Best Technique vs. Technique and Price under Law 14,133: When to Use, How to Score, and Practical Examples

Understand best technique and technique and price under Law 14,133: when they are mandatory, how to build the technical scoring matrix, calculate the price score and evaluate engineering proposals.

Check it out!

The difference between best technique and technique and price lies in how the Public Administration selects the winning proposal. Under best technique, evaluation considers exclusively the technical quality of the proposals and the tender documents predefine the prize or remuneration. Under technique and price, the Public Administration combines a technical score with a price score according to weights and formulas defined in advance in the tender documents.

Under Law 14,133/2021, technique and price is not merely an alternative to “value quality.” The criterion must be technically justified during planning and, for certain procurements, the law itself makes the use of best technique or technique and price mandatory. In 2026, when the Public Administration tenders predominantly intellectual specialized technical services under items “a”, “d” or “h” of Art. 6, XVIII, with an estimated value above R$ 392,952.63, Art. 37, § 2 requires evaluation by best technique or technique and price, except in cases of non-competitive procurement. If technique and price is used in this case, the technical proposal must represent 70% of the score.

Scoring technical quality, however, does not mean creating a competition of résumés. The matrix must distinguish minimum qualification from additional scoreable quality, convert expected contract outcomes into verifiable criteria, define scoring scales before the competition and bind scored professionals, methodology and resources to actual contract performance. Vague criteria or criteria unrelated to the scope may restrict competition, steer the procurement or produce an apparently mathematical score for an essentially subjective evaluation.

In practice, sound modeling starts in the ETP, continues through the Terms of Reference and tender documents, establishes an evaluation panel technically capable of assessing qualitative criteria and ends with an auditable evaluation record. For consulting engineering services, designs, inspection, management, testing and other intellectual scopes, the objective is to select the proposal that delivers the best technical-economic result — not simply reward the company with more documents, more certificates or the lowest price.

Best technique and technique and price are not the same thing

Both criteria belong to the set of award criteria in Art. 33 of Law 14,133, but they operate differently.

Under best technique, governed by Art. 35, ranking considers exclusively the technical or artistic proposals. The tender documents must predefine the prize or remuneration awarded to the winner. The law permits this criterion for designs and work of a technical, scientific or artistic nature.

Under technique and price, governed by Art. 36, the winner is the proposal with the highest score obtained by weighting, according to objective factors established in the tender documents, the technical and price scores. Price remains relevant, but it is no longer the only selection factor.

Aspect	Best technique	Technique and price
What determines ranking	Technical score	Technical score + price score
Is price competed in the ranking?	No	Yes
Remuneration	Predefined in the tender documents	Results from the winning economic proposal, subject to the tender rules
Main legal basis	Art. 35	Art. 36
Technical evaluation	Arts. 37 and 38	Arts. 37 and 38
Typical use	When technical excellence is the central element and remuneration can be predefined	When quality and cost need to be weighted jointly

The distinction matters because the two criteria create different incentives. Under best technique, the bidder focuses its strategy on maximizing solution quality within the established remuneration. Under technique and price, it must balance technical quality and economic competitiveness.

When technique and price should be used

Art. 36 does not authorize choosing technique and price merely because the manager prefers it. The ETP must demonstrate that evaluating and weighting the technical quality of proposals above the minimum requirements is relevant to the purposes sought by the Public Administration.

The law lists five groups for which this analysis is especially pertinent:

• predominantly intellectual specialized technical services, for which technique and price should preferably be used;
• services largely dependent on sophisticated technology and restricted expertise;
• special information and communication technology goods and services;
• public works and special engineering services;
• scopes that allow specific solutions, alternatives or execution variants with significant and measurable effects on quality, productivity, yield or durability.

The central word is relevance. If every company that exceeds the minimum requirements tends to deliver a technically equivalent result, scoring additional technical differences may merely increase complexity, participation cost and subjectivity risk. If methodology, team, applicable experience and work organization materially change the outcome, ignoring those differences and deciding solely on price may transfer risk into execution.

The ETP must demonstrate this relationship. It is not enough to write “complex scope” or “specialized service.” It should explain which attributes of a superior proposal generate measurable public benefit.

