INTRODUCTION

The new Bidding Law has its origins closely with the State-owned Company Law (Federal Law N. 13.303/2016) as well as in the RDC (Differentiated Contracting Regime) (Federal Law N. 12.462/2011).

It has also been influenced, albeit to a lesser extent, by both the PPP Law and the Anti-Corruption Law. The repealed auction laws, and Federal Law N. 8.666/1993 have also contributed to the creation of the new Bidding Law.

We can state that the Constitutional Amendment N. 19/1998, which inserted the Principle of Effectiveness in article 37 caput of the Brazilian Federal Constitution had had its application, strictly speaking, after the new Bidding Law.

For the first time, typically private institutes such as planning, risk matrix and confidentiality (even temporarily) in negotiation have become a general rule in bidding processes.

We can affirm that taking into account that the rules of corporate governance in Public Administration (Public Administration itself, Federal Government, States and Municipalities) have only occurred after the new Bidding Law.

The new Bidding Law aims to introduce common concepts of private management into Public Administration in order to rationalise administrative activity. Basic concepts from the private sector, such as planning, cost reduction, standardisation on ongoing procedures have been ruled at that time.

The new Bidding Law is the result of the experience on the laws above, and it has held its parameters in the understandings of the TCU to be pointed out in this work, as long as no specific understanding on that law itself can yet be observed at the current time.

The objective of this work is not only to summarise main changes on Bidding Law, but also to serve as a practical manual for day-to-day queries in the bidding sector and law offices that issue opinions in bidding procedures. Its author is a municipal lawyer who has always sought to maintain dialogue with the soul of Public Administration, that is the bidding sector.

In fact, the dialogue among sectors is the main obstacle to Public Administration.

We also note the relevance of the Game Theory for better understanding the bidding game.

Please feel free to send any comments on this work to:

professorlaercio@hotmail.com

CHAPTER 1

ME AND EPP AND THE QUANTITATIVE ENABLEMENT OF THE NEW LAW

The new Bidding Law has created rules of proportionality to consider both the size of the bid and the size of the bidder.

The new Bidding Law provides for:

"Article 4th. The provisions contained in articles 42 to 49 of Complementary Law N. 123/2006 of 14th December are applicable to bidding and agreements herein observed.

(...)

Paragraph 1 - The provisions referred to in the caput of this article shall not be applied to:

Item I – cases of bidding for goods acquisition, or service providing contract in general, to the item which estimated value is higher than the maximum gross revenue allowed for purposes of small-sized businesses, as defined;

Item II - cases of engineering works and services contracts to bids which estimated value is higher than the maximum gross revenue allowed for purposes of small-sized businesses, as defined.

Paragraph 2 - Obtention of the benefits referred to in the caput of this article is limited to micro-enterprises and small-sized businesses that, in the calendar year in which the bidding is carried out, have not yet signed contracts with the Public Administration which combined values exceed the revenue maximum gross income allowed for purposes of small-sized businesses, as defined, and the body or entity must require the bidder to declare compliance with this limit in the bidding.

Articles 42 to 49 of Complementary Law N. 123/2006 mentioned in the transcription above provide benefits to the aforementioned companies as to thrive entrepreneurship.

Besides, it provides for reserved quotas, facilitation of qualification and subcontracting, preference and draw by agreement in bidding.

The innovation under this law comes to the specific compatibility of gross revenue and the bidding budget which ME and EPP will take part in.

In fact, if on one hand there are prerogatives capable of easing small-sized businesses access, on the other hand the opposite reasoning also follows logics: huge biddings might render or enable ME and EPP of joining in.

1.1. ORDINARY LAW X COMPLEMENTARY LAW

Superficial analysis might lead the reader to misunderstand the fact that a formal ordinary law could modify rules established by the Complementary Law N. 123/2006 out of the Federal Constitution parameters.

The Federal Constitution provides for the rule of substantial equality, that is, differential treatment upon inequality in article 179 of the Federal Constitution.

As it follows:

Article 179. The Federal Government, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities will provide micro-enterprises and small businesses, as defined by law, with differentiated laws aiming to encourage those companies by simplifying their administrative, tax, social security and credit obligations, either having them eliminate, or reduced under law.

There is no provision for a complementary law to regulate benefits for ME and EPP, as the Federal Constitution provides for under ordinary law, rather than complementary law.

In what comes for taxes, the provision for a complementary law is crystal clear. As below:

"Article 146. The Complementary Law is responsible for:

(...)

