{"id":18385,"date":"2017-09-06T14:41:04","date_gmt":"2017-09-06T17:41:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/?p=18385"},"modified":"2017-09-06T14:41:04","modified_gmt":"2017-09-06T17:41:04","slug":"resolucao-no-222017-disp-06092017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/2017\/09\/06\/resolucao-no-222017-disp-06092017\/","title":{"rendered":"RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O N\u00ba 22\/2017 – DISP. 06\/09\/2017"},"content":{"rendered":"

ESTADO DO ESP\u00cdRITO SANTO<\/strong><\/p>\n

PODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO<\/strong><\/p>\n

TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A<\/strong><\/p>\n

PRESID\u00caNCIA<\/strong><\/p>\n

RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O N\u00ba 22\/2017<\/strong><\/p>\n

DISP\u00d5E SOBRE S\u00c9TIMA ALTERA\u00c7\u00c3O NA PRIORIZA\u00c7\u00c3O DO PLANO DE OBRAS DO PODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO DO ESTADO DO ESP\u00cdRITO SANTO.<\/em><\/p>\n

O Exmo. Sr. Desembargador ANNIBAL DE REZENDE LIMA, Presidente do Egr\u00e9gio Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo, no uso de suas atribui\u00e7\u00f5es legais e regimentais, e tendo em vista decis\u00e3o do Egr\u00e9gio Tribunal Pleno, em sess\u00e3o realizada em 31 de agosto de 2017,<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> a edi\u00e7\u00e3o da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TJ n\u00ba 12\/2011<\/a>, que disp\u00f5e sobre os crit\u00e9rios de Planejamento, Execu\u00e7\u00e3o e Monitoramento de Obras no \u00e2mbito do Poder Judici\u00e1rio do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo;<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> que o Art. 4\u00ba, da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TJ n\u00ba 12\/2011<\/a>, disp\u00f5e que \u201cO \u2018Plano de Obras\u2019, na exist\u00eancia de outros fatores de relev\u00e2ncia, poder\u00e1 sofrer novas altera\u00e7\u00f5es, desde que plenamente justificadas e aprovadas pelo Egr\u00e9gio Tribunal Pleno do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo;\u201d<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> a edi\u00e7\u00e3o da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TJ n\u00ba 40\/2010<\/a> que disp\u00f5e sobre a implanta\u00e7\u00e3o do Sistema de Prioriza\u00e7\u00e3o de Obras do Poder Judici\u00e1rio do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo;<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> a edi\u00e7\u00e3o da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o TJ n\u00ba. 17\/2017<\/a> que disp\u00f5e sobre a Sexta Altera\u00e7\u00e3o do Plano de Obras do Poder Judici\u00e1rio do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo;<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> que o F\u00f3rum de Baixo Guand\u00fa apresenta algumas manifesta\u00e7\u00f5es patol\u00f3gicas que demonstram a necessidade de refor\u00e7o da funda\u00e7\u00e3o evitando-se assim poss\u00edveis riscos a aqueles a que se utilizam dos servi\u00e7os daquelas instala\u00e7\u00f5es;<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> que o F\u00f3rum de Alegre foi constru\u00eddo \u00e0s margens do Rio Alegre, e este, pelo menos uma vez por ano, tem passado por enchentes que acarretam a mudan\u00e7a do n\u00edvel das \u00e1guas nesse per\u00edodo, ultrapassando o limite das margens, invadindo a \u00e1rea do terreno onde se situam as garagens desta edifica\u00e7\u00e3o e que a cada enchente, registra-se a destrui\u00e7\u00e3o dos limites do terreno. Fato este que poder\u00e1 vir a comprometer a estabilidade da funda\u00e7\u00e3o da edifica\u00e7\u00e3o;<\/p>\n

CONSIDERANDO<\/strong> que as demais Comarcas perder\u00e3o apenas uma posi\u00e7\u00e3o na prioriza\u00e7\u00e3o de obras. Cabendo esclarecer ainda que tais unidades n\u00e3o sofrem com problemas estruturais que tragam risco \u00e0 seguran\u00e7a dos usu\u00e1rios e que, al\u00e9m disso, algumas delas est\u00e3o passando por manuten\u00e7\u00f5es visando manter a edifica\u00e7\u00e3o com a estrutura apta para o funcionamento do F\u00f3rum at\u00e9 que seja atendida com a reforma geral da mesma.<\/p>\n