Examples:

• in detailed design, a superior survey, coordination, multidisciplinary integration and verification methodology can reduce errors and change orders;
• in inspection and management, experience and methodology can change the ability to identify deviations, control interfaces and produce evidence for contractual decisions;
• in commissioning, the quality of the test plan, verification matrix and team can change the probability of detecting failures before handover;
• in feasibility studies, depth of analysis, quality of assumptions and technical expertise can change the investment decision;
• in integrated systems, the approach to architecture, interoperability and interface management can change performance and implementation risk.

The reasoning should move beyond abstractions: which proposal characteristic will be scored, why is it better than the minimum, and which public outcome does it improve?

Above R$ 392,952.63, a mandatory rule applies to certain services

This point deserves separate treatment because it is often confused with a recommendation from an oversight body.

Art. 37, § 2 contains an express legal command. In 2026, Decree 12,807/2025 updated the provision’s reference amount to R$ 392,952.63. Except in cases of non-competitive procurement, when the tender concerns a predominantly intellectual specialized technical service under items “a”, “d” or “h” of Art. 6, XVIII and the estimated value exceeds this amount, evaluation must use best technique or technique and price.

The three items cover:

• “a” — technical studies, planning, basic designs and detailed designs;
• “d” — inspection, supervision and management of public works and services;
• “h” — quality and technological controls, analyses, tests and field and laboratory testing, instrumentation, monitoring of specific parameters of public works and the environment, and other engineering services falling within the statutory definition.

If the Public Administration chooses technique and price in this case, the law requires 70% weighting for the technical proposal. It is not “up to 70%”: for the specific case under Art. 37, § 2, the technical proportion is 70%.

This has important practical consequences.

Example	Consequence
Detailed design worth R$ 280,000	The value alone does not trigger the specific requirement under Art. 37, § 2. The Public Administration must still analyze Art. 36 and other applicable rules.
Detailed design worth R$ 550,000, with viable competition	The tender must use best technique or technique and price; if technique and price is used, 70% of the score is technical.
Works management worth R$ 900,000, with viable competition	The same rule applies if the predominantly intellectual nature under item “d” is established.
Specialized testing/monitoring worth R$ 450,000	The rule may apply when the scope falls under item “h” and has the required intellectual nature.
Service satisfying valid requirements for non-competitive procurement	The threshold does not block direct contracting. Art. 37, § 2 itself excepts non-competitive procurement.

The amount of R$ 392,952.63 therefore is not a threshold for non-competitive procurement or waiver. It is a trigger for the award criterion of certain tenders.

This classification should be read together with the article on special engineering services and procurement routes and the content distinguishing special engineering services from predominantly intellectual specialized technical services.

How to choose between best technique and technique and price

When Art. 37, § 2 requires one of the two criteria, the Public Administration still needs to decide which one best fits the scope.

Best technique tends to make sense when:

• the Public Administration can predefine the remuneration or prize;
• excellence of the technical solution is the decisive element;
• price differences among bidders do not need to be part of the ranking;
• technical comparison can be structured with objective and sufficiently discriminating criteria;
• the final intellectual product is the primary value sought.

Technique and price tends to be more appropriate when:

• there are relevant technical differences among proposals;
• cost also varies materially among competitors;
• the Public Administration needs a measurable balance between quality and expenditure;
• remuneration should not be predefined equally for all bidders;
• economic competition remains a legitimate dimension of the most advantageous proposal.

The choice must be recorded during the preparatory phase. Art. 18 requires a detailed statement of reasons for the criteria used to score and evaluate technical proposals. IN SEGES/MGI 2/2023, within its scope of application to the direct, autonomous-agency and foundation branches of the Federal Public Administration and the situations it covers, reinforces that the ETP must justify the scoring and evaluation criteria.

Technical qualification and technical scoring serve different functions

One of the most common mistakes is using qualification as a substitute for technical evaluation.

Qualification answers: does the bidder have the minimum capability to perform the scope?

Technical scoring answers: among capable bidders, which proposal presents superior technical attributes that are relevant to the outcome?

