In a statement, the Malta-based company refutes the accusations from the Court of Auditors (TdC) — which, in its ruling deeming the direct adjustment by the National Institute of Medical Emergency (INEM) void, claims that the company acted in bad faith throughout the process — and laments that it was not granted “the right to defense.”
Gulf Med states its intention to “present its detailed version of the facts in the appropriate forum” and reserves the right to “activate all available legal mechanisms, including a civil liability action against the Portuguese State, to repair damages to its reputation” caused by accusations it considers “unfounded and detrimental to its good name and image.”
Gulf Med Aviation Services was awarded the service of medical emergency helicopters as part of an international public tender that was supposed to start operations on July 1, which did not occur, compelling INEM to proceed with direct adjustment and seek support from the Air Force.
In its ruling on the direct adjustment, TdC notes that when opting for this, INEM faced a lack of concession and approval regarding the contract from the international public tender, alongside a communication from Gulf Med on June 13 indicating the company would not fulfill that contract.
The ruling also mentions that upon approving the contract, INEM was in a position to notify Gulf Med of the beginning of its validity, demanding the delivery of aircraft for inspection within the next twenty-four hours.
“Even if all the time predicted by the clauses 5th and 6th for inspection, correction of potential anomalies, and positioning of the aircraft for operational readiness by July 1st was needed, the contract could have commenced on July 8, were it not for Gulf Med’s non-compliance,” the document states.
According to TdC, the time elapsed between the award (March 26, 2025) and the signing of the contract (May 20, 2025) “is solely attributable to Gulf Med,” and the company’s declaration to INEM, on June 13, that it was unable to start operations was “totally unpredictable for INEM” and “demonstrates bad faith” by the company throughout the process.
Therefore, the Court of Auditors considers INEM should pay “the value corresponding to partial fulfillment of the part or parts of the performed services and demand compensation for the non-compliance of others, as per contractual terms.”
In today’s statement, Gulf Med refutes the accusations, stating that it “saved the Portuguese medical emergency service when no one else wanted or could do so” and claims it timely communicated the technical constraints related to full compliance with the main contract, “related to European aviation safety legal obligations (EU Regulation 965/2012).”
The company asserts it was the only one available for the transitional contract, “ensuring that Portugal would not be without helicopters exclusively dedicated to medical emergencies for a single day” and fulfilled this contract entirely.
It further states that after winning the international public tender, Gulf Med Aviation Services’ legal teams and INEM worked closely to ensure a seamless operator transition, safeguarding the existence of the Medical Emergency Helicopter Service.”
The company explains it “always followed the guidelines provided by INEM regarding the transitional phase” to prevent the Portuguese State from being unable to guarantee “an essential service for the country’s citizens.”
Gulf Med also claims its entry into the Portuguese market resulted in significant savings for the Portuguese State, noting that in the recently held international public tender, it presented “the most economically advantageous proposal, approximately 14 million euros lower than the previous provider of this INEM service.”
It also argues that the Court of Auditors made allegations against the company without ever notifying it, “without granting any opportunity for defense, and without considering the basic principles of contradiction.”
“This action constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights of any entity in a State of Law and causes damages to the reputation of a company that has always acted with complete transparency, responsibility, and professionalism,” it adds.