RESOLVE:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Art. 1\u00ba<\/strong> – Aprovar a 7\u00aa (s\u00e9tima) altera\u00e7\u00e3o do \u201cPlano de Obras\u201d, em face da exist\u00eancia de fatores relevantes devidamente justificados e previstos na Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o CNJ n\u00ba 114\/2010, conforme anexo.<\/p>\n

Publique-se.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vit\u00f3ria, 01 de Setembro de 2017.<\/p>\n

Des. ANNIBAL DE REZENDE LIMA<\/strong>
\n Presidente<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo
\nPODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO – TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A
\nCOMISS\u00c3O DE AVALIA\u00c7\u00c3O T\u00c9CNICA DE OBRAS – RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O CNJ N\u00ba 114\/2010<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nANEXO<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PLANO DE OBRAS – S\u00c9TIMA ALTERA\u00c7\u00c3O
\nCLASSIFICA\u00c7\u00c3O CONSIDERANDO OBRAS DE M\u00c9DIO E GRANDE PORTE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
COMARCA<\/strong><\/td>\nINTERVEN\u00c7\u00c3O NECESS\u00c1RIA<\/strong><\/td>\nESTRUTURA F\u00cdSICA DO IM\u00d3VEL OCUPADO<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n

ADEQUA\u00c7\u00c3O DO IM\u00d3VEL \u00c0 PRESTA\u00c7\u00c3O JURISDICIONAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 0%)<\/strong><\/td>\n


\nSITUA\u00c7\u00c3O DA COMARCA<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

GRUPO 2 – OBRA DE M\u00c9DIO PORTE
\n(valor estimado da contrata\u00e7\u00e3o: de R$ 150.000,00 at\u00e9 R$ 1.500.000,00)*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nBoa Esperan\u00e7a<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n60,67%<\/td>\n67,79%<\/td>\n50,39%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/strong><\/td>\nBaixo Guandu **<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n64,51%<\/td>\n12,55%<\/td>\n62,48%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/strong><\/td>\nConcei\u00e7\u00e3o do Castelo<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n43,24%<\/td>\n57,02%<\/td>\n37,08%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/strong><\/td>\nCariacica<\/strong><\/td>\nCorre\u00e7\u00e3o de manifesta\u00e7\u00f5es patol\u00f3gicas<\/td>\n83,97%<\/td>\n60,22%<\/td>\n71,33%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/strong><\/td>\nAlfredo Chaves<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n46,10%<\/td>\n60,19%<\/td>\n39,17%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/strong><\/td>\nMuniz Freire<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n46,66%<\/td>\n53,83%<\/td>\n40,38%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/strong><\/td>\nMuqui<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n48,83%<\/td>\n64,23%<\/td>\n40,99%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/strong><\/td>\nPinheiros<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n47,59%<\/td>\n48,71%<\/td>\n41,80%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/strong><\/td>\nIconha<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n50,03%<\/td>\n52,90%<\/td>\n43,41%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/strong><\/td>\nPresidente Kennedy<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n56,38%<\/td>\n72,34%<\/td>\n46,18%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/strong><\/td>\nAt\u00edlio Viv\u00e1qua<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n58,83%<\/td>\n59,48%<\/td>\n50,08%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/strong><\/td>\nBarra de S\u00e3o Francisco<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n60,98%<\/td>\n59,53%<\/td>\n51,90%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/strong><\/td>\nS\u00e3o Jos\u00e9 do Cal\u00e7ado<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n60,77%<\/td>\n56,90%<\/td>\n52,12%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/strong><\/td>\nPedro Can\u00e1rio<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n59,31%<\/td>\n46,55%<\/td>\n52,41%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00c1guia Branca<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n64,41%<\/td>\n70,68%<\/td>\n53,03%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/strong><\/td>\nConcei\u00e7\u00e3o da Barra<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n64,83%<\/td>\n69,83%<\/td>\n53,51%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/strong><\/td>\nIbatiba<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n64,00%<\/td>\n55,32%<\/td>\n55,15%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/strong><\/td>\nAlto Rio Novo<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n69,25%<\/td>\n62,09%<\/td>\n58,50%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00c1gua Doce do Norte<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n69,37%<\/td>\n62,20%<\/td>\n58,59%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/strong><\/td>\nI\u00fana<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n67,13%<\/td>\n41,64%<\/td>\n60,14%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21<\/strong><\/td>\nEcoporanga<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n73,54%<\/td>\n67,52%<\/td>\n61,13%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22<\/strong><\/td>\nAfonso Cl\u00e1udio<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n66,79%<\/td>\n33,81%<\/td>\n61,14%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23<\/strong><\/td>\nAracruz<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n71,34%<\/td>\n55,34%<\/td>\n61,47%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24<\/strong><\/td>\nPancas<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n73,61%<\/td>\n61,51%<\/td>\n62,29%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25<\/strong><\/td>\nJaguar\u00e9<\/strong><\/td>\nPequena reforma<\/td>\n70,27%<\/td>\n44,89%<\/td>\n62,39%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26<\/strong><\/td>\nS\u00e3o Mateus<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n79,82%<\/td>\n51,84%<\/td>\n69,47%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

