Post by nurnobisorker65 on Feb 11, 2024 15:38:16 GMT 5.5
Disqualification was the lack of proof that the companies completed the deverticalization process (separation between generators, transmitters and distributors). Alusa Engenharia, one of the members of the Alusa-Cavan Consortium, was disqualified in five of the six lots it competed for. He only managed to qualify for batch D, as leader of the Nova Ponte Consortium. TSN — Transmissora Sudeste Nordeste was disqualified in three batches. The concession of seven lots with 21 transmission lines and eight substations in seven states (Pará, Tocantins, Goiás, Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul) and the Federal District is up for auction. Total investments are estimated.
With the creation of around 9 thousand jobs. Process: 2005.34.00.033224-0 Read the decision Judicial Section of the Federal District Decision no. 52/2005-B Process: 2005.34.00.033224-0 Class 2100: Individual Mandamus Petitioner: Centrais Elétricas do Norte do Brasil S/A and others Defendant: President of the Special Bidding Committee of the national Electric Energy Agency Belgium Email List Aneel and another Court: 21st Court Decision The Petitioner's disqualification appears to violate the principle of reasonableness, as it was due to puerile reasons, which are not supported by the public interest. In effect, it is excessive to disqualify the Petitioners simply for having presented a power of attorney “without due proof.
The competence of the acting Chief Executive Officer to issue such a document” and for lacking “proof that the Board of Directors and, specifically, the Officer who signed the said power of attorney was reappointed.” Now, these questions are not relevant to the point of justifying the disqualification of the Petitioners, especially considering that they could perfectly be clarified later, in accordance with art. 43 § 3, of Law 8,666/93. What matters, in the qualification phase, is to favor the public interest, by considering the largest number of proposals, and it is not reasonable to reduce, in plan, the number of participants for the sake of just a few. Check out the following precedent for the TRF/1st Region.
With the creation of around 9 thousand jobs. Process: 2005.34.00.033224-0 Read the decision Judicial Section of the Federal District Decision no. 52/2005-B Process: 2005.34.00.033224-0 Class 2100: Individual Mandamus Petitioner: Centrais Elétricas do Norte do Brasil S/A and others Defendant: President of the Special Bidding Committee of the national Electric Energy Agency Belgium Email List Aneel and another Court: 21st Court Decision The Petitioner's disqualification appears to violate the principle of reasonableness, as it was due to puerile reasons, which are not supported by the public interest. In effect, it is excessive to disqualify the Petitioners simply for having presented a power of attorney “without due proof.
The competence of the acting Chief Executive Officer to issue such a document” and for lacking “proof that the Board of Directors and, specifically, the Officer who signed the said power of attorney was reappointed.” Now, these questions are not relevant to the point of justifying the disqualification of the Petitioners, especially considering that they could perfectly be clarified later, in accordance with art. 43 § 3, of Law 8,666/93. What matters, in the qualification phase, is to favor the public interest, by considering the largest number of proposals, and it is not reasonable to reduce, in plan, the number of participants for the sake of just a few. Check out the following precedent for the TRF/1st Region.