Inadmissibility of rent adjustment for repairs in an administrative leaseImprocedencia de reajuste de precio por reparaciones en arrendamiento administrativo

IV.- Regarding the object of the proceedings: From what has been expressed by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, the object of this proceeding is to determine the appropriateness of recognizing a retroactive readjustment of the rental price to the plaintiff, due to the modifications made to the property subject to said contractual relationship. V.- On contracting as a manifestation of administrative conduct: The Public Administration employs various means for the fulfillment of public purposes, which are not exhausted in 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 is a series of elements that transcend the mere agreement of wills formalized in a document and that condition its creation, development, and extinction. Thus, the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and termination by the specific legal framework that governs the matter and the specific contracting. In this sense, the act of will, free and sovereign of the contractor, is filtered by the administrative legal system, and fundamentally by the contracting regulations, be it the tender documents or specifications, the basis thereof. Furthermore, a series of principles will always underlie every administrative contracting procedure, which have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber 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 concurrence, equal treatment among bidders, publicity, legal certainty, legality and transparency, good faith, balance of interests, mutability of the contract, asset intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), and control in procedures. From the standpoint of positive law, the general regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contractor companies is set forth in the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Article 15 of said regulatory body expressly states the following as an obligation of every contracting Administration: "The Administration is obliged to comply with all commitments, validly undertaken, in administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor executes the agreed-upon 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 proposal and in any formal documented statement that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract." Both obligations arise from a principle of good faith in contracting, whereby both parties have, as a reference point in the fulfillment of their obligations, a duty of mutual compliance and collaboration. In the specific case of lease contracts signed by the Administration, the provisions of Article 76 of the Administrative Contracting Law and Article 159 of its regulations must be applied, as they state the following: "Article 76.—Applicable Procedure. To lease real estate, with or without constructions, the administration must resort to the public tender (licitación pública), abbreviated tender (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa) procedure, as appropriate, according to the amount." "Article 159.—Lease of Real Estate. The Administration may lease real estate, with or without a purchase option, through the public tender, abbreviated tender, or direct contracting procedure, as appropriate, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to what is established in relation to the leasing or purchase of unique goods in this Regulation. The property owner shall not provide any type of performance bond in favor of the Administration. For the readjustment of the rental price, the provisions of Article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply." In this same regard, Article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases indicates the application of said regulatory body to contractual relationships between the Public Administration and lessors, as follows: "ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities, and municipalities. The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless expressly provided otherwise by their own legal system. The tender procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting." By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to the administrative field or the specific provisions on landlord-tenant (inquilinaria) matters established in said law, given its specialty and specific normative scope. Regarding price readjustments in this matter, the aforementioned law contemplates an express rule for cases under its competence, as it provides the following: "ARTICLE 67.- Price Readjustment for Housing. In residential leases, the agreed-upon price shall be updated at the end of each year of the contract. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the following rules shall apply: a) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each year of the contract is less than or equal to fifteen percent (15%), the lessor is fully authorized to readjust the housing rent by a percentage no greater than that rate. Inflation shall be calculated according to the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses. b) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each year of the contract is greater than fifteen percent (15%), the Board of Directors of the Housing Mortgage Bank shall dictate, based on considerations that take into account the development of construction activity and the necessary balance between the lessor's and lessee's obligations, the additional percentage increase to be applied to the housing rent, provided it is not less than that fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than the annual inflation rate. The readjustment shall take effect from the payment period following the one in which the lessor notifies the lessee of the applicable rent readjustment, along with certification from the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses or a certified copy of the publication in the official gazette. If the lessee does not agree with the readjustment, they may judicially deposit the previous price, but its releasing effect will be subject to the outcome of the eviction (desahucio) proceeding initiated by the lessor. Any rent readjustment exceeding that established in this article shall be null and void ipso jure. An agreement between the parties agreeing to a lower price readjustment and the written pact by which readjustments lower than the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses are agreed upon is valid." Pursuant to said rule, it is noted that price adjustments are circumscribed, in the specific case of leases, to the assumptions and limits set forth in the rule cited above for landlord-tenant (inquilinaria) matters. The foregoing, given the existence of express regulation of the procedure to be applied in said assumptions and which prevents the use of other different mechanisms, as indicated in Article 159 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law. Based on these considerations, in the case of the landlord-tenant (inquilinaria) relationship, the application of the means established in Article 18 of this latter regulatory body to compensate for price and/or cost variations established for other contractual figures in the administrative sphere would not be possible.

