| Work Detail |
Provision 24/2025, issued by the National Procurement Office, establishes a new qualification system for public works contracting companies. This change, based on Decree 105/2025, has generated strong criticism from both legal and technical perspectives. According to industry experts, both the decree and the provision lack legal validity because they contradict higher-level regulations. First, it should be noted that Decree 105/2025 modifies essential aspects of Law 13.064 , which regulates the procurement of public works nationwide. This law has legal status and, therefore, cannot be modified by decree without a Congressional act authorizing such action. Consequently, Provision 24/2025, based on this decree, would be absolutely null and void , which seriously compromises its legitimacy. Despite this, this provision is currently the methodology in force for the admission of bidders in public tenders. Unlike the previous regime (Provision 16/2019), the new regulations introduce the Module as an economic unit of measurement to determine the scale of contracts. Currently, one Module is equivalent to $40,000 , and contracts are divided into two categories: those that do not exceed 15,000 modules (equivalent to $600 million) and those that do. The main problem lies in Article 1 of the Annex to the Provision, which states: The jurisdiction and contracting entities may allow the reference financial capacity for execution to be higher in the specifications . In other words, the contracting entity is empowered to require—or not—certification of financial capacity . This point introduces serious operational uncertainty . Indeed, whether or not a qualification requirement is required is at the discretion of the contracting agency , which contradicts the very purpose of a qualification regulation. Under this scheme, any company, even one without experience or technical support, could bid if the specifications do not require prior qualification , which relativizes the meaning and control that this methodology seeks to impose . While the new framework expands the participation of potential bidders—in line with the deregulation objectives promoted by the national executive— it weakens the States role as a buyer , especially in highly critical contracts. The possibility of awarding contracts without requiring solvency or prior experience jeopardizes the execution of sensitive projects and shifts responsibility for potential noncompliance to the public administration . Relaxing requirements can be a useful tool for removing unnecessary barriers and promoting greater competition. However, without establishing mandatory minimum standards , the system becomes discretionary and prone to planning errors, inefficiency, and contractual disputes . In short, the new regime creates a scenario in which market opening is achieved at the expense of technical predictability and legal certainty , leaving decisions that should be clearly regulated in the hands of each contracting body. |
