On 27/8/2025, VF submitted a request for the reconsideration or reversal of the decision issued on 15/8/2025 by the Special Bidding Committee (transcribed below), on the grounds that “the relaxation of the requirement for proving technical qualification regarding electronic visas entirely distorts the nature of this bidding process.” VF presents seven main arguments in its challenge, summarized by the following titles:

1. “Fundamental differences between services related to electronic visas and those related to non-electronic (conventional) visas”;
2. “Necessity of proving prior experience in eVisa (electronic visa) services”;
3. “Obligation to comply with the Basic Project underpinning the Bidding”;
4. “Violation of the principles of isonomy and fair competition”;
5. “Indispensability of experience in e-visas in light of the requirements of the Brazilian General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) and cybersecurity”; and
6. “Loss to the public treasury should the bidding notice maintain the provision allowing bidders to prove prior experience compatible with the object of the bidding on the basis of services related to non-electronic visas”.

In its prayer for relief, VF requests that “(a) a new decision be issued restoring the original wording of items 7.3.1.2 and 7.3.1.3 of the Notice; and subsequently (b) the notice be republished, with a new date set for the opening of the Bidding, reopening the deadline for bidders to submit qualification documents and financial proposals”. It presents an alternative request that the “Bidding be suspended until the entire planning phase of the procedure is reviewed, so that the Embassy of Brazil in Beijing may once again define the essential characteristics of the bidders to be required and proven, and make the necessary corrections to the Notice and its Annexes, with emphasis on the Basic Project and the technical qualification requirements”.

"Information to bidders: Committee's decision on challenge to the Notice of Bidding

BLS International submitted a challenge letter under item 4.1 of of the Tender Notice claiming that certain technical qualification requirements are too restrictive. In particular, it focuses on items 7.3.1.2 and 7.3.1.3 of the Tender Notice:

7.3.1.2. “That the bidder provided electronic visa development and operation services to a government agency with a minimum annual volume of 30,000 (thirty thousand) electronic visas issued for a period of at least 02 (two) years”.

7.3.1.3: “That the bidder developed and operated an electronic visa application website for the government of a national State, as well as a mobile application and call center that answered questions regarding visa applications.”

BLS claims, in sum, that these items impose requirements that are disproportionately restrictive and excessively complex. BLS also recalls a precedent from the Embassy of Brazil in Mexico under similar circumstances.

Decision

The challenge letter has been submitted in a timely manner.

The original purpose of items 7.3.1.2 and 7.3.1.3 was not to restrict competition, but to ensure that bidders have the necessary experience to deliver the required services. Nevertheless, if construed in an excessively restricted manner, requirements could prevent companies with extensive experience and operational capacity from participating in a bidding.

In the present case, the provision of electronic and non-electronic visa services are sufficiently similar to allow for a proper evaluation of prior experience. This is in line with the precedent from the Embassy of Brazil in Mexico, that decided to accept bidders that have provided a certain volume of visas in two years in both electronic and non-electronic formats, given the similarity of both services.

Therefore, with relation to item 7.3.1.2, the Special Bidding Committee has decided to accept bidders that provided visa operation services to a government agency with a minimum annual volume of 30,000 (thirty thousand) visas (electronic or not) for a period of at least 02 (two) years.

Regarding item 7.3.1.3, the Special Bidding Committee is not convinced the requirement to be excessively complex, as a demonstration of experience in operating a website, a mobile application and a call center for visa services is a reasonable requirement for a visa center. However, in light of the abovementioned similarity in the provision of electronic and non-electronic visa services, it will accept that such experience be demonstrated in relation to both kinds of visa."

VF’s submission was presented in a timely manner. The challenger’s arguments will be addressed in turn below.

1. Sections III.1 – “Fundamental differences between services related to electronic visas and those related to non-electronic (conventional) visas” and III.2 – “necessity of proving prior experience in eVisa (electronic visa) services”.