VI.- On the specific case submitted to this Court's knowledge: In its statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges having the right to be recognized the readjustment on the amount of the lease price agreed upon in administrative contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, from July 12, 2006, until July 24, 2007. It bases said claim on the presumed existence of an alteration to the financial balance of the contract due to the modifications made to the leased properties, in order to duly comply with what was indicated by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), regarding Law 7600, a regulation that governs equal opportunities for persons with disabilities and their accessibility to public spaces. It points out that by resolution DVG-559-2007 of June 8, 2007, its administrative claim was partially accepted, whereby at 2:00 p.m. on July 6, 2007, an addendum (addendum) was signed to the executed contract, through which the price was increased by C. 1,307,244.00 (one million three hundred seven thousand two hundred forty-four colones), resulting in a final price of C. 2,121,600.00 (two million one hundred twenty-one thousand six hundred colones). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it indicates that the period between the effective occupation of the properties by the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) and the date of the respective resolution remains uncovered. It invokes violation of the principle of asset intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial) during said period, given that it used the improvements and modifications made from the beginning of the contract's effectiveness, without this having translated, prior to June 6, 2007, into a lease payment recognizing them. In this regard, this Court does not find the plaintiff's reasoning to be admissible to support the right it claims, as it has been demonstrated from the case file that the addendum (addendum) to Lease Contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, has as its legal nature a modification to the original contract, in accordance with Article 12 of the Administrative Contracting Law, and not a price readjustment under the terms referred to in said regulatory body. In this context, the indicated numeral establishes the following: "Article 12.—Right of Unilateral Modification. During the execution of the contract, the Administration may modify, decrease, or increase, up to fifty percent (50%), the object of the contract, when unforeseeable circumstances occur at the time of initiating the procedures and this is the only way to fully satisfy the public interest pursued, provided that the sum of the original contract and the additional increase does not exceed the limit provided for, in Article 27 of this Law, for the contracting procedure in question." For its part, Article 200 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law provides, in this regard, the following: "Article 200.—Unilateral Modification of the Contract. The Administration may unilaterally modify its contracts as soon as they are perfected, even before beginning their execution and during it, under the following rules: a) That the modification, increase, or decrease of the object does not change its nature, nor prevent it from fulfilling its functionality or end initially proposed. b) That in the case of an increase, it involves similar goods or services. c) That it does not exceed 50% of the amount of the original contract, including readjustments or revisions, as appropriate. d) That it involves unforeseeable causes at the time of initiating the procedure, meaning that the entity could not know about them despite having adopted the minimum technical and planning measures when defining the object. e) That it is the best way to satisfy the public interest. f) That the sum of the original contract, including readjustments or price revisions, and the additional increase do not exceed the limit provided for the type of procedure processed." In accordance with the aforementioned rule, the extension of the contractual object is appropriate provided the assumptions indicated by the rules mentioned above concur, which consequently implies the possibility of modifying the price originally agreed upon in a contractual relationship. On the other hand, the figure of price readjustment has been established in the aforementioned Administrative Contracting Law, due to effects on the financial equation of the contract, caused by unforeseeable economic phenomena or supervening events, such as the increase in the cost of goods and services as a result of inflation or modifications in the market. Thus, in this latter assumption, the possibility of making modifications to the agreed-upon price, as a result of changes introduced by the contractor's own will into the contractual object, does not apply, insofar as the eventual variation to the economic balance of the contract did not depend on external factors but on its own volition. In the case under analysis, without delving into the appropriateness and advisability of the use of the legal figure by the Administration in the specific case, given that it is not the object of the dispute (litis), this Court estimates that an extension of Lease Contract 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ is observed, due to the increase in its object. From the case file, appraisal 16-2007 of January 19, 2007, is recorded, where the existence of modifications introduced by the plaintiff Association is indicated, whereby the usable area was expanded and a building was constructed in the parking area. In this sense, by official communication DVG-431-07 of March 7, 2007, the Vice Minister of the Interior and Police requested authorization from the comptroller body to make the contractual modification, and thus, by official communication 05697 of DCA-1856 of June 5, 2007, the Administrative Contracting Division of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic indicated that to review its management, the formulation of an addendum (addendum) to the original contract was required, so at that time the corresponding authorization could not be issued. As noted, in the case under analysis, a modification and expansion of part of the contractual object occurred voluntarily by the contracting party, which provided the basis for the extension of the lease contract in its favor, but without the contractual figure used – namely, the respective addendum (addendum) – being able to have a retroactive effect on what was expressly agreed upon by the parties. Moreover, it is clear that the price readjustment figure provided in Article 18 of the LCA was not applied, since the same, as has been indicated, is not appropriate for lease contracts, given that in these, what is appropriate is the application of the rent readjustment provided in the specific law, as expressly indicated by Article 159 of the regulation of said regulatory body, as expressly cited in the preceding recital (considerando). Furthermore, the contract signed by the parties establishes as the sole possibility of price readjustment, the annual increases in accordance with the accumulated inflation rate of the previous year, which responds to the provisions mentioned above. Additionally, it must be taken into consideration that the Law of Urban Leases expressly establishes that repairs made to leased properties do not have the effect of creating a right to request readjustments for that reason. In this sense, Article 95 of the referred regulatory body states: "ARTICLE 95.- Inappropriateness of Readjustment for Repairs. The lessor shall not have the right to a rent readjustment, even if they have made the repairs directly or the lessee or a public body has carried them out." On the other hand, it is considered relevant to indicate that all the changes made to the properties were carried out voluntarily by the plaintiff's representative, as their note dated January 4, 2006, expressly indicated the following: "Another commitment that our represented party makes manifest is to collaborate with the Administration in the medium term to adapt the structures to comply with the provisions of numeral 4 subsection b) and related articles of Law 7600, Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and with the requests of the Occupational Health Department of said Directorate, both before occupying the property and once they are installed therein and improvements are made in accordance with those legal provisions. We reiterate our willingness to comply with the obligations granted by the legislation and that correspond to us as owners of the property, therefore we will address the requirements made in writing as soon as possible. We understand that as a public institution serving the public, it must comply with said law, and that the property does not currently comply with it as it was not foreseen for that purpose; however, we will collaborate to the best of our ability to meet the requirements of said law, for the benefit of the people who need those services and for the sake of a good contractual relationship with the Migration Directorate. In the short term, that is, about six months from taking possession of the property, we will have the ramp, signage, and other requirements requested by the referenced Occupational Health Office." With respect to the scope and effects of the cited commitment, it must be taken into consideration that what is indicated in the cited note signed by the plaintiff's representative forms part of the submitted offer, pursuant to Article 20 of the Administrative Contracting Law, as it provides the following: "Contractors are obliged to fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any formal documented statement that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract." In accordance with the foregoing, the signed contract provided as one of the lessor's obligations the following: "'Carry out, within a period of six months, counted from the moment the relationship begins, the necessary modifications to the property, in order to achieve the conditions established by Law 7600, Law of Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities." As the indicated structural changes are part of the originally agreed-upon contractual obligations, this Court does not deem admissible the possibility of requesting price readjustments based on duties freely and knowingly agreed upon by the contractor, and which, as in this case, were sine qua non requirements for its offer to be eligible. With respect to other changes and expansions in the structure of the property, there is no record in the case file of formal or material conduct where a specific requirement to carry out certain works was made by any official to the plaintiff association, in exchange for an increase in the lease price. On the contrary, as has been indicated, the evidence shows that the works were carried out voluntarily and without any condition of modification in the lease of the properties arising from it. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject what was requested regarding the item indicated at the beginning of this recital (considerando) as inappropriate.

VII.- The plaintiff requests that the partial nullity of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20th, of the Ministry of the Interior and Police, be declared. In this regard, this Court estimates that, from an analysis of the material and formal elements of the objected administrative act, no grounds for nullity are observed. The representative of the plaintiff association does not specify the defects that partially affect said administrative conduct. However, as has been indicated, what was resolved in the objected administrative act is in accordance with the law, as there are express norms in the legal system that support the non-recognition of price readjustments in lease contracts due to improvements introduced by the plaintiff, which are different from the rent readjustment established in the respective Leases Law. Thus, upon analyzing the challenged act, applying Article 182 of the General Law of Public Administration, this Court does not observe the existence of defects in any element of the administrative act consisting of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20th, of the Ministry of the Interior and Police, said act therefore being valid and effective. On the other hand, the plaintiff requests the application of Article 142 of the General Law of Public Administration, indicating the retroactivity of the referred administrative act. In this regard, this argument must also be rejected, given that the indicated administrative conduct is based on the existence of an addendum (addendum) for modification of the principal contract, whose effects are for the future, and the inappropriateness of recognizing what was requested as a price readjustment, as there is an express rule to the contrary. By reason of the foregoing, this annulment claim must be rejected and the objected act upheld.

VIII.- As a consequence of the rejection of the declaratory claims, the claims for damages made by the plaintiff, in the sense that the differences in the lease price during said period be recognized as damages, together with their interest as losses, must also be rejected.

