This was the case in Ruling No. 392/2006 – Plenary, which admitted the adoption of a system of using standard drafts of notices and contracts without their analysis by legal counsel, as determined by the sole paragraph of art. 38 of Law No. 8.666/1993:
With regard to the aforementioned determination, the appellant is right in the sense that Petrobras does not necessarily have to submit all drafts of notices for bidding, as well as those of contracts, agreements, conventions or adjustments, for approval by its legal counsel, as established in art. 38, sole paragraph, of Law 8.666/93 with Item 7.1.2 of the Bidding Regulations approved by Decree 2.745/98.
Undoubtedly, the principles of economy and efficiency recommend the best management of available resources, which results from adequate planning. The use of standardized instructions for recurring situations aims to prevent any mistakes or deviations in the execution of expenses, making the procedure transparent and expeditious and reducing the costs email database australia of the bidding process. The company benefits from the optimization of financial, material and human resources from the beginning of the internal phase, until the signing and subsequent execution of the contract.
Therefore, the adoption of the system of using standard drafts of common notices and contracts that are repeated periodically within Petrobras, which have already been analyzed and previously approved by the legal department, and which are included in its internal instructions, is a procedure appropriate for efficient administration - as it should be for those who operate in competition with private companies - and ends up implementing the principle of constitutional efficiency. Furthermore, the standardization of procedures that are routinely repeated is a healthy way for the Administration to perform tasks that, although numerically significant, in essence always refer to the same administrative acts. Its adoption is desirable to the extent that it frees up human and material resources to be used in those actions that require individualized action. The repetition of bidding procedures that have the same objective and that maintain proportion in relation to quantities fall under this hypothesis.
In another ruling, the Court of Auditors understood that it would be possible to contract a monopoly company that was in debt with the INSS and the FGTS: “When competition is unfeasible, because there are no other providers of essential services for the functioning of the Public Administration, other than those in default, the only alternative is to contract the monopoly company, whether state-owned or private, even if it is in debt with the INSS and the FGTS”2 . It is worth noting that, although the aforementioned principle was not expressed in the Federal Constitution, until the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No. 19/1998, several scholars already saw it as a sub-principle or a duty of the Public Administration, such as scholar Hely Lopes Meirelles.
The scholar taught that the duty of efficiency corresponds to the "duty of good administration", which required that the public agent perform his duties with perfection and functional efficiency. Note that this principle of efficiency goes beyond legality and requires that public agents not be restricted to their administrative activities carried out only legally, but must seek to satisfy the public interest and obtain the best results. In this sense, Decree-Law No. 200/1967, which subjects all activities of the Executive Branch to the control of results provided for in art. 13 and recommends that any tenured or permanent employee who is proven to be inefficient or negligent be dismissed, in accordance with art. 100.