Sanitary Operating Permit as an Admissibility Requirement in a Waste Management TenderPermiso sanitario de funcionamiento como requisito de admisibilidad en licitación de manejo de residuos

“VI. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 182 of the Political Constitution, the Public Administration, in fulfilling the purposes established by the legal system and satisfying its needs efficiently and in a timely manner, must resort to administrative contracting procedures, in order to select the offer it deems most convenient to supply the public need for the benefit of the community. The exercise of the State's contractual activity is subject to a series of principles that have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber starting with Voto 0998-98 issued at 11:30 hours on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent rulings, where the following has been considered: “(...) VI. THE PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING. By virtue of the foregoing, it must be understood that all of the constitutional principles and parameters that govern the State's contractual activity are derived from Article 182 of the Political Constitution. Some of these principles that guide and regulate the bidding process (licitación) are: 1.- free competition (libre concurrencia), which aims to strengthen the possibility of opposition and competition among bidders (oferentes) within the prerogatives of freedom of enterprise regulated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution, intended to promote and stimulate the competitive market, so that the greatest number of bidders may participate, in order for the Administration to have a wide and varied range of offers, so that it can select the one that offers the best conditions; 2.- equal treatment among all possible bidders (igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes), a principle complementary to the previous one and which within the bidding process has a dual purpose: that of being a guarantee for the administered parties in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and as private individuals, which translates into a prohibition for the State to impose restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of legal or regulatory provisions for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and that of constituting a guarantee for the administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework provided by Article 33 of the Fundamental Charter; 3.- publicity (publicidad), which constitutes the prerequisite and guarantee of the aforementioned principles, since it seeks to ensure the administered parties have the broadest certainty of free competition under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the bidding competition being made in a general, open, and as broad a manner as possible to all potential bidders, giving the tender specifications (cartel) the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the case file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; 4.- legality or transparency of procedures (legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos), insofar as the procedures for selecting the contractor must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and concrete manner, so that the administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the framework of action, as a development of the provisions to that effect in the Political Constitution; 5.- legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), which is derived from the previous one, since by subjecting the administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the normative provisions, security and guarantee are given to the bidders of their participation; 6.- formalism of bidding procedures (formalismo de los procedimientos licitatorios), insofar as formalities are required, these act as endogenous controls and self-auditing of the administrative action; so that they are not considered an obstacle to free competition; 7.- balance of interests (equilibrio de intereses), insofar as it is necessary in these procedures for there to be an equivalence between the rights and obligations derived for the contracting party and the administration, so that the contractor is considered a collaborator of the State in the realization of its public purposes; 8.- principle of good faith (principio de buena fe), insofar as in the procedures of bidding processes and in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical norms, where the public interest prevails over any other; 8.- mutability of the contract (mutabilidad del contrato), since the administration has the necessary powers and prerogatives to introduce modifications to contracts, in order for them to fulfill the assigned public purpose that it must protect and realize; 9.- patrimonial intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), by virtue of which the administration is always obliged to maintain the financial balance of the contract, whether by indemnifying the co-contractor for all the negative effects originating from its own decisions, whether as an effect of the principle of mutability, for reasons of convenience or public interest, or for any other general or special reasons that may affect the initial economic level, always adjusting the variations that have occurred in each and every one of the costs that make up the contract prices to maintain the originally agreed economic level unchanged (price adjustments that may originate in the legal theories of unforeseeability, rebus sic stantibus, act of the prince, and above all, in the so-called balance of the financial equation of the contract); and 10.- control of procedures (control de los procedimientos), a principle by which all the tasks of administrative contracting are subject to control and oversight for the purpose of verifying, at least, the correct use of public funds. (..) These principles are recognized both at the doctrinal and jurisprudential levels, and have already been developed by this Tribunal on reiterated occasions and prior to this judgment, in the following manner (…)" (Sala Constitucional No. 2002-3816 issued at 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002). The observance of the cited principles gains relevance and must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective tender specifications, which, according to the provisions contained in Article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), constitutes the specific regulation of the contracting process and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, in order for potential bidders to be clearly informed of the object and conditions of the contracting. By definition and in view of its legal nature, it has been indicated that the tender specifications are equivalent to the regulation for the specific case, by defining the conditions under which the competition will materialize, and therefore the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular contracting in question, but also serving as a source of interpretation for the various factual situations encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship. It is on the basis of the tender specifications that the bidder prepares its offer, thus providing a parameter of legal certainty and guaranteeing in turn the promoting administration compliance with the principle of legitimate trust (confianza legítima) for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the competition of its interest. Thus, these will be applied to it from the moment it expresses its free will regarding entering into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of business intent, with full subjection to the tender conditions, legal and regulatory provisions in force, embodied in its sealed bid (plica), when it is presented to the contracting party, which in turn binds the bidder, since if it is awarded the contract,it must submit not only to the tender conditions established for that purpose, but also to the terms offered by it in said document (see in this regard, Judgment No. 04-2008 issued by this Section of the Tribunal at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008).

