Ruling 1802/2026 of the Plenary of the Federal Court of Auditors leaves an important distinction for those who prepare notices and supervise contracts: the company remains obliged to comply with the legislation on hiring apprentices, but proof of this compliance cannot be transformed into a qualification requirement without legal provision.
The decision, judged on July 8, 2026, examined a tender from the Federal University of Goiás (UFG) that had required proof of the quota of apprentices during qualification. For TCU, the notice went beyond what art allows. 63, item IV, of Law 14,133/2021. The obligation relating to apprentices appears expressly elsewhere in the law: in the clauses of the contract and during its execution.
This difference is not just formal. It defines who should be controlled, at what time and with what consequence. In the competitive phase, creating an eliminatory condition without legal support can rule out advantageous proposals. After hiring, failing to follow the same obligation may mean a failure to supervise.
What the TCU decided in Ruling 1802/2026
The process dealt with UFG's Electronic Auction 90061/2024, intended for the hiring of administrative services with exclusive dedication of labor. Among the irregularities analyzed was item 8.9 of the notice, which required proof of the quota of apprentices in the qualification.
The Plenary followed the understanding that this requirement was not supported by Law 14,133/2021. According to the vote, art. 63, IV, when dealing with this declaration in the qualification, mentions the reservation of positions for people with disabilities and those rehabilitated from Social Security, without including apprentices.
Reasoning does not eliminate or reduce the protection afforded to professional learning. The TCU itself highlighted that compliance with the quota must be part of the contract and be monitored throughout its execution. It is, therefore, a change of framework within public contracting: it does not function as a barrier to entry into bidding, but as a permanent obligation of the contractor.
Law 14,133 separated qualification and execution
The joint reading of the devices shows why the TCU reached this conclusion.
In enabling, art. 63, IV, determines that the bidder must present a declaration of compliance with the requirements for reserving positions for people with disabilities and those rehabilitated from Social Security. The text does not make the same express inclusion of apprentices.
Art. 92, XVII, establishes as a necessary clause of the contract the obligation for the contractor to comply with the reservations provided for by law for people with disabilities, those rehabilitated from Social Security and apprentice.
Art. 116 reinforces the location of this control: throughout the execution, the contractor must comply with the legal reserves and, whenever requested by the Administration, prove the service, indicating the employees who occupy the respective vacancies.
Finally, the art. 137, IX, includes non-compliance with these obligations among the reasons that may lead to the termination of the contract, observing the need for formal, contradictory motivation and broad defense provided for in the provision itself.
The legal design, therefore, does not leave the apprentice quota outside the public contracting system. It does something different: places the main control on contractual execution, when there is already a contractor subject to the adjustment obligations.
Why transforming the quota into a qualification requirement is problematic
The qualification exists to demonstrate that the bidder has the conditions stipulated by law to contract. An additional requirement with eliminatory effect must find a basis in the applicable legal regime.
In the case of apprentices, the TCU understood that using the quota to exclude the bidder from qualification goes beyond art. 63, IV. In addition to the problem of legality, the decision has a concrete effect on competition.
In the UFG bid, the TCU noted that the undue requirement contributed to ruling out more economically advantageous proposals. The instruction pointed out that the proposal of R$ 13,067,583.66 was rejected and that the contract ended up being concluded for R$ 15,902,521.08 — a difference of approximately 18%, equivalent to approximately R$ 2.83 million in the two-year period considered in the process.
This data helps to understand the governance logic of the decision. Using a legitimate social obligation at the wrong procedural time can produce the opposite result to that desired: an undue restriction on competition, without necessarily improving monitoring of compliance with the obligation during the contract.
TCU had already been developing this guidance. In Ruling 9804/2024 of the First Chamber and, later, in Ruling 1930/2025 of the Plenary, the Court distinguished the declaration required in bidding from the proof of reserves that must occur during execution. In the 2025 judgment, the summary itself highlighted that the weight of the regulatory function of public procurement is lower in the competitive phase and greater during contractual execution.
The Judgment 1802/2026, therefore, does not arise in isolation. He applies this line to a case in which the notice requirement had a concrete impact on the selection of proposals.
The labor obligation continues to exist
Removing the apprentice quota from licensing does not mean authorizing companies to ignore labor legislation.
