Direct answer: as a rule, no. At the technical qualification stage, Law 14,133/2021 allows the contracting authority, when applicable, to require registration or enrollment with the competent professional regulatory body. That is not the same as requiring the company or its professionals to prove that annual dues are fully paid. Brazil's Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) again held this requirement to be improper in Decision 1,064/2026-Plenary.
What Law 14,133 actually allows the contracting authority to require
The starting point is Article 67 of Law 14,133/2021. Its opening clause states that the documents for professional and operational technical qualification are “restricted” to the items listed in that provision. Item V includes “registration or enrollment with the competent professional entity, when applicable.”
The distinction is practical: registration or enrollment proves the required regulatory affiliation with the body that supervises the activity; clearance or proof of dues payment establishes financial good standing, such as payment of annual fees. The latter does not appear as a standalone qualification requirement in Article 67.
| Tender requirement | Operational reading |
|---|---|
| Registration or enrollment with the competent professional body | May be required when the contracted activity or service is subject to the corresponding professional regulation. |
| Duly registered professional with a technical responsibility record | May be required within the conditions and limits of Article 67, item I. |
| Certificates or records proving operational capacity | May be required under Article 67, item II, subject to the applicable statutory limits. |
| Proof that annual dues are fully paid to CREA, CAU, or another professional body | Should not be converted into a qualification requirement without a specific legal basis; the TCU's position is that proof on this point must be limited to registration or enrollment. |
What the TCU reiterated in 2021, 2024, and 2026
The position did not begin in 2026. In Decision 505/2021-Plenary, the TCU stated that bidders should not be required, for qualification purposes, to prove payment of annual dues to the relevant professional regulatory body because that requirement lacks a legal basis.
In 2024, Decision 6,550/2024-First Chamber reinforced that proof of a company or professional's status before the regulatory body must be limited to registration or enrollment. That same year, Decision 1,146/2024-Plenary, involving a procurement already governed by Law 14,133/2021, treated a requirement for clearance before professional bodies as improper.
Finally, Decision 1,064/2026-Plenary was explicit: requiring a clearance certificate from the professional regulatory body for technical qualification is improper because it goes beyond the restrictive list in Article 67 of Law 14,133/2021. The decision cited, among other precedents, Decisions 6,550/2024 and 505/2021.
Does the document name “Registration and Clearance Certificate” change the rule?
This is the point that most often causes confusion for people drafting or reviewing tender documents. Some professional bodies issue documents whose official name combines the concepts of “registration” and “clearance.” The title of the document, however, does not turn financial clearance into a statutory qualification requirement.
In Decision 1,146/2024-Plenary, the public entity explained that “clearance” was part of the name of the certificate routinely issued by the relevant councils. Even so, the practice was corrected so that later tenders would require a “registration or enrollment certificate.” The operational lesson is straightforward: the tender must describe the requirement permitted by law rather than expand qualification because of the administrative name of a document.
If the professional body offers a certificate that also reports dues status, the key safeguard is that the contracting authority must not convert that extra information into a disqualification criterion. For item V of Article 67, what must be established is registration or enrollment, when applicable.
Not every procurement object justifies a professional registration requirement
Before deciding which certificate to request, the contracting authority must answer another question: does the professional body actually supervise the bidder's core activity or the predominant service in the procurement? The TCU has limited the requirement to the body competent for that principal activity. In Decision 1,463/2024-Plenary, for example, it held that requiring a bidder to be registered with more than one professional body may be improper when the requirement goes beyond the entity that supervises the core activity or predominant service.
For that reason, copying a standard clause that automatically requires CREA, CAU, CRA, or another professional body without tying the requirement to the object can unduly restrict competition.
How to draft the clause more safely
For procurement teams, the rule can be converted into a review checklist:
- Identify the regulated professional activity. Confirm whether the procurement object legally requires registration with a professional body.
- Require the correct body. Tie the requirement to the core activity or predominant service and avoid multiple registrations without legal support.
- Require registration or enrollment, not dues clearance. The wording should track Article 67, item V.
- Separate company and professional requirements. Do not confuse the legal entity's registration with the professional qualification in item I or the certificates in item II.
- Do not use unpaid dues as a qualification filter. Annual-fee debt should not become an automatic ground for disqualification where the applicable statutory requirement is only registration or enrollment.
- Check for a specific statute. Article 67, item IV allows requirements established by a special law when applicable; that legal basis must be concrete and relevant to the procurement object, not assumed.
Sample wording: “Proof that the bidder is registered or enrolled with the competent professional regulatory entity, when required due to the bidder's core activity or the predominant service covered by the procurement, pursuant to Article 67, V, of Law 14,133/2021.” Any specific requirement concerning responsible professionals should be addressed separately under the other items of Article 67.
What to do when an existing tender already requires clearance
If a draft or published tender requires a “clearance certificate,” “financial good standing before the professional body,” or equivalent wording as a qualification condition, the reviewer should check whether a specific legal rule actually authorizes it. If no such basis exists, the safer approach under TCU case law is to replace the requirement with proof of registration or enrollment and remove any disqualification consequence based solely on unpaid annual dues.
If the tender has already been published, the contracting authority should assess the formal correction of the procurement documents and the procedural effects of the change, including deadlines, under the rules applicable to the specific case. The central point is not to preserve a qualification barrier that exceeds the documentation authorized by law.
Decision rule for drafting and review
The right question is not “does CREA issue a clearance certificate?” but “which qualification requirement does Law 14,133 authorize for this procurement object?” If the answer is registration or enrollment with the competent body, the clause should stop there. Registration and dues clearance are different pieces of information, and TCU case law has repeatedly treated the latter as improper when used as a technical qualification filter.