The above, insofar as they derive from the requests denied in the preceding recitals (considerandos)." IV.- Regarding the object of the proceeding: Based on what has been stated by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, the object of this proceeding lies in determining the admissibility of recognizing a retroactive adjustment (reajuste retroactivo) of the lease price to the plaintiff, due to the modifications made to the property that is the object of said contractual relationship. V.- Regarding 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 is a series of elements that transcend the mere meeting of the minds set forth in a document and that condition its creation, development, and termination. Thus, the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and completion by the specific legal framework governing the matter and contracting in particular. In this sense, the free and sovereign act of will of the contractor is filtered by the administrative legal framework, and fundamentally by the regulations of the contracting process, be it the tender specifications or terms of reference, which form its basis. Furthermore, a series of principles will always underlie every administrative contracting procedure, which have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) starting from ruling (voto) 0998-98 at 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent judgments, and which are basically summarized as free participation, equal treatment among bidders, publicity, legal certainty, legality and transparency, good faith, balance of interests, mutability of the contract, patrimonial intangibility, and control of procedures. From the standpoint of positive law, the general regulatory framework for the obligations of both contracting entities and contracting companies is set forth in the Law on Administrative Contracting (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Article 15 of said normative body expressly indicates the following as an obligation of every contracting Administration: "The Administration is obligated to fulfill 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 obligated to fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any documented formal statement, which they have provided additionally, during 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 in fulfilling their obligations. In the specific case of lease contracts signed by the Administration, the provisions of Article 76 of the Law on Administrative Contracting and Article 159 of its Regulation must be applied, as they provide the following: "Article 76.—Applicable procedure. To lease real estate, with or without buildings, the administration must resort to the procedure of public bidding (licitación pública), abbreviated bidding (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa), as appropriate, according to the amount." "Article 159.—Lease of real estate. The Administration may lease real estate, with or without a purchase option, through the procedure of public bidding, abbreviated bidding, or direct contracting, as appropriate, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to the provisions related to the lease or purchase of unique goods in this Regulation. The property owner shall not provide any type of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the adjustment of the rent price, the provisions of Article 67 of the General Law on Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply." In this same vein, Article 6 of the Law on Urban and Suburban Leases indicates the application of said normative body to the contractual relationships between the Public Administration and lessors, as follows: "ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities, and municipalities. The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless expressly provided otherwise by their own legal framework. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting." By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations proper to administrative matters, or the specific provisions established in said law regarding tenancy (inquilinaria) matters, given their specialty and specific normative scope. With respect to price adjustments (reajustes de precios) in this matter, said law provides an express rule for cases under its purview, as it stipulates the following: "ARTICLE 67.- Rent adjustment for housing. In residential leases, the agreed price shall be updated at the end of each year of the contract. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the following rules shall apply: a) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each contract year is less than or equal to fifteen percent (15%), the lessor is authorized, by full right, to adjust the housing rent by a percentage no greater than that rate. Inflation shall be calculated according to the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses. b) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each contract year is greater than fifteen percent (15%), the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Mortgage Housing Bank (Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda) shall dictate, based on considerations that take into account the development of construction activity and the necessary balance between the lessor's and lessee's obligations, the additional percentage of increase that will be applied to the housing rent, provided it is not less than that fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than the annual inflation rate. The adjustment shall take effect from the payment period following that in which the lessor notifies the lessee of the applicable rent adjustment, together with a certification from the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses or an authentic copy of the publication in the official gazette. If the lessee does not agree with the adjustment, they may judicially deposit the previous price, but its releasing effect will be subject to the outcome of the eviction process initiated by the lessor. Any rent adjustment exceeding that established in this article shall be null and void by full right. An agreement between the parties agreeing on a lower price adjustment and the written pact by which lower adjustments than the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses are agreed upon is valid." In accordance with said rule, it is noted that price adjustments are limited, in the specific case of leases, to the assumptions and limits provided for in the rule cited above for tenancy matters. The foregoing, given the existence of an express regulation of the procedure to be applied in said assumptions, which prevents the use of other different mechanisms, as indicated by Article 159 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting. Based on these considerations, in the case of the tenancy relationship, it would not be possible to apply the means established in Article 18 of this latter normative body to compensate for the variation of prices and/or costs established for other contractual figures in the administrative sphere.

