The Mambelli file: 217 documents, a school and the questions left

Every fact in this account comes from a document or a recording, cited in the text; the “figure → source” table is in the linked dossier. “Not found” means “does not appear in the documents we hold”. The Municipality and the people mentioned have the right of reply, which we will publish in full.

“We will give all the answers in writing”

It is 30 July 2026, the last useful session before the summer break. Opposition councillor Ugo Giuliani presents a question on the Mambelli-Barnabei school, the largest PNRR building site in Atri. He says the Municipality asked the Ministry to move the works deadline from 30 June to 27 July because of asbestos found during demolition, that the Ministry agreed, and that “on 27 July the works are still in progress”. He asks whether the funding is confirmed.

The mayor replies that “we will give all the answers in writing”, because the quorum must be guaranteed and “today is 30 July” (recording of the session, minute 28:45). It is a procedural choice, justified by the quorum. The question, however, remains open: where does the school stand?

There are two ways to get a written answer from a municipality. Wait, or ask. On 25 August 2026 we asked.

Thirty days

The law on general civic access (art. 5(2), Legislative Decree 33/2013) is simple: anyone can ask for documents and data held by a public administration, without having to show an interest; the administration has thirty days to answer. Our request, addressed to the Municipality of Atri with a copy to the regional Ombudsman, was registered on 27 August as no. 0019925. The deadline falls on 26 September.

On 1 September the Municipality notifies the winning contractor, who as counter-interested party may object. It does not, and the deadline stays suspended for ten days. On 22 September, four days before expiry, we send a reminder by certified email: it is registered on the 23rd (no. 0021911) and assigned both to the General Secretariat and to the Public Works office, which actually holds the site documents.

On 25 September, one day before the deadline, the answer arrives: request granted. It is signed by the Head of the Public Works Area, with the transparency officer in copy. Inside, a link that will stay active only until 28 September. Inside the link, 217 files.

A file of 217 documents

Many have the .p7m extension: digitally signed documents, boxes within boxes that open one at a time. One is a scan without text. Inside are the tender design, the bids, the four tender reports, the executive design, the variant, the site handover reports, the extensions, the suspension, the first six progress statements with payment certificates, and the completion certificate. Missing are the test certificate, which has not yet been issued, and the tender specification, which does not appear in the list.

The documents cover three years in the life of the project, from the 2023 feasibility design to the 2026 completion certificate, and must be read in order of time.

Time, first of all

The PNRR does not forgive delays, and the documents show it. The contract, an “integrated” one covering design and execution, starts with a single bidder: technical score 53.700 out of 70, then rescaled to 70 (report no. 3 of 6 September 2023). The contractual deadline is 488 days from site handover. But the handover appears with three different dates: 28 December 2023, 26 May 2025, 9 June 2025. The 15 June 2026 deadline corresponds to 371 days from 9 June 2025 and in one extension is described as “571 days”; 488 days from 9 June 2025 would reach 10 October 2026. We do not call them errors: they are numbers that do not match in the documents, and only the Municipality can say which are right.

15 June 2026 does coincide with another figure: the company's supplementary schedule shared with the PNRR Mission Unit on 15 May 2025. Almost in parallel, on 12 June, a partial suspension of works. The second extension motivates it by “unforeseen critical issues that emerged during demolition of the building being replaced”: this is the asbestos the question was about. The suspension report is in the file, but it is a scan without text, and we have not yet been able to read it.

The extensions do the rest: 15 days (11 June), then 27 (26 June), deadline 27 July. On 27 July the works manager certifies completion, “except for minor works”. Thirty days follow, then another thirty with a note of 13 August: new deadline, 25 September 2026. The day the Municipality answers us.

The Christmas variant

On 22 December 2025 the Responsible for the procedure orders the works “financed through the Conto Termico 2.0” to be replaced by compatible ones. The Municipality aims to access the GSE's Conto Termico with a proposal of €766,360.49. Eight days later, on 30 December, determination 1610 approves the variant as a non-substantial modification.

On paper the balance is almost nil: the contract goes from 4,089,310.44 to €4,086,723.42, minus 0.06%. But large figures move within that balance. Five categories are removed entirely: heating system (€172,808.52), primary air (€120,208.09), light fittings (€67,555.30), boiler room (€60,637.23), home automation (€24,014.74). Total: €445,223.88. Altogether the variant removes works worth €1,195,047.02 and adds €1,192,036.39, about 30.7% of the measured works of the executive design (our calculation). Among the additions, the layout of part of Largo Cherubini and the external walkways, previously in a stage excluded from the PNRR.

The determination says that for the reference PNRR Notice the variant does not require approval from the Mission Unit. Whether this reading is correct is a legal question, and not ours: here we report the figures. A harmless explanation, moreover, is in the text itself: moving certain works to another funding source, the Conto Termico, is a choice an administration may make in order not to lose resources.

