Chinese firm exits consortium in Port of Santos dredging tender

Chinese company Chec Dredging has withdrawn from the Santos Dragagem consortium and, as a result, from any involvement in the tender to deepen the Port of Santos navigation channel to 16 meters. The consortium was disqualified from the bidding process, which was won by Belgian dredging company Jan De Nul.

The Port of Santos dredging tender is currently stalled amid legal challenges and proceedings before Brazil’s federal audit court TCU. The Santos Port Authority, or APS, notified the court of Chec Dredging’s withdrawal on September 14.

Chec had formed the Santos Dragagem consortium with Etesco Construções e Comércio and Neptune Brasil. Neptune was the first company to leave the group.

After that change to the consortium’s original composition, TCU ruled that Etesco could not be reinstated in the bidding process and upheld the consortium’s disqualification. With Chec now becoming the second company to withdraw, APS has asked the court to take the new development into account in its continuing review of the case.

In a letter signed by APS President Anderson Pomini, the port authority said Chec had expressly informed Etesco that it had no commercial, operational or corporate interest in joining, forming or participating in the Santos Dragagem consortium or in carrying out the contract covered by the tender, even if the bidding result were changed in the future as a result of legal action brought by Etesco.

Chec also stated that if any future administrative or judicial decision changes the current tender result, the company should be considered unavailable and uninterested in forming or joining the consortium. Its participation, it said, should not be presumed or treated as automatically arising from the commitment previously signed.

APS considers Chec’s statement a material new development in the proceedings.

According to the port authority, if the result of Tender No. 51/2025 were changed, the bid submitted by the Santos Dragagem consortium under its original composition could not simply be reinstated. Chec would have to express its interest again, or the consortium would need to change its composition, triggering a new assessment of admissibility and qualification requirements.

APS asked TCU to add the communication and supporting documents to the case and consider the new circumstances when reviewing the requested interim measure and the other issues surrounding the tender.

Tender has faced repeated challenges

In January, TCU minister Bruno Dantas, then the rapporteur for the case, accepted a complaint filed by Etesco and temporarily suspended the tender after identifying signs of possible irregularities in the company’s disqualification. Dantas left the court this month.

The Santos Dragagem consortium had submitted the lowest bid, at R$610 million, R$10 million below the offer submitted by Jan De Nul, which ultimately won the tender. TCU’s full bench upheld the temporary suspension.

When examining the merits of the case, however, Dantas partially changed his position.

He found that APS had been excessively formalistic when it disqualified Etesco for initially failing to submit its cost spreadsheet and BDI documentation covering indirect costs and markup. At the same time, he considered Neptune Brasil’s departure from the consortium to be a material issue.

After Neptune withdrew, Etesco’s share in the consortium increased to 99%. Some equipment listed in the bid, however, belonged to Neptune, raising questions about whether the proposal remained viable under its original terms.

Dantas therefore concluded that Etesco should not be reinstated in the bidding process. TCU’s full bench agreed and lifted the suspension in May.

The tender and the contract signed with Jan De Nul were subsequently challenged again, this time by DTA Engenharia.

That complaint was due to be considered at a TCU session on August 26, but the court postponed its review.

TCU said that Ruling 2316/2026, issued on August 26, gave APS and Jan De Nul 15 days to respond to the issues raised in the case.

“Those submissions will be analyzed by the technical unit, and there is still no date for the case to return to the full court for consideration,” TCU said in a statement.

Source: A Tribuna

Sharing is caring!