Denial of fee adjustment in global-price consulting contractRechazo de ajuste de honorarios en consultoría por precio global

VI.- On procurement as a manifestation of administrative conduct: The Public Administration employs various means for fulfilling public purposes, which are not exhausted in mere material actions or formal administrative acts, inasmuch as it also resorts to the technique of administrative procurement, in which the fulfilment of an object is agreed upon with a contractor, as a collaborating subject in achieving the sought-after public interest. However, unlike a private contract, in administrative procurement there exists a series of elements that transcend the mere agreement of wills set forth in a document and that condition its formation, development, and termination. Thus, the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and conclusion by the specific legal framework governing the matter and the procurement itself. In this sense, the free and sovereign act of will of the contractor is filtered by the administrative legal framework, and fundamentally by the procurement regulations, that is, the bidding documents or set of conditions that serve as its basis. In addition, underlying every administrative procurement procedure will always be a series of principles that have been delimited by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) based on ruling 0998-98 at 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent judgments, which are basically summarized as free participation (libre concurrencia), equal treatment among bidders, publicity, legal certainty, legality and transparency, good faith, balance of interests, mutability of the contract, patrimonial intangibility, and control of the procedures. From the standpoint of positive law, the general regulatory framework governing the obligations of both contracting entities and contracting companies is set forth in the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Article 15 of said normative body expressly states the following as an obligation of every contracting Administration: “The Administration is obligated to fulfill all commitments validly undertaken in the administrative procurement and to provide collaboration so that the contractor suitably executes the agreed-upon object.” On the other hand, correlatively to said duty, Article 20 of the same law establishes the following obligation for contractors: “Contractors are obligated to fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any documented formal manifestation that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or upon formalization of the contract.” Both obligations arise from a principle of good faith in procurement, by which both parties have, as a reference for the fulfilment of their obligations, a duty of mutual compliance and collaboration. A fundamental reference for the fulfilment of contractual obligations is the bidding documents (cartel del concurso), insofar as the bases of the procurement are established therein, according to the needs of the respective Public Administration. Article 51 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) provides with respect to said nature: “Article 51.—Concept. The bidding documents constitute the specific regulations of the procurement being promoted, and all the legal rules and constitutional principles applicable to the respective procedure are understood to be incorporated into their clauses. They must constitute a body of technical specifications that are clear, sufficient, concrete, objective, and broad in terms of the opportunity to participate. For their preparation, the Administration may contract or request the assistance of natural or legal persons specialized in the matter in question, provided they have no direct or indirect particular interest in the business, when it does not have the necessary technical resources within its own organization. In those procurements exempted from ordinary procurement procedures, the Administration may, at its discretion, prepare bidding documents with the essential elements, attending to the contractual object, in harmony with the principles of administrative procurement.” In this line of reasoning, as has been stated, the bidding documents are equated to the regulations of the procurement, defining the conditions under which it will take place. For this reason, the bidding documents are a source of interpretation of the administrative procurement, given that it is based on the bidding documents that the bidder prepares its proposal, which has the characteristic of being integral in all its components, that is, both in the content of the main document and in the designs, plans, samples, and catalogues that accompany it. Regarding the nature of the proposal in this matter, Article 61 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law establishes: “Article 61.—Concept. The proposal is the manifestation of the participant’s will, directed to the Administration, with the purpose of entering into a contract with it, in accordance with the stipulations of the bidding documents.” In accordance with the foregoing provision, the proposal must strictly comply with the content of the bidding documents, both in the rules of the procedure to be followed, the documents, and especially the requirements requested; if the proposal does not comply with what is stipulated in the bidding documents, it must be excluded from the tender. The proposal contained in the sealed bid binds the bidder, since, should it be awarded the contract, it must submit not only to the conditions of the bidding documents established for that purpose, but also to the terms offered by it in said document and to the Administration, inasmuch as its acceptance will mean admitting the delimitation of the terms and conditions of the procurement according to what was proposed by the contractor. That is, the bidding documents and the proposal must be seen in an integral and integrated manner, such that in the analysis of the latter, what is established in the former cannot be lost from sight. Therefore, the procurement cannot be viewed in its components in an isolated manner, nor abstracted from the legal framework, nor without taking into consideration the integrality of the proposal and the bidding documents to which it refers. Based on the bidding documents and the contents of the awarded proposal, the respective administrative contract is founded, which must be interpreted based on the legal instruments that comprise it, that is, the bidding documents or set of conditions, the awarded proposal, and the rules and principles specific to administrative procurement. By reason of the foregoing, in matters of administrative procurement, the determination of the effective fulfilment of the obligation by both contracting parties must refer both to the bidding documents and to the proposal considered in an integral manner, and always oriented toward the fulfilment of the principle of good faith between the subscribing parties and in attention to the public interest that guided the Administration’s decision to undertake the respective procurement.

VII.- On the forms of remuneration for professional fees for consultancy services for buildings and the right to the adjustment of fees according to the form of remuneration provided for in the bidding documents and in the contract: With respect to the procurement of professional services of engineers and architects, the Organic Law of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Ley Orgánica del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos) establishes the powers held by the respective professional college, as follows: “Article 55. The Federated College shall establish the rules governing professional tenders of public institutions regarding the practice of engineering and architecture.” Based on this rule, the Regulations for the Procurement of Engineering and Architecture Consultancy Services of the CFIA (Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA), first defines the concept of “fee schedule (arancel)”, as follows: “Article 2.- Definition of fee schedule. Fee schedule is understood as the system established as a basis for remunerating professional consultancy services according to the characteristics, magnitude, and complexity of those services. The fee schedule establishes the minimum tariffs based on the cost of the works to be carried out, when the consultancy services are perfectly defined; or as a compensation system that includes the reimbursement of cost plus a fixed fee, or cost plus a percentage of the expenses incurred in those cases where the consultancy service, due to the particularities of the work, cannot be defined with precision. The first modality is called ‘tariffable fee schedule (arancel tarifable)’, the second, ‘non-tariffable fee schedule (arancel no tarifable).’ From this definition, the aforementioned regulations in their articles 23, 24, 25, and 26 establish three forms of remuneration for consultancy services, namely, remuneration fixed by tariffs; the global price or lump sum (precio global o suma alzada); and the reimbursement of cost plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred. Article 24 of said Regulations, with respect to remuneration fixed by tariffs, establishes that fees are calculated as a percentage of the value of the study or project to be carried out and that appears in the tariffable fee schedule for each of the project stages, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18636-MOPT) and Article 17 of the Regulations for the Procurement of Engineering and Architecture Consultancy Services of the CFIA, comprise two phases: a) The first phase corresponds to the preparation of plans and documents, with the following services and tariffs: preliminary project (anteproyecto) (1.5% of the estimated value of the work); construction plans and technical specifications (4% of the estimated value of the work); budget (0.5% of the estimated value of the work); works scheduling (1% of the estimated value of the works); advisory services for the bidding and award process (0.5% of the award value of the works); b) The second phase refers to execution control, with the following services and tariffs: inspection (3% of the final value of the work); technical direction (5% of the final value of the work); administration (12% of the final value of the work); remodeling (150% of the normal minimum tariff defined for each stage); investment oversight (1.5% of the value of the work). Now then, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of the Regulations for the Procurement of Engineering and Architecture Consultancy Services of the CFIA, it is established that the adjustment of fees (ajuste de honorarios) applies in all those cases where the professional fee is calculated based on tariffs on the cost of the work, in which case the amount set in the contract shall be considered tentative, since said amount will be adjusted to the final cost of the work in each contracted stage. The foregoing responds to the fact that it is not until the end of the service or of the contracted stages, when applicable, that its real value is known, and it is on this real value that the previously tariffed percentages must be applied, ergo, the so-called adjustment of fees operates. On this point, it is worth highlighting that the adjustment of fees is the adaptation of an amount given based on a sum and tariffs fixed beforehand, and not because modifications to the already agreed-upon conditions have occurred over time, which is why the issue of foreseeable or unforeseeable modifications in the direct or indirect costs of the business itself is not what is considered for the adjustment of fees to operate. The foregoing, inasmuch as in this second case, we would rather be talking about revision (reajuste) (foreseeable or unforeseeable modifications in direct and indirect costs, which, to safeguard the entrepreneur’s patrimonial integrity, the administration must recognize), which is not provided for in our legal system for fees, but rather for prices. Now then, Article 25 of the Regulations for the Procurement of Engineering and Architecture Consultancy Services of the CFIA regulates the form of remuneration by global price or lump sum, a method applicable when the scope of the services can be predetermined and defined in a clear and precise manner due to the characteristics of the projects not covered by the tariffable fee schedule. In said form, the adjustment of fees established in the fee schedule does not operate, because, unlike the alternatives of remuneration fixed by tariffs and reimbursement of cost plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred (Article 26 of the same regulatory body), the bidder proposes a specific value for fees, which it could break down into percentages, but which it cannot modify in the future. Article 3.B of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18636-MOPT, defines the sub-items into which this price is broken down as follows: “In general, a global price is usually agreed upon based on the budget for the consultant’s work, which is subdivided as follows: a) Personnel expenses (salaries plus social charges), which are usually calculated based on the dedication of professionals, experts, and assistants, expressed in man-months or man-hours. b) General or indirect expenses (in accordance with the definition given in Article 27 of the Regulations, estimated as a minimum of 70% of the ‘Personnel Expenses’ item. c) A provision for contingencies, calculated as a percentage of the sum of the two previous items. ch) Special or direct expenses, defined in Article 28 of the Regulations. d) Consultant’s profit or benefit, calculated as a fixed sum or as a percentage (not less than 20%) of the sum of the four previous items.” For its part, Article 3.A of the same fee schedule establishes the possibility of establishing a remuneration fixed by tariffs as a basis for calculating professional fees. Said fees for building projects, both in Phase 1 and in Phase 2 described previously (see Articles 17 of the Regulations and 4 of the fee schedule), depend on the value of the work to be carried out, and their calculation will proceed in the following manner: “...a) Provisional fees: These are established to make partial payment, prior to the start of the stage or stages that are contracted, based on an estimation of the cost of the work to be projected or designed. That estimated cost may not be less than the appraisal value used by the Federated College, supported by the basic characteristics of the work. b) Definitive fees: - Preliminary project. If only this stage of the project is contracted, the fees will be calculated based on the budget prepared from the preliminary project plans. If the contract includes the stage of construction plans and specifications, the fees will be calculated as established in the following paragraph. - Construction plans and specifications: The fees will be calculated based on the award amount, provided that no more than six months have elapsed after the date of preparation of the plans, in which case they will be calculated in accordance with the budget prepared by the consultant, taking as reference the final plans of the second stage (construction plans and specifications). - Budget. Works schedule: The fees will be calculated based on the budget prepared by the consultant from the final plans of the second stage or the award amount, as the case may be...” Finally, Article 3.C establishes another payment modality, such as the form of remuneration in which the client reimburses the cost of services plus a fixed fee on expenses, as follows: “The remuneration, consequently, includes the following: a) The cost of the salaries of all the professionals, experts, and technical and auxiliary personnel assigned to the study, in accordance with the real utilization times or as agreed upon with the client or promoter. b) The social charges, ordinarily calculated as a percentage of the cost of the salaries described in the preceding section. c) The special or direct expenses, in accordance with the definition given in Article 27 of the Regulations, which correspond to a minimum of 70% of the aforementioned salary cost item. ch) The special or direct expenses, in accordance with the definition given in Article 28 of the Regulations.” In accordance with the stated rules, this Tribunal considers that the fundamental reference for determining the payment modality in a consultancy services contract will always be the analysis of both the bidding documents for the respective procurement, and the proposal submitted, and the eventual contract that is signed. It is in the first where the respective Administration will set forth the scope of the services it sought to satisfy through the procurement, and in its analysis together with the latter two, it will be possible to identify which payment modality, of the three cited, was used and agreed upon with the contractor, as well as which services were contracted and to which of the two phases they correspond (preliminary and/or execution). It is based on the information set forth in them that it can be determined whether a request for adjustment of fees should be granted, inasmuch as the same will only be appropriate in cases where the professional stipend is calculated based on tariffs on the cost of the work, in which case the amount set in the contract shall be considered tentative, since said amount will be adjusted to the final cost of the work in each contracted stage. Said adjustment, however, will only apply when the fulfillment of the assumptions of the cited fee schedule occurs, that is, the following: a) If the payment is made by the contracting party within the first six months counted from the receipt of the works, the amount of the fees will be consistent with that of the award that has been made in the corresponding procurement, regardless of the final result thereof, or b) If the payment is made by the contracting party after the first six months counted from the receipt of the corresponding contracted work, the amount of the fees will be consistent with that of the budget prepared by the consultant, regardless of the award price. In the case of procurements carried out by global price or lump sum, it is understood that the recognition of an adjustment of fees is not applicable, due to its own legal nature as a pre-set and previously defined sum, according to the respective proposal breakdown items. Similar considerations may be made in the case of the reimbursement of costs plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred, as indicated above. Based on all of the foregoing, we will proceed to the analysis of the conduct challenged in this proceeding.