VII.In the present case, the tender specifications of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares (Municipalidad de Palmares) for the "Contracting of the service for the collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste of said Canton," in its section 13 General Conditions, established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Competition). The plaintiff's offer for the cited line was declared ineligible when the contracting Administration considered that at the time of the opening of offers, the sanitary operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that although at the time of the opening of offers the permit was expired, the fact is that it provided a renewal application for the sanitary permit that had been submitted to the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), which was in force at the time of the awarding of the tender, and since this is an execution requirement and not an admissibility requirement for the competition, its offer should not have been excluded. For the reasons that will be stated, the plaintiff's arguments are not acceptable. In effect, the requirement established in the tender specifications obliged the bidders to have, at the time of formulating their offer, a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) that they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares, and in the case of the plaintiff, at the time of opening of the offers, the sanitary permit provided, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, and therefore, it did not comply with the tender provision. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the renewal application for the permit that was submitted to the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the tender specifications. Due to the nature of the tendered services "treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares," having a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement of the offer that could not be corrected, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among possible participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty, therefore the plaintiff's argument that the submission of the extension application is sufficient to consider the offer within the competition is not acceptable, as the sanitary permit is an admissibility requirement and not an execution requirement of the competition. For the same reasons, the plaintiff's argument that if the sanitary permit had not been granted and it found itself unable to execute the object of the contract, the administration could proceed to execute the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento) is not acceptable. As correctly argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), which appears in this process as a coadjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a sanitary operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health stems from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of Article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) and the Regulation on Garbage Management, Decreto Ejecutivo No.19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills (Reglamento sobre rellenos sanitarios), Decreto Ejecutivo No.27378-S of October 9, 1998. According to the provisions contained in Article 2 of the General Health Law, the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill complies with the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to people's health and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity intrinsically related to public health and the environment that requires control by government institutions, and Article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its operation, among others, the operating permit that must be processed before the governing health areas (áreas rectoras de salud). Contrary to what was alleged by the plaintiff, the establishment of the requirement so that bidders have the sanitary operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and adequate measure, without this Chamber considering that said tender provision violates the principles of efficiency, reasonability, justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion is in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions that obligate the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if considering that the requirement to present a sanitary operating permit valid at the time of opening the offers was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting, according to the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law, the plaintiff should have filed an objection appeal (recurso de objeción) against the tender specifications. Contrary to what was alleged by the plaintiff, the postponement of the offer receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from complying with the requirement that the sanitary permit be valid at the time of offer receipt. It was the duty of the bidding company to ensure that the permit extension was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not correct its omission in complying with the tender requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of submitting its offer. In addition, the sanitary operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health to the plaintiff provisionally, with a validity of 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the principal), ordering it to execute a series of improvements in the cited landfill, so the plaintiff was unable to guarantee to the Administration the fulfillment of the contractual object, in the event of being awarded the competition. Contrary to what was argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to correct the defect of the sanitary permit's validity, since it would have violated the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement contemplated in the tender specifications regarding the validity of the sanitary operating certificate at the time of opening the offers. According to Article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations of the offer or that do not place the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the offer, since the tendered service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but rather a landfill in operation that, therefore, had to have the sanitary operating permit in force. The plaintiff's offer for Line No. 2 of the public competition did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, by virtue of which its exclusion from the competition by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same sense, this Chamber does not find evidence of defects that cause the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006, by means of which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against line 2 of the award act of public tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was flatly rejected for lack of standing (legitimación).”