* Classifica\u00e7\u00e3o da obra em m\u00e9dio e grande porte conforme art. 3\u00ba, da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o n. 114, CNJ.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

** Altera\u00e7\u00e3o na prioriza\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo
\nPODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO – TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A
\nCOMISS\u00c3O DE AVALIA\u00c7\u00c3O T\u00c9CNICA DE OBRAS – RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O CNJ N\u00ba 114\/2010<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nANEXO<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PLANO DE OBRAS – S\u00c9TIMA ALTERA\u00c7\u00c3O
\nCLASSIFICA\u00c7\u00c3O CONSIDERANDO OBRAS DE M\u00c9DIO E GRANDE PORTE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
COMARCA<\/strong><\/td>\nINTERVEN\u00c7\u00c3O NECESS\u00c1RIA<\/strong><\/td>\nESTRUTURA F\u00cdSICA DO IM\u00d3VEL OCUPADO<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n

ADEQUA\u00c7\u00c3O DO IM\u00d3VEL \u00c0 PRESTA\u00c7\u00c3O JURISDICIONAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 0%)<\/strong><\/td>\n


\nSITUA\u00c7\u00c3O DA COMARCA<\/strong><\/p>\n

(IDEAL = 100%)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

GRUPO 3 – OBRAS DE GRANDE PORTE
\n(valor estimado da contrata\u00e7\u00e3o: acima de R$ 1.500.000,00)*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CONSTRU\u00c7\u00d5ES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nVit\u00f3ria<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n46,39%<\/td>\n17,10%<\/td>\n44,41%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/strong><\/td>\nMimoso do Sul<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n30,55%<\/td>\n74,23%<\/td>\n24,88%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/strong><\/td>\nBom Jesus do Norte<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n32,59%<\/td>\n61,94%<\/td>\n27,55%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/strong><\/td>\nAlegre **<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n47,91%<\/td>\n28,43%<\/td>\n44,51%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/strong><\/td>\nIbitirama<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n31,90%<\/td>\n83,29%<\/td>\n25,26%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/strong><\/td>\nRio Novo do Sul<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n33,68%<\/td>\n68,28%<\/td>\n27,93%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/strong><\/td>\nFund\u00e3o<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n35,74%<\/td>\n62,66%<\/td>\n30,14%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/strong><\/td>\nGua\u00e7u\u00ed<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n39,27%<\/td>\n66,49%<\/td>\n32,74%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/strong><\/td>\nLaranja da Terra<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n40,98%<\/td>\n80,00%<\/td>\n32,79%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/strong><\/td>\nSanta Leopoldina<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n42,24%<\/td>\n74,65%<\/td>\n34,36%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/strong><\/td>\nCastelo<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n40,74%<\/td>\n61,80%<\/td>\n34,44%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/strong><\/td>\nJo\u00e3o Neiva<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n39,26%<\/td>\n46,52%<\/td>\n34,69%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/strong><\/td>\nDomingos Martins<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n48,78%<\/td>\n47,01%<\/td>\n43,05%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/strong><\/td>\nAnchieta<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n46,02%<\/td>\n18,69%<\/td>\n43,87%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/strong><\/td>\nS\u00e3o Gabriel da Palha<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n47,32%<\/td>\n22,80%<\/td>\n44,63%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/strong><\/td>\nManten\u00f3polis<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n55,83%<\/td>\n57,13%<\/td>\n47,86%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/strong><\/td>\nViana<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n63,53%<\/td>\n75,55%<\/td>\n51,53%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/strong><\/td>\nPi\u00fama<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n55,62%<\/td>\n21,24%<\/td>\n52,66%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/strong><\/td>\nMarechal Floriano<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\n65,01%<\/td>\n65,89%<\/td>\n54,30%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
REFORMAS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nGuarapari<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n71,00%<\/td>\n45,72%<\/td>\n62,89%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/strong><\/td>\nTJES<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n73,93%<\/td>\n47,82%<\/td>\n65,09%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/strong><\/td>\nVit\u00f3ria<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n46,39%<\/td>\n17,10%<\/td>\n44,41%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/strong><\/td>\nVila Velha<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n56,36%<\/td>\n44,97%<\/td>\n50,03%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/strong><\/td>\nSerra<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n64,23%<\/td>\n59,92%<\/td>\n54,61%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/strong><\/td>\nNova Ven\u00e9cia<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n49,37%<\/td>\n55,54%<\/td>\n42,52%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/strong><\/td>\nMarata\u00edzes<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n67,23%<\/td>\n55,91%<\/td>\n57,84%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/strong><\/td>\nLinhares<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n68,55%<\/td>\n36,95%<\/td>\n62,22%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/strong><\/td>\nCachoeiro de Itapemirim<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\n66,39%<\/td>\n16,03%<\/td>\n63,72%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/strong><\/td>\nColatina<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\n70,65%<\/td>\n36,56%<\/td>\n64,19%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