The first is an entry threshold. The second is a ranking mechanism.

Suppose the scope requires prior experience in integrated urban infrastructure design. The Public Administration may require a minimum level of technical-operational capability as a qualification requirement. If it wants to score additional experience, it must explain why experience beyond the minimum increases the probability of better performance and how that additional experience will be graduated.

It is not appropriate simply to require one minimum certificate and then award points indefinitely for each additional certificate. This design may reward the company’s historical volume rather than proposal quality and create a structural advantage without a proportional relationship to the result.

What Law 14,133 allows the technical proposal to evaluate

Art. 37 structures evaluation by best technique or technique and price into three broad families.

Bidder capability and experience

The Public Administration may verify proven capability and experience through certificates for public works, products or services previously performed.

The critical point is defining relevance. A certificate should affect the score only when it demonstrates experience technically related to the scope and when experience above the minimum has a concrete reason to be valued.

A better scale creates coherent bands, caps the maximum score and differentiates genuinely applicable experience.

Example:

Applicable technical-operational experience	Score
Meets only the minimum qualification requirement	0
1 additional experience of equivalent complexity	5
2 additional experiences	8
3 or more additional experiences	10

This example is not a ready-made statutory table. It illustrates how scoring can be graduated and capped. The quantity, bands and technical relevance must be justified for each procurement.

Qualitative criteria evaluated by a panel

Art. 37 provides for scores to be assigned to qualitative criteria by a panel, according to guidelines and limits defined in the tender documents. The law expressly mentions:

• demonstration of understanding of the scope;
• methodology;
• work program;
• qualification of technical teams;
• list of deliverables to be provided.

IN SEGES/MGI 2/2023, within its scope of application, also structures evaluation around capability, experience, committed resources, methodology and other aspects established in the tender documents.

The challenge is not listing criteria. It is converting each criterion into an evaluation rubric.

Prior performance

Law 14,133 provides for consideration of past performance in technical scoring, subject to Art. 88 and applicable regulation. The TCU warns that use of this element depends on the required regulation; it is not safe to create an improvised local criterion without the applicable regulatory basis.

This matters to prevent “history with the Public Administration” from becoming an arbitrary score or favoring those that have already contracted with the same entity.

How to build a technical scoring matrix

The matrix should arise from the expected contract outcome, not from the résumés of potential competitors.

A robust sequence is:

1. identify the critical outcomes of the scope;
2. identify which proposal attributes influence those outcomes;
3. separate minimum requirements from scoreable attributes;
4. define criteria and subcriteria;
5. define accepted evidence;
6. create scoring scales with verifiable descriptors;
7. define the weight of each criterion;
8. test the matrix with hypothetical proposals;
9. check for duplicate scoring;
10. verify that scored elements will be required during contract execution.

Step 1 — start from scope risks

If the main risk is interdisciplinary incompatibility, coordination methodology and interface experience may deserve high weight. If the risk is unavailability during implementation, the transition plan and experience in operating environments may be relevant. If the risk is diagnostic quality, survey methodology and field-team capability may be more important than a generic quantity of certificates.

Step 2 — define the evidence

Every score needs predefined evidence.

Examples:

• methodology: a specific chapter of the technical proposal;
• team: résumé, professional registration and availability statement;
• experience: certificate with defined minimum characteristics;
• work plan: schedule, WBS, responsibility matrix or required methodology;
• deliverables: sample document structure, deliverables plan or objective content description.

If the tender documents do not state which evidence proves a criterion, the panel tends to fill the gap during evaluation, increasing the risk of unequal treatment.

Step 3 — define bands, not loose adjectives

A rubric such as “excellent = 10; good = 7; fair = 4” is weak if the tender documents do not explain what makes a response excellent, good or fair.

Better:

Score	Descriptor for interface-management methodology
0	Does not present a method or presents content incompatible with the scope
4	Identifies main interfaces but does not define responsibilities, decision flow or traceability
7	Defines interfaces, responsibilities, communication flow and pending-item control
10	In addition to the previous level, integrates interfaces with schedule, risks, changes and acceptance criteria through verifiable mechanisms

The panel stops judging “which text looks better” and instead verifies the presence and quality of previously described elements.