VIII.- On the specific case submitted to this Tribunal’s knowledge: In its complaint, the plaintiff bases its arguments on Article 3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18636-MOPT, and indicates that it quoted in the Abbreviated Tender number 2007LA-000118-ULIC promoted by the University of Costa Rica (Universidad de Costa Rica) based on said rule, given that it was impossible to define the amount of the procurement object until the preliminary studies, including the respective diagnosis, were completed, thus noting that the scope of the work was defined by the Executing Office of the Investment Program of the University of Costa Rica (Oficina Ejecutora del Programa de Inversiones de la Universidad de Costa Rica), in response to its reiterated requests. With respect to these arguments, this Tribunal considers that from the case file it is proven that the bidding documents for Abbreviated Tender number 2007LA-000118-ULIC, “SURVEY, DIAGNOSIS AND REDESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR THE PHYSICS-MATHEMATICS BUILDING (EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC)) OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COSTA RICA”, awarded to the plaintiff, employed the payment system for the contracted services under the form of global price or lump sum. In this sense, it is recorded in the case file that the bidding documents determined that the bidder had to submit a proposal breakdown, with the following items: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary expenses 2. Survey and Diagnosis, 3. Compilation of New Needs 4. Structural Redesign 5. Mechanical Redesign 6. Works Budget 7. Plan Drawing 21. Delivery. Proposal Cost Structure: CD total percentage corresponding to direct costs CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs I total percentage, contingencies U total percentage, profit, all to be submitted by the respective bidders, according to the model provided. It has also been proven in the case file that Heriel S.A. attached to its proposal the following breakdown of items, costs, and profit established for the payment of services by global price or lump sum, as established in the corresponding bidding documents: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary expenses: C. 500,000.00 2. Survey and Diagnosis: C. 7,000,000.00 3. Compilation of New Needs: C. 500,000.00 4. Structural Redesign: C. 3,000,000.00 5. Mechanical Redesign: C. 800,000.00 6. Works Budget: C. 1,500,000.00 7. Plan Drawing: C. 500,000.00 21. Delivery: C. 200,000.00. Proposal Cost Structure: CD total percentage corresponding to direct costs: 45%, CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries: 20%, Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs: 10%, I total percentage, contingencies: 10%, U total percentage, profit: 15%. In this sense, from the considerations made ut supra, it should be noted that the breakdown of items made in the proposal coincides with the sub-items for a global price provided for in Article 3.B of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18636-MOPT, exclusively for that form of payment and not provided for the form of payment by tariffs, although it should be noted that the final profit percentage of the company Heriel S.A. was stated as 15% and not 20%, as the cited decree indicates as a minimum. Although the representative of Heriel S.A. indicates in its complaint that in its proposal it clarified that the quoted fees were based on an estimated cost foreseen and subject to the application of the respective fee schedule, it must be noted that accepting its statement would be admitting that the plaintiff made a unilateral modification of what was set forth in the bidding documents for the administrative procurement, considered in an integral manner, which is improper. In this line of reasoning, Article 66 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law must be taken into consideration, which provides: “The mere submission of the proposal shall be understood as an unequivocal manifestation of the bidder’s will to contract with full submission to the conditions of the bidding documents, and to current legal and regulatory provisions. The submission shall operate ipso jure, and shall imply the incorporation, within the content of the contractual relationship, of the constitutional rules, the Administrative Procurement Law, these Regulations, the Institutional Regulations, and the bidding documents.” This Tribunal considers that the bidding documents provide sufficient elements of conviction to determine that the procurement to be carried out would be by global price, by giving the price factor a value of 80 points and by establishing as a condition the submission of the said proposal breakdown, with the determination of direct costs, indirect costs, contingencies, profit, among others. In this line of reasoning, the weight given in the respective bidding documents to the price factor is decisive for considering that the possibility of quotations under the form of remuneration fixed by tariffs was not open, given that the application of this system would render uncertain in the tender the determination of the eventual bidders who would have an effective opportunity to win it, by making the definitive amount of what was quoted depend on a future event, that is, the award. The fact that in this tender only Heriel S.A. ultimately participated as a bidder is circumstantial vis-à-vis the possibility raised from the beginning of the tender that a bidder could have been awarded a contract for having offered a lower price, which eventually and in the future could be higher than that of other tender participants, if the provisions of Article 3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings were applied. In this sense, what is established in Article 25 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law cannot be ignored, inasmuch as it provides: “Article 25.—Price. The price must be certain and definitive, subject to the conditions established in the bidding documents or set of conditions and without prejudice to eventual revisions or price reviews. In the event of divergence between the price quoted in numbers and letters, the latter shall prevail, except in cases of evident material errors, in which case the real value shall prevail.” (Our emphasis). It is based on this rule that the price offered, as one of the essential terms of the proposal made, must be clear and indubitable, serious, firm, and concrete, and cannot contain conditions or contradictions, inasmuch as the proposal in which it is found is the concrete expression of the will of a specific bidder to contract with the administration for the supply of goods or services. Only by starting from this assumption can compliance with the specifications of the bidding documents be verified, with full legal certainty for the contracting Administration and the other participants in the tender. In the case subject to this ruling, this Tribunal notes that the respective bidding documents established sufficient elements, as indicated, to determine that the price had to be a global price and not an open one subject to eventual modifications, as is the case with the price by tariffs. Consistent with the foregoing criterion is the fact that the respective bidding documents indicated that prior to the submission of proposals, a mandatory technical visit had to be made by the eventual bidders. This visit gains relevance if we consider that through it, the participants could clear up doubts and have access to the work upon which they would carry out the eventual procurement. In this sense, as a result of the foregoing, on November 15, 2007, by official letter OEPI-1721-2007, it was clarified that the auditorium formed part of the tender, as well as the electrical system and the fourth floor, prior to the submission of the proposal by Heriel S.A. Thus, for this Tribunal, the conviction is reinforced that what the Administration sought was for quotations to be submitted for a global sum and not by percentages, inasmuch as it was based on the premise of the prior knowledge by the bidders of the extent and scope of the quoted works. Although the party states that in its proposal, lacking a clear description of the scope of the redesign works, it offers the redesign activity for 9% of that amount and subject to the application of the said fee schedule, the foregoing considerations reveal that one of its obligations provided for in the bidding documents was due knowledge of the works in question. On the other hand, this Tribunal considers that what is indicated by a bidder does not have the virtue of modifying a form of payment established in the bidding documents.

Although it was not indicated therein that it be a lump sum, it is clear that the value of the price factor in the contracting regulations and the determination of the items required therein (direct costs, indirect costs, profit, personnel expenses, contingencies) is incompatible with what was alleged by the plaintiff.

Finally, in the analysis and interpretation of the provisions in the tender specifications (cartel) of the contracting subject to this resolution, what is established in Article 10 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública) cannot be ignored, which states the following: "1. The administrative rule shall be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual." This Tribunal considers that the reasoning made *ut supra* regarding the contracting conditions is consistent with the best interpretation according to the public interest, given that it tends to ensure the effective will of the contracting administration and guarantee that the awarded quotation and the subsequent contractual execution do not deviate from the pre-established rules and the basis on which the respective award was made. To interpret otherwise would mean opening the possibility of accepting unilateral modifications by the bidders in the price factor or relativizing its weight, opening the possibility that, without other fee recognition mechanisms being explicitly or implicitly defined, a quotation is made and awarded based on a determined price amount (taking into account the significant value this factor has in the contracting) and subsequently this is modified through increases to the detriment of potential bidders with a better right or who could have participated if there had been the possibility of submitting offers with other fee adjustment mechanisms. All of the foregoing, in violation, including, of the principle of good faith applicable to the case in application of Article 7 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública), Article 3 of the Administrative Contracting Act (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), and Article 2.f) of its regulations.