2002-3816 at 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002).</b> </span></i><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>The observance of the cited principles becomes relevant and must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective tender specifications (cartel), which, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), constitutes the specific regulation of the procurement and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, so that potential bidders are clearly informed of the object and conditions of the procurement. By definition and considering its legal nature, it has been indicated that the tender specifications are equivalent to the regulation for the specific case, defining the conditions under which the bidding process will be conducted, and for this reason, the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular procurement in question but also serving as an interpretative source for the various factual scenarios encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship. It is based on the tender specifications that the bidder prepares its bid, thus providing a parameter of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and, in turn, guaranteeing the promoting administration the fulfillment of the principle of legitimate trust (principio de confianza legítima) for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the bidding process of their interest. Thus, these will be applied to them from the moment they express their free will to enter into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of their desire to negotiate, with full submission to the conditions of the tender specifications (condiciones cartelarias), and the current legal and regulatory provisions, as reflected in their bid, when it is submitted to the contracting party, which in turn binds the bidder, because if awarded the contract, they must submit not only to the conditions of the tender specifications established for that purpose but also to the terms offered by them in said document (see in this regard, the Judgment issued by this Section of the Tribunal No. 04-2008 issued at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008). <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.1pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.1pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-pagination:none;background:white;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.1pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.1pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-pagination:none;background:white;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span class=SpellE><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>VII</span></b></span><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>. </span></b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>In the present case, the tender specifications (cartel) of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares for the "procurement of the service for the collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste from said Canton," in its section 13 General Conditions, established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the valid health operating permit for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Tender). The plaintiff's bid for said line was declared ineligible because the contracting Administration considered that, at the time of bid opening, the health operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that while the permit was expired at the time of bid opening, they did provide a renewal application for the health permit submitted to the Ministry of Health, which was in force at the time of the tender's award, and as this is an execution requirement and not an admissibility requirement for the tender, their bid should not have been excluded. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiff's arguments are not accepted. Indeed, the requirement established in the tender specifications obliged bidders to have, at the time of formulating their bid, a valid health operating permit for the sanitary landfill they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares. In the plaintiff's case, at the time of bid opening, the submitted health permit, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, thus breaching the provision of the tender specifications. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the permit renewal application submitted to the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the tender specifications. Due to the nature of the procured services, "treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares," having a valid health operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be corrected, or else the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty would be violated. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that submitting the extension request is sufficient to consider the bid within the tender is not accepted, as the health permit is an admissibility requirement and not an execution requirement for the tender. For parity of reasoning, the plaintiff's argument is not accepted that, had the health permit not been granted and they were unable to execute the contract's object, the Administration could proceed to execute the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento). As rightly argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), which appears in this process as coadjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a valid health operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health stems from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) and the Regulation on Waste Management, Executive Decree No.19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills, Executive Decree No.27378-S of October 9, 1998. In accordance with the provisions contained in article 2 of the General Health Law, the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill meets the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to people's health and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity intrinsically related to public health and the environment, requiring control by government institutions, and article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its operation, among others, the operating permit to be processed before the governing health areas. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, establishing the requirement that bidders have the valid health operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and adequate measure, without this Chamber considering that said provision of the tender specifications threatens the principles of efficiency, reasonableness, justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion complies with the constitutional and legal provisions that obligate the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if it were considered that the requirement to present a valid health operating permit at the time of bid opening was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting, according to the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), the plaintiff should have filed an objection to the tender specifications (recurso de objeción al cartel). Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the change in the bid receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from the requirement that the health permit be valid at the time of bid receipt. It was the duty of the bidding company to ensure that the permit's renewal was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not cure its omission to comply with the tender specifications requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of submitting its bid. Furthermore, the health operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health for the plaintiff on a provisional basis, valid for 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the main file), ordering it to implement a series of improvements in said landfill. Therefore, the plaintiff was unable to guarantee the Administration the fulfillment of the contractual object, had it been awarded in the tender. Contrary to what is argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to cure the defect of the health permit's validity, as this would have breached the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement set forth in the tender specifications regarding the validity of the health operating certificate at the time of bid opening. According to article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations in the bid or does not put the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the bid, as the procured service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but an operating landfill that therefore had to have a valid health operating permit. The plaintiff's bid for Line No. 2 of the public tender did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, and therefore its exclusion from the tender by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same vein, this Chamber finds no evidence of defects that would generate the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against item 2 of the award act of Public Tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was flatly rejected for lack of standing."<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html> Some of these principles that guide and regulate the bidding process are: <b>1.- <u>free competition (libre concurrencia)</u></b>, which aims to strengthen the possibility of opposition and competition among bidders within the prerogatives of freedom of enterprise regulated in article 46 of the Political Constitution, intended to promote and stimulate the competitive market, with the aim of having the largest number of bidders participate, so that the Administration can count on a wide and varied range of offers, enabling it to select the one that offers the best conditions; <b>2.- <u>equal treatment among all potential bidders (igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes)</u></b>, a principle complementary to the previous one and which within the bidding process has a dual purpose: to serve as a guarantee for the administered in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and private individuals, which translates into the prohibition for the State of imposing restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of <b>legal or regulatory provisions</b> for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and to constitute a guarantee for the administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework provided by article 33 of the Fundamental Charter; <b>3.- <u>publicity (publicidad)</u></b>, which constitutes the precondition and guarantee of the principles discussed, since it seeks to ensure for the administered the broadest certainty of free competition under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the bidding competition being made in a general, open, and as broad as possible manner to all potential bidders, giving the bidding conditions the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the case file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; <b>4.- <u>legality or transparency of procedures (legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos)</u></b>, insofar as the contractor selection procedures must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and concrete manner, so that the administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the framework of action, as a development of what is provided for this purpose in the Political Constitution; <b>5.- <u>legal certainty (seguridad jurídica)</u></b>, which derives from the previous one, since by subjecting administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the normative provisions, security and guarantee are given to bidders regarding their participation; <b>6.- <u>formalism of bidding procedures (formalismo de los procedimientos licitatorios)</u></b>, in that when formalities are required, these act as endogenous controls and self-auditing of the administrative action; so that they are not considered an obstacle to free competition; <b>7.- <u>balance of interests (equilibrio de intereses)</u></b>, insofar as it is necessary in these procedures for there to be an equivalence between the rights and obligations that arise for the contracting party and the administration, so that the contractor is considered a collaborator of the State in the realization of its public purposes; <b>8.- <u>principle of good faith (principio de buena fe)</u></b>, in that in the processing of bids and in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical norms, where the public interest prevails over any other; </span></i><b><i><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>8</span></i></b><b><i><span style='font-family:Arial'>.- <u>mutability of the contract (mutabilidad del contrato)</u></span></i></b><i><span style='font-family:Arial'>, since the administration has the necessary powers and prerogatives to introduce modifications to contracts, in order for them to fulfill the assigned public purpose that it must protect and realize; <b>9.- <u>patrimonial intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial)</u>, </b>by virtue of which the administration is always obliged to maintain the financial balance of the contract, either by indemnifying the co-contractor for all negative effects originating from its own decisions, whether as an effect of the principle of mutability, or for reasons of convenience or public interest, or for any other general or special reasons that come to affect the initial economic level, always readjusting the variations that have occurred in each and every one of the costs that make up the contract prices to keep the originally agreed economic level intact (price adjustments that may originate from the legal theories of unforeseeability, rebus sic stantibus, act of the prince, and above all, from the so-called equilibrium of the financial equation of the contract); and <b>10.