Practical example: a 100-point matrix for a detailed design

Consider a tender for a multidisciplinary detailed design with an estimated value of R$ 550,000. The scope falls under item “a” of Art. 6, XVIII, is predominantly intellectual and exceeds the threshold in Art. 37, § 2. The Public Administration decides to use technique and price with 70% technical weighting and 30% price weighting.

An illustrative matrix could be:

Technical criterion	Points	What it should measure
Understanding of the scope	15	understanding of constraints, interfaces and risks
Methodology and work program	25	development, coordination, review and control process
Technical team	25	applicable experience of key professionals
Technical-operational experience	20	company track record on comparable scopes
Deliverables, QA and verification	15	deliverable structure, checks, coordination and traceability
Total	100

This distribution should not be copied mechanically. The weight must reflect the risk and nature of the scope. In a field diagnosis, for example, survey methodology may deserve more weight. In highly complex works management, key staff, governance and controls may dominate the matrix.

Example of detailing the methodology criterion

Of the 25 methodology points:

Subcriterion	Maximum points
Design development plan	6
Interdisciplinary coordination	6
Interface and RFI management	5
Review and verification process	5
Change control and traceability	3

Each subcriterion should have bands and descriptors, not merely a maximum score.

How to calculate the price score

Under IN SEGES/MGI 2/2023, the standard rule for the price proposal is:

NP = 100 × (lowest classified price / bidder’s price)

Where NP is the price proposal score.

The IN itself permits a different mathematical parameter, provided the ETP demonstrates that the alternative is more advantageous and complies with the applicable rules.

Consider three hypothetical proposals for a detailed design:

Bidder	Technical score	Price
A	92	R$ 520,000
B	82	R$ 450,000
C	70	R$ 410,000

Since R$ 410,000 is the lowest price, the economic scores are approximately:

Bidder	Calculation	Price score
A	100 × 410,000 / 520,000	78.85
B	100 × 410,000 / 450,000	91.11
C	100 × 410,000 / 410,000	100.00

Complete final-score example with 70% technique and 30% price

For the case under Art. 37, § 2, when technique and price is used, the technical score is worth 70%.

For instructional purposes, the final score can be represented as:

NF = (NT × 0.70) + (NP × 0.30)

Applying it to the three bidders:

Bidder	NT	NP	Technical portion	Price portion	Final score
A	92.00	78.85	64.40	23.66	88.06
B	82.00	91.11	57.40	27.33	84.73
C	70.00	100.00	49.00	30.00	79.00

Bidder A wins even with the highest price because its technical advantage offsets the economic difference within the predefined weights.

This is exactly what technique and price is intended to do: convert technical quality and price into a single ranking rule known before the competition.

The model does not authorize paying any price. The proposal must still satisfy the applicable rules on acceptability, budget, feasibility, overpricing and negotiation.

How to evaluate understanding of the scope without creating subjectivity

“Understanding of the scope” should not become a writing contest.

The Public Administration must define what it expects the bidder to demonstrate. In a multidisciplinary design, for example:

• constraints of the existing environment;
• interfaces among disciplines;
• operational restrictions;
• survey risks;
• required approvals;
• dependencies on the contracting entity;
• coordination strategy;
• the most critical performance criteria.

A proposal earns a score because it recognizes and addresses the relevant elements, not because it uses more sophisticated language.

Care must also be taken not to require knowledge that would only be available to a company that has previously provided services to the entity. The tender documents must provide enough data for all bidders to understand the need on an equitable basis.

How to score methodology and work program

Methodology is often one of the most important criteria in Consulting Engineering because it shows how knowledge will be converted into a deliverable.

A sound evaluation may examine:

• logical sequence of activities;
• integration among disciplines;
• review milestones;
• information and document management;
• RFI handling;
• interface management;
• change control;
• independent verification;
• risk management;
• quality procedures;
• communication with the contracting entity;
• internal acceptance criteria before deliverables are issued.

The mistake is rewarding page count. A short, objective methodology may be technically superior to a long proposal that merely repeats the Terms of Reference.