When exercising its discretionary judgment in establishing criteria for technical and operational qualification, the contracting authority must consider only those requirements that are “indispensable to ensuring compliance with the obligations [of the contract to be entered into]” (Article 37, XXI, of the 1988 Federal Constitution). In this context, the requirement to prove prior experience aims to demonstrate the bidder’s “operational capacity in executing services of equivalent or higher technological and operational complexity,” that the bidder “possesses technical knowledge and practical experience in performing services of similar characteristics,” and, in the case of continuous services, that the company “has previously executed services similar to the subject matter of the bidding” (Article 67, II, §§3 and 5, respectively, of Law No. 14,133/2021).

The Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) has already clarified that “for proving the technical and operational capacity of bidders- and provided that such requirements are simultaneously limited to the most relevant and significantly valuable portions of the contract object - it is lawful to require proof of minimum quantities executed in works or services of similar characteristics, provided that such requirements are proportionate to the size and complexity of the object to be performed” (TCU Precedent n. 263).

According to the TCU, prior experience must relate to “works or services of similar characteristics, not necessarily identical, to the intended object”:

“Indeed, this Court’s jurisprudence on the matter is well-established, recognizing technical qualification based on certificates for services with similar characteristics or of equal or higher complexity:

In contracts for works and services, technical qualification requirements must accept prior experience in works or services of similar characteristics, not necessarily identical to the intended object. Ruling No. 2914/2013 – TCU Plenary. Rapporteur: Minister Raimundo Carreiro.

Technical capability may be demonstrated through certificates for similar works or services with equivalent or higher technological and operational complexity. Ruling No. 2898/2012 – TCU Plenary. Rapporteur: Minister José Jorge.” (TCU, Ruling No. 298/2024 – Plenary, Rapporteur Minister Vital do Rêgo, Process No. 036.321/2023-0, session date: 02/28/2024).

In the case of the bidding notice under review, the Special Bidding Committee concluded that “if construed in an excessively restricted manner, requirements could prevent companies with extensive experience and operational capacity from participating in a bidding,” and that “the provision of electronic and non-electronic visa services are sufficiently similar to allow for a proper evaluation of prior experience.”

VF claims that the processing of visas in conventional and electronic modalities is “fundamentally” different due to the following aspects: scalability and automation; technological infrastructure; user experience and accessibility; digitally signed credentials; cybersecurity and data protection; and online payment processing.

The provision of “visa center” services for electronic and physical visas, while not identical, is similar. For example, in both cases the contractor must develop a website to receive applications; establish a call center to provide public service; verify the documentation submitted by applicants against a checklist defined by the contracting authority; and transfer consular fees to the contracting authority.

The Notice for Bidding and its annexes provide for a 1-year period for the contractor to have the Visit Visa Processing System (VIVIS) fully operational (Item 5.3.3 of Annex I to the Bidding Notice). During the bidding process, bidders must submit, along with their financial proposal, the initial version of the Plan for Commencement of Activities (Items 3.6.3 and 5.1.1 of Annex I to the Bidding Notice), which includes a description of the “steps to be followed for the implementation of the visa processing system in electronic form” (Item 3.6.2.3 of Annex I to the Bidding Notice). Ancillary services may also be subcontracted (Item 4.3 of Annex I to the Bidding Notice).

In the assessment of the Special Bidding Committee, on the one hand, the provision of visa center services for physical and electronic visas are similar, and differences in complexity or nature are not to the extent necessary to justify imposing excessively restrictive qualification requirements that could unduly curtail competition. On the other hand, the Committee acknowledges that it is reasonable and proportionate to require some prior experience with the provision of electronic visa processing services, given that these services are similar but not identical, and that electronic visa processing does require certain specific technological solutions and arrangements. In sum, the purpose of the Special Bidding Committee is to establish a balance on qualifications, which should neither be too strict as to prevent competition, nor disregard the necessary element of prior experience with electronic visas.