VI.- Regarding the specific case submitted for the knowledge of this Tribunal: In its statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges having the right to be recognized the adjustment (reajuste) of the lease price amount agreed in administrative contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, from July 12, 2006, to July 24, 2007. It bases this claim on the presumed existence of an alteration to the financial equilibrium of the contract due to the modifications made to the leased properties, in order to duly comply with what was indicated by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), regarding Law 7600 (Ley 7600), the law regulating equal opportunities for people with disabilities and accessibility to public spaces for such individuals. It indicates that through resolution DVG-559-2007 of June 8, 2007, its administrative claim was partially accepted, so that at 2:00 p.m. on July 6, 2007, an addendum (addendum) to the signed contract was signed, through which the price was increased by C. 1,307,244.00 (one million three hundred seven thousand two hundred forty-four colones), resulting in a final price of C. 2,121,600.00 (two million one hundred twenty-one thousand six hundred colones). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it indicates that the period between the effective occupancy of the properties by the General Directorate of Migration and Foreigners and the date of the respective resolution remained uncovered. It invokes a violation of the principle of patrimonial intangibility during said period, given that it used the improvements and modifications made from the beginning of the contract's effectiveness, without this having resulted, prior to June 6, 2007, in a lease payment recognizing them. In this regard, this Tribunal does not accept the plaintiff's reasoning to ground the right it claims, since it is demonstrated in the case file that the addendum to Lease Contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ has the legal nature of a modification to the original contract, in accordance with Article 12 of the Law on Administrative Contracting, and not a price adjustment in the terms referred to in said normative body. In this vein, the indicated article establishes the following: "Article 12.—Right of unilateral modification. During the execution of the contract, the Administration may modify, decrease, or increase, up to fifty percent (50%), the object of the contracting, when unforeseeable circumstances arise at the time the procedures were initiated and this is the only way to fully satisfy the public interest pursued, provided that the sum of the original contracting amount and the additional increase does not exceed the limit provided for, in Article 27 of this Law, for the contracting procedure in question." For its part, Article 200 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting provides the following in this regard: "Article 200.—Unilateral modification of the contract. The Administration may unilaterally modify its contracts as soon as they are perfected, even before starting their execution and during it, under the following rules: a) That the modification, increase, or decrease of the object does not change its nature, nor does it prevent it from fulfilling its functionality or initially proposed purpose. b) That in the case of an increase, it involves similar goods or services. c) That it does not exceed 50% of the original contract amount, including adjustments or revisions, as applicable. d) That it involves unforeseeable causes at the time of initiating the procedure, that is, that the entity could not have known about them despite having adopted minimum technical and planning measures when defining the object. e) That it is the best way to satisfy the public interest. f) That the sum of the original contracting amount, including price adjustments or revisions, and the additional increase does not exceed the limit provided for the type of procedure processed." In accordance with the above rule, the expansion of the contractual object is admissible provided that the assumptions indicated by the norms mentioned above are met, which consequently implies the possibility of modifying the price originally agreed in a contractual relationship. On the other hand, the figure of price adjustment (reajuste de precios) has been established in the indicated Law on Administrative Contracting, due to impacts on the financial equation of the contract, produced by unforeseeable or supervening economic phenomena, such as an increase in the cost of goods and services as a product of inflation or market modifications. Thus, in this latter case, the possibility of making modifications to the agreed price, as a product of changes introduced by the contractor's own will into the contractual object, does not operate, given that the eventual variation to the economic equilibrium of the contract did not depend on external factors but on its own will. In the case under analysis, without delving into the appropriateness and convenience of the use of the legal figure by the Administration in the specific case, given that it is not the object of the dispute, this Tribunal considers that an expansion of Lease Contract 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ is observed, due to the increase of its object. The case file contains appraisal 16-2007 of January 19, 2007, which indicates the existence of modifications introduced by the owning Association, thus expanding the usable area and constructing a building in the parking area. In this sense, through official communication DVG-431-07 of March 7, 2007, the Vice Minister of Governance and Police requested authorization from the oversight body to make the contractual modification, and it was thus that through official communication 05697 of DCA-1856 of June 5, 2007, the Division of Administrative Contracting of the Comptroller General of the Republic indicated that to review its process, the formulation of an addendum to the original contract is required, so at that time the corresponding authorization could not be issued. As noted, in the case under analysis, a modification and expansion of part of the contractual object occurred voluntarily by the contracting party, which provided the basis for ordering an expansion of the lease contract in its favor, but without it being possible to give the contractual figure used - namely the respective addendum - a retroactive effect to what was expressly agreed by the parties. On the other hand, it is clear that the figure of price adjustment provided for in Article 18 of the LCA was not applied, since, as has been indicated, it is not applicable to lease contracts, given that in these, what applies is the application of the rent adjustment provided in the specific law, as expressly indicated by Article 159 of the regulation to said normative body, as cited expressly in the preceding recital. Furthermore, the contract signed by the parties establishes the annual increases in accordance with the accumulated inflation rate of the previous year as the only possibility for adjusting the price, which corresponds to the provisions mentioned above. Additionally, it must be taken into consideration that the Law on Urban Leases expressly establishes that repairs made to leased properties do not have the effect of giving rise to a right to request adjustments for such reason. In this sense, Article 95 of the referenced normative body states: "ARTICLE 95.- Unsuitability of adjustment for repairs. The lessor shall not be entitled to a rent adjustment, even if they have made the repairs directly or if they were made by the lessee or a public body." On the other hand, it is considered relevant to indicate that all the changes made to the properties were carried out voluntarily by the representative of the plaintiff, since in their note dated January 4, 2006, they expressly indicated the following: "Another commitment that our represented party makes manifest is to collaborate with the Administration in the medium term to adapt the structures to comply with the provisions of section 4, subsection b) and concordant provisions of Law 7600, Law on Equal Opportunities for People with Disabilities, and with the requests of the Occupational Health Department of that Directorate, both before occupying the property and once they are installed in it and improvements are made in accordance with those legal provisions. We reiterate our willingness to fulfill the obligations granted by legislation that correspond to us as owners of the property, so we will attend as soon as possible to the requirements made in writing.

**“ IV.- *On the object of the proceedings*: **From what has been expressed by the parties, both in their claims and arguments, the object of the present proceedings consists of determining the appropriateness of recognizing a retroactive readjustment of the lease price to the claimant, due to the modifications made to the property subject to said contractual relationship. **V.- *On contracting as a manifestation of administrative conduct*: **The Public Administration (La Administración Pública) employs various means for fulfilling public purposes, which are not exhausted in mere material actions or in formal administrative acts, since it also resorts to the technique of government procurement (contratación administrativa), 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 government procurement there is a series of elements that transcend the mere agreement of wills signed in a document and that condition its creation, development, and extinction. Thus, the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and conclusion to the specific rules governing the matter and the specific procurement. In this sense, the free and sovereign act of will of the contractor is filtered by the administrative legal system, and fundamentally by the procurement regulations, be it the tender specifications or terms of reference, which form the basis of the procurement. Furthermore, underlying every government procurement procedure, there will always be a series of principles that have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) starting from Voto 0998-98 of 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent rulings, which are basically summarized as free participation, equal treatment among bidders, publicity, legal certainty, legality and transparency, good faith, balance of interests, mutability of the contract, patrimonial intangibility, and control in procedures. From the standpoint of positive law, the general regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies is contemplated in the Law on Government Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Article 15 of said normative body expressly states the following obligation for every contracting Administration: *“The Administration (La Administración) is obliged to comply with all validly acquired commitments in government procurement and to provide collaboration so that the contractor executes the agreed object in a suitable manner.”* On the other hand, correlative to said duty, Article 20 of the same law establishes the following obligation for contractors: *“Contractors are obliged to comply fully with what was offered in their proposal and in any additional formal documented manifestation they have provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract.”* Both obligations arise from a principle of good faith in procurement, whereby both parties have a duty of mutual compliance and collaboration as a reference point in fulfilling their obligations. In the specific case of lease contracts entered into by the Administration, the provisions of Article 76 of the Law on Government Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and Article 159 of its regulations must be applied, as they stipulate the following: “*Article 76.—**Applicable procedure*. In order to lease real property, with or without buildings, the administration must resort to the procedure of public bidding, abbreviated bidding, or direct contracting, as appropriate, according to the amount.” “*Article 159.—**Lease of real property*. The Administration may lease real property, with or without an option to purchase, through the procedure of public bidding, abbreviated bidding, or direct contracting, as appropriate, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to what is established in relation to the lease or purchase of unique goods in this Regulation. The property owner shall not provide any type of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the readjustment of the rent price, the provisions of Article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply.” In this same sense, Article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases indicates the application of said normative body to the contractual relationships between the Public Administration and lessors, as follows: “*ARTICLE 6.- **State, decentralized entities, and municipalities.* The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless expressly provided otherwise in their own legal system. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of government procurement.” Therefore, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to administrative matters or the specific provisions on leasing matters established in the said law, given its specificity and specific normative scope. Regarding price readjustments in this matter, the indicated law contemplates an express norm for cases under its competence, as it stipulates the following: “*ARTICLE 67.- Price readjustment for housing. In leases for housing, the agreed price shall be updated at the end of each contract year. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, the following rules shall apply: a) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each contract year is less than or equal to fifteen percent (15%), the lessor is empowered, by operation of law, to readjust the rent for the housing by a percentage not greater than that rate. Inflation shall be calculated according to the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses (Dirección General de Estadística y Censos). b) When the accumulated inflation rate for the twelve months prior to the expiration of each contract year is greater than fifteen percent (15%), the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Mortgage Bank for Housing (Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda) shall dictate, based on considerations that take into account the development of the construction activity and the necessary balance between the benefits of the lessor and the lessee, the additional percentage increase to be applied to the housing rent, provided it is not less than that fifteen percent (15%) nor greater than the annual inflation rate. The readjustment shall take effect from the payment period following the one in which the lessor notifies the lessee of the readjustment applicable to the rent, along with a certification from the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, or an authentic copy of the publication in the official gazette. If the lessee does not agree with the readjustment, they may deposit, judicially, the previous price, but its liberatory payment shall be subject to the result of the eviction (desahucio) proceeding initiated by the lessor. Any rent readjustment exceeding that established in this article shall be null and void by operation of law. A party agreement that agrees on a lower price readjustment and a written pact by which readjustments lower than the official consumer price index of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses are agreed upon are valid.” In accordance with the said norm, it is noted that price adjustments are circumscribed, in the specific case of leases, to the assumptions and limits provided for in the norm cited above for leasing matters.

