The Court of Justice intends to buy 50 of the iPhone 16 Pro Max type to use the judges at the cost of a maximum of R $ 573,399.50 (R $ 11,467.99 per device). The iPhone 16 Pro Max model was launched by less than six months ago and is considered the brand.
The main stage of the purchase process-the opening of the public session to form a price registration minutes-was scheduled to take place on Thursday (13). But hours after repercussion of the case in the press, the TJ reported on Monday morning (10) to Sheet that “price registration was suspended for adjustments”. It did not add what the possible changes would be.
In the bidding notice published last month, the TJ describes that an iPhone 16 Pro Max or equivalent or higher may be purchased. It also brings some specifications, such as RAM of at least 8 GB and internal storage of at least 256 GB.
According to the announcement, the purchase of smartphones “aims to meet the needs of easy communication of the judges, using corporate mobile lines, as well as enable them quickly access to the internet as a source of information and work instrument, considering that smartphones are currently configured as true computers.”
The Maranhão TJ today has 35 judges in its paintings, but, as justified in the notice, the purchase of 50 devices would also serve to “replace damaged equipment” or “any expansions or new appointments”.
A Sheet He questioned the TJ about which devices are currently used by the judges, when they were purchased and what their destination is from the purchase of the iPhone 16 Pro Max, but had no answer. There was also no answer to the questioning about institutional lines.
“Justifies the intended acquisition the fact that there is no more available device, as the last ones were provided to the two latest sworn judges, so that we do not have a device for a new judge or for replacement for some defective smartphone,” the notice continues.
The court also stated in the document that the brand and model indication is justified “by the need to maintain technological continuity and standardization”, which would facilitate technical support, reducing operating costs.
In another part of the announcement, the court also states that the device “does not fit as a good of luxury”, because “its quality is not higher than necessary to fulfill the purposes to which it is intended”.
“The choice also takes into account the importance of institutional image and representativeness, as high quality devices and performance are essential to meet the communication and work requirements of the judiciary,” the document continues.