For these reasons, the Committee considers it appropriate to partially accept VF’s challenge and amend the Notice for Bidding and, consequently, the Annexes, so as to clarify that, while the requirement of a minimum annual volume can be assessed through both modalities of visa (physical or electronic), previous experience with electronic visas remains a necessary qualification. The relevant provisions to be amended are:

Notice for Bidding

“7.3. Technical Qualification

7.3.1. For technical qualification purposes, bidders must provide letters of reference from government agencies on past performance that demonstrate the following:

7.3.1.1. That the bidder established and operated reception and processing centers for visa applications for examination by consular authorities with a minimum annual volume of 30,000 (thirty thousand) applications for a period of at least 02 (two) years.

7.3.1.1.1. The 30,000-visa minimum referred to in item 7.3.1.1 may include visas in both physical and electronic modalities, provided that the experience is not limited exclusively to one modality.

7.3.1.2. That the bidder developed and operated a visa application website for the government of a national State, as well as a mobile application and call center that answered questions regarding visa applications.

7.3.1.2.1. The website, mobile application, and call center referred to in item 7.3.1.2 may relate to both physical and electronic visa applications, provided that the experience is not limited exclusively to only one of these service modalities.

7.3.2. The bidder must provide all necessary information to prove the authenticity and legitimacy of the technical qualification by sending, among other documents, a copy of the contract, the current contact address and telephone number of the contractor and the place where the services were provided.”

In any event, the Committee wishes to underscore that the requirement to prove the processing of an aggregate number of 30,000 visas remains in place, serving as a reasonable and proportionate guarantee of robust prior experience in the visa market.

1. OTHER GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE

Section III.3 – “Obligation to comply with the Basic Project underpinning the Bidding”. Item 4.1.3 of Annex I to the Notice states: “This bidding process aims to select a company with a solid reputation in the global market, specialized in both the reception and processing of visa applications and the issuance of electronic visas. Previous experience with services related to the same subject is a fundamental condition for qualifying bidders in the competition”.

For the reasons set forth in Section I of this decision, the Special Bidding Committee maintains that “previous experience with services related to the same subject” may be demonstrated through experience of having established and operated reception and processing centers for visa applications for examination by consular authorities with a minimum annual volume of 30,000 (thirty thousand) applications for a period of at least 02 (two) years, provided that the experience is not limited exclusively to one modality. The Committee acknowledges that item 4.1.3 of Annex I to the Notice can be amended to provide greater clarity for prospective bidders, and thus decides that the text of this item 4.1.3 shall be altered as follows:

“4.1.3. This bidding process aims to select a company with a solid reputation in the global market, specialized in both the reception and processing of visa applications and with the capacity to issue electronic visas in the conditions foreseen in the Notice for Bidding and its Annexes. Previous experience with services related to visa applications is a fundamental condition for qualifying bidders in the competition.”

This matter will be further addressed in Section III below, regarding the republication of the Notice and its Annexes.

Section III.4 – “Violation of the principles of isonomy and fair competition”. An essential principle in the legal framework governing public bidding and contracting, including processes conducted abroad, is ensuring competitiveness in the bidding procedure (Article 37, XXI, of the 1988 Federal Constitution; Article 5 of Law No. 14,133/2021; Article 3 of MRE Ordinance No. 463/2023). Furthermore, according to the Law on the Introduction of Legal Norms in Brazil (LINDB), "in administrative, oversight, and judicial spheres, decisions shall not be based on abstract legal values without considering the practical consequences of the decision. (...) Paragraph 1: The justification must demonstrate the necessity and appropriateness of the measure imposed or of the annulment of an act, contract, agreement, process, or administrative rule, including in relation to possible alternatives." (Article 20 of Decree-Law No. 4,657, of September 4, 1942). As supported by its own reasoning, the decision of the Special Bidding Committee aimed to promote broad competitiveness in the bidding process, without targeting any specific bidders. Therefore, the act complies with the principles of isonomy and fair competition.

Section III.5 – “Indispensability of experience in e-visas in light of the requirements of the Brazilian General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) and cybersecurity”. In paragraphs 79 to 92 of its challenge, VFS argues that data protection laws support the need for stricter technical qualification requirements. However, qualification requirements must not be confused with contractual obligations. Data protection is a mandatory contractual requirement applicable to all service providers, regardless of whether they handle electronic or conventional visas (see Items 10.6 and 10.7 of Annex VII to the Bidding Notice). The Special Bidding Committee is not persuaded that data protection rules undermine the acceptance, for qualification purposes, of experience in conventional visa processing.