It is based on the foregoing considerations that the provisions of Article 3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings (Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones) should not apply to Heriel S.A., given that its fees were established based on subsection 3.B thereof. For this reason, given that this latter case does not contemplate such a possibility, the interpretation made by the plaintiff, in the sense that six months elapsed since the construction plans were submitted without the contracting administration having proceeded to the award of the works, whereby the payment of the contract must be adjusted and calculated according to the budget prepared and not on the amount for which it was awarded, is not relevant. By virtue of the foregoing, the claim must be rejected insofar as it seeks to uphold the complaint made regarding the adjustment of fees for the work performed as awardee of the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2007LA-000118-ULIC, "LEVANTAMIENTO, DIAGNÓSTICO Y REDISEÑO DE LOS SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS Y ESTRUCTURAL PARA EL EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC) DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA". As a consequence of said rejection, the claim must also be rejected insofar as it seeks a declaration that, by virtue of Article 3, subsection b) of the Fee Decree MOPT 18636, more than 6 months having elapsed from the delivery of the commissioned work without the work having been awarded for its construction, HERIEL S.A. was entitled to an adjustment of the professional fees paid for the work performed, as well as the claims aimed at obtaining a declaration that the University of Costa Rica (Universidad de Costa Rica) must pay the difference in fees calculated according to the final budget of the work in the sum of C.46,480,523 (forty-six million four hundred eighty thousand five hundred twenty-three colones), given that the plaintiff's arguments in this regard are not well-founded, as has been indicated in this considerando.

That adjustment, however, shall only proceed when the fulfillment of the assumptions of the cited fee schedule occurs, that is, the following: <i>a)</i> If the payment is made by the contracting party within the first six months counted from the receipt of the works, the amount of the fees shall be in accordance with the award made in the corresponding procurement, regardless of its final result, or <i>b)</i> If the payment is made by the contracting party outside the first six months counted from the receipt of the corresponding agreed-upon work, the amount of the fees shall be in accordance with the budget prepared by the consultant, regardless of the award price. In the case of procurements made on a lump-sum or fixed-price basis, it is understood that the recognition of a fee adjustment does not proceed, by its own legal nature as a pre-set and previously defined sum, according to the respective bid breakdown line items. Similar considerations can be made in the case of cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of costs incurred, as indicated above. Based on all of the foregoing, the analysis of the conduct challenged in this proceeding shall proceed.

**VIII.-** **On the specific case submitted to the knowledge of this Tribunal**: In its complaint, the plaintiff bases its arguments on Article <span style='color:#010101'>3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings, Executive Decree No. 18636-MOPT</span>, and indicates that it quoted in Abbreviated Tender No. 2007LA-000118-ULIC promoted by the University of Costa Rica, based on said rule, given that it was impossible to define the amount of the procurement object until the preliminary studies were completed, including the respective diagnosis, and thus points out that the scope of work was defined by the Executing Office of the Investment Program of the University of Costa Rica, in response to its repeated requests. With respect to these arguments, this Tribunal considers that it has been demonstrated from the case records that the tender documents of Abbreviated Tender No. 2007LA-000118-ULIC, "LEVANTAMIENTO, DIAGNÓSTICO Y REDISEÑO DE LOS SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS Y ESTRUCTURAL PARA EL EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC) DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA", awarded to the plaintiff, used the payment system for contracted services under the lump-sum or fixed-price (precio global o suma alzada) modality. In this regard, the case records show that the tender documents determined that the bidder had to submit a bid breakdown (desglose de oferta), with the following line items: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary Expenses 2. Survey and Diagnosis, 3. Compilation of New Needs 4. Structural Redesign 5. Mechanical Redesign 6. Work Budget 7. Drawing of Plans 21. Delivery. Cost Structure of the Bid: CD total percentage corresponding to direct costs CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs I total percentage, contingencies U total percentage, profit, all to be submitted by the respective bidders, according to the model provided. It has also been demonstrated in the case records that Heriel S.A. attached to its bid the following breakdown of line items, costs, and profit established for the payment of services on a lump-sum or fixed-price basis, as established in the corresponding tender documents: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary Expenses: C. 500,000.00 2. Survey and Diagnosis: C. 7,000,000.00 3. Compilation of New Needs: C. 500,000.00 4. Structural Redesign: C. 3,000,000.00 5. Mechanical Redesign: C. 800,000.00 6. Work Budget: C. 1,500,000.00 7. Drawing of Plans: C. 500,000.00 21. Delivery: C. 200,000.00. Cost Structure of the Bid: CD total percentage corresponding to direct costs: 45%, CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries: 20% Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs: 10% I total percentage, contingencies: 10% U total percentage, profit: 15%. In this sense, from the considerations made *ut supra*, it should be noted that the breakdown of line items made in the bid coincides with the sub-line items for lump-sum payment provided for in <span style='color:#010101'>Article 3.B of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings, Executive Decree No. 18636-MOPT, exclusively for that form of payment and not provided for the form of payment by fee rates (tarifas), although it should be noted that the final profit percentage of the company Heriel S.A. was set at 15% and not at 20%, as indicated as a minimum by the cited decree. Although the representation of Heriel S.A. indicates in its complaint that in its bid it made the clarification that the quoted fees were based on an estimated cost foreseen and subject to the application of the respective fee schedule, it must be noted that accepting its statement would be admitting that the plaintiff made a unilateral modification of the provisions in the administrative procurement tender documents, considered integrally, which is improper. In this vein, Article 66 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law must be taken into consideration, which provides: <i>"The mere submission of the bid shall be understood as an unequivocal manifestation of the bidder's will to contract in full submission to the tender document conditions, legal and regulatory provisions in force. The submission shall operate by full right, and shall imply the incorporation within the content of the contractual relationship of the constitutional norms, the Administrative Procurement Law, these Regulations, the Institutional Regulations, and the tender documents."</i> This Tribunal considers that the procurement tender documents provide sufficient elements of conviction to determine that the procurement to be carried out would be on a lump-sum basis, by giving the price factor a value of 80 points and by establishing as a condition the submission of said bid breakdown, with the determination of direct costs, indirect costs, contingencies, profit, among others. In this vein, the weight given in the respective tender documents to the price factor is decisive in considering that the possibility of quotes under the modality of remuneration fixed by fee rates was not open, given that the application of this system would make the determination of which eventual bidders would have an effective opportunity to win uncertain in the competition, by making the definitive amount of what was quoted dependent on a future event, i.e., the award. The fact that in this competition only Heriel S.A. ultimately participated as a bidder is circumstantial in light of the possibility raised from the beginning of the competition that a bidder could have been awarded a procurement for having offered a lower price, which eventually and in the future, could be higher than that of other competitors, in the event of applying the provisions in Article 3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings. In this sense, what is established in Article 25 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law cannot be ignored, as it provides: <span style='color:#010101'>"<i>Article 25.—<b>Price</b>. The price must be certain and definitive, <u>subject to the conditions established in the tender documents or specifications</u> and without prejudice to eventual readjustments or revisions. In case of divergence between the price quoted in numbers and letters, the latter shall prevail, except in cases of evident material errors, in which case the real value shall prevail</i>." (Emphasis is ours). It is based on this rule that the price offered, as one of the essential terms of the proposal made, must be clear and indubitable, serious, firm, and concrete, and cannot contain conditions or contradictions, since the bid in which it is found is the concrete expression of a specific bidder's will to contract with the administration for the supply of goods or services. Only by starting from this assumption can compliance with the tender document specifications be verified, with full legal certainty for the contracting Administration and the other participants in the competition. In the case subject to this resolution, this Tribunal notes that the respective tender documents established sufficient elements, as indicated, to determine that the price had to be on a global basis and not open and subject to eventual modifications, as is the case with the price by fee rates (tarifas). Consistent with the foregoing criterion is the fact that the respective tender documents indicated that prior to the submission of bids, a mandatory technical visit had to be made by the eventual bidders. This visit gains relevance if we consider that through it the participants could clear up doubts and have access to the work on which they would carry out the eventual procurement. In this sense, as a product of the foregoing, on November 15, 2007, via official communication OEPI-1721-2007, it was clarified that the auditorium was part of the tender, as well as the electrical system and the fourth floor, prior to the submission of the bid by Heriel S.A. Thus, for this Tribunal, the conviction is reinforced that what was sought by the Administration was that quotes be submitted for a global sum and not for percentages, since it started from the premise of the prior knowledge by the bidders of the extension and scope of the quoted works. Although the party states that in its bid, <span style='color:#010101'> not having a clear description of the scope of the redesign work, it offered the redesign activity for 9% of that amount and subject to the application of said fee schedule, the foregoing considerations make it evident that one of its obligations provided for in the tender documents was due knowledge of the works in question. On the other hand, this Tribunal considers that what is stated by a bidder does not have the capacity to modify a form of payment established in the tender documents. Although in the latter it was not explicitly stated that it be a global sum, it is clear that the value of the price factor in the procurement regulations and the determination of the line items required in it (direct costs, indirect costs, profit, personnel expenses, contingencies) is incompatible with what is alleged by the plaintiff. Finally, <span style='color:#010101'> in the analysis and interpretation of the provisions in the procurement tender documents subject to this resolution, what is established in Article 10 of the General Public Administration Law cannot be ignored, which states the following: "<i>1. The administrative norm must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within the respect due to the rights and interests of the individual</i>." This Tribunal considers that the reasoning made *ut supra* regarding the procurement conditions is consistent with the best interpretation according to public interest, given that it tends to ensure the effective will of the contracting administration and guarantee that the awarded quote and the subsequent contractual execution do not deviate from the pre-established rules and based on which the respective award was made. Interpreting otherwise would mean opening the possibility of accepting unilateral modifications by the bidders in the price factor or relativizing its weight, opening the possibility that, without other mechanisms for recognizing fees being explicitly or implicitly defined, quotes are made and awards are based on a determined price amount (taking into account the significant value that this factor has in the procurement) and subsequently this is modified through increases to the detriment of potential bidders with better rights or who could have participated if the possibility had existed to submit bids with other mechanisms for adjusting quoted fees. All the foregoing, in violation, even, of the principle of good faith applicable to the matter in application of Article 7 of the General Public Administration Law, 3 of the Administrative Procurement Law and 2.f) of its regulations. It is based on the foregoing considerations that the provisions of Article 3.A of the Fee Schedule for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings must not be applied to Heriel S.A., given that its fees were established based on subsection 3.B of the same. For that reason, given that in this latter case said possibility is not contemplated, the interpretation made by the plaintiff to the effect that six months elapsed since the construction plans were submitted, without the contracting administration having proceeded to the award of the works, so the payment of the procurement must be adjusted and calculated according to the budget made and not on the amount in which it was awarded, is not relevant. By virtue of the foregoing, the claim in the sense that the complaint made regarding the adjustment of fees for the work performed as the awardee of Abbreviated Tender No. 2007LA-000118-ULIC, "LEVANTAMIENTO, DIAGNÓSTICO Y REDISEÑO DE LOS SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS Y ESTRUCTURAL PARA EL EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC) DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA" be upheld must be rejected. As a consequence of said rejection, the claim raised in the sense that it be declared that, by virtue of Article 3, subsection b) of the MOPT Fee Decree 18636, more than 6 months having elapsed since the delivery of the commissioned work without the work having been awarded for its construction, HERIEL S.A. must also be rejected.