What is not in the contract

The word that recurs throughout the file is “excluded”. The specifications and the budget list three items “excluded from PNRR financing”, totalling €940,436.40: stage 2, i.e. the square and external works (€522,416.53); the demolition of the INPS building (€64,280.64); and €353,739.23 of “improvement works”. The name of this last item deserves attention: in the bill of quantities it is the total demolition of the old school, 4,650 cubic metres of reinforced concrete and 9,481.5 of masonry. These are not the improvements offered in the tender.

The car park meant to rise where the old Mambelli stood is also not in the contract: the Municipality will build it “with additional funds” (variant report, p. 23). And the design no longer contains the underground car park planned in 2023: removed after the RUP's request of 27 October 2023 for archaeological reasons and to protect the historic walls. In its place, sixteen surface spaces. The gym, which the feasibility design planned to roof and equip, becomes “of the existing type” in the executive design.

Promises in a sealed envelope

In a tender with a single competitor, what makes the difference are the improvements in the technical bid. The company's lists many: photovoltaics of 85 kWp instead of 50, chilled beams, an energy management system with energy meters, wood-fibre insulation, triple-glazed windows, two lifts instead of one, bike and scooter stations, a pet area.

We compared that list with the executive design, the variant and SAL 6. The photovoltaic system in the contract is 19,920 watts peak, 19,795 accounted for at SAL 6: roughly a quarter of the 85 kWp. The lift is one. Triple glazing is in the executive design, then the variant replaces it with double. For many other items, chilled beams, wood fibre, bike stations, nothing corresponding appears in the price list. With a necessary caution: the same thing could be described in other words, or sit in a report. We cannot say they were dropped; we can say we do not find them, and ask the Municipality whether they were verified, reduced in price or abandoned by an act.

85.3%

The latest accounting snapshot in the file is SAL 6, at 13 July 2026: €3,485,431.51 out of €4,086,723.42, 85.3% of the contract. €601,291.91 remained. Comparing the variant's quantities with those of the SAL item by item, 111 items show no accounting at all (€317,694.72) and 77 are partial: among the former disposal of demolition waste, 33 internal doors, plaster, tactile paths; among the latter stoneware floors (1,736 square metres out of 2,346) and aluminium windows (46 out of 149).

It must be said clearly, because it is easy to misread: that is a snapshot taken fourteen days before the completion certificate, and finishes, external works and installations are exactly what a building site completes at the end. It cannot be claimed that those works were not done. It can be said that from the documents delivered, today, it is not possible to verify it: SAL 7, the final account, the final state of the work and the test certificate are missing.

The trees

The design provides for 23 trees to be removed, partly mature conifers: according to the report, an agronomic survey assessed their vigour and protection (the survey is not in the file). The Lebanon cedar of Piazza Cherubini is saved, because the building is moved by about seven metres. New trees are eight according to the report, eleven according to drawing B_06 and the bill of quantities (eight maples and three prunus), plus another 35 to be provided by the Municipality “in other public areas”, with no place or date. In the progress statements, nine removals already appear in SAL 1, up to 19 November 2025, and stay unchanged until SAL 6; no plantings are accounted for up to SAL 6. The Municipality can give a simple explanation, namely that they are outside the contract or planned for the end of the works: when and where remains to be asked.

What is missing

A file of 217 documents is excellent news for transparency, and it should be acknowledged: the Municipality answered within the deadline, fully with respect to the subject of the request, with reuse permitted by law. But the picture today has gaps that only the Municipality can fill:

• SAL 7 (if issued), the final account, the final state of the work and the list of works remaining after 27 July;
• the 12 June suspension report in legible form, and the resumption report;
• the Conto Termico documents: who executes, for how much, when, the works removed from the contract;
• the conformity check of the improvements offered in the tender;
• the test certificate and the energy certification;
• a reconciliation of amounts and dates that do not match across the documents: award (€4,225,542.20 against €4,187,992.13 in the executive design), safety costs (€264,950.55 against €208,841.79), labour (€900,000.00, then €850,535.91, then €932,247.77);
• the tender specification.

These are the questions we have already sent as a supplement to the request. When the Municipality answers, we will publish the answer in full, with the date. If it does not answer, we will publish that too.

Why we are writing about it

The Mambelli is a work of €5,116,110.52, paid largely with European funds, meant for the boys and girls of the town. What a public file says about how that money is spent is, without ambiguity, of public interest. We are not saying anything went wrong: we are saying that some figures in the documents do not match and that the missing documents are those needed to close the picture. The school was certified complete on 27 July; the rest, the Municipality can explain.

Last updated: 6 October 2026. Sources: documents delivered by the Municipality of Atri on 25 September 2026 (request ref. 0019925 of 27/08/2026); recording of the City Council of 30 July 2026. The suspension report of 12 June 2026 has not been read. No personal data is published.