The scale should measure method maturity, not document volume.

How to score the technical team

The team may be relevant in intellectual services because performance depends directly on key professionals. But scoring must be designed proportionately.

It may make sense to score:

• experience in an equivalent role;
• experience in scopes of comparable complexity;
• education or certification directly related to the scope;
• experience with a specific technology when it is genuinely critical;
• work on projects with relevant specific technical characteristics.

It is more fragile to score:

• academic degrees without a direct relationship to the scope;
• an unlimited number of courses;
• years in the profession without connection to applicable experience;
• generic experience in “engineering”;
• résumés of professionals who will not be committed to execution.

Art. 38 establishes an important consequence: if the tender awards points for technical-professional capability, contract execution must include direct and personal participation by the corresponding professional.

This prevents a résumé from being used only to win the tender and then disappearing afterward.

How to score company experience without closing the market

Technical-operational experience should measure institutional capability applicable to the scope. The risk is turning the criterion into a race for the number of certificates or historical revenue.

Sound design practices include:

• define technically relevant characteristics for the certificate;
• limit the number of scoreable experiences;
• use coherent complexity bands;
• avoid requiring absolute identity with the scope;
• justify minimum quantities or characteristics;
• do not score the same characteristic twice without reason;
• separate minimum qualification experience from additional scoreable experience.

Example: if three comparable experiences already demonstrate sufficient maturity, continuing to award points up to twenty experiences probably does not improve selection. It merely favors organizations with a larger accumulated track record.

The panel must evaluate using a rubric, not personal preference

Art. 37 provides for an evaluation panel for qualitative criteria. The panel must have at least three members and may include permanent civil servants or public employees and, under the statutory conditions, professionals contracted for technical knowledge, experience or reputation, supervised by designated public agents.

The panel’s role is not to invent criteria during the session. It must apply the matrix and descriptors established in the tender documents.

A sound evaluation form records:

• criterion;
• subcriterion;
• evidence presented;
• descriptor achieved;
• score assigned;
• objective justification;
• reference to the proposal page/section;
• any disagreement among evaluators;
• result after consolidation.

This record is important for appeals, audit and transparency.

When a proposal receives 7 instead of 10, the process must allow the Administration to answer which requirement of the maximum-score descriptor was not met.

How to handle disagreement among evaluators

It is natural for qualitative criteria to produce some differences among panel members. The tender documents and procedure should reduce this variability.

Useful measures include:

• prior training of the panel on the rubric;
• individual evaluation before consolidation;
• written justification by criterion;
• rules for discrepant scores;
• documented consensus meeting when provided;
• prohibition on creating new criteria after opening;
• traceability between score and proposal evidence.

The objective is not to eliminate technical judgment. It is to turn it into controllable technical judgment.

What should not be scored without strong technical justification

Some criteria look objective because they are numbers, but they may be poor criteria.

Company age

A 30-year-old company is not automatically better for the scope than a 10-year-old company. If applicable experience is already demonstrated through certificates, corporate age may be irrelevant.

Unlimited number of certificates

This rewards historical size and may restrict competition without a proportional quality gain.

Number of employees

The company’s total structure does not necessarily demonstrate the capability of the team that will be mobilized for that contract.

Revenue as a “technical score”

Economic-financial capacity belongs to another selection axis. Turning revenue into a technical score may distort the purpose of scoring.

Generic certifications

A certification must have a direct relationship to the outcome. Collecting seals cannot replace demonstration of methodology and capability.

Geographic location

Scoring a headquarters location close to the entity, without a concrete technical and legal reason, creates a risk of improper territorial restriction.

Overly specific experience

Requiring an almost identical scope, the same technology, the same type of client and the same quantities simultaneously may reduce competition beyond what is necessary.

Avoid double counting the same competence

A matrix may appear balanced while, in practice, giving excessive weight to a single attribute.

Example: experience in hospital projects appears as:

• 15 points for company experience;
• 15 points for coordinator experience;
• 10 points for methodology;
• 10 points for understanding of the scope.

