On July 22, 2026, the Secretariat of Management and Innovation of the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services informed that bodies and entities of the direct, autonomous and foundational Federal Public Administration may cumulatively require, for economic-financial qualification, declaration of commitments, liquidity indices, minimum net worth and minimum working capital. The authorization, however, was accompanied by three checks: motivation, proportionality and compatibility with the risks of the contract, in addition to verifying that the set does not unduly restrict competition.
The practical consequence is direct: the existence of four requirements in the guidance does not transform the sum of them into a standard clause. Copying indices and percentages without demonstrating their relationship with the object can produce precisely the problem that qualification should avoid — a notice that keeps companies capable of executing the contract away.
What’s changed — and what hasn’t
The Compras.gov.br guidance stems from item 9.5.2 of Ruling 2724/2025-TCU-Plenário, judged on November 18, 2025. In the process, originating from a complaint about a Brazilian Army auction, the TCU determined that the MGI should alert federal bodies about the possibility of cumulation:
- declaration of commitments assumed;
- liquidity ratios above 1;
- minimum net worth of up to 10% of the estimated value;
- working capital sufficient to support up to two months of execution without payment from the Administration.
The Court determined, in the same item, that these requirements were duly motivated in the preparatory acts for hiring.
Opinion nº 00002/2026/CNLCA/CGU/AGU adds an important nuance. From a legal point of view, it is possible to require minimum capital or net worth even when the accounting indices are equal to or greater than 1. It is also possible to maintain this proof as a subsidiary requirement, activated only when the indices are equal to or less than 1. The choice falls within the technical-accounting discretion of the body and must be expressed in the notice and motivated in the records.
Therefore, the guidance does not require you to add all the criteria. It recognizes alternatives and increases the burden of explaining why each requirement is necessary in the specific case.
Economic-financial qualification in Law 14,133: the limits remain valid
Art. 69 of Law No. 14,133/2021 determines that economic suitability be demonstrated objectively, using coefficients and indices provided for in the notice and duly justified in the process. The norm too:
- prohibits minimum previous billing;
- prohibits profitability or profitability indexes;
- prohibits indices and values not usually adopted;
- allows the list of commitments that reduce the bidder's capacity;
- allows minimum capital or minimum equity of up to 10% in purchases for future delivery and in the execution of works and services.
Art. 18 reinforces this duty by requiring, in the preparatory phase, the detailed motivation of the economic-financial qualification conditions and the analysis of the risks that could compromise the success of the bidding or contractual execution.
“Up to 10%” is a ceiling, not an automatic percentage. Likewise, the reference to sufficient working capital to cover up to two months of execution does not eliminate the calculation of effective financial exposure. The percentage must arise from the object, the schedule and payment conditions — and not from a copied draft.
What each requirement seeks to measure
Requirements are not synonymous. Liquidity and solvency ratios evaluate relationships between assets and obligations; net worth or minimum capital seeks to demonstrate compatible economic size; net working capital observes short-term financial slack; and the list of commitments identifies how much of the capacity has already been consumed by other contracts. The TCU used this distinction to argue that, when adequately motivated, instruments can fulfill complementary functions.
| Requirement | Question that helps answer | Usage limit |
|---|---|---|
| LG, LC and SG | Does the company have liquidity and solvency compatible with its obligations? | Formulas, indices and levels must be usual, current and justified for the market and the object. |
| Minimum capital or net worth | Does the economy offer reservation compatible with the contract? | Applicable in the cases of § 4 of art. 69, in a motivated percentage limited to 10%. |
| Net working capital | Are there short-term resources for mobilization and execution before payments? | The percentage must reflect cash flow, schedule and actual period of exposure. |
| List of commitments | Have other contracts already reduced available capacity? | The methodology and effect of commitments must be objectively described. |
Motivation matrix: risk × requirement × justification × evidence
The matrix below is a planning and auditing tool. It does not replace accounting or legal analysis, but it helps prevent the justification from being written only after choosing the percentage.