We understand that as a public institution serving the public, it must comply with said law, and that the property does not currently comply with them because it was not intended for that purpose; however, we will collaborate to the extent of our possibilities to meet the requirements of said law, for the benefit of persons needing those services and for the sake of a good contractual relationship with the Directorate (Dirección) of Migration. In the short term, within about six months of taking possession of the property, we will have the ramp, signage, and other requirements made of us by the aforementioned Occupational Health Office (Oficina de Salud Ocupacional)." With respect to the scope and effects of the cited commitment, it must be taken into consideration that what was indicated in the cited note signed by the representative of the claimant forms part of the submitted offer, in accordance with Article 20 of the Law on Government Procurement (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), as it stipulates the following: “*Contractors are obliged to comply fully with what was offered in their proposal and in any additional formal documented manifestation they have provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract.” In accordance with the foregoing, the signed contract stipulated the following as one of the lessor’s obligations: “*To make, within a period of six months, counted from the moment the relationship begins, the necessary modifications to the property, in order to achieve the conditions established by Ley 7600, Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para Personas con Discapacidad).” As the indicated structural changes are part of the originally agreed contractual obligations, this Tribunal does not deem admissible the possibility of requesting price readjustments based on duties freely and consciously agreed upon by the contracting party, and which, as in the case, were sine qua non requirements for their offer to be eligible. Regarding other changes and extensions in the property’s structure, there is no formal or material conduct in the record where a specific requirement to carry out certain works was made by any official to the claimant association, in exchange for an increase in the lease price. On the contrary, as has been indicated, the evidence shows that the works were carried out voluntarily and without any conditioning of a modification in the lease of the properties arising therefrom. In accordance with the foregoing, the request regarding the extreme indicated at the beginning of this recital must be rejected as unfounded.

**VII.-** The claimant requests that the partial annulment of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20 from the Ministry of Governance and Police (Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía) be declared. In this regard, this Tribunal considers that from an analysis of the material and formal elements of the challenged administrative act, no ground for annulment is observed. The representation of the claimant association does not specify the defects that partially affect said administrative conduct. However, as has been indicated, what was resolved in the challenged administrative act is in accordance with the law, since there are express norms in the legal system that support the non-recognition of price readjustments in lease contracts due to improvements introduced by the claimant, which are different from the rent readjustment established in the respective Leases Law. Thus, upon analyzing the challenged act, in application of Article 182 of the General Law of the Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this Tribunal does not perceive the existence of defects in any element of the administrative act consisting of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20 from the Ministry of Governance and Police, and consequently, said act is valid and effective. Furthermore, the claimant requests the application of Article 142 of the General Law of the Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), indicating the retroactivity of the referred administrative act. In this regard, this argument must also be rejected, given that the indicated administrative conduct is based on the existence of an addendum for modification of the main contract, whose effects are prospective, and the inappropriateness of recognizing what was requested as a price readjustment, as an express norm exists to the contrary. Consequently, this annulment claim must be rejected, and the challenged act must be upheld.

**VIII.-** As a consequence of the rejection of the declaratory claims, the claims for indemnification made by the claimant in the sense of recognizing the differences in the lease price in the said period as damages, together with their interest as losses, must also be rejected. The foregoing, insofar as these are derived from the requests rejected in the preceding recitals.” The foregoing, given the existence of express regulation of the procedure to be applied in such cases and which prevents the use of other different mechanisms, as indicated by Article 159 of the Regulations to the Law on Administrative Procurement (Reglamento a la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa). Based on these considerations, in the case of the landlord-tenant (inquilinaria) relationship, it would not be possible to apply the means established in Article 18 of this latter regulatory body to compensate for the variation of prices and/or costs established for other contractual figures in the administrative sphere.