Professional learning continues to be subject to its own rules. Decree 9,579/2018, in the current wording, provides for establishments covered by the obligation to hire apprentices in a percentage between 5% and 15% of workers whose functions require professional training, with specific rules for defining the calculation basis. The Ministry of Labor and Employment reiterated these rules in guidance published on July 23, 2026.
The TCU's point is different: the company's labor duty and the enabling rule of Law 14,133 are different institutes. The Administration cannot expand a hypothesis of disqualification just because the material obligation is relevant.
After the contract is signed, however, the situation changes. Law 14,133 itself determines that the contractor must comply with the reserve for apprentices throughout the execution and allows the Administration to require the corresponding proof.
Control has not disappeared: it has become a contractual management task
For the contracting area, this is perhaps the most important consequence of the ruling.
It is not enough to remove an inappropriate qualification requirement from the notice templates. If the agency does just this, it will have solved half the problem.
The other half is in the arts. 92, 116 and 137 of Law 14,133: the clause must appear correctly in the contract and compliance must be monitored.
In practice, administrative models and routines should be reviewed to:
- do not treat proof of the apprentice quota as an eliminatory condition for qualification;
- maintain in the contractual instrument the obligation provided for in art. 92, XVII;
- define in the contract management model how the inspector will verify compliance with the obligation throughout execution;
- request supporting documentation when necessary, recording the analysis in the records;
- treat any non-compliance as a contractual occurrence, with the measures, procedural guarantees and consequences provided for by law and the contract.
Law 14,133 does not establish in art. 116 a unique frequency for this request. Therefore, it is safer for each body to establish a control routine proportional to the risk and nature of the contracting, without creating, by administrative act, a new qualification condition that the law has not established.
Decree 9,579/2018 also provides for the Ministry of Labor and Employment's electronic system for issuing a certificate of compliance with the learning quota, while current labor regulations regulate the parameters used in calculating the reserve. These instruments can support inspection, subject to the scope and updating of available information.
Do not confuse apprentices with the statement about PWD and rehabilitated people
The Ruling 1802/2026 itself helps to avoid another error.
The conclusion about apprentices cannot be automatically carried over to the reservation of positions for people with disabilities and rehabilitated Social Security. These two categories appear expressly in art. 63, IV, of Law 14,133 as the object of declaration in the qualification phase.
Even in this case, however, the TCU has ruled out automatic disqualifications based exclusively on a consultation or certificate that contradicts the statement presented by the company. In precedents such as Rulings 523/2025 and 1930/2025, the Court indicated the need for diligence to clarify the situation and allow the presentation of justifications and other evidence before the decision to disqualify.
In the UFG process, this was precisely another irregularity identified: bidders were disqualified based on official records relating to the reservation for people with disabilities and rehabilitated people without being given the opportunity to produce additional evidence due to due diligence.
There are, therefore, two different controls that should not be mixed.
Why the UFG contract was not immediately annulled
Despite the irregularities, the Plenary did not order the immediate interruption of Contract 606/2025.
The Court considered the practical consequences of the measure. The contract involved continued services relevant to the functioning of the university, and an immediate rupture could create risks for administrative continuity. The vote applied this consequence analysis and chose to temporarily preserve the adjustment while a new hire is prepared.
The final determination was for UFG to not extend Contract 606/2025 and hold a new tender to replace it, following the schedule presented, with completion scheduled for November 2027.
This excerpt also offers a lesson for public management: recognizing an illegality in the procedure does not mean that the administrative response can ignore the concrete effects of undoing a contract in execution. Correction of the irregularity, service continuity and transition planning need to be analyzed together.
The adjustment that agencies need to make now
Ruling 1802/2026 reinforces a division of responsibilities that must appear since hiring planning.
When bidding, it is necessary to resist the temptation to transform every legal duty of the future contractor into an eliminatory requirement. During execution, the opposite happens: an obligation that does not belong to the qualification cannot be forgotten just because the company has already won the competition.
For the apprentice quota, the path indicated by Law 14,133 and the TCU is clear: less barriers without legal provisions in the selection and more effective supervision during the contract.
For hiring teams, legal advisors, managers and inspectors, the next step is to jointly review the notice, contract draft and management model. Removing the requirement from the wrong place without creating a follow-up mechanism in the right place only transfers the problem.
