Sanções e Infrações Administrativas na licitações: Um comparativo entre as Leis 8.666/93 e 14.133/21

Abstract

The present study analyzes the administrative sanctioning regime within the scope of public procurement, focusing on a comparative study between Law No. 8,666/1993 and the new Public Procurement and Administrative Contracts Law, Law No. 14,133/2021. The research problem guiding this study is: Does Law No. 14,133/2021 represent a significant advancement in terms of legal certainty and proportionality in the application of administrative sanctions, or do gaps and discretionary powers persist that undermine its effectiveness? The justification for this investigation lies in the need to understand the impact of the new legislation on the integrity of procurement processes and on the relationship between the Public Administration and bidders, considering the relevance of the topic to combating corruption and ensuring efficiency in public spending. The objectives of this research are to comparatively analyze the administrative sanctions established by Laws No. 8,666/1993 and No. 14,133/2021, identifying progress and challenges; and specifically: a) to compare the treatment given to the sanctions of warning, fine, suspension/disqualification from bidding and contracting, and declaration of ineligibility under both legal frameworks; b) to identify the main innovations and gaps in Law No. 14,133/2021 regarding the sanctioning regime; and c) to assess whether the new law effectively enhances legal certainty and predictability in the application of penalties. The central hypothesis is that, although Law No. 14,133/2021 introduces advancements by specifying infractions, establishing sanction parameters, and expanding the right of defense, the persistence of indeterminate legal concepts and the absence of regulation in certain aspects still allow a degree of administrative discretion that may compromise uniformity and proportionality in the application of penalties. The methodology employed was qualitative and exploratory research, based on bibliographical and documentary analysis, using the comparative method to examine legislation, legal doctrine, and case law. The results indicate that the new law has brought greater predictability and legal certainty, with better specification of infractions and improved procedures. However, it is concluded that regulatory gaps still exist and require further regulation to mitigate discretion and prevent arbitrariness.