Item III - establishing general rules on tax law, especially on:

(...)

d) the definition of differentiated and favoured treatment for micro-enterprises and small businesses, including special or simplified regimes in the case of the tax provided for in Article 155, Item II, of taxes set out in article 195, item I and paragraphs 12 and 13, and the tax referred to in article 239. "

Therefore, from a formal point of view, there is no unconstitutionality since the new Bidding Law does not provide for tax rules.

The Complementary Law N. 123/2006 carries out several topics that concern ordinary laws. However, topics that do not require their effectiveness to be authorised through complementary laws can always be modified by ordinary laws as only taxes need complementary laws.

Furthermore, the complementary law did not address the issue of compatibility between the public body budget and the ME and EPP gross revenue while setting preferences.

Having overcome the issue of formal constitutionality, we shall now move on to the topic of substantial constitutionality, more specifically to the Principle of Equality.

From a substantial point of view, there is no offence to the Principle of Equality.

It is worth highlighting the fact that the rules in articles 42 to 49 are not always applied to bidding.

Bidding players report numerous cases in which, for example, there have been no division into quotas to benefit ME and EPP, in special because, as a matter of fact, quotas are indivisible, or there has been any loss to economies of scale.

To sum, the above rule has simply and solely provided for an obvious hypotheses in which favouring ME and EPP might tarnish the public interest and the Public Administration. A high-valued bidding attended by ME and EPP could damage the economy of scale, or the feasibility of the bidding subject matter contract itself.

Despite being hard to illustrate, there is nothing to prevent that the ME and EPP revenue will not be relevant to the bidding subject matter. At this hypotheses, the rule can be disregarded.

The case of João Goulart elevated motorway for purposes of environmentally sustainable urbanization, in the Municipality of São Paulo, reflects the real fact that a company annual gross revenue is totally irrelevant, and there would be no point in getting it limited to attending projects.

In this case, the Principle of Equality would rule out the above Law, even if the prize were of high value, or if the future work implied high amounts.

The rule, therefore, must be understood as an ordinary application of the Principle of Substantial Equality.

With regard to the application of the Principle of Equality, it is always appropriate to quote Professor Boaventura de Souza Santos for the Folha de S. Paulo news (https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/opiniao/fz03029808.htm):

The things which we put labels on are more important than the labels which we put on them.

The bidding modality, or its value, is not so relevant as the gross annual revenue or any other way to measure the company’s financial capacity.

For instance, no one would argue that a bid for the privatisation of a billion-dollar capital State-owned company held reserved quotas, or ME and EPP preference, since the size of the bidding subject matter prevents the participation of companies with limited capital, as well as that the public interest would be disregarded in the case of transferring control to those companies.

We point out the fact that the removal of privileged participation of the ME and EPP in the case such participation does not serve the public interest had already been provided for by Complementary Law N. 123/2006.

The Court Bandeirante has decided for:

"Sentence: ACTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST – Claim for annulment of the bidding procedure relating to vehicle rental for the Municipal Guard – Absence of illegality that tarnishes the event – Subject matter and contracting criteria included in the intangible stronghold of the administrative act not subject to modification by the Judiciary Power – Lack of evidence of overpricing – The participation of consortiums of organisations in bidding is optional under the terms of article 33 of Law N. 8.666/1990 – Differentiated and simplified treatment for micro-enterprises and small-sized businesses is excluded when it is not advantageous for Public Administration or represent harm to the set or complex of the subject matter to be contracted under the terms of article 49, item III, of Complementary Law N. 123/2006 – No voluntary appeals – Obligatory referral not granted

(Obligatory referral N. 1002256-83.2016.8.26.0309, Judge-rapporteur: Fermino Magnani Filho, District of Jundiaí, Fifth Chamber of Public Law, trial and publication date: 05.05.2019 –bolded emphasis added),

The new Bidding Law has made clear that, most likely, there will be no public interest in giving privileged participation to ME and EPP business entities.

1.2. ME AND EPP DRAW BY AGREEMENT DIFFERS FROM THE TRUE TIE

In short, the German author Robert Alexy¹ refers to the axiological superiority of principles in relation to rules.

The ME and EPP preference is a rule, rather than a principle, and must be subject to the principles bounding to the notice, such as prohibition for unjust enrichment and competitiveness.

Some lawyers understand that the preference merely taken as a tiebreaker criterion might result in the subversion of the axiological system described by Alexy, in other words, a rule (ME and EPP preference) converted into a principle to surpass the rules here described.

Such axiological subversion arises due to strict understanding of article 44 of Complementary Law N. 123/2006, which happens to be a far cry stricter than the systematic understanding recommended by Carlos Maximiliano².

