Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard, and Improper
Revocation of Contract TPG2 Project (3PPO-0314-20-TPG2)
Dear Mr. Carlo:
We write on behalf of Power Expectations, LLC and the SPV that includes Flotek Industries, and Reyes
Contractor Group, LLC (“SPV”) to formally object to and challenge the action taken by the Financial
Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (“FOMB”) to revoke, terminate, cancel, suspend, or
otherwise adversely affect the SPV’s rights under the above-referenced contract.
The SPV has learned through the local media that the FOMB received and apparently considered a
complaint or adverse allegation concerning the SPV and that, notwithstanding the serious consequences of
that complaint, the FOMB never provided the SPV with notice of the complaint, the allegations being
asserted, the evidence purportedly supporting those allegations, or any meaningful opportunity to respond
before taking adverse action against the SPV and revoking the contract.
If confirmed, this procedure is fundamentally inconsistent with the most basic requirements of due process
of law. According to a press report, the FOMB received a complaint, a letter or a notification on August 7,
2026, questioning the representations of the signatories in the contract. The FOMB then move to revoke its
own approval without ever notifying the SPV.
The FOMB cannot receive allegations against a contracting party, consider those allegations in deciding to
affect the party’s contractual and property interests, and then deprive that party of its rights without first
giving the affected party notice and a meaningful opportunity to present its side of the matter, absent a
legally sufficient basis for immediate action.
As you are well aware, 3PPO has served as the sole point of contact for all matters relating to RFP 3PPO-
0314-20-TPG2. From the outset, following clear and undisputed instructions, we have engaged no
governmental entity directly without routing communications through 3PPO. Furthermore, every request
for information throughout this extensive and competitive process has been properly channeled exclusively
via 3PPO.
Should the FOMB have any concerns or require additional information, it would be incumbent upon 3PPO
to formally request such details from the SPV, in accordance with the established and customary
procedures. The risk of an erroneous decision is especially substantial where the FOMB has considered
only one side of a disputed matter. A filed complaint or a published news report are allegations, not a
finding or established truth.
Page of 42
The SPV is entitled to know what it is accused of doing, what evidence the FOMB relied upon, what
contractual or legal provisions the FOMB believes were violated, and what factual findings support the
decision.
As you are well aware, Article II, Section 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his liberty or property without due process of law…”. The
constitutional protection is not limited to individuals. It protects legally cognizable property interests from
arbitrary governmental deprivation, including interests affected by governmental administrative action.
The United States Constitution likewise protects against governmental deprivation of protected property
interests without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when state action is involved. Where
federal governmental action is involved, the corresponding protection arises under the Fifth Amendment.
The fundamental principle that both the FOMB failed to uphold in notifying the SPV is clear: the
government cannot make an adverse determination affecting a protected interest based on allegations
or evidence without providing the affected party an opportunity to contest them.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that due process requires an opportunity to be
heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner based on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has likewise recognized that procedural due process requires a fair and
impartial governmental process and has adopted the Mathews framework. Among the recognized
safeguards are adequate notice, an opportunity to be heard, the ability to examine and challenge adverse
evidence, and a decision based upon the record.
Those fundamental safeguards appear to have been absent here.
Accordingly, if the FOMB relied upon a complaint or allegations against the SPV as a basis for revoking
or terminating the SPV’s contract without first providing the SPV with notice and an opportunity to respond,
the FOMB’s action is subject to serious challenge as being contrary to statute, arbitrary and capricious,
procedurally defective, and constitutionally infirm.
The SPV’s rights under the contract constitute legally significant interests that cannot simply be disregarded
through an undisclosed administrative process.
The FOMB’s decision to revoke or terminate the contract has potentially substantial consequences for the
SPV’s property and contractual interests, including, among other things the SPV’s contractual rights;
amounts due or potentially due under the contract; expenditures and investments made in reliance upon the
contract; personnel and resources committed to performance; business relationships established in reliance
upon the FOMB’s representations and contractual obligations; the SPV’s ability to continue performing
under the contract; and the SPV’s reputation and ability to participate in future governmental business.
The SPV is particularly concerned that the FOMB may have made its decision based upon information,
statements, documents, or allegations that were never disclosed to the SPV and which the SPV therefore
had no opportunity to challenge. An administrative FOMB cannot fairly adjudicate a controversy by
permitting one side to present its case privately while denying the opposing party any meaningful
opportunity to respond.
Accordingly, the SPV hereby demands that the FOMB:
1. Immediately suspend and/or rescind the revocation of the SPV’s contract pending a lawful
determination of the matter;
Page of 43
2. The SPV demands disclosure of the complete administrative record relating to the complaint
and the FOMB’s decision, subject only to legitimate and specifically applicable confidentiality
or privilege protections.