- <u>control of procedures (control de los procedimientos)</u></b>, a principle by which all tasks of administrative contracting are subject to control and oversight for the sake of verification, at least, of the correct use of public funds.</span></i><i><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'> (..) </span></i><i><span style='font-family:Arial'>These principles have recognition both at a doctrinal and jurisprudential level, and have already been developed by this Court on repeated occasions and prior to this judgment, in the following manner (…)" (<b>Constitutional Chamber No. 2002-3816 of 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002).</b> </span></i><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>Observance of the cited principles acquires relevance and they must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective bidding conditions (cartel), which, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law, constitutes the specific regulation of the contracting and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, with the aim that potential bidders are clearly informed of the object and conditions of the contracting. By definition and in consideration of its legal nature, it has been indicated that the bidding conditions are equated to a regulation for the specific case, by defining the conditions under which the competition will materialize, and therefore the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular contracting in question, but also fulfilling a role as an interpretive source for the various factual scenarios encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship.<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>It is on the basis of the bidding conditions that the bidder prepares its bid, thus providing it with a parameter of legal certainty and in turn guaranteeing the promoting administration compliance with the principle of legitimate expectations for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the competition of their interest. Thus, these will be applied to them from the moment they manifest their free will concerning entering into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of the desire to negotiate, with full submission to the bidding conditions, legal and regulatory provisions in force, embodied in their sealed bid, when the same is presented before the contracting entity, which in turn binds the bidder, since if they become the awardee, they must submit not only to the bidding conditions established for that purpose, but also to the terms offered by them in said document (see in this regard, the Judgment issued by this Section of the Court No. 04-2008 issued at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008). <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.1pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.1pt; margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-pagination:none; background:white;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin-top:5.1pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.1pt; margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height:150%;mso-pagination:none; background:white;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span class=SpellE><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language: ES-CR'>VII</span></b></span><b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial; mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>. </span></b><span lang=ES-CR style='font-family:Arial; mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>In the present case, the bidding conditions of Public Tender No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares for the "Contracting of the service of collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste of said Canton,<b> </b>in its section 13 General Conditions established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the sanitary operating permit for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Competition). The plaintiff's bid for the cited line was declared ineligible when the tendering Administration considered that at the time of the opening of bids, the sanitary operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that although at the time of the opening of bids the permit was expired, the fact is that it provided a renewal application for the sanitary permit that had been filed before the Ministry of Health, which was valid at the time of the award of the tender, and since this is a performance requirement and not one of admissibility for the competition, its bid should not have been excluded. For the reasons to be stated, the plaintiff's arguments are not acceptable. In effect, the requirement established in the bidding conditions obliged bidders to have, at the time of formulating their bid, a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill that they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares, and in the plaintiff's case, at the time of opening the bids, the submitted sanitary permit, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, thus failing to comply with the bidding conditions provision. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the permit renewal application that was filed before the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the bidding conditions. Due to the nature of the tendered services "treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares", having a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be corrected, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty, therefore the plaintiff's argument that the presentation of the extension application is sufficient to consider the bid within the competition is not acceptable, as the sanitary permit is an admissibility requirement and not a performance requirement of the competition. For parity of reasons, the plaintiff's argument that in the event the sanitary permit had not been granted and it found itself unable to execute the object of the contract, the administration could proceed with the enforcement of the performance bond is not acceptable. As is well argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, which appears in this process as a co-adjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a sanitary operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health derives from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the terms of article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law and the Regulation on the management of garbage, Executive Decree No. 19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on sanitary landfills, Executive Decree No. 27378-S of October 9, 1998. In accordance with the provisions contained in article 2 of the General Health Law,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill meets the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to the health of persons and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity that is intrinsically related to public health and the environment, which requires control by government institutions, and article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>operation, among others,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>the operating permit that must be processed<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>before the governing health areas. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the establishment of the requirement for bidders to have the sanitary operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure, without this Chamber considering that said bidding conditions provision violates the principles of efficiency, reasonableness (razonabilidad), justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion is in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions that oblige the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if it were considered that the requirement to present a sanitary operating permit valid at the time of opening the bids was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>in accordance with the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law, the plaintiff should have filed an objection appeal against the bidding conditions. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the postponement of the bid receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from complying with the requirement that the sanitary permit be valid at the time of receipt of bids. It was the bidder company's duty to ensure that the permit extension was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not correct<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>its omission to comply with the bidding conditions requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of presenting its bid. Furthermore, the sanitary operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health to the plaintiff on a provisional basis, with a validity of 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the principal), ordering it to execute a series of improvements in said landfill, so the plaintiff was unable to guarantee the Administration compliance with the contractual object, should it be awarded the competition. Contrary to what is argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to correct the defect in the validity of the sanitary permit,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>as it would have breached the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement contemplated in the bidding conditions regarding the validity of the sanitary operating certificate at the time of opening the bids. In accordance with article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations of the bid or that do not place the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the bid, since the tendered service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but rather an operational landfill that therefore had to have a valid sanitary operating permit. The plaintiff's bid for Line No. 2 of the public competition did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, by virtue of which its exclusion from the competition by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same vein, this Chamber does not find evidence of defects that generate the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006,<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>by means of which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against line 2 of the award act of public tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was rejected outright for lack of standing.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html>

“VI. CONSIDERACIONES DEL TRIBUNAL. Conforme a lo establecido por el artículo 182 de la Constitución Política, la Administración Pública en cumplimiento de las finalidades establecidas por el ordenamiento jurídico y de satisfacer de manera eficiente y oportuna sus necesidades, debe recurrir a los procedimientos de contratación administrativa, con el fin de seleccionar la oferta que estima más conveniente para suplir la necesidad pública en beneficio de la colectividad. El ejercicio de la actividad contractual del Estado, está sujeta a una serie de principios que han sido delimitados por la Sala Constitucional a partir del voto 0998-98 de las 11:30 horas del 16 de febrero de 1998 y reiterado en los fallos posteriores, en donde se ha considerando lo siguiente:“(...) VI. LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LA CONTRATACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA. En virtud de lo anterior, debe entenderse que del artículo 182 de la Constitución Política se derivan todos los principios y parámetros constitucionales que rigen la actividad contractual del Estado. Algunos de estos principios que orientan y regulan la licitación son: 1.- de la libre concurrencia, que tiene por objeto afianzar la posibilidad de oposición y competencia entre los oferentes dentro de las prerrogativas de la libertad de empresa regulado en el artículo 46 de la Constitución Política, destinado a promover y estimular el mercado competitivo, con el fin de que participen el mayor número de oferentes, para que la Administración pueda contar con una amplia y variada gama de ofertas, de modo que pueda seleccionar la que mejores condiciones le ofrece; 2.- de igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes, principio complementario del anterior y que dentro de la licitación tiene una doble finalidad, la de ser garantía para los administrados en la protección de sus intereses y derechos como contratistas, oferentes y como particulares, que se traduce en la prohibición para el Estado de imponer condiciones restrictivas para el acceso del concurso, sea mediante la promulgación de disposiciones legales o reglamentarias con ese objeto, como en su actuación concreta; y la de constituir garantía para la administración, en tanto acrece la posibilidad de una mejor selección del contratista; todo lo anterior, dentro del marco constitucional dado por el artículo 33 de la Carta Fundamental; 3.- de publicidad, que constituye el presupuesto y garantía de los principios comentados, ya que busca asegurar a los administrados la más amplia certeza de la libre concurrencia en condiciones de absoluta igualdad en los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa, y que consiste en que la invitación al concurso licitatorio se haga en forma general, abierta y lo más amplia posible a todos los oferentes posibles, dándosele al cartel la más amplia divulgación, así como el más amplio acceso al expediente, informes, resoluciones y en general a todo el proceso de que se trate; 4.