**VI.-** **Regarding the specific case submitted to the knowledge of this Tribunal**: In its claim, the plaintiff alleges the right to have the adjustment on the amount of the lease price agreed upon in administrative contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ recognized, from July 12, 2006, until July 24, 2007. It bases this claim on the presumed existence of an alteration to the financial equilibrium of the contract due to the modifications made to the leased properties, in order to duly comply with what was indicated by the General Comptroller of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), regarding Law 7600, legislation that regulates equal opportunities for persons with disabilities and the accessibility to public spaces for such subjects. It points out that through resolution DVG-559-2007 of June 8, 2007, its administrative claim was partially accepted, such that at 2:00 p.m. on July 6, 2007, an addendum (addendum) to the signed contract was signed, by which the price was increased by 1,307,244.00 colones (one million three hundred seven thousand two hundred forty-four colones), resulting in a final price of 2,121,600.00 colones (two million one hundred twenty-one thousand six hundred colones). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it indicates that the period between the effective occupation of the properties by the Directorate General of Migration and Foreigners (Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería) and the date of the respective resolution was left uncovered. It invokes a violation of the principle of patrimonial intangibility during that period, given that it used the improvements and modifications made from the beginning of the contract's effectiveness, without this having translated, prior to June 6, 2007, into a lease payment that recognizes them. In this regard, this Tribunal does not find the plaintiff's reasoning to support the right it alleges to be acceptable, because the record demonstrates that the addendum (addendum) to Rental Contract number 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ has the legal nature of a modification to the original contract, in accordance with Article 12 of the Law on Administrative Procurement (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), and not a price adjustment (reajuste de precios) in the terms referred to by said regulatory body. In this vein, the indicated numeral establishes the following: "*Article 12.—Right of unilateral modification. During the execution of the contract, the Administration may modify, decrease, or increase, up to fifty percent (50%), the object of the procurement, when unforeseeable circumstances exist at the time the procedures were initiated and this is the only way to fully satisfy the public interest pursued, provided that the sum of the original procurement and the additional increase does not exceed the limit provided, in Article 27 of this Law, for the procurement procedure in question.*" For its part, Article 200 of the Regulations to the Law on Administrative Procurement (Reglamento a la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), in this respect, provides the following: "*Article 200.—Unilateral Modification of the Contract. The Administration may unilaterally modify its contracts as soon as they are perfected, even before starting their execution and during it, under the following rules: a) That the modification, increase, or decrease of the object, does not change its nature, nor prevent it from fulfilling its functionality or initially proposed end. b) That in the event of an increase, it involves similar goods or services. c) That it does not exceed 50% of the amount of the original contract, including adjustments or revisions, as applicable. d) That it involves unforeseeable causes at the moment of initiating the procedure, meaning that the entity could not have known about them despite having adopted the minimum technical and planning measures when defining the object. e) That it is the best way to satisfy the public interest. f) That the sum of the original procurement, including adjustments or price revisions, and the additional increase does not exceed the limit provided for the type of procedure processed.*" In accordance with the foregoing norm, the extension of the contractual object is appropriate as long as the conditions indicated by the norms mentioned above concur, which consequently implies the possibility of modifying the originally agreed price in a contractual relationship. On the other hand, the figure of price adjustment (reajuste de precios) has been established in the indicated Law on Administrative Procurement, due to impacts on the financial equation of the contract, produced by unforeseeable or supervening economic phenomena, such as the increase in the cost of goods and services as a product of inflation or market modifications. Thus, in this latter case, the possibility of making modifications to the agreed price does not operate, as a product of changes introduced by the contractor's own will in the contractual object, since the potential variation to the economic equilibrium of the contract did not depend on external factors, but on its own will. In the case under analysis, without delving into the appropriateness and convenience of the use of the legal figure by the Administration in the specific case, given that it is not the object of the litigation, this Tribunal considers that an extension of Rental Contract 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ is observed, due to the increase in its object. The record contains appraisal 16-2007 of January 19, 2007, which indicates the existence of modifications introduced by the owner Association, thus the usable area was expanded and a building was constructed in the parking area. In this sense, through official communication DVG-431-07 of March 7, 2007, the Vice Minister of Governance and Police requested authorization from the comptroller body to make the contractual modification, and thus, through official communication 05697 of DCA-1856 of June 5, 2007, the Division of Administrative Procurement of the General Comptroller of the Republic indicated that to review its procedure, the formulation of an addendum (addendum) to the original contract was required, so at that moment the corresponding authorization could not be issued. As observed, in the case under analysis there was a voluntary modification and extension of part of the contractual object by the contracting party, which provided the basis for ordering the extension of the lease contract in its favor, but without the contractual figure used – namely the respective addendum (addendum) – being able to have a retroactive effect to what was expressly agreed by the parties. Furthermore, it is clear that the price adjustment (reajuste de precios) figure provided in Article 18 of the LCA was not applied, since it, as has been indicated, is not applicable for lease contracts, given that in these, what applies is the rent adjustment (reajuste de renta) provided in the specific law, as expressly indicated by Article 159 of the regulations of said regulatory body, as was expressly cited in the preceding recital. For greater abundance, the contract signed by the parties establishes as the only possibility for price adjustment, the annual increases in accordance with the accumulated inflation rate of the previous year, which responds to the provisions mentioned above. Additionally, it must be considered that the Law on Urban Leases (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos) expressly establishes that repairs made to leased properties do not result in the creation of a right to request adjustments for that reason. In this sense, Article 95 of the referenced regulatory body states: "*ARTICLE 95.- Impropriety of adjustment for repairs. The landlord shall not have the right to a rent adjustment, even if they have made the repairs directly or they have been carried out by the tenant or a public body.*" On the other hand, it is considered relevant to indicate that all changes made to the properties were carried out voluntarily by the plaintiff's representative, since in their note dated January 4, 2006, they expressly indicated the following: "*Another commitment that our represented party makes manifest is to collaborate with the Administration in the medium term to adapt the structures to comply with the provisions of numeral 4 subsection b) and concordant sections of Law 7600, the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, and with the requests of the Occupational Health Department of that Directorate, both before occupying the property and once they are installed in it, making improvements based on those legal provisions. We reiterate our willingness to comply with the obligations granted by legislation that correspond to us as owners of the property, therefore we will address as soon as possible the requirements made in writing. We understand that as a public institution, serving the public, it must comply with said law, and that the property does not currently meet them as it was not intended for that purpose; however, we will collaborate to the best of our ability to comply with the requirements of said law, for the benefit of the people who need those services and for the sake of a good contractual relationship with the Directorate of Migration. In the short term, that is, about six months after taking possession of the property, we will have the ramp, signage, and other requirements made by the aforementioned Occupational Health Office.*" With respect to the scope and effects of the cited commitment, it must be considered that what was indicated in the cited note signed by the plaintiff's representative forms part of the offer presented, in accordance with Article 20 of the Law on Administrative Procurement, since it provides the following: "*Contractors are obligated to fully comply with what they offered in their proposal and in any formal, documented manifestation, which they have additionally contributed, during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract*." In accordance with the foregoing, the signed contract provided the following as one of the lessor's obligations: "*Carry out, within six months, counted from the moment the relationship begins, the necessary modifications to the property, in order to achieve the conditions required by Law 7600, the Law on Equal Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities*." As the indicated structural changes are part of the originally agreed contractual obligations, this Tribunal does not find the possibility of requesting price adjustments acceptable, based on duties freely and consciously agreed to by the contracting party, and which, as in this case, were sine qua non requirements for its offer to become eligible. With respect to other changes and extensions to the structure of the property, the record contains no formal or material conduct where a specific requirement to carry out certain works was made by any official to the plaintiff association, in exchange for an increase in the lease price. On the contrary, as has been indicated, the evidence shows the completion of the works voluntarily and without any conditioning of a modification to the lease of the properties arising from it. In accordance with the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject the request regarding the extreme indicated at the beginning of this recital as improper.