If all four scores end up being assigned essentially on the basis of the same past experience, the “hospital” criterion indirectly becomes worth 50 points.

Each criterion should measure a different dimension:

• company: demonstrated organizational capability;
• professional: applicable personal experience;
• methodology: proposed method for the future contract;
• understanding: concrete understanding of the current problem.

The technical weight should not be chosen before the matrix

Outside the specific requirement in Art. 37, § 2, the Law establishes that the technical proposal may represent up to 70% of the weighting under technique and price. This does not mean that 70/30 is automatically better.

The weight should reflect how sensitive the result is to technical quality.

A service in which small methodological differences create major impacts may justify a high technical weight. A sufficiently defined scope, where quality above the minimum produces more limited gains, may justify a less intensive proportion if the legal case permits.

A useful way to test the weight is to simulate proposals.

Ask:

• how many additional technical points offset a 5% price difference?
• can a small technical advantage neutralize a very large economic difference?
• would a technically excellent but economically uncompetitive proposal still win?
• does the formula create incentives for artificial discounts?
• does the technical scale really distinguish proposals or do almost all end between 90 and 100?

Simulation before publication helps detect matrices that do not produce the intended behavior.

The price score also needs to be tested

The economic formula can significantly change the competition.

Under the standard formula in IN SEGES/MGI 2/2023, the lowest price receives 100 and the others receive an inversely proportional score. This preserves relative price differences, but the final impact depends on the economic weight.

If all technical proposals receive very similar scores, price may decide the result even with a 70% technical weight. If the technical matrix produces wide dispersion, technical quality may completely dominate the ranking.

Therefore, weight and scale must be tested together.

A superior technical proposal must become a contractual obligation

Scoring methodology, professionals, tools or controls that are not subsequently required during execution destroys the logic of the tender.

The winning proposal must be incorporated into the contract or its annexes to the extent it creates technical obligations.

This includes, as applicable:

• key professionals;
• work plan;
• methodology;
• committed resources;
• specific tools;
• review structure;
• meeting frequency;
• deliverables and documents;
• quality procedures;
• schedule;
• promised controls.

If a scored professional is replaced, the applicable legal and contractual conditions must be observed, including equivalence or superiority where applicable and approval by the Public Administration.

The selection process cannot evaluate one company configuration and then execute the contract with a completely different one.

Best technique: how a practical example works

Suppose the Public Administration intends to procure technical work for which it can predefine remuneration of R$ 600,000 and, with legal and technical grounds, decides to use best technique.

The tender documents publish:

• remuneration: R$ 600,000;
• technical matrix: 100 points;
• minimum requirements;
• criteria and descriptors;
• proposal documents;
• panel rules.

Three bidders submit proposals:

Bidder	Technical score	Price for ranking
A	91	Not part of the competition
B	86	Not part of the competition
C	94	Not part of the competition

Bidder C wins with the highest technical score, subject to the other tender conditions. Remuneration was already defined in the tender documents.

The difference from technique and price is structural: there is no economic score capable of changing the technical order.

Technique and price is not a license for subjectivity

The fact that the law recognizes qualitative judgment does not reduce the duty of objectivity. On the contrary: the more qualitative the scope, the greater the need to design the evaluation process.

Objectivity comes from:

• criteria linked to the scope;
• justified weights;
• defined evidence;
• score descriptors;
• qualified panel;
• evaluation record;
• equal treatment among bidders;
• ability to review the decision;
• binding scored attributes to execution.

A matrix with dozens of cells is not necessarily objective. If each cell contains a vague adjective, subjectivity has merely been multiplied.

Technique and price in Consulting Engineering

Consulting Engineering is one of the fields in which the difference between a minimum requirement and superior quality is most evident.

In design, consulting, management, inspection, due diligence, studies and services with high intellectual content, the deliverable depends on human decisions: frame the problem, select assumptions, structure the method, coordinate interfaces, identify risks and turn incomplete information into a recommendation or technical document.

Therefore, two formally qualified service providers may produce very different results.