- de legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos, en tanto los procedimientos de selección del contratista deben estar definidos a priori en forma precisa, cierta y concreta, de modo que la administración no pueda obviar las reglas predefinidas en la norma jurídica que determina el marco de acción, como desarrollo de lo dispuesto al efecto en la Constitución Política; 5.- de seguridad jurídica, que es derivado del anterior, puesto que al sujetarse los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa a las reglas contenidas en las disposiciones normativas, se da seguridad y garantía a los oferentes de su participación; 6.- formalismo de los procedimientos licitatorios, en cuanto se exijan formalidades, éstas actúan a modo de controles endógenos y de autofiscalización de la acción administrativa; de manera que no se tengan como obstáculo para la libre concurrencia; 7.- equilibrio de intereses, en tanto es necesario que en estos procedimientos exista una equivalencia entre los derechos y obligaciones que se derivan para el contratante y la administración, de manera que se tenga al contratista como colaborador del Estado en la realización de los fines públicos de éste; 8.- principio de buena fe, en cuanto en los trámites de las licitaciones y en general, en todo lo concerniente a la contratación administrativa, se considera como un principio moral básico que la administración y oferentes actúen de buena fe, en donde las actuaciones de ambas partes estén caracterizadas por normas éticas claras, donde prevalezca el interés público sobre cualquier otro; 8.- de la mutabilidad del contrato, puesto que la administración cuenta con los poderes y prerrogativas necesarias para introducir modificaciones a los contratos, con el objeto de que cumplan con el fin público asignado que debe proteger y realizar; 9.- de intangibilidad patrimonial, en virtud del cual la administración está siempre obligada a mantener el equilibrio financiero del contrato, sea indemnizando al cocontratante de todos los efectos negativos que se originen en sus propias decisiones, sea como efecto del principio de mutabilidad, sea por razones de conveniencia o de interés público o por cualesquiera otras razones generales o especiales que lleguen a afectar el nivel económico inicial, reajustando siempre las variaciones ocurridas en todos y cada uno de los costos que conforman los precios del contrato para mantener incólume el nivel económico originalmente pactado ( reajustes de precios que pueden originarse en las teorías jurídicas de la imprevisión, rebus sic stantibus, hecho del príncipe y sobre todo, en la llamada equilibrio de la ecuación financiera del contrato); y 10.- del control de los procedimientos, principio por el cual todas las tareas de la contratación administrativa son objeto de control y fiscalización en aras de la verificación, al menos, de la correcta utilización de los fondos públicos. (..) Estos principios tienen reconocimiento tanto a nivel doctrinal como jurisprudencial, y ya han sido desarrollados por este Tribunal en reiteradas ocasiones y con anterioridad a esta sentencia, de la siguiente manera (…)" (Sala Constitucional No. 2002-3816 de las 14:53 horas del 24 de abril del 2002). La observancia de los principios citados adquiere relevancia y deben estar reflejados en las disposiciones contenidas en el respectivo cartel, el cual conforme a las disposiciones contenidas en el artículo 51 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, constituye el reglamento específico de la contratación y por ende debe ser un instrumento claro, suficiente, concreto y objetivo, con el fin de que los posibles oferentes estén enterados claramente del objeto y condiciones de la contratación. Por definición y en atención a su naturaleza jurídica, se ha indicado que el cartel se equipara al reglamento para el caso concreto, al definir las condiciones en que se concretará el concurso y por ello resulta vinculante para el oferente los términos que en él se haya establecido, siendo no sólo parte integral de la normativa aplicable a la contratación particular de la cual se trate, sino que además cumple un papel de fuente interpretativa ante los diversos supuestos fácticos que se enfrentan a lo largo del desarrollo de la relación contractual. Es con base en el cartel que el oferente elabora su oferta, brindándosele así un parámetro de seguridad jurídica y garantizando a su vez la administración promovente, el cumplimiento del principio de confianza legítima para el potencial participante, quien sabe de antemano las condiciones que regirán en el concurso de su interés. Así, éstas le serán aplicadas a partir de que manifieste su libre voluntad atinente a integrar la relación contractual mediante la manifestación inequívoca del deseo negocial, con pleno sometimiento a las condiciones cartelarias, disposiciones legales y reglamentarias vigentes, plasmada en su plica, cuando la misma se presenta ante la contratante, la cual a su vez vincula al oferente, pues en caso de resultar adjudicatario, deberá someterse no sólo a las condiciones cartelarias al efecto establecidas, sino también a los términos por él ofertados en dicho documento (véase en este sentido, la Sentencia dictada por ésta Sección del Tribunal No. 04-2008 dictada a las 16:30 horas del 4 de agosto del 2008).

VII.En la especie el cartel de la Licitación Pública No. 02-2005 promovida por la Municipalidad de Palmares para la "Contratación del servicio de recolección, transporte, tratamiento y disposición final de los desechos sólidos ordinarios, residenciales, comerciales y no tradicionales de dicho Cantón, en su aparte 13 Condiciones Generales estableció que todo oferente debería entregar copia del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento para el tratamiento y disposición final de desechos sólidos ordinarios (Item 2 del Concurso). La oferta de la actora para la citada línea fue declarada inelegible al considerar la Administración licitante que al momento de la apertura de las ofertas el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento se encontraba vencido. Argumenta la actora que si bien al momento de la apertura de ofertas el permiso se encontraba vencido, lo cierto es que aportó una solicitud de renovación del permiso sanitario que había sido presentado ante el Ministerio de Salud, el cual se encontraba vigente al momento de la adjudicación de la licitación y al ser este un requisito de ejecución y no de admisibilidad para el concurso, su oferta no debió ser excluida. Por las razones que se dirán, los argumentos de la actora no son de recibo. En efecto, el requisito establecido en el cartel, obligaba a los oferentes a contar al momento de formulación de su oferta