… was entitled to an adjustment of the professional fees paid for the work performed, as well as the claims seeking a declaration that the University of Costa Rica must pay the difference in fees calculated according to the final project budget in the sum of C.46,480,523 (forty-six million four hundred eighty thousand five hundred twenty-three colones), given that the plaintiff's arguments in this regard are unfounded, as has been indicated in this considerando." **VI.- On contracting as a manifestation of administrative conduct:** The Public Administration employs various means to fulfill public purposes, which are not limited to mere material actions or formal administrative acts, as it also resorts to the technique of administrative contracting, in which the fulfillment of an object is agreed upon with a contractor, as a collaborating subject in achieving the public interest sought. However, unlike a private contract, in administrative contracting there are a series of elements that transcend the mere agreement of wills set forth in a document and that condition its creation, development, and termination. Thus, the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and conclusion to the specific legal framework governing the matter and the specific contracting. In this sense, the free and sovereign act of will of the contractor is filtered by the administrative legal system, and fundamentally by the regulations of the contracting, whether the procurement terms (cartel) or set of conditions (pliego de condiciones), which are its basis. Furthermore, a series of principles will always underlie every administrative contracting procedure, which have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) based on Voto 0998-98 of 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent rulings, and which are basically summarized as free competition, equal treatment among bidders, publicity, legal certainty, legality and transparency, good faith, balance of interests, mutability of the contract, patrimonial inviolability, and control of procedures. From the standpoint of positive law, the general regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies is set forth in the Law on Administrative Contracting (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Article 15 of said normative body expressly states the following as an obligation of every contracting Administration: *"The Administration is obliged to comply with all commitments, validly acquired, in administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor executes the agreed object in a suitable manner."* On the other hand, correlatively to said duty, Article 20 of the same law establishes the following obligation for contractors: *"Contractors are obliged to fully comply with what was offered in their bid and in any formal documented statement that they have additionally provided, in the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract."* Both obligations arise from a principle of good faith in contracting, through which both parties have a duty of mutual compliance and collaboration as a reference point in fulfilling their obligations. A fundamental reference point for the fulfillment of contractual obligations is the procurement terms (cartel) of the competition, insofar as the bases thereof are established according to the needs of the respective Public Administration. Article 51 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) provides regarding this nature: *"Article 51.—Concept. The procurement terms (cartel) constitute the specific regulation of the contracting being promoted, and all the legal rules and constitutional principles applicable to the respective procedure are understood to be incorporated into its clauses. It must constitute a body of technical specifications that are clear, sufficient, concrete, objective, and broad in terms of the opportunity to participate. For its preparation, the Administration may contract or request the assistance of specialized individuals or legal entities in the matter at hand, provided they have no direct or indirect particular interest in the business, when it does not have the necessary technical resources in its organization for this purpose. In those exceptional contracting procedures outside the ordinary contracting procedures, the Administration may optionally prepare procurement terms (cartel) with the essential elements, considering the contractual object, in harmony with the principles of administrative contracting."* In this order of ideas, as has been stated, the procurement terms (cartel) are equivalent to the regulations of the contracting by defining the conditions under which it will be realized. For this reason, the procurement terms (cartel) are a source of interpretation of the administrative contracting, given that it is based on the procurement terms (cartel) that the bidder prepares their bid, which has the characteristic of being integral in all its components, that is, both in the content of the principal document and in the designs, plans, samples, and catalogs accompanying it. Regarding the nature of the bid in this matter, Article 61 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) establishes: *"Article 61.—Concept. The bid is the expression of will of the participant, directed to the Administration, in order to enter into a contract with it, in accordance with the stipulations of the procurement terms (cartel)."* In accordance with the foregoing provision, the bid must strictly comply with the content of the procurement terms (cartel), both in the rules of the procedure to follow, the documents, and, above all, the requirements requested; if the bid does not comply with what is stipulated in the procurement terms (cartel), it must be excluded from the competition. The bid contained in the sealed envelope binds the bidder, since if they are awarded the contract, they must submit not only to the conditions established for this purpose in the procurement terms (cartel) but also to the terms offered by them in said document and to the Administration, while its acceptance will mean admitting the delimitation of the terms and conditions of the contracting as proposed by the contractor. That is, the procurement terms (cartel) and the bid must be seen in an integral and integrated manner, so that in the analysis of the latter, what is established in the former cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, contracting cannot be seen in its components in an isolated manner, nor abstracted from the legal system, nor without taking into consideration the integrality of the bid and the procurement terms (cartel) to which it refers. It is upon the procurement terms (cartel) and the contents of the awarded bid that the respective administrative contract is founded, which must be interpreted based on the legal instruments that comprise it, that is, the procurement terms (cartel) or set of conditions (pliego de bases), the awarded bid, and the rules and principles specific to administrative contracting. For this reason, in matters of administrative contracting, the determination of the effective fulfillment of the obligation by both contracting parties must refer to both the procurement terms (cartel) and the bid considered in an integral manner, and always guided by the fulfillment of the principle of good faith between the subscribing parties and in consideration of the public interest that guided the Administration's decision to carry out the respective contracting.

**VII.- On the forms of professional fee compensation for building consultancy services and the right to adjust fees according to the compensation method provided for in the procurement terms (cartel) and in the contract:** Regarding the contracting of professional services of engineers and architects, the Organic Law of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Ley Orgánica del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos) establishes the powers granted to the respective professional college, as follows: *"Article 55. The Federated College shall establish the rules governing the professional competitions of public institutions in relation to the practice of engineering and architecture."* Based on this rule, the Regulation for the Contracting of Consultancy Services in Engineering and Architecture of the CFIA (Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA) first defines the concept of "tariff (arancel)", as follows: *"Article 2.- Definition of tariff (arancel). Tariff (arancel) is understood as the system established as a basis to compensate professional consultancy services according to the characteristics, magnitude, and complexity of those services. The tariff (arancel) establishes the minimum rates based on the cost of the works to be carried out, when the consultancy services are perfectly defined; or as a compensation system that includes cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee, or cost plus a percentage of the expenses incurred in those cases where the consultancy service, due to the particularities of the work, cannot be precisely defined. The first method is called 'tariffable tariff (arancel tarifable)', and the second, 'non-tariffable tariff (arancel no tarifable)'.* Based on this definition, said regulation in its articles 23, 24, 25, and 26 establishes three methods for compensating consultancy services, namely, compensation fixed by tariffs; the global price or lump sum (precio global o suma alzada); and cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred. Article 24 of said Regulation, regarding compensation fixed by tariffs, establishes that fees are calculated as a percentage of the value of the study or project to be carried out and appearing in the tariffable tariff (arancel tarifable) for each of the stages of the project, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Tariff for Professional Consultancy Services for Buildings (Decreto Ejecutivo number 18636-MOPT) and Article 17 of the Regulation for the Contracting of Consultancy Services in Engineering and Architecture of the CFIA, comprise two phases: a) The first phase corresponds to the preparation of plans and documents, with the following services and tariffs: preliminary project (anteproyecto) (1.5% of the estimated value of the work); construction plans and technical specifications (4% of the estimated value of the work); budget (0.5% of the estimated value of the work); work scheduling (1% of the estimated value of the works); advice for bidding and award (0.5% of the award value of the works); b) The second phase refers to execution control, with the following services and tariffs: inspection (3% of the final value of the work); technical direction (5% of the final value of the work); administration (12% of the final value of the work); renovations (remodelaciones) (150% of the normal minimum tariff defined for each stage); investment oversight (fiscalización de inversiones) (1.5% of the value of the work). Now, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of the Regulation for the Contracting of Consultancy Services in Engineering and Architecture of the CFIA, it is established that the adjustment of fees is applicable in all those cases in which the professional fee is calculated based on tariffs per cost of work, in which case the amount set in the contract shall be considered tentative, since said amount shall be adjusted to the final cost of the work in each contracted stage. The foregoing is because it is not until the end of the service or of the contracted stages, when applicable, that its real value is known, and it is upon this value that the previously tariffed percentages must be applied; ergo, the so-called fee adjustment takes place. At this point, it is worth highlighting that the fee adjustment is the adaptation of a given amount based on a sum and previously fixed tariffs, and not because modifications to the already agreed conditions have occurred over time, which is why the issue of foreseeable or unforeseeable modifications in the direct or indirect costs inherent to the business is not what is considered for the fee adjustment to take place.