**VII.-** The plaintiff requests that the partial annulment of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20 from the Ministry of Governance and Police be declared. In this respect, this Tribunal considers that from an analysis of the material and formal elements of the challenged administrative act, no grounds for annulment whatsoever are observed. The representation of the plaintiff association does not specify the defects that partially affect said administrative conduct. However, as has been indicated, the decision in the challenged administrative act is in accordance with law, given that there are express norms of the legal system that support the non-recognition of price adjustments (reajustes de precios) in lease contracts due to improvements introduced by the plaintiff, which are different from the rent adjustment (reajuste de renta) established in the respective Law on Leases (Ley de Arrendamientos). Thus, upon analyzing the contested act, in application of Article 182 of the General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this Tribunal does not observe the non-existence of defects in any element of the administrative act consisting of resolution AJUR-400-2008-ACG of 08:00 hours on August 20 from the Ministry of Governance and Police, said act consequently being valid and effective. On the other hand, the plaintiff requests the application of Article 142 of the General Law on Public Administration, indicating the retroactivity of the referenced administrative act. In this regard, this argument must also be rejected, given that the indicated administrative conduct is based on the existence of an addendum (addendum) for modification of the main contract, whose effects are for the future, and the impropriety of recognizing what was requested as a price adjustment (reajuste de precio), given the existence of an express norm to the contrary. For the foregoing reasons, this annulment claim must be rejected, and the challenged act upheld.

**VIII.-** As a consequence of the rejection of the declaratory claims, the claims for condemnation made by the plaintiff, in the sense that the differences in the lease price for the said period be recognized as damages, together with their interests as losses, must also be rejected. The foregoing, since they are derived from the requests rejected in the preceding recitals."

“ IV.- Del objeto del proceso: De lo expresado por las partes, tanto en sus pretensiones como argumentos, el objeto del presente proceso estriba en determinar la procedencia del reconocimiento de un reajuste retroactivo del precio del arrendamiento a la parte actora, con motivo de las modificaciones realizadas al inmueble objeto de dicha relación contractual. V.- 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, 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. En el caso concreto de los contratos de arrendamiento suscritos por la Administración, debe aplicarse lo dispuesto en el artículo 76 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa y 159 de su reglamento, en tanto disponen lo siguiente: "Artículo 76.—Procedimiento aplicable. Para tomar en arrendamiento bienes inmuebles, con construcciones o sin ellas, la administración deberá acudir al procedimiento de licitación pública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según corresponda, de acuerdo con el monto". "Artículo 159.—Arrendamiento de inmuebles. La Administración podrá tomar en arrendamiento bienes inmuebles, con o sin opción de compra, mediante el procedimiento de licitación pública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según corresponda, de acuerdo con el monto estimado; sin perjuicio de lo establecido en relación con el arrendamiento o compra de bienes únicos de este Reglamento. El propietario del inmueble no rendirá ninguna clase de garantía de cumplimiento a favor de la Administración. Para el reajuste de la renta precio se aplicará lo dispuesto en el artículo 67 de la Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos". En este mismo sentido, el artículo 6 de la Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos, indica la aplicación de dicho cuerpo normativo a las relaciones contractuales entre la Administración Pública y los arrendantes, de la siguiente manera: "ARTICULO 6.- Estado, entes descentralizados y municipalidades. El Estado, los entes públicos descentralizados y las municipalidades, en calidad de arrendadores o arrendatarios, están sujetos a esta ley, salvo disposición expresa de su propio ordenamiento jurídico. El procedimiento de licitación se rige por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias de la contratación administrativa". En razón de lo anterior, todo análisis jurídico con relación a este figura contractual no puede desatender ni las regulaciones generales propias de la materia administrativa, ni las disposiciones específicas que sobre la materia inquilinaria se establecen en la ley dicha, dada su especialidad y alcances normativos específicos. Con respecto a los reajustes de precios en esta materia, la indica ley contempla una norma expresa para los casos bajo su competencia, en tanto dispone lo siguiente: "ARTICULO 67.- Reajuste del precio para vivienda. En los arrendamientos para vivienda, el precio convenido se actualizará al final de cada año del contrato. A falta de convenio entre las partes, se estará a las siguientes reglas: a) Cuando la tasa de inflación acumulada de los doce meses anteriores al vencimiento de cada año del contrato sea menor o igual al quince por ciento (15%), el arrendador está facultado, de pleno derecho, para reajustar el alquiler de la vivienda, en un porcentaje no mayor a esa tasa. La inflación se calculará de acuerdo con el índice oficial de precios al consumidor, de la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos. b) Cuando la tasa de inflación acumulada de los doce meses anteriores al vencimiento de cada año del contrato sea mayor al quince por ciento (15%), la Junta Directiva del Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda dictará, con base en consideraciones que tomen en cuenta el desarrollo de la actividad de la construcción y el equilibrio necesario entre prestaciones del arrendador y el arrendatario, el porcentaje adicional de aumento que se aplicará al alquiler de la vivienda, siempre que no sea inferior a ese quince por ciento(15%) ni mayor que la tasa anual de inflación. El reajuste regirá a partir del período de pago siguiente a aquél en que el arrendador notifica al arrendatario el reajuste aplicable al alquiler, junto con certificación de la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos o copia auténtica de la publicación en el diario oficial. Si el arrendatario no está conforme con el reajuste, puede depositar, judicialmente, el precio anterior, pero su pago liberatorio quedará sujeto al resultado del proceso de desahucio promovido por el arrendador. Cualquier reajuste de la renta superior al establecido en este artículo, será nulo de pleno derecho. Es válido el convenio de partes que acuerde un reajuste de precio menor y el pacto escrito por el cual se conviene en reajustes menores al índice oficial de precios al consumidor, de la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos". De conformidad con la norma dicha, se advierte que los ajustes en el precio se circunscriben en el caso concreto de los arrendamientos, a los supuestos y límites previstos en la norma citada ut supra para la materia inquilinaria. Lo anterior, habida cuenta de la existencia de regulación expresa del procedimiento a aplicar en dichos supuestos y que impide el uso de otros mecanismos diferentes, según lo indica el artículo 159 del Reglamento a la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa. Con base en estas consideraciones, en el caso de la relación inquilinaria no sería posible la aplicación de los medios establecidos en el artículo 18 de este último cuerpo normativo para compensar la variación de precios y/o costos establecidos para otras figuras contractuales en sede administrativa.