con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario que emplearían para la disposición final de desechos del Cantón de Palmares, siendo que en el caso de la actora al momento de apertura de las ofertas, el permiso sanitario aportado, correspondiente al relleno sanitario Los Mangos, se encontraba vencido, por, lo que incumplía la disposición cartelaria. El hecho de que la actora haya aportado copia de la solicitud de renovación del permiso que fue presentado ante el Ministerio de Salud, no implica el cumplimiento de la clara disposición contenida en el cartel. Por la naturaleza de los servicios licitados "tratamiento y disposición final de los desechos sólidos ordinarios del Cantón de Palmares", el contar con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario, constituye un requisito de admisibilidad de la oferta que no podría ser subsanado, so pena de violentar los principios de igualdad de trato entre posibles participantes, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos y el de seguridad jurídica, por lo que no es de recibo la argumentación de la accionante en el sentido de que la presentación de la solicitud de prórroga basta para considerar la oferta dentro del concurso, al ser el permiso sanitario un requisito de admisibilidad y no de ejecución del concurso. Por paridad de razones no es de recibo la argumentación de la actora en el sentido de que en caso de que no se hubiere otorgado el permiso sanitario y se viera en imposibilidad de ejecutar el objeto del contrato, la administración podría proceder a la ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. Como bien lo argumenta la representación de la Contraloría General de la República, que figura en este proceso como coadyuvante de los demandados, la obligación de contar con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento extendido por el Ministerio de Salud proviene de la garantía del derecho fundamental de toda persona de contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en los términos del artículo 50 constitucional, así como de las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley General de Salud y del Reglamento sobre el manejo de basuras, Decreto Ejecutivo No.19049-S del 20 de junio de 1989 y del Reglamento sobre rellenos sanitarios, Decreto Ejecutivo No.27378-S del 9 de octubre de 1998. Conforme a las disposiciones contenidas en el artículo 2 de la Ley General de Salud, el Ministerio de Salud debe velar por la salud de la población, garantizando que la operación de todo relleno sanitario cumpla los requisitos legales y reglamentarios para prevenir todo riesgo a la salud de las personas y del medio ambiente. La actividad de tratamiento y disposición de desechos sólidos es una actividad que está intrínsicamente relacionada con la salud pública y el medio ambiente que requiere de un control por parte de las instituciones de gobierno, siendo que el artículo 8 Reglamento sobre Rellenos Sanitarios establece como requisito para su funcionamiento, entre otros, el permiso de funcionamiento que se deberá gestionar ante las áreas rectoras de salud. Contrario a lo aducido por la actora, el establecimiento del requisito a efecto de que los oferentes cuenten con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento en este caso, constituye una medida necesaria y adecuada, sin que considere ésta Cámara que dicha disposición cartelaria atente contra los principios de eficiencia, razonabilidad, justicia, lógica y conveniencia como lo argumenta el actor, toda vez que su inclusión lo es en cumplimiento de las disposiciones constitucionales y legales que obligan al Estado por velar por la salud de la población y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En todo caso, de considerar que el requisito de presentación del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento vigente al momento de apertura de las ofertas resultaba contrario a los principios de contratación administrativa, conforme a las regulaciones contenidas en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, la actora la accionante debió formular un recurso de objeción al cartel. Contrario a lo aducido por la accionante, el traslado de la fecha de recepción de ofertas no eximía a los potenciales oferentes de cumplir con el requisito de que el permiso sanitario estuviera vigente al momento de recepción de ofertas. Era deber de la empresa oferente velar por que se tramitara con debido tiempo la prórroga del permiso y el hecho de que al momento de la adjudicación el permiso estuviera vigente, no subsana su omisión de cumplir el requisito del cartel en cuanto a la vigencia del permiso al momento de presentar su oferta. Además, el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento para el relleno sanitario de Los Mangos, en Barrio San José de Alajuela, fue aprobado por el Ministerio de Salud a la accionante de manera provisional, con una vigencia de 6 meses, hasta el día 23 de diciembre del 2006 (folio 72 del principal), ordenándole ejecutar una serie de mejoras en el citado relleno, por lo que la actora se encontraba en imposibilidad de garantizar a la Administración el cumplimiento del objeto contractual, en caso de resultar adjudicada en el concurso. Contrario a lo argumentado por la accionante, la Administración se encontraba en imposibilidad de subsanar el defecto de vigencia del permiso sanitario, ya que hubiera quebrantado el principio de igualdad de trato en perjuicio de los demás oferentes, que si debieron cumplir el requisito contemplado en el cartel en cuanto a la vigencia del certificado sanitario de funcionamiento al momento de la apertura de las ofertas. Conforme artículo 56 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, la subsanación de defectos solo es posible cuando no implique variaciones esenciales de la oferta o que no coloquen al oferente en posibilidad de obtener una ventaja indebida. El contar con el permiso de funcionamiento era un requisito esencial de la oferta, toda vez que el servicio licitado no era la construcción y futura operación de un relleno sanitario, sino de un relleno en funcionamiento que por ende debía contar con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento vigente. La oferta de la actora para la línea No. 2 del concurso público no cumplía uno requisito esencial que no podría ser subsanado, en virtud de lo cual su exclusión del concurso por parte de la Municipalidad de Palmares se encuentra conforme a derecho. En este mismo sentido, no evidencia ésta Cámara la existencia de vicios que generan la nulidad de la resolución dictada por la Contraloría General de la República No. R-DCA-396-2006 dictada a las ocho horas del 8 de agosto del 2006, por medio de la cual se rechazó de plano por falta de legitimación el recurso de apelación formulado por la actora contra el renglón 2 acto de adjudicación de la licitación pública 02-2005, promovida por la Municipalidad de Palmares.”