ブラジルの契約に年次の reajustamento を適用する

Record three things from the contract itself: which index applies, and to which parcels of the work if there is more than one, what date the prices are referred to, and how the periodicity is counted. Note whether the data-base is the date of the proposal or the reference month of the orcamento, because they are often different.

理由: Lei 14.133 of 2021 requires the contract to state the criterion, the index and the date, and Lei 10.192 of 2001 fixes the periodicity at one year, so all three facts already exist and none of them is negotiable. What is negotiable is which of two plausible dates the parties meant, and settling that at the start of the contract costs a sentence rather than a claim.

Load the published series for the named index, month by month, from the data-base to the month of application, and compute the factor between the two. Where the contract splits the work between several indices, load each one and keep the parcels apart.

理由: A construction cost index and a general price index diverge by several points a year, which on a long contract is the whole margin. Using the one you normally follow rather than the one the contract names produces a number that is defensible in every way except the one that matters, and the correction lands after the invoice is out.

Split the measured work by the period it was executed in and separate what falls after the first anniversary of the data-base from what falls before it. Keep the two lists rather than applying an average to everything.

理由: The periodicity is annual under Lei 10.192 of 2001, so work executed inside the first year is not adjusted at all and work executed afterwards is adjusted by the factor for its own month. An average applied to the whole contract overpays one half and underpays the other, and it is the overpaid half that gets questioned.

Apply the factor to the eligible value, parcel by parcel where the contract uses more than one index, and keep the calculation visible: the base value, the two index readings, the factor and the result. Do not adjust an item that was already priced at a later reference month.

理由: Reajustamento is one of the few figures in a contract that both sides can compute independently and get the same answer to, which makes showing the workings a cheap way of removing the argument entirely. An amount presented without them is treated as a request rather than as an entitlement.

Raise the reajustamento as its own entry against the contract, citing the clause and the index readings, and keep the original unit prices untouched underneath it. Do not fold the adjustment into the rates, and do not open a renegotiation of scope alongside it.

理由: An adjustment the contract already provides for is recorded by administrative note, while a change to the price itself is an amendment with a different approval path and a different audit reading. Folding it into the rates loses that distinction, and it also destroys the base the next annual adjustment has to be computed from.

Put the adjustment through with the medicao it belongs to so the invoice and the contract record hold the same figure, and set the next anniversary as a dated item somebody owns before you close the file.

理由: The second year is the one that gets missed, because the first was prompted by somebody noticing. On a four year contract that is three quarters of the entitlement, and it is not recoverable later by arithmetic alone, since the periods it belonged to have been invoiced and settled at the old prices.