SYSTEMATIC INTERPRETATION

Rules on ME and EPP preference are as below transcribed:

Article 44. In bidding procedures, the preference in contracting shall be ensured for micro-enterprises and small-sized companies as a tiebreaker criterion. (Law N. 14.133/2021)

Paragraph 1. - A tie corresponds to situations in which micro-enterprises and small-sized businesses’ offers are equal to, or up to 10% (ten percent) higher than the best-ranked offer.

Paragraph 2. - In the public notice modality, the percentage range established in Paragraph 1 of this article shall be up to 5% (five percent) higher than the best price.

Article 45. For the purposes of the provisions of article 44 of this Complementary Law, in the event of a tie, the following shall be carried out:

Item I - the best-ranked micro-enterprise or small-size businesses may offer price lower than that considered to be the winning of bid, in this case the bid subject matter shall be awarded for their favour;

Item II - if micro-enterprises or small-size businesses are not hired, in accordance to item I of the caput of this article, the remainders that may fall within the hypotheses of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 44 of this Complementary Law, shall be called upon in classification order for exercising same right;

Item III - in the case of equivalence of the values offered by micro-enterprises and small-size businesses which fall within the ranges established in paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 44 of this Complementary Law, a draw will be held among them to identify the one to offer first.

Paragraph 1 - In the event of non-contracting under the terms set out in the caput of this article, the bidding subject matter will be awarded in favour of the original winning offer.

Paragraph 2 - The provisions of this article shall only apply when the best initial offer has not been done by a micro-enterprise or small-size businesses.

Paragraph 3 - In the case of public notice, the best-ranked micro-enterprise or small-size businesses will be called upon to present a new offer within a maximum period of 5 (five) minutes after the closing of bids, under penalty of estoppel" (bolded emphasis added).

The ME and EPP has displayed authentic understanding Article 44 of Complementary Law N. 123/06 in its own statute as to consider the aforementioned tie as a fiction to ensure the most economically effective advantageous presentation to the Public Administration. In other words, an extra chance has been given to ME and EPP to present a more advantageous offer to the Public Authorities.

At no point has Complementary Law N. 123/2006 established preferences for the ME and EPP for just being so, and to detriment of any advantage sought by the Public Administration.

Article 49, item II of the same Complementary Law provides for:

"Article 49. The provisions of articles 47 and 48 of this Complementary Law shall not be applied:

(...)

III – if the differentiated and simplified regime of micro enterprises and small-size businesses is not advantageous for the Public Administration, or may bring any damage to the set or complex of the subject matter to be contracted;

In the same vein, ZENITE’s opinion to the REGIONAL UNIT OF FEDERAL REVENUE OFFICE - 10th FISCAL REGION states that in the event of a TRUE tie (and not the draw by agreement) there shall be a draw among all bidders.

Zenite’s³ opinion follows below:

"In view of the above, it is concluded that if there is a true tie (and not a draw by agreement) among offers of a micro-enterprise and a large company, the micro-enterprise shall not be promptly taken as winner. It is up to the Administration to summon the micro-enterprise to exercise its right of preference as provided for by Complementary Law N. 123/2006 of offering a lower bid. If no bidder benefits from this prerogative, the tiebreaker shall be done in accordance with Law N. 8.666/1993, which, as a rule, requires a draw." (bolded emphasis added).

The same IGAM opinion has been offered the Descalvado City Council, citing the TCE/SC for identical case:

"In this sense, it appears that, when the bidding subject matter lies on contracting of food vouchers supply, and the notice provides for the prohibition of a negative fee, the hypotheses of preferences within Complementary Law N. 123/2006 shall not be applied, otherwise an ME and EPP will always win biddings.

The prohibition on offers of negative fee will tie the minimum admitted fee of 0 (zero) and make it impossible for ME and EPP to propose any lower value.

Therefore, we may conclude that, in the case of a prohibition on presenting a negative administration fee, a draw shall take place among all bidding companies with no application of the rules of Complementary Law N. 123/2006, under penalty of equality and competitiveness of the event." (highlight in the original).

We also point out the provision of article 49 of the Statute of Micro and Small-sized Businesses⁴, according to which the aforementioned differentiated regime applied for MEs and EPPs may be waived if it is not advantageous for the Public Administration or may bring any damage to the set or complex of the subject matter to be contracted.

TCE/SP case law is also aligned with:

"Still regarding the provisions of the Statute of Micro and Small-size businesses that came into force after the changes in 2014 (Federal Complementary Law N. 147/2014), by article 48, item III, conjoined with article 49, item III of Federal