Special Bidding Committee's response to BLS's challenge

On September 9, 2025, BLS International submitted a challenge letter regarding the technical qualification requirements of the Notice of Bidding published on September 2nd, 2025. In its filing, the challenger argued that the Embassy of Brazil in Beijing restricted competitiveness by requiring bidders to demonstrate prior experience in both conventional and electronic visa services. The company also contends that the two modalities are substantially similar in scope and complexity, that the one-year implementation period for e-visas already provided in the Notice makes prior experience unnecessary.

Decision

The challenge was submitted in a timely manner. The challenger’s arguments will be addressed in turn below.

III.A. "The lack of legal and tender notice basis for the request for the reconsideration filed by VF"

The possibility of submitting a challenge or request for clarification against a decision issued in response to a previous challenge does not need to be expressly provided for in the Notice or in the Basic Project. Such faculty derives from Article 164 of Law No. 14,133/2021 and from the principle of two-tier system of administrative review, which pervades the Brazilian legal system. Moreover, Ordinance MRE No. 463/2023 (Art. 21, §1º) expressly provides that requests for clarification and challenges regarding acts of the Special Bidding Committee may be examined either by the Committee itself or by the competent higher authority, through an appeal or request for reconsideration, thereby ensuring adversarial proceedings and ample defense.

Therefore, the Special Bidding Committee acted fully within the bounds of legality when admitting and partially granting VF’s request, which cannot be deemed irregular or null.

III. B. "The decision by the Special Bidding Committee and the amendments introduced in the tender notice", III. C. "Incompatibility of the technical qualification requirements with the object of the tender" and III.D "Compromise to the principle of competitiveness"

The challenger's allegation that the technical qualification requirements “had already been declared unreasonable and disproportionate by the Special Bidding Committee itself” does not reflect its actual content. As clearly stated in the Special Bidding Committee’s prior decision, the assessment was twofold: first, the provision of visa center services for physical and electronic visas was deemed similar enough that requiring extensive prior experience could amount to an excessively restrictive qualification; second, however, the Special Bidding Committee expressly acknowledged that it is reasonable and proportionate to require bidders to demonstrate some prior experience with electronic visa processing, since these services, while similar, are not identical and involve specific technological solutions and operational arrangements. The intent of this decision, therefore, was not to reject such a requirement, but to calibrate it in a manner that balances the principle of competitiveness with the legitimate need to ensure that bidders possess the indispensable technical and operational capacity to fulfill the contract.

This approach is consistent with Article 37, XXI, of the Federal Constitution, which permits the imposition of technical requirements strictly necessary to guarantee performance of contractual obligations, as well as with Article 67, II, §§3 and 5, of Law No. 14,133/2021, which emphasize the need for proof of operational capacity in services of similar technological and operational complexity. Moreover, the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) has confirmed, in Precedent No. 263, that it is lawful to demand proof of execution of minimum quantities in services of similar characteristics—provided such requirements are proportionate to the size and complexity of the contract object.

In this regard, the Special Bidding Committee underlines that the very purpose of the present bidding procedure is to contract a company capable of providing visa center services that include the electronic modality, which necessarily entails the handling of digital platforms, secure data transmission, and user support through technological channels. Moreover, as the Notice of Bidding stipulates, the estimated number of visa applications will be considerably higher in the electronic modality (average of 67,929 for years 2-5 of the contract) than in the conventional modality (14,341). As TCU Minister Marcos Bemquerer Costa emphasized during the debates on Precedent 263, "it is a duty of the Administration to identify the portions of the object of the tender that are most relevant and of greater value" -- in this case, the Notice of Bidding clearly identifies electronic visas as the most relevant portion of the services to be provided. Therefore, these specific features are not ancillary, but part of the core object of the tender, and therefore justify the requirement of prior experience in electronic visa processing as a condition proportionate to the obligations to be undertaken.

The current wording of the Tender Notice reflects a balanced interpretation: it neither imposes an excessively burdensome requirement that would unduly curtail competition, nor dispenses with the essential element of prior experience in electronic visa services, which is justified by the nature of the obligations to be performed. Far from creating interpretative uncertainty or contravening TCU precedents, the criteria set forth in the Notice of Bidding and its Annexes ensure both competitiveness and the protection of the public interest, by safeguarding that the selected bidder possesses adequate experience in the specific technological environment required for the gradual implementation of electronic visa processing.

III.D. "Compromise to the principle of competitiveness" and III.E. "Unreasonable excessive restriction"

As explained in the previous section, the requirement of prior experience in electronic visa processing is neither disproportionate nor unreasonable. While the principle of competitiveness mandates that qualification criteria must not be excessive, Article 37, XXI, of the Federal Constitution and Article 67 of Law No. 14,133/2021 also allow for technical requirements strictly necessary to guarantee the fulfillment of contractual obligations.

In this case, the distinction between physical and electronic visa processing is not incidental but intrinsic to the object of the tender, given, on the one hand, the far greater volume of estimated electronic visas and, on the other hand, the specific technological arrangements, secure digital platforms, and user support structures involved. Far from being an undue restriction, the requirement is balanced and calibrated. It does not require the extensive experience originally envisaged in the Notice of Bidding of XX August 2025, therefore promoting competition, but it does require that bidders possess a minimum level of familiarity with these specific operations. This qualification is crucial to safeguard the reliability and continuity of services to be rendered, and to protect public interest, which would hardly be fulfilled by a contractor with no experience whatsoever in the core object of the bidding. Accordingly, the qualification criteria are consistent with TCU Precedent No. 263 and fully aligned with the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the public interest.

III.F. Precedent of the Embassy of Brazil in Mexico

            The Special Bidding Committee acknowledges the decision adopted by the Embassy of Brazil in Mexico in 2024, but notes that it cannot be transposed mechanically to the present case. First, the factual and contractual contexts are distinct: the present procedure in China involves a larger user base, requiring greater technological robustness and operational capacity.

Second, the technological and regulatory environment has evolved significantly since 2024. Electronic visa processing has become progressively more common in the consular practices of many countries each year, and its operational requirements are increasingly well understood, making it reasonable in the present tender to require bidders to demonstrate at least some prior experience in this specific type of service. Electronic visas have become the standard mode of issuing visas for dozens of countries in all continents, with different service providers advertising in their official websites their capacities and experience in this modality.

Finally, it must be emphasized that, under TCU jurisprudence and Law No. 14,133/2021, the Administration retains discretion to set qualification requirements proportionate to the size and complexity of each procurement. The fact that a different Embassy, in a different context, adopted more flexible parameters does not preclude the Committee in Beijing from establishing criteria that are tailored to the present tender, in full compliance with the principles of legality, proportionality, and competitiveness.

            For the foregoing reasons,

The Special Bidding Committee rejects the request that the Notice of Bidding related to Process No. 09662.200035/2025-94 be amended to accept proof of prior experience in either conventional or electronic visa services, without requiring cumulative experience in both modalities.

The Special Bidding Committee rejects the request to suspend the bidding procedure.

Beijing, September 12, 2025.