APS demands contractual change to free up resources for the Santos-Guarujá tunnel

The contractual modeling of the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for the Santos-Guarujá tunnel presents a relevant inconsistency between financial responsibility and control capacity.

According to a formal statement from the Santos Port Authority (APS) to the Federal Audit Court (TCU), the body is responsible for around half of the federal public resources provided for in the project.

However, it is not part of the decision-making flow that authorizes measurements, validates work stages or releases disbursements.

In the current structure, these competencies are concentrated in the Government of the State of São Paulo, responsible for conducting the concession contract. APS, despite participating in the financing, does not appear as an intervening party in the contract, which limits its institutional role.

This mismatch creates a direct problem: the obligation to provide resources is not accompanied by formal mechanisms for monitoring, inspection and technical validation.

In practice, this reduces the ability to control the application of federal resources.

APS itself recognizes that the current model does not offer sufficient legal security to make contributions. The agency also points out that it did not have full access to the contractual terms signed with the concessionaire, which worsens the limitation of supervision.

As a step forward, the Port Authority proposes the formalization of its participation in the contract, through an addendum that includes it as an intervening party.

The measure would allow its inclusion in the technical validation and disbursement authorization process, without changing the risk matrix or the economic-financial balance of the concession.

The request is in line with the TCU’s own guidelines, which require greater rigor in governance and accountability in projects involving federal resources.

Without this adjustment, the risk is operational: the absence of an adequate legal instrument may prevent or delay the release of resources, compromising the project’s schedule.

The case highlights a recurring point in large infrastructure projects: the need for alignment between those who finance, those who decide and those who supervise.

When this relationship is not clearly defined, the impact tends to fall directly on the execution of the work.