The foregoing, inasmuch as in this second scenario, we would instead be speaking of an adjustment (foreseeable or unforeseeable modifications to direct and indirect costs which, to safeguard the contractor’s patrimonial integrity (integralidad), the administration must recognize), which is not provided for in our legal system for fees, but rather for prices. That said, Article 25 of the CFIA’s Regulation for the Contracting of Engineering and Architecture Consulting Services regulates the method of *remuneration by global or lump-sum price (precio global o alzado)*, a method applicable when the scope of services can be pre-established and defined clearly and precisely due to the characteristics of projects not covered by the chargeable tariff (arancel tarifable). Under this method, the fee adjustment established in the tariff does not apply because, unlike the remuneration alternatives fixed by tariffs and cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred (Article 26 of the same regulatory body), the offeror proposes a specific fee value, which may be broken down into percentages but cannot be modified in the future. Article 3.B of the Tariff for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings, Executive Decree No. 18636-MOPT, defines the sub-items into which this price is broken down as follows: “*In general, a global price is customarily agreed upon based on the budget for the consultant’s work, which is subdivided as follows: a) Personnel expenses (salaries plus social charges), which are usually calculated based on the dedication of professionals, experts, and assistants, expressed in man-months or man-hours. b) General or indirect expenses (according to the definition given in Article 27 of the Regulation, estimated at a minimum of 70% of the “Personnel expenses” item. c) A provision for unforeseen events, calculated as a percentage of the two preceding items added together. d) Special or direct expenses, defined in Article 28 of the Regulation. e) Profit or benefit of the consultant, calculated as a fixed sum or as a percentage (not less than 20%) of the sum of the four preceding items*.” For its part, Article 3.A of the same tariff establishes the possibility of setting a *remuneration fixed by tariffs as a basis for calculating professional fees*. Said fees for building projects, both in phase 1 and phase 2 as described above (see Articles 17 of the regulation and 4 of the tariff), depend on the value of the work to be performed, and their calculation shall proceed as follows: “*...a) Provisional fees: Established to make partial payment, prior to the commencement of the stage or stages contracted, based on an estimate of the cost of the work to be projected or designed. This estimated cost may not be less than the appraisal value used by the Colegio Federado based on the basic characteristics of the work. b) Definitive fees: - Preliminary Project. If only this stage of the project is contracted, the fees shall be calculated based on the budget prepared from the preliminary project plans. If the contract includes the construction plans and specifications stage, the fees shall be calculated as established in the following section. - Construction Plans and specifications: Fees shall be calculated based on the award amount, provided that no more than six months have elapsed after the date of preparation of the plans, in which case they shall be calculated according to the budget prepared by the consultant, taking as a reference the final plans of the second stage (construction plans and specifications). - Budget. Work schedule: Fees shall be calculated based on the budget prepared by the consultant from the final plans of the second stage or on the award amount, as the case may be...*” Finally, Article 3. C establishes another payment method, the *retribution method in which the client reimburses the cost of services, plus a fixed fee on expenses*, as follows: “*The remuneration therefore includes the following: a) The salary cost of all professionals, experts, and technical and auxiliary personnel assigned to the study, according to actual usage times or as agreed with the client or developer. b) Social charges, currently calculated as a percentage of the salary cost described in the preceding subsection. c) General or indirect expenses, according to the definition given in Article 27 of the Regulation, corresponding to a minimum of 70% of the aforementioned salary cost item. d) Special or direct expenses, according to the definition given in Article 28 of the Regulation*.” In accordance with the aforementioned rules, this Tribunal considers that the fundamental reference for determining the payment method in a consulting services contract will always be the analysis of the corresponding procurement specifications (cartel), as well as the submitted offer and the eventual contract signed. It is in the former where the respective Administration will set forth the scope of the services sought to be satisfied through the procurement, and in its analysis together with the latter two, it can be identified which payment method, of the three cited, was used and agreed upon with the contractor, as well as which services were contracted and to which of the two phases they correspond (preliminary and/or execution). It is based on the information contained in them that it can be determined whether a request for fee adjustment is appropriate, given that it will only be appropriate in the cases where the professional stipend is calculated based on tariffs by cost of work, in which case the amount set in the contract shall be considered tentative, since said amount shall be adjusted to the final cost of work at each contracted stage. Such adjustment, however, shall only proceed when the assumptions of the cited tariff are met, that is, the following: *a)* If payment is made by the contracting party within the first six months counted from the receipt of the works, the fee amount shall be in accordance with the award made in the corresponding procurement, regardless of the final result thereof, or *b)* If payment is made by the contracting party after the first six months counted from the receipt of the corresponding agreed work, the fee amount shall be in accordance with the budget prepared by the consultant, regardless of the award price. In the case of procurements made by global price or lump sum (suma alzada), it is understood that recognition of a fee adjustment does not proceed, due to its own legal nature as a pre-fixed and previously defined sum, according to the respective offer breakdown items. Similar considerations can be made in the case of cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee or as a percentage of expenses incurred, as indicated above. Based on all the foregoing, we shall proceed to the analysis of the conduct challenged in this proceeding.

**VIII.-** **On the specific case submitted to this Tribunal’s knowledge**: In its claim, the plaintiff bases its arguments on Article 3.A of the Tariff for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings, Executive Decree No. 18636-MOPT, and indicates that it quoted in the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2007LA-000118-ULIC promoted by the University of Costa Rica, based on said rule, given that it was impossible to define the amount of the procurement object until the preliminary studies, including the respective diagnosis, had been carried out; it thus points out that the scope of the work was defined by the Executing Office of the Investment Program of the University of Costa Rica, in response to its repeated requests. Regarding these arguments, this Tribunal considers that the records demonstrate that the specifications (cartel) of Abbreviated Tender number 2007LA-000118-ULIC, “SURVEY, DIAGNOSIS AND REDESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR THE PHYSICS (SIC) MATHEMATICS (SIC) BUILDING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COSTA RICA,” awarded to the plaintiff, employed the payment system for the contracted services under the method of global price or lump sum (suma alzada). In this regard, the records show that the specifications determined that the offeror had to present an offer breakdown, with the following items: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary expenses 2. Survey and Diagnosis, 3. Compilation of New Needs 4. Structural Redesign 5. Mechanical Redesign 6. Work Budget 7. Drawing of Plans 21. Delivery. Offer Cost Structure: CD total percentage corresponds to direct costs CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs I total percentage, unforeseen events U total percentage, profit, all to be presented by the respective offerors, according to the model provided. It has also been demonstrated in the records that Heriel S.A. attached to its offer the following breakdown of items, costs, and profit established for the payment of services by global price or lump sum (suma alzada), as established in the corresponding specifications: 1. Preliminaries 1.1. Preliminary expenses: C. 500,000.00 2. Survey and Diagnosis: C. 7,000,000.00 3. Compilation of New Needs: C. 500,000.00 4. Structural Redesign: C. 3,000,000.00 5. Mechanical Redesign: C. 800,000.00 6. Work Budget: C. 1,500,000.00 7. Drawing of Plans: C. 500,000.00 21. Delivery: C. 200,000.00. Offer Cost Structure: CD total percentage corresponds to direct costs: 45%, CLs total percentage indirect costs, office salaries: 20% Clo total percentage indirect costs, other costs: 10% I total percentage, unforeseen events: 10% U total percentage, profit: 15%. In this regard, from the considerations made above, it should be noted that the breakdown of items in the offer coincides with the sub-items for a global price provided for in Article 3.B of the Tariff for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings, Executive Decree No. 18636-MOPT, exclusively for that form of payment and not provided for the form of payment by tariffs, although it should be noted that the final profit percentage of the company Heriel S.A. was indicated as 15% and not 20%, as indicated as a minimum by the cited decree. Although the representation of Heriel S.A. indicates in its claim that in its offer it clarified that the quoted fees were based on a foreseen estimated cost and subject to the application of the respective tariff, it must be noted that accepting its statement would mean admitting that the plaintiff made a unilateral modification of the provisions in the specifications of the administrative procurement, considered integrally, which is improper. In this vein, Article 66 of the Regulation of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) must be considered, which provides: *“The mere submission of the offer shall be understood as an unequivocal manifestation of the offeror’s will to contract with full submission to the specifications’ conditions, and current legal and regulatory provisions. Submission shall operate by operation of law and shall imply the incorporation into the content of the contractual relationship of constitutional norms, the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), this Regulation, the Institutional Regulation, and the specifications (cartel).”* This Tribunal considers that the procurement specifications provide sufficient elements of conviction to determine that the procurement to be carried out was by global price, by giving the price factor a value of 80 points and by establishing as a condition the presentation of said offer breakdown, with the determination of direct costs, indirect costs, unforeseen events, profit, among others. In this vein, the weight granted in the respective specifications to the price factor is decisive in considering that the possibility of quotations under the remuneration method fixed by tariffs was not open, given that the application of this system would render uncertain, in the tender, the determination of the eventual offerors who would have an effective opportunity to win it, by making the definitive amount quoted dependent on a future event, i.e., the award. The fact that only Heriel S.A. ultimately participated in this tender as an offeror is circumstantial compared to the possibility raised from the tender’s start that an offeror could have been awarded a procurement for having offered a lower price, which eventually and in the future could be higher than that of other tenderers, should the provisions of Article 3.A of the Tariff for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings be applied. In this sense, what is established in Article 25 of the Regulation of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa) cannot be overlooked, as it provides: “*Article 25.—**Price**. The price must be certain and definitive, subject to the conditions established in the specifications or bid documents (cartel o pliego de condiciones) and without prejudice to eventual readjustments or revisions. In case of divergence between the price quoted in numbers and letters, the latter shall prevail, except in cases of evident material errors, in which case the real value shall prevail*.” (Our emphasis). It is based on this rule that the offered price, as one of the essential terms of the proposal made, must be clear and indubitable, serious, firm, and concrete, and cannot contain conditions or contradictions, given that the offer in which it is found is the concrete expression of a specific offeror’s will to contract with the administration for the supply of goods or services. Only starting from this assumption can compliance with the specifications’ conditions be verified, with full legal certainty for the contracting Administration and the other participants in the tender. In the case under this resolution, this Tribunal notes that the respective specifications established sufficient elements, as indicated, to determine that the price had to be global and not open and subject to eventual modifications, as is the case with the price by tariffs. Consistent with the above criterion is the fact that the respective specifications indicated that prior to the submission of offers, a mandatory technical visit had to be made by the eventual offerors. This visit becomes relevant if we consider that through it, participants could clear up doubts and have access to the work on which they would perform the eventual procurement. In this sense, as a result of the foregoing, on November 15, 2007, through official communication OEPI-1721-2007, it was clarified that the auditorium was part of the tender, as well as the electrical system and the fourth floor, prior to the submission of the offer by Heriel S.A. Thus, for this Tribunal, the conviction is reinforced that what the Administration sought was for quotations to be submitted for a global sum and not by percentages, given that it started from the premise of the offerors’ prior knowledge of the extent and scope of the works quoted. Although the party states that in its offer, lacking a clear description of the scope of the redesign work, it offers the redesign activity for 9% of that amount and subject to the application of said tariff, the foregoing considerations demonstrate that one of its obligations provided for in the specifications was the proper knowledge of the works in question. Furthermore, this Tribunal considers that what was indicated by an offeror does not have the power to modify a payment method established in the specifications. Although it was not explicitly stated in the specifications that the method was a global sum, it is clear that the value of the price factor in the procurement regulations and the determination of the items required therein (direct costs, indirect costs, profit, personnel expenses, unforeseen events) is incompatible with what the plaintiff alleges. Finally, in the analysis and interpretation of the provisions in the specifications for the procurement under this resolution, what is established in Article 10 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) cannot be overlooked, which states the following: “*1. The administrative norm must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the fulfillment of the public purpose to which it is directed, within the respect due to the rights and interests of the individual*.” This Tribunal considers that the reasoning made above regarding the procurement conditions is consistent with the best interpretation in accordance with the public interest, given that they tend to ensure the effective will of the contracting administration and guarantee that the awarded quote and the subsequent contractual execution do not deviate from the pre-established rules based on which the respective award was made. Interpreting otherwise would mean opening the possibility of accepting unilateral modifications by offerors in the price factor or relativizing its weight, opening the possibility that, without other fee recognition mechanisms being explicitly or implicitly defined, a price is quoted and awarded based on a determined amount (taking into account the significant value this factor has in the procurement) and subsequently this price is modified through increases to the detriment of potential offerors with a better right or who could have participated if the possibility of submitting offers with other mechanisms for adjusting quoted fees had existed. All of the foregoing, even affecting the principle of good faith applicable to the case in application of Article 7 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), Article 3 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), and Article 2.f) of its regulation. It is based on the foregoing considerations that the provisions of Article 3.A of the Tariff for Professional Consulting Services for Buildings should not be applied to Heriel S.A., given that its fees were established based on subsection 3.B of the same. For this reason, since the latter scenario does not contemplate such a possibility, the interpretation made by the plaintiff, in the sense that six months elapsed since the construction plans were presented without the contracting administration having proceeded to the award of the works, therefore the payment for the procurement must be adjusted and calculated according to the budget prepared and not on the amount awarded, is of no relevance. By virtue of the foregoing, the claim seeking acceptance of the demand filed regarding the fee adjustment for the work performed as the awardee of Abbreviated Tender number 2007LA-000118-ULIC, “SURVEY, DIAGNOSIS AND REDESIGN OF THE MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR THE PHYSICS (SIC) MATHEMATICS (SIC) BUILDING OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COSTA RICA,” must be rejected. As a consequence of said rejection, the claim filed must also be rejected insofar as it seeks a declaration that, by virtue of Article 3, subsection b) of the MOPT Decree of Tariffs 18636, more than 6 months having elapsed since the delivery of the commissioned work without the work having been awarded for construction, HERIEL S.A. was entitled to have the professional fees paid for the work performed adjusted, as well as the claims aimed at having it declared that the University of Costa Rica must pay the difference in fees calculated according to the final work budget for the sum of C. 46,480,523 (forty-six million four hundred eighty thousand five hundred twenty-three colones), given that the plaintiff is not correct in its arguments in this regard, as indicated in this considerando.”

“VI.- Sobre la contratación como manifestación de la conducta administrativa: La Administración Pública emplea diversos medios para el cumplimiento de los fines públicos, que no se agotan en las meras actuaciones materiales o en actos administrativos formales, en tanto que también se recurre a la técnica de la contratación administrativa, en la cual, se pacta el cumplimiento de un objeto con un contratista, como sujeto colaborador del logro del interés público buscado. No obstante, a diferencia de un contrato privado, en la contratación administrativa existe una serie de elementos que trascienden el mero acuerdo de voluntades rubricado en un documento y que condicionan su nacimiento, desarrollo y extinción. Es así como el contrato administrativo está condicionado en su origen, evolución y finalización al ordenamiento propio que rige la materia y la contratación en específico. En este sentido, el acto de voluntad, libre y soberano del contratista, queda filtrado por el ordenamiento jurídico administrativo, y fundamentalmente por la reglamentación de la contratación, sea el cartel o pliego de condiciones, base de la misma. Además siempre estará subyacente en todo procedimiento de contratación administrativa, 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, y que se resumen básicamente en la libre concurrencia, igualdad de trato entre los oferentes, la publicidad, la seguridad jurídica, la legalidad y transparencia, la buena fe, el equilibrio de intereses, mutabilidad del contrato, intangibilidad patrimonial y control en los procedimientos. Desde el punto de vista del derecho positivo, el marco general regulador de las obligaciones tanto de los entes contratantes como de las empresas contratistas se encuentra contemplado en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. En el artículo 15 de dicho cuerpo normativo, expresamente se señala como obligación de toda Administración contratante, lo siguiente: "La Administración está obligada a cumplir con todos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en forma idónea el objeto pactado". Por otra parte, de manera correlativa a dicho deber, el artículo 20 de la misma ley, establece la siguiente obligación para los contratistas: "Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, cabalmente, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato". Ambas obligaciones surgen de un principio de buena fe en la contratación, mediante el cual, ambas partes, tienen como referente en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones un deber de cumplimiento y colaboración mutuos. Un referente fundamental para el cumplimiento de las obligaciones contractuales, es el cartel del concurso, en tanto que en él se establecen las bases de éste, según las necesidades de la respectiva Administración Pública. El artículo 51 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, dispone con respecto a dicha naturaleza: "Artículo 51.—Concepto. El cartel, constituye el reglamento específico de la contratación que se promueve y se entienden incorporadas a su clausulado todas las normas jurídicas y principios constitucionales aplicables al respectivo procedimiento. Deberá constituir un cuerpo de especificaciones técnicas, claras, suficientes, concretas, objetivas y amplias en cuanto a la oportunidad de participar. Para su confección, la Administración podrá contratar o solicitar la asistencia de personas físicas o jurídicas, especializadas en la materia de que se trate, siempre que no tengan ningún interés particular directo ni indirecto en el negocio, cuando no tuviere en su organización los recursos técnicos necesarios para ello. En aquellas contrataciones de excepción a los procedimientos ordinarios de contratación, la Administración, facultativamente podrá elaborar un cartel con los elementos esenciales atendiendo al objeto contractual, en armonía con los principios de contratación administrativa." En este orden de ideas, como se ha dicho, el cartel se equipara al reglamento de la contratación al definir las condiciones en que ella se concretará. Por dicha razón, el cartel es fuente de interpretación de la contratación administrativa , dado que es con base en el cartel, que el oferente elabora su oferta, la cual tiene la característica de ser integral en todos sus componentes, sea, tanto en el contenido del escrito principal, como de los diseños, planos, muestras, catálogos que la acompañan. Con respecto a la naturaleza de la oferta en esta materia, el artículo 61 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, establece: Artículo 61.—Concepto. La oferta es la manifestación de voluntad del participante, dirigida a la Administración, a fin de celebrar un contrato con ella, conforme a las estipulaciones cartelarias". De conformidad con la anterior disposición, la oferta debe cumplir de forma estricta el contenido del cartel, tanto en las reglas del procedimiento a seguir, documentos y sobre todo requisitos solicitados, si la oferta no cumple lo estipulado en el cartel, ésta debe ser excluida del concurso. La oferta contenida en la plica 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 y a la Administración, en tanto que su aceptación significará admitir la delimitación de los términos y condiciones de la contratación según lo propuesto por el contratista. Es decir, cartel y oferta deben ser vistos de manera integral e integrada, siendo así que en el análisis de la segunda no se puede perder de vista lo establecido en el primero. Por lo anterior, la contratación no puede ser vista en sus componentes de manera aislada, ni abstraída del ordenamiento jurídico ni sin tomar en consideración la integralidad de la oferta y el cartel al cual se refiere. Con base en el cartel y los contenidos de la oferta adjudicada, es que se funda el respectivo contrato administrativo, el cual, debe interpretarse, desde la base de los instrumentos legales que lo integran, sea, el cartel o pliego de bases, la oferta adjudicada y la normativa y principios propios de la contratación administrativa. En razón de lo anterior, en materia de contratación administrativa, la determinación del cumplimiento efectivo de la obligación por ambas partes contratantes, debe hacer referencia tanto al cartel como a la oferta considerada de manera integral, y siempre orientado al cumplimiento del principio de buena fe entre las partes suscribientes y en atención al interés público que orientó la decisión de la Administración de realizar la respectiva contratación.