Section III.6 – “Loss to the public treasury should the bidding notice maintain the provision allowing bidders to prove prior experience compatible with the object of the bidding on the basis of services related to non-electronic visas”. The Special Bidding Committee reiterates the reasoning set forth in Section I above. It maintains that accepting experience in conventional visa processing as valid for qualification does not constitute an unlawful or disproportionate technical requirement.

1. REQUEST THAT THE BIDDING NOTICE BE REPUBLISHED

Item 4.4 of the Bidding Notice provides that a new date must be set for the public session if a challenge is upheld- except in cases where the decision "clearly" does not affect the preparation of proposals. Item 4.4 also grants the Special Bidding Committee discretion to apply the same procedure in response to requests for clarification.

In light of the decision accepting the challenge submitted by BLS International on 15/8/2025, and the clarifications issued by the Special Bidding Committee on 19/08/2025 and 27/08/2025, the petitioner’s request for republication of the bidding notice and reopening of the deadline for the public session - originally scheduled for 10/9/2025 - should be granted. The original text of the notice shall be amended as follows:

Notice for Bidding

“7.3. Technical Qualification

7.3.1. For technical qualification purposes, bidders must provide letters of reference from government agencies on past performance that demonstrate the following:

7.3.1.1. That the bidder established and operated reception and processing centers for visa applications for examination by consular authorities with a minimum annual volume of 30,000 (thirty thousand) applications for a period of at least 02 (two) years.

7.3.1.1.1. The 30,000-visa minimum referred to in item 7.3.1.1 may include visas in both physical and electronic modalities, provided that the experience is not limited exclusively to one modality.

7.3.1.2. That the bidder developed and operated a visa application website for the government of a national State, as well as a mobile application and call center that answered questions regarding visa applications.

7.3.1.2.1. The website, mobile application, and call center referred to in item 7.3.1.2 may relate to both physical and electronic visa applications, provided that the experience is not limited exclusively to only one of these service modalities.

7.3.2. The bidder must provide all necessary information to prove the authenticity and legitimacy of the technical qualification by sending, among other documents, a copy of the contract, the current contact address and telephone number of the contractor and the place where the services were provided.”

The text of Annex VII to the Bidding Notice (Draft Retainer Agreement) shall be amended to read as follows:

“10.7. The CONTRACTED PARTY acknowledges that it will be storing data and information on visa applications that contain personal and confidential information of the applicants and that must be protected against leaks to unauthorized third parties, in accordance with applicable laws on personal data protection. The CONTRACTED PARTY agrees to take all possible measures to protect confidential data and information and to keep them in secure files, servers and storage media. In the event of information leakage attributable to the CONTRACTED PARTY, the CONTRACTED PARTY shall solely bear all financial losses and legal liabilities arising therefrom.”

The text of item 4.1.3 of Annex I to the Bidding Notice shall be altered as follows:

“4.1.3. This bidding process aims to select a company with a solid reputation in the global market, specialized in both the reception and processing of visa applications and with the capacity to issue electronic visas in the conditions foreseen in the Notice for Bidding and its Annexes. Previous experience with services related to visa applications is a fundamental condition for qualifying bidders in the competition.”

In order to ensure at least 10 (ten) business days for interested parties to prepare their proposals, and considering the republication of the bidding notice on 2/9/2025, the public session shall be rescheduled to 17/9/2025.

1. DECISION

For the foregoing reasons,

The Special Bidding Committee rejects the request to “restore the original wording of items 7.3.1.2 and 7.3.1.3 of the Notice”, but decides to amend the language of item 7.3 of the Notice, item 10.7 of Annex VII and item 4.1.3 of Annex I to the Notice;

The Special Bidding Committee rejects the request to suspend the Bidding; and

The Special Bidding Committee decides to republish the Notice for Bidding and its Annexes, setting 17/9/2025 as the new