The procurement angle on the Lisbon funicular tragedy

Yesterday, the 140 year old Gloria funicular crashed into a building killing at least 16 people and injuring 21 more. The funiculars in Lisbon had operated for almost 1.5 centuries without any loss of life. Questions will be asked about the accident reasons and what was behind it. Finding those facts however imply looking into procurement.

I think it is quite settled that the funiculars were maintained internally by the operator (Carris - company owned by the muncipality) until a couple of years ago when maintenance was outsourced. Carris employees have already pointed the finger to the practices of the contractor hired to maintain the funiculars but, again, that is something to look at in the criminal investigation.

I found a contract from 2022 awarded to MNTC but published only in 2024 which was supposed to run for a year, with two possible 12 month extensions meaning it could last until 2025.

In April 2025 the company put out an open procedure contract notice for awarding a new maintenance contract for all the funiculars in Lisbon, including the one involved in yesterday's accident. The expected start date for this new contract was...August 31st, 2025, which is the end date for the final extension admissible in the 2022 contract. I say was because the tender was cancelled formally...on September 1st, 2025 due to all offers exceeding the maximum price for the contract.

So this can mean one of three things: first, when the accident happened, the existing contractor had its maintenance contract extended beyond its legal term or via an urgent direct award and the discussion will involve them as a contractor at the time of the accident.

Second, that there was no contractual arrangement in place and as such there will be no contractual obligation which may affect insurance claims and/or not tort and criminal liability. I simply do not know enough about these legal areas to pass any judgment.

Third, Portuguese media is claiming a direct award had been made to another company, so there may be a contractual arrangement in place to cover the maintenance from September 1st onwards. I could not find evidence of it thus far. It does not mean it does not exist, just that it was not loaded into the national public contracts database.

Either way, I can predict without any claims of foresight that his will go through the courts for years to come. Especially if there is a second company involved as I can already see the arguments of either (and respective insurers) pushing the liability into the other.