This does not mean that all Consulting Engineering must be tendered using technique and price. The Public Administration must consider Art. 36, Art. 37, the actual classification, value, feasibility of competition and any potential case of non-competitive procurement. The article Consulting Engineering under Law 14,133: Competitive Bidding with Technique and Price or Non-Competitive Procurement? addresses this bifurcation specifically.

Relationship with technical proposal evaluation

The scoring matrix is only one part of the analysis. Even in a technique-and-price tender, the Public Administration must verify compliance, assumptions, exclusions, feasibility, documents and internal consistency of the proposal.

The content on engineering technical proposal evaluation examines this equalization and verification stage in depth.

The distinction is that this article addresses the architecture of evaluation: how to turn quality and price into selection criteria defined before the competition. Technical proposal analysis focuses on whether the actual offer complies with what was requested and what risks it carries.

Checklist for reviewing a scoring matrix before publishing the tender documents

Before publication, each criterion should be tested with objective questions:

• Is the criterion directly linked to the outcome of the scope?
• Does the ETP explain why quality above the minimum needs to be scored?
• Is it clear what belongs to qualification and what belongs to scoring?
• Is the evidence required to obtain each score defined?
• Are there verifiable descriptors for each band?
• Is there a points cap for additional experience?
• Does the matrix avoid double counting?
• Will scored professionals participate directly in execution?
• Will scored attributes be incorporated into contractual obligations?
• Can the panel justify every score by reference to the proposal?
• Has the price formula been simulated?
• Have the technique/price weights been simulated using hypothetical proposals?
• Are there criteria that favor size, age, location or history without a relationship to performance?
• Does the process establish how to handle due diligence and nonconformities?
• Does the prior-performance criterion have applicable regulation?
• Does the matrix remain competitive when tested against different bidder profiles?

If several answers are negative, the matrix is not yet ready for the tender documents.

Final considerations

Best technique and technique and price are instruments for procuring quality in a controllable way. They do not replace a well-defined scope and do not correct a weak ETP or Terms of Reference.

Best technique ranks proposals exclusively by technical quality and requires predefined remuneration or a prize. Technique and price combines technical evaluation with the economic proposal according to weights and formulas known before the competition. In 2026, for the intellectual services under items “a”, “d” and “h” of Art. 6, XVIII above R$ 392,952.63, Law 14,133 makes it mandatory, except in cases of non-competitive procurement, to choose between best technique and technique and price; in the second case, technical quality must represent 70%.

The quality of the tender will depend primarily on the matrix. Criteria must arise from the risks and outcomes of the scope, be demonstrable through evidence, have clear scales and create verifiable contractual commitments. The objective is not to choose “the most impressive résumé,” but to select the proposal with the best capability to produce the expected public outcome under economically appropriate conditions.

Technical references

[1] BRASIL. Law No. 14,133, of April 1, 2021. Public Procurement and Administrative Contracts Law. Available at: [https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/l14133.htm](https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/l14133.htm)

[2] BRASIL. Decree No. 12,807, of December 29, 2025. Updates the values established in Law No. 14,133/2021 for 2026. Available at: [https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/decreto/d12807.htm](https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2025/decreto/d12807.htm)

[3] BRASIL. Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services. Normative Instruction SEGES/MGI No. 2, of February 7, 2023. Provides for electronic procurement using the technique-and-price criterion. Available at: [https://www.gov.br/compras/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/instrucoes-normativas/instrucao-normativa-seges-mgi-no-2-de-7-de-fevereiro-de-2023](https://www.gov.br/compras/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/instrucoes-normativas/instrucao-normativa-seges-mgi-no-2-de-7-de-fevereiro-de-2023)

[4] TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO. Public Procurement and Contracts: Technique and Price. Available at: [https://licitacoesecontratos.tcu.gov.br/3-4-4-tecnica-e-preco-2/](https://licitacoesecontratos.tcu.gov.br/3-4-4-tecnica-e-preco-2/)

[5] TRIBUNAL DE CONTAS DA UNIÃO. Public Procurement and Contracts: Best Technique or Artistic Content. Available at: [https://licitacoesecontratos.tcu.gov.br/3-4-3-melhor-tecnica-ou-conteudo-artistico/](https://licitacoesecontratos.tcu.gov.br/3-4-3-melhor-tecnica-ou-conteudo-artistico/)