VII.- Sobre las formas de remuneración de honorarios profesionales por servicios de consultoría para edificaciones y el derecho al ajuste de los honorarios conforme a la modalidad de remuneración prevista en el cartel y en el contrato: Con respecto a la contratación de servicios profesionales de ingenieros y arquitectos, la Ley Orgánica del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos establece las potestades con que cuenta el respectivo colegio profesional, de la siguiente manera: “Artículo 55. El Colegio Federado establecerá las normas que rijan los concursos profesionales de las instituciones públicas en lo relativo al ejercicio de ingeniería y de arquitectura" Con base en esta norma, el Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA, en primer término define el concepto "arancel", de la siguiente manera: "Artículo 2.- Definición de arancel. Se entiende por arancel el sistema establecido como base para remunerar los servicios profesionales de consultoría de acuerdo con las características, magnitud y complejidad de esos servicios. El arancel establece las tarifas mínimas en función del costo de las obras que deben realizarse, cuando los servicios de consultoría estén perfectamente definidos; o como un sistema de compensación que incluye el reintegro del costo más un honorario fijo, o costo más un porcentaje de los gastos incurridos en aquellos casos en que el servicio de consultoría, por las particularidades de la obra, no puede ser definido con precisión. A la primera modalidad se le denomina “arancel tarifable”, a la segunda, “arancel no tarifable”. A partir de esta definición, el reglamento dicho en sus artículos 23, 24, 25 y 26 establece tres modalidades de remuneración de los servicios de consultoría, a saber, la remuneración fijada mediante tarifas; el precio global o suma alzada y el reintegro de costo más honorario fijo o como porcentaje de gastos incurridos. El artículo 24 de dicho Reglamento en lo que respecta a la remuneración fijada por tarifas, establece que los honorarios se calculan como porcentaje del valor del estudio o proyecto por realizarse y que aparece en el arancel tarifable para cada una de las etapas del proyecto, las que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 4 del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones (Decreto Ejecutivo número 18636-MOPT) y 17 del Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA, comprenden dos fases: a) La primera fase corresponde a la elaboración de planos y documentos, con los siguientes servicios y tarifas: anteproyecto (1.5% sobre el valor estimado de la obra); planos de construcción y especificaciones técnicas (4% del valor estimado de la obra); presupuesto (0.5% del valor estimado de la obra); programación de obras (1% del valor estimado de las obras); asesoría para licitación y adjudicación (0.5% del valor de adjudicación de las obras); b) La segunda fase se refiere al control de ejecución, con los siguientes servicios y tarifas: inspección (3% sobre el valor final de la obra); dirección técnica (5% sobre el valor final de la obra); administración (12% sobre el valor final de la obra); remodelaciones (150% de la tarifa mínima normal definida para cada etapa); fiscalización de inversiones (1.5% sobre el valor de la obra). Ahora bien, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 35 del Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA, se establece que el ajuste de honorarios procede en todos aquellos casos en que el honorario profesional se calcule con base en tarifas por costo de obra, en cuyo caso el monto fijado en el contrato se considerará tentativo, ya que dicho monto se ajustará al costo final de obra en cada etapa contratada. Lo anterior responde a que, no es sino hasta el final del servicio o de las etapas contratadas, cuando así proceda, que se conoce su valor real y es sobre éste que se deben aplicar los porcentajes de previo tarifados, ergo, opera el denominado ajuste de honorarios. En este punto, cabe resaltar que el ajuste de honorarios es la adecuación de un monto dado a partir de una suma y unas tarifas de previo fijadas, mas no porque en el tiempo se hayan presentado modificaciones a las condiciones ya pactadas, razón por la cual, el tema de las modificaciones previsibles o no en los costos directos o indirectos en sí del negocio, no son los que se consideran para que opere el ajuste de honorarios. Lo anterior, en tanto que en este segundo supuesto, estaríamos hablando más bien de reajuste, (modificaciones previsibles o no, en los costos directos e indirectos y que, por resguardo a la integralidad patrimonial del empresario, la administración debe reconocer), el cual no está previsto en nuestro ordenamiento para los honorarios, sino para precios. Ahora bien, el artículo 25 del Reglamento para la Contratación de Servicios de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura del CFIA, regula la modalidad de remuneración por precio global o alzado, método aplicable cuando el alcance de los servicios se puede prefijar y definir en forma clara y precisa por las características de los proyectos que no se encuentran cubiertos por el arancel tarifable. En dicha modalidad no opera el ajuste de honorarios establecido en el arancel, porque, a diferencia de las alternativas de remuneración fijada mediante tarifas y de reintegro de costo más honorario fijo o como porcentaje de gastos incurridos (artículo 26 del mismo cuerpo normativo), el oferente propone un valor determinado de honorarios, que podría desglosar en porcentajes, pero que no puede a futuro modificar. El artículo 3.B del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones, Decreto Ejecutivo No.18636-MOPT, define las sub partidas en que se desglosa este precio de la siguiente manera: "En general, se suele convenir un precio global con base en el presupuesto para la labor de consultor, que se subdivide de la siguiente manera: a) Gastos de personal (salarios más cargas sociales), que suelen calcularse sobre la base de la dedicación de profesionales, expertos y ayudantes, expresados en meses /hombre u horas/horas. b) Los gastos generales o indirectos (de acuerdo con la definición que se da en el artículo 27 del Reglamento, estimados como 70% de la partida de "Gastos en personal", como mínimo. c) Una previsión para imprevistos, calculada como porcentaje de las dos partidas anteriores sumadas. ch) Gastos especiales o directos, definidos en el artículo 28 del Reglamento. d) Utilidad o beneficio del consultor, calculado como suma fija o como porcentaje (no menor que 20%) de la suma de las cuatro partidas anteriores" Por su parte, el artículo 3.A del mismo arancel establece la posibilidad de establecer una remuneración fijada por tarifas como base de cálculo de honorarios profesionales. Dichos honorarios para proyectos de edificaciones, tanto en la fase 1 como en la fase 2 descritas con anterioridad (ver artículos 17 del reglamento y 4 del arancel), dependen del valor de la obra por realizarse y para su cálculo se procederá de la siguiente forma: “...a) Honorarios provisionales: Se establecen para efectuar el pago parcial, previo al inicio de la etapa o etapas que se contraten, con base en una estimación del costo de la obra que se proyectará o diseñará . Ese costo estimado no podrá ser menor que el valor de tasación que utiliza el Colegio Federado con apoyo en las características básicas de la obra. b) Honorarios definitivos: -Anteproyecto. Si se contrata únicamente esta etapa del proyecto, los honorarios se calcularán con base en el presupuesto que se elabore a partir de los planos del anteproyecto. Si el contrato incluye la etapa de planos de construcción y especificaciones, los honorarios se calcularán como se establece en el apartado siguiente. - Planos de Construcción y especificaciones: Los honorarios se calcularán con base en el monto de la adjudicación, siempre y cuando no hayan transcurrido más de seis meses con posterioridad a la fecha de elaboración de los planos, en cuyo caso se calcularán de acuerdo con el presupuesto que elabore el consultor, tomándose como referencia los planos finales de la segunda etapa (planos de construcción y especificaciones). -Presupuesto. Programa de obra: Los honorarios se calcularán con base en el presupuesto que elabore el consultor a partir de los planos finales de la segunda etapa o del monto de la adjudicación, según sea el caso...” Finalmente, el artículo 3. C establece otra modalidad de pago, como la modalidad de retribución en la cual el cliente reintegra el costo de servicios, más un honorario fijo de los gastos, de la siguiente manera: "La remuneración incluye, en consecuencia, lo siguiente: a) El costo de los salarios de todos los profesionales, expertos y personal técnico y auxiliar asignado al estudio, de acuerdo con los tiempos reales de utilización o conforme se haya convenido con el cliente o promotor. b) Las cargas sociales, corrientemente calculadas como porcentaje del costo de los salarios descritos en el aparte anterior. c) Los gastos especiales o directos, de acuerdo con la definición que se da en el artículo 27 del Reglamento, que corresponden a 70%, como mínimo, de la partida del costo de los salarios precitada. ch ) Los gastos especiales o directos, de acuerdo con la definición que se da en el artículo 28 del Reglamento". De conformidad con las normas expuestas, este Tribunal estima que el referente fundamental para determinar la modalidad de pago en un contrato de servicios de consultoría será siempre el análisis, tanto del cartel de la respectiva contratación, como de la oferta presentada y del eventual contrato que se suscriba. Es en el primero, en donde la Administración respectiva consignará los alcances de los servicios que se buscó satisfacer con la contratación y en su análisis junto con los segundos, podrá identificarse qué modalidad de pago, de las tres citadas, se usó y se pactó con el contratista, así como también, cuáles servicios fueron contratados y a cuál de las dos fases corresponden (preliminar y/o de ejecución). Es con base en la información plasmada en ellos que se podrá determinar si procede acoger una solicitud de ajuste de honorarios, en tanto que la misma sólo será procedente en los supuestos en que el estipendio profesional se calcule con base en tarifas por costo de obra, en cuyo caso el monto fijado en el contrato se considerará tentativo, ya que dicho monto se ajustará al costo final de obra en cada etapa contratada. Dicho ajuste, no obstante, sólo procederá cuando opere el cumplimiento de los supuestos del arancel de cita, sea los siguientes: a) Si el pago lo realiza la parte contratante dentro de los primeros seis meses contados a partir de la recepción de las obras, el monto de los honorarios serán acordes al de la adjudicación que se haya realizado en la correspondiente contratación, indistintamente del resultado final de ésta, o b) Si el pago lo realiza la parte contratante fuera de los primeros seis meses contados a partir de la recepción de la correspondiente obra pactada, el monto de los honorarios serán acordes al del presupuesto que elabore el consultor, indistintamente del precio de la adjudicación. En el supuesto de contrataciones realizadas por precio global o suma alzada, es entendido de que no procede el reconocimiento de ajuste de honorarios, por su propia naturaleza jurídica de suma prefijada y definida previamente, según las partidas de desgloses de oferta respectivas. Similares consideraciones pueden hacerse en el supuesto del reintegro de costos más un honorario fijo o cómo porcentaje de gastos incurridos, según lo indicado anteriormente. Con base en todo lo VIII.