VI.- Sobre el caso concreto sometido a conocimiento de este Tribunal: En su escrito de demanda, la parte actora alega tener derecho a que se le reconozca el reajuste sobre el monto del precio del arrendamiento pactado en el contrato administrativo número 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, desde el 12 de julio de 2006 y hasta el 24 de julio de 2007. Funda dicha pretensión en la presunta existencia de una alteración al equilibrio financiero del contrato con motivo de las modificaciones realizadas a los inmuebles dados en arrendamiento, con el fin de dar debido cumplimiento a lo indicado por la Contraloría General de la República, respecto de la Ley 7600, normativa que regula la igualdad de oportunidades para personas con discapacidad y la accesibilidad a los espacios públicos de dichos sujetos. Señala que mediante resolución DVG-559-2007 de 8 de junio de 2007 se acogió parcialmente su reclamo administrativo, por lo que al ser las 14:00 de 6 de julio de 2007 se firmó addendum al contrato suscrito, mediante el cual se aumentó el precio en C. 1.307.244,00 (un millón trescientos siete mil doscientos cuarenta y cuatro colones), quedando un precio final de C. 2.121.600,00 (dos millones ciento veintiún mil seiscientos colones). No obstante lo anterior indica que quedó en descubierto el período comprendido entre la efectiva ocupación de los inmuebles por la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería y la fecha de la respectiva resolución. Invoca violación del principio de intangibilidad patrimonial en dicho lapso, habida cuenta que utilizó las mejoras y modificaciones realizadas desde el inicio de la eficacia del contrato, sin que se ello se haya traducido, de previo al 6 de junio de 2007, en un pago del arrendamiento que las reconozca. Al respecto, este Tribunal no estima de recibo los razonamientos de la parte actora para fundar el derecho que alega, por cuanto de los autos se tiene por demostrado que el addendum al Contrato de Alquiler número 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, tiene como naturaleza jurídica una modificación al contrato original, de conformidad con el artículo 12 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, y no un reajuste de precios en los términos a que se refiere dicho cuerpo normativo. En este orden de ideas, el indicado numeral establece lo siguiente: "Artículo 12.—Derecho de modificación unilateral. Durante la ejecución del contrato, la Administración podrá modificar, disminuir o aumentar, hasta en un cincuenta por ciento (50%), el objeto de la contratación, cuando concurran circunstancias imprevisibles en el momento de iniciarse los procedimientos y esa sea la única forma de satisfacer plenamente el interés público perseguido, siempre que la suma de la contratación original y el incremento adicional no excedan del límite previsto, en el artículo 27 de esta Ley, para el procedimiento de contratación que se trate" Por su parte, el artículo 200 del Reglamento a la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, dispone al respecto, lo siguiente: "Artículo 200.—Modificación unilateral del contrato. La Administración podrá modificar unilateralmente sus contratos tan pronto éstos se perfeccionen, aún antes de iniciar su ejecución y durante ésta, bajo las siguientes reglas: a) Que la modificación, aumento o disminución del objeto, no le cambie su naturaleza, ni tampoco le impida cumplir con su funcionalidad o fin inicialmente propuesto. b) Que en caso de aumento se trate de bienes o servicios similares. c) Que no exceda el 50% del monto del contrato original, incluyendo reajustes o revisiones, según corresponda. d) Que se trate de causas imprevisibles al momento de iniciar el procedimiento, sea que la entidad no pudo conocerlas pese a haber adoptado las medidas técnicas y de planificación mínimas cuando definió el objeto.e) Que sea la mejor forma de satisfacer el interés público. f) Que la suma de la contratación original, incluyendo reajustes o revisiones de precio, y el incremento adicional no superen el límite previsto para el tipo de procedimiento tramitado". De conformidad con la anterior norma, es procedente la ampliación del objeto contractual siempre y cuando concurran los supuestos indicados por las normas mencionadas ut supra, lo que consecuentemente implica, la posibilidad de modificar el precio pactado originalmente en una relación contractual. Por otra parte, la figura del reajuste de precios se ha establecido en la indicada Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, con motivo de afectaciones a la ecuación financiera del contrato, producidas por fenómenos económicos imprevisibles o de tipo sobreviniente, como podría ser el incremento en costo de los bienes y servicios como producto de la inflación o modificaciones en el mercado. Es así como en este último supuesto, no opera la posibilidad de realizar modificaciones en el precio pactado, como producto de cambios introducidos por la propia voluntad del contratista en el objeto contractual, en tanto que la eventual variación al equilibrio económico del contrato no dependió de factores externos, sino de su propia voluntad. En el caso de análisis, sin entrar a profundizar sobre la procedencia y conveniencia del uso de la figura jurídica por parte de la Administración en el caso concreto, dado que no es objeto de la litis, estima este Tribunal que se advierte una ampliación del contrato de Alquiler 019-2005-MGP-DGME-PISAL-MLGZ, con motivo del incremento del objeto del mismo. De los autos consta el avalúo 16-2007 de 19 de enero de 2007, en donde se indica la existencia de modificaciones introducidas por la Asociación propietaria, por lo que se amplió el área utilizable y se construyó un edificio en el área de parqueo. En este sentido, mediante oficio DVG-431-07 de 7 de marzo de 2007, la Vice Ministra de Gobernación y Policía solicitó autorización al órgano contralor para realizar la modificación contractual, siendo así que mediante oficio 05697 de DCA-1856 de 5 de junio de 2007, la División de Contratación Administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República le indicó que para revisar su gestión se requiere la formulación de un addendum al contrato original, por lo que a ese momento no se podía emitir la correspondiente autorización. Como se advierte, en el caso de análisis se dio una modificación y ampliación de parte del objeto contractual de manera voluntaria por la parte contratista, que dio fundamento a que se dispusiera ampliar el contrato de arrendamiento en su favor, mas sin que pueda darse a la figura contractual empleada - sea el addendum respectivo- un efecto retroactivo a lo acordado expresamente por las partes. Por otra parte, es claro que no se aplicó la figura de reajuste de precios dispuesta en el artículo 18 de la LCA, en tanto que la misma, tal y como se ha indicado no es procedente para los contratos de arrendamiento, habida cuenta que en éstos, lo que procede es la aplicación del reajuste de renta previsto en la ley específica, según lo indica expresamente el artículo 159 del reglamento de dicho cuerpo normativo, tal y como se citó expresamente en el considerando anterior. A mayor abundamiento, el contrato suscrito por las partes establece como única posibilidad de reajuste en el precio, los incrementos anuales de conformidad con la tasa de inflación acumulada del año anterior, lo cual responde las disposiciones mencionadas ut supra. Adicionalmente, debe tomarse en consideración que la Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos, establece de manera expresa que las reparaciones realizadas en inmuebles dados en arrendamiento, no tienen como efecto, el nacimiento de un derecho a solicitar reajustes por tal motivo. En este sentido, el artículo 95 del referido cuerpo normativo señala: "ARTICULO 95.- Improcedencia de reajuste por reparaciones. El arrendador no tendrá derecho a reajuste de la renta, aunque haya hecho las reparaciones directamente o las haya realizado el arrendatario o un organismo público." Por otra parte, se estima de relevancia indicar que todos los cambios realizados a los inmuebles, fueron efectuados de manera voluntaria por el representante de la parte actora, en tanto que en su nota de fecha 4 de enero de 2006 indicó de manera manifiesto es colaborar con la Administración a mediano plazo para adaptar las estructuras al cumplimiento de lo establecido en el numