TCU maintains suspension of the dredging contract at the Port of Santos while reviewing Etesco's appeal

The dispute over the contract to deepen the access channel to the Port of Santos has entered a new phase at the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU). The Court maintained the preliminary suspension of the contract signed by the Santos Port Authority (APS) with Jan De Nul do Brasil Dragagem while it reviews the challenge filed by Etesco Construções e Comércio.

Etesco leads the Santos Dredging Consortium, which submitted a bid of approximately R$610 million in September 2025. The amount was about R$10 million lower than Jan De Nul's bid, and Jan De Nul was later declared the winner. Despite submitting the lowest bid, the consortium was disqualified during the tender.

One of the reasons cited was the initial absence of the complete worksheet for Indirect Benefits and Expenses (BDI). According to the analysis reported at the TCU, the documentation was submitted later, after a request from the contracting officer, without changing the total price. The disqualification also involved a change in the consortium's composition during the qualification phase.

The contract was eventually signed by APS with Jan De Nul. On August 5, 2026, however, the TCU reinstated the preliminary measure preventing the procurement from moving forward. As a result, the port authority must refrain from issuing the service order or suspend the effects of the contract until the court conducts a new assessment. APS and the contracted company will still be heard in the case.

In its final arguments submitted to the TCU, Etesco asked APS to examine the technical and economic-financial qualification documents of the consortium it leads. The company says that this review had not been completed and also challenges the criteria applied when evaluating the bids.

The company further maintains that the competitors were treated unequally, alleging that the winner was given opportunities to supplement documents and change amounts during the evaluation. Another point raised is the departure of CHEC-D, which held a 1% stake in the consortium. According to Etesco's submission, the withdrawal was communicated to the company on September 11 and to APS four days later, but it should not automatically invalidate the bid without checking the conditions of the other members.

The TCU's decision is preliminary. In the analysis presented, the court did not identify a serious irregularity that would prevent the contract from being awarded to the first-placed bidder and considered a review of its disqualification and exclusion from the qualification process possible in the final judgment. There is also another petition concerning the same tender, involving a possible separate irregularity, under the rapporteurship of another justice and awaiting a submission from the Office of the Prosecutor at the TCU.