[6] ADVOCACIA-GERAL DA UNIÃO. Templates under Law No. 14,133/21 for pregão and competitive bidding. Technique and Price Competitive Bidding Template, April 2026 version. Available at: [https://www.gov.br/agu/pt-br/composicao/cgu/cgu/modelos/licitacoesecontratos/14133/pregao-e-concorrencia](https://www.gov.br/agu/pt-br/composicao/cgu/cgu/modelos/licitacoesecontratos/14133/pregao-e-concorrencia)

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between best technique and technique and price under Law 14,133?

Under best technique, ranking considers exclusively the technical proposal and the tender documents predefine the prize or remuneration. Under technique and price, the final score results from weighting the technical score and price score according to objective criteria defined in the tender documents.

When is technique and price mandatory?

In 2026, except in cases of non-competitive procurement, tenders for predominantly intellectual specialized technical services under items a, d and h of Art. 6, XVIII, with an estimated value above R$ 392,952.63, must use best technique or technique and price. If technique and price is used, technical quality must represent 70%.

Is the R$ 392,952.63 threshold a threshold for non-competitive procurement?

No. This amount is the updated threshold under Art. 37, § 2, used as a trigger for the award criterion of certain tenders. Non-competitive procurement depends on the requirements of Art. 74 and unfeasible competition.

Does technique and price always require 70% for technical quality?

No. In general, Art. 36 permits up to 70% technical weighting. However, in the specific case under Art. 37, § 2, if the Public Administration adopts technique and price, the technical proposal must have 70% weighting.

How should an engineering technical proposal be scored?

The matrix should separate minimum qualification from additional quality, define criteria linked to scope outcomes and risks, identify accepted evidence, create scoring bands with verifiable descriptors, justify weights and bind scored professionals, methodology and resources to contract execution.

Can the number of experience certificates be scored?

Capability and experience may be scored when technically relevant and provided in the tender documents, but the quantity should be capped and justified. Unlimited points for certificates can favor historical size without proportional quality gain and restrict competition.

Who evaluates the qualitative criteria of the technical proposal?

Art. 37 provides for a panel for qualitative criteria, with at least three members, subject to the legal composition requirements. The panel must apply criteria, bands and limits defined in advance in the tender documents.

If a professional earns points for the proposal, must that professional participate in the contract?

Yes. Art. 38 establishes that scoring for technical-professional capability requires direct and personal participation by the corresponding professional during execution, subject to the applicable rules for any replacement.

How is the price score calculated under IN SEGES/MGI 2/2023?

The standard formula is NP = 100 × (lowest total proposed value among classified bidders / total value proposed by the bidder). The IN permits a different parameter when the ETP demonstrates that it is more advantageous and complies with the applicable rules.

Does best technique mean price does not matter?

Price does not form part of the ranking among proposals under the best-technique criterion. However, the winner’s remuneration or prize must be predefined in the tender documents, and the procurement remains subject to planning, budget and other legal controls.

Supplementary technical materials

Main content on the topic

• Special Engineering Services under Law 14,133: When Competitive Bidding, Non-Competitive Procurement or a Waiver Applies
• Special Engineering Service vs. Predominantly Intellectual Specialized Technical Service
• Consulting Engineering under Law 14,133: Competitive Bidding with Technique and Price or Non-Competitive Procurement?

Related technical content

• Engineering Technical Proposal Analysis: How to Evaluate Beyond Lowest Price
• Common vs. Special Engineering Services under Law 14,133
• Predominantly Intellectual Specialized Technical Services under Law 14,133
• Can Pregão Be Used for Public Works? What Law 14,133 Allows

Related solutions

• Contract, Scope and Deliverables Management
• Risk and Change Management

Related services

• Preliminary Technical Study (ETP) for Public Works and Engineering Services
• Terms of Reference for Public Works and Engineering Services
• Technical Review of Tender Documents and Annexes for Engineering Procurement
• Technical Support for Qualification and Technical Assessment
• Technical Support for Tendering and Engineering Proposal Evaluation