3. Identify the person or entity that submitted the complaint, to the extent disclosure is legally
required or permitted;
4. Please provide detailed information regarding potential conflicts of interest within the
FOMB. Specifically, the FOMB must clarify whether an attorney affiliated with Oneil &
Borges, a law firm serving as one of the FOMB’s legal consultants, has approached any FOMB
officer on behalf of ERock, Inc., notwithstanding any conflict-of-interest considerations.
We have received reports alleging possible interference by Attorney Javier Vázquez-Morales,
who have engaged in multiple meetings with government officials in an effort to influence and
interfere in the contractual relationships between Power Expectations and the Autoridad de
Energía Eléctrica (AEE). Such conduct may constitute unlawful actions warranting further
investigation.
Additionally, we request full disclosure of any interventions or lobbying activities conducted
by the attorneys and lobbyists of the McConnell Valdés Law Firm. Media reports indicate that
the uncle of the FOMB’s Director of Revitalization, Mr. José Pérez Riera, represents Javelin
Commodities, which is a competitor participating in the Request for Proposals.
5. Provide copies of all documents, reports, communications, photographs, statements,
investigative materials, and other evidence upon which the FOMB relied in taking or
recommending adverse action against the SPV and provide the factual findings upon which the
FOMB based its decision. Also, identify every contractual, statutory, regulatory, or other legal
provision allegedly violated by the SPV;
6. Provide the factual findings upon which the FOMB based its decision;
7. Identify the official, committee, the board itself, or other FOMB’s body that made or
authorized the decision to revoke the FOMB determination;
8. Provide the date on which the decision was made and a copy of the actual written decision,
resolution, determination, or order;
9. Provide the complete administrative record concerning this matter;
10. Provide the SPV with a meaningful opportunity to submit a written response, documentary
evidence, legal arguments, and, where appropriate, to participate in a hearing before any final
adverse action is maintained;
11. Preserve all records relating to this matter, including emails, text messages, electronic
communications, internal memoranda, meeting notes, investigative materials, and
communications with the complainant or any third party; and
12. Confirm in writing that no further adverse action will be taken against the SPV based upon
the complaint until the SPV has been afforded the process required by law.
Page of 44
To the extent the FOMB has already issued a determination to revoke its approval this letter shall also
constitute a formal request for reconsideration and/or administrative review to the fullest extent permitted
by applicable law, without waiving any additional or different procedural requirements that may apply.
The SPV expressly reserves all rights to seek judicial review and all other remedies available under Puerto
Rico and federal law.
Given the seriousness of this matter, we request a written response within five (5) business days confirming
whether the FOMB received a complaint against the SPV; whether that complaint was considered in
connection with the contract; the legal authority relied upon by the FOMB; the evidence relied upon, beyond
a media report; the identity of the individual making the complaint and the decision-maker; the procedural
mechanism by which the SPV was supposedly afforded an opportunity to be heard; and the steps the FOMB
will take to cure the denial of due process.
If the FOMB contends that no hearing or opportunity to respond was required, please identify the specific
statutory, regulatory, contractual, or other legal authority upon which that position is based, including any
claimed emergency or other exception to the ordinary procedural requirements.
The government is entitled to enforce its contracts and protect the public interest. It is not, however, entitled
to do so by secretly adjudicating allegations against a contractor, relying upon undisclosed evidence, and
depriving the contractor of a meaningful opportunity to defend itself.
The SPV respectfully demands that the 3PPO and FOMB immediately correct this procedural defect and
afford the SPV the process to which it is entitled before any adverse determination affecting its contractual
rights is allowed to stand. The SPV expects from both entities to treat this matter with the seriousness
required by the constitutional and statutory rights at issue.
Nothing contained herein should be construed as a waiver of any contractual, statutory, constitutional,
administrative, or judicial right or remedy. The SPV expressly reserves all rights to seek judicial review
and all other remedies available under Puerto Rico and federal law.
Respectfully,
Eddie Echevarria
CEO
Power Expectations LLC
cc: Josué A. Colón, Executive Director, P3A: josue.colon@p3.pr.gov
Lionel Santa, P3A: Lionel.Santa@p3.pr.gov
Alexis G. Rivera, PREPA: alexis.rivera@prepa.pr.gov
Carlos Andreu Collazo, Greenberg Traurig, LLP , carlos.andreucollazo@gtlaw.com
Mari Zapata, PREPA, mary.zapata@prepa.pr.go