* Classifica\u00e7\u00e3o da obra em m\u00e9dio e grande porte conforme art. 3\u00ba, da Resolu\u00e7\u00e3o n. 114, CNJ.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

** Altera\u00e7\u00e3o na prioriza\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo
\nPODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO – TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A
\nCOMISS\u00c3O DE AVALIA\u00c7\u00c3O T\u00c9CNICA DE OBRAS – RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O CNJ N\u00ba 114\/2010<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nANEXO<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PLANO DE OBRAS – S\u00c9TIMA ALTERA\u00c7\u00c3O
\nCLASSIFICA\u00c7\u00c3O CONSIDERANDO OBRAS DE M\u00c9DIO E GRANDE PORTE<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
COMARCA<\/strong><\/td>\nINTERVEN\u00c7\u00c3O REALIZADA<\/strong><\/td>\nSTATUS DO ATENDIMENTO<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ATENDIMENTOS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GRUPO 2 – OBRA DE M\u00c9DIO PORTE
\n(valor estimado da contrata\u00e7\u00e3o: de R$ 150.000,00 at\u00e9 R$ 1.500.000,00)*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nBoa Esperan\u00e7a<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\nConclu\u00eddo.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
GRUPO 3 – OBRAS DE GRANDE PORTE
\n(valor estimado da contrata\u00e7\u00e3o: acima de R$ 1.500.000,00)*<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CONSTRU\u00c7\u00d5ES<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nVit\u00f3ria<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\nEm atendimento com loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel e reforma de grande porte.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/strong><\/td>\nMimoso do Sul<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\nEm atendimento atrav\u00e9s de loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/strong><\/td>\nBom Jesus do Norte<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\nAtendido atrav\u00e9s de loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/strong><\/td>\nIbitirama<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\nSuspenso momentaneamente, aguardando an\u00e1lise de possibilidade de unifica\u00e7\u00e3o com outro F\u00f3rum atrav\u00e9s do processo n\u00ba 2017.00.683.888.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/strong><\/td>\nAnchieta<\/strong><\/td>\nConstru\u00e7\u00e3o F\u00f3rum novo<\/td>\nAtendido atrav\u00e9s de loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
REFORMAS<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/strong><\/td>\nGuarapari<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\nReforma geral em fase de conclus\u00e3o.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/strong><\/td>\nTJES<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\nObras em planejamento.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/strong><\/td>\nVit\u00f3ria<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\nEm atendimento com loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel e reforma de grande porte.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/strong><\/td>\nVila Velha<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma geral<\/td>\nObras em planejamento.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/strong><\/td>\nSerra<\/strong><\/td>\nReforma com amplia\u00e7\u00e3o<\/td>\nEm atendimento com loca\u00e7\u00e3o de im\u00f3vel e reforma de grande porte.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

ESTADO DO ESP\u00cdRITO SANTO PODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A PRESID\u00caNCIA RESOLU\u00c7\u00c3O N\u00ba 22\/2017 DISP\u00d5E SOBRE S\u00c9TIMA ALTERA\u00c7\u00c3O NA PRIORIZA\u00c7\u00c3O DO PLANO DE OBRAS DO PODER JUDICI\u00c1RIO DO ESTADO DO ESP\u00cdRITO SANTO. O Exmo. Sr. Desembargador ANNIBAL DE REZENDE LIMA, Presidente do Egr\u00e9gio Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a do Estado do Esp\u00edrito Santo, no uso de suas atribui\u00e7\u00f5es […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18385"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18385"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18385\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18391,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18385\/revisions\/18391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tjes.jus.br\/corregedoria\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}