| Risk identified | Requirement that may be relevant | What the justification needs to demonstrate | Useful evidence |
| Mobilization, payroll, inputs or logistics before the first measurement | Net working capital | Value and duration of exposure; origin of the percentage; adherence to the payment schedule | Cash flow, cost spreadsheet, physical-financial schedule, average payment period and calculation memory |
| Insufficient economic structure for the size of the contract | Minimum capital or net worth | Why size is relevant and why the chosen percentage is necessary | Estimated value, consequences of the shutdown, market survey and simulation of the competitive impact |
| Mismatch between assets and obligations | LG, LC and SG | Adequacy of indices, formulas and minimum values to the sector | Current market sample, technical-accounting note, formulas and sensitivity test |
| Portfolio of contracts that can consume available capacity | List of commitments | How current contracts reduce capacity and how installments already executed will be discounted | List of contracts, outstanding balances, balance sheet, income statement and reconciliation of values |
| Immediate delivery or low exposure before payment | No cumulation or reduction of requirements | Why additional requirements would not provide commensurate protection | Risk analysis, payment conditions, object history and supplier market profile |
For continued services with exclusive dedication of labor, IN nº 5/2017 provides, among other conditions, a minimum net working capital of 16.66% and net equity of 10%. Outside of this context, the jurisprudence gathered by the TCU requires specific justification of the peculiarities of the object and, mainly, of the percentage adopted. Therefore, 16.66% should not automatically migrate to supplies, scope contracts or other services.
Wordings that should be avoided
“A minimum equity of 10% is required because article 69 allows it”
The sentence mentions the legal authorization, but does not explain why the contract requires the ceiling. The motivation must demonstrate the economic exposure and why a lower percentage would be insufficient.
“To ensure safety, all requirements will be cumulatively met”
“Security” is a generic justification. The concrete risk, the function of each instrument, the calculation memory and the assessment of the impact on the competition are missing.
“The CCL will be 16.66%, according to the model used by the Administration”
Standardized draft does not replace object analysis. The process must explain the origin of the percentage, the execution period it is intended to cover and its compatibility with the financial flow of the contract.
“The requirements are necessary due to the high value of the contract”
The value can integrate the analysis, but it does not alone prove the need for cumulation. The essentiality, complexity, mobilization time, payment conditions and the effects of any stoppage must also be examined.
More defensible framework for motivation
A consistent justification might follow this sequence:
- Risk: which financial event may cause delay, stoppage or default.
- Exposure: how much and for how long the contractor will finance the execution.
- Requirement: which indicator responds to the risk and which formula will be used.
- Level: why the chosen index or percentage is the minimum sufficient.
- Market: how many potentially capable suppliers would be affected.
- Alternatives: why a minor, subsidiary or non-cumulative requirement would be inappropriate.
- Register: where the calculation memory, market data and technical, accounting and legal statements are located.
Audit questions before closing the notice
- Is each requirement associated with a specific and documented risk?
- Was the percentage calculated for this hire or just copied?
- Did the team evaluate a subsidiary requirement or a lower threshold?
- Are the indices common in the sector and based on current data?
- Does the calculation basis correctly consider the value, duration and relevant portion?
- Is there a simulation of how many suppliers would be excluded by the combination?
- Does the notice present formulas, documents, periods and criteria without ambiguity?
- Was the motivation recorded in the preparatory acts before publication?
- Have the requesting, accounting and legal areas reviewed the nexus and proportionality?
The scope of guidance requires caution
Communiqué nº 29/26 is expressly addressed to bodies and entities of the direct, autonomous and foundational Federal Public Administration. States, municipalities, state-owned companies and bodies subject to their own regulations must check the applicable standards and precedents before transporting the solution.
Even at the federal level, the AGU opinion treats cumulation as a faculty, and not as a general command. The document recommends a proportional decision, capable of avoiding both the admission of companies without financial capacity and the undue exclusion of capable candidates.
The safe reading is this: Management can combine instruments when they cover different risks, but needs to demonstrate that the additional protection compensates for the possible reduction in the competitive universe. The law and the ruling authorize the choice; the preparatory phase must prove its necessity.
Next step: save the motivation matrix and consult the process and the entire contents of Ruling 2724/2025 and Opinion nº 00002/2026 before editing the notice.