- Sobre el caso concreto sometido a conocimiento de este Tribunal: En su escrito de demanda, la parte actora funda sus alegatos con base en el artículo 3.A del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones, Decreto Ejecutivo No.18636-MOPT, e indica que cotizó en la licitación Abreviada número 2007LA-000118-ULIC promovida por la Universidad de Costa Rica, con base en dicha norma, habida cuenta que era imposible definir el monto del objeto de la contratación hasta tanto no se hicieran los estudios preliminares, incluido el respectivo diagnóstico, siendo así que señala que el alcance del trabajo fue definido por la Oficina Ejecutora del Programa de Inversiones de la Universidad de Costa Rica, como respuesta a sus reiterados requerimientos. Con respecto a estos argumentos, este Tribunal estima que de los autos se tiene por demostrado que el cartel de la Licitación Abreviada número 2007LA-000118-ULIC, "LEVANTAMIENTO, DIAGNÓSTICO Y REDISEÑO DE LOS SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS Y ESTRUCTURAL PARA EL EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC) DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA", adjudicada a la parte actora, empleó el sistema de pago de los servicios contratados bajo la modalidad de precio global o suma alzada. En este sentido, consta en autos que el cartel determinó que el oferente debía presentar desglose de oferta, con las siguientes partidas: 1. Preliminares 1.1. Gastos preliminares 2. Levantamiento y Diagnóstico, 3. Recopilación Nuevas Necesidades 4. Rediseño Estructural 5. Rediseño Mecánico 6. Presupuesto de la Obra 7. Dibujo de Planos 21. Entrega . Estructura de Costos de la Oferta: CD porcentaje total corresponde a costos directos CLs porcentaje total costos indirectos, salarios oficina Clo porcentaje total costos indirectos, otros costos I porcentaje total, imprevistos U porcentaje total, utilidad, todas a ser presentadas por los respectivos oferentes, según el modelo aportado. También se ha tenido por demostrado en autos que Heriel S.A. adjuntó a su oferta el siguiente desglose de partidas, costos y utilidad establecido para el pago de servicios por precio precio global o suma alzada, según lo establecido en el correspondiente cartel: 1. Preliminares 1.1. Gastos preliminares: C. 500.000,00 2. Levantamiento y Diagnóstico: C. 7.000.000,00 3. Recopilación Nuevas Necesidades: C. 500.000,00 4. Rediseño Estructural: C. 3.000.000,00 5. Rediseño Mecánico: C. 800.000,00 6. Presupuesto de la Obra: C. 1.500.000,00 7. Dibujo de Planos: C. 500.000,00 21. Entrega: C. 200.000,00 . Estructura de Costos de la Oferta: CD porcentaje total corresponde a costos directos: 45%, CLs porcentaje total costos indirectos, salarios oficina: 20% Clo porcentaje total costos indirectos, otros costos: 10% I porcentaje total, imprevistos: 10% U porcentaje total, utilidad: 15%. En este sentido, de las consideraciones hechas ut supra, es de advertir que el desglose de partidas hecho en la oferta, coincide con las sub partidas por precio global previstas en el artículo 3.B del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones, Decreto Ejecutivo No.18636-MOPT, exclusivamente para dicha forma de pago y no previsto para la forma de pago por tarifas, si bien es de advertir que el porcentaje de utilidad final de la empresa Heriel S.A. fue señalado en un 15% y no en un 20%, tal y como indica como mínimo el decreto de cita. Si bien la representación de Heriel S.A. indica en su escrito de demanda que en su oferta hizo la aclaración de que los honorarios cotizados eran sobre un costo estimado previsto y sujeto a la aplicación del arancel respectivo, debe advertirse que acoger su manifestación sería admitir que el actor realizó una modificación unilateral de lo dispuesto en el cartel de la contratación administrativa, considerado éste de manera integral, lo cual resulta improcedente. En este orden de ideas, debe tomarse en consideración el artículo 66 del Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, que dispone: "La sola presentación de la oferta, se entenderá como una manifestación inequívoca de la voluntad del oferente de contratar con pleno sometimiento a las condiciones cartelarias, disposiciones legales y reglamentarias vigentes. La sumisión operará de pleno derecho, e implicará la incorporación dentro del contenido de la relación contractual de las normas constitucionales, de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, el presente Reglamento, el Reglamento Institucional y el cartel". Estima este Tribunal que el cartel de la contratación otorga suficientes elementos de convicción como para determinar que la contratación a realizar sería por precio global, al dar al factor precio un valor de 80 puntos y al establecer como condición la presentación del desglose de oferta dicho, con la determinación de costos directos, indirectos, imprevistos, utilidad entre otros. En este orden de ideas, el peso otorgado en el respectivo cartel al factor precio resulta determinante como para considerar que no estaba abierta la posibilidad de cotizaciones bajo la modalidad de remuneración fijada mediante tarifas, habida cuenta que la aplicación de este sistema tornaría incierto en el concurso, la determinación de los eventuales oferentes que tendría efectiva oportunidad de ganarlo, al hacer depender de un hecho futuro, sea la adjudicación, el monto definitivo de lo cotizado. El hecho de que en este concurso al final sólo participara Heriel S.A. como oferente es coyuntural frente a la posibilidad planteada desde el inicio del concurso de que a un oferente se le habría podido adjudicado una contratación por haber ofrecido un precio menor, que eventualmente y a futuro, podría ser mayor al de otros concursantes, en caso de aplicarse lo dispuesto en el artículo 3.A del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones. En este sentido, no puede obviarse lo establecido en el artículo 25 del Reglamento de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, en tanto dispone: "Artículo 25.—Precio. El precio deberá ser cierto y definitivo, sujeto a las condiciones establecidas en el cartel o pliego de condiciones y sin perjuicio de eventuales reajustes o revisiones. En caso de divergencia entre el precio cotizado en números y letras, prevalecerá este último, salvo caso de errores materiales evidentes, en cuyo caso prevalecerá el valor real". (El destacado es nuestro). Es con base en esta norma, que el precio ofrecido, como uno de los términos esenciales de la propuesta hecha, debe ser claro e indubitable, serio, firme y concreto, y no puede contener condiciones o contradicciones, en tanto que la oferta en donde él se encuentra, es la expresión concreta de la voluntad de un determinado oferente de contratar con la administración para el suministro de bienes o servicios. Sólo partiendo de este supuesto, se puede constatar el cumplimiento con las especificaciones cartelarias, con plena seguridad jurídica para la Administración contratante y los demás participantes en el concurso. En el caso objeto de la presente resolución, advierte este Tribunal que el cartel respectivo estableció suficientes elementos, según lo indicado, como para determinar que el precio debía ser de manera global y no abierto y sujeto a eventuales modificaciones, como es el caso del precio por tarifas. Conteste con el anterior criterio es el hecho de que el respectivo cartel indicó que previo a la presentación de ofertas, debía hacerse una visita técnica obligatoria por parte de los eventuales oferentes. Esta visita adquiere relevancia si atendemos a que mediante la misma los participantes podían evacuar dudas y tener acceso a la obra sobre la cual realizarían la eventual contratación. En este sentido, como producto de lo anterior, el 15 de noviembre de 2007 mediante oficio OEPI-1721-2007 se aclaró que el auditorio formaba parte de la licitación, así como el sistema eléctrico y el cuarto piso, previo a la presentación de la oferta por parte de Heriel S.A. Es así como para este Tribunal, se refuerza la convicción de que lo buscado por la Administración era que se presentaran cotizaciones por una suma global y no por porcentajes, en tanto que se partió de la premisa, del previo conocimiento de los oferentes de la extensión y alcance de las obras cotizadas. Si bien la parte señala que en su oferta, al no contar con una descripción clara del alcance de los trabajos de rediseño, ofrece la actividad de rediseños por un 9% de ese monto y sujeto a la aplicación del arancel dicho, las anteriores consideraciones ponen en evidencia que una de sus obligaciones prevista en el cartel, era el debido conocimiento de los trabajos en mención. Por otra parte, estima este Tribunal que lo indicado por un oferente, no tiene la virtud de modificar una forma de pago establecida en el cartel. Si bien en éste no se indicó que la misma sea en una suma global, sí es claro que el valor del factor precio en la reglamentación de la contratación y la determinación de las partidas exigida en ésta (costos directos, indirectos, utilidad, gastos en personal, imprevistos) resulta incompatible con lo alegado por la parte actora. Finalmente, en el análisis e interpretación de lo dispuesto en el cartel de la contratación objeto de la presente resolución no puede obviarse lo establecido en el artículo 10 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que señala lo siguiente: "1. La norma administrativa deberá ser interpretada en la forma que mejor garantice la realización del fin público a que se dirige, dentro del respecto debido a los derechos e intereses del particular". Estima este Tribunal que el razonamiento hecho ut supra a las condiciones de la contratación, resultan acordes con la mejor interpretación conforme al interés público, habida cuenta que tienden a asegurar la efectiva voluntad de la administración contratante y garantizar que la cotización adjudicada y la consiguiente ejecución contractual no se aparte de las normas preestablecidas y con base en las cuales se realizó la respectiva adjudicación. Interpretar lo contrario significaría abrir la posibilidad de aceptar modificaciones unilaterales de los oferentes en el factor precio o relativizar el peso de éste, abriendo la posibilidad de que, sin estar definidos otros mecanismos de reconocimiento de honorarios de manera explícita o implícita, se cotice y se adjudique con base en un monto del precio determinado (tomando en cuenta el valor significativo que este factor tiene en la contratación) y con posterioridad éste se modifique mediante incrementos en detrimento de potenciales oferentes de mejor derecho o que podrían haber participado si hubiese la posibilidad de plantear ofertas con otros mecanismos de ajuste de honorarios cotizados. Todo lo anterior, en afectación, inclusive del principio de buena fe aplicable a la especie en aplicación del artículo 7 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 3 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa y 2.f) de su reglamento. Es con base en las anteriores consideraciones que a Heriel S.A. no debe aplicarse lo dispuesto en el artículo 3.A del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones, habida cuenta que sus honorarios fueron establecidos con fundamento en el inciso 3.B del mismo. Por dicho motivo, dado que en este último supuesto no se contempla dicha posibilidad, no resulta de relevancia la interpretación hecha por la parte actora en el sentido de que transcurrieron seis meses desde que se presentaron los planos constructivos, sin que la administración contratante haya procedido a la adjudicación de las obras, por lo que el pago de la contratación deberá ajustarse y calcularse conforme al presupuesto realizado y no sobre el monto en que se adjudicó. En virtud de lo anterior, debe rechazarse la pretensión en el sentido de que se acoja el reclamo realizado sobre el ajuste de honorarios por el trabajo realizado como adjudicatario de la Licitación Abreviada número 2007LA-000118-ULIC, "LEVANTAMIENTO, DIAGNÓSTICO Y REDISEÑO DE LOS SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS Y ESTRUCTURAL PARA EL EDIFICIO DE FISICO (SIC) MATEMATICA (SIC) DE LA UNIVERSIDAD DE COSTA RICA". Como consecuencia de dicho rechazo, también debe rechazarse la pretensión planteada en el sentido de que se declare que, en virtud del artículo 3 inciso b) del Decreto de Aranceles MOPT 18636, al haber transcurrido más de 6 meses desde la entrega del trabajo encomendado sin que se hubiera adjudicado la obra para su construcción, HERIEL S.A. tenía derecho a que se le ajusten los honorarios profesionales cancelados por la labor realizada, así como las pretensiones orientadas a que se declare que la Universidad de Costa Rica, debe cancelar la diferencia en honorarios calculada conforme al presupuesto final de la obra por la suma de C.46.480.523 (cuarenta y seis millones cuatrocientos ochenta mil quinientos veintitrés colones, en tanto que no lleva razón la parte actora en sus argumentos en tal sentido, tal como se ha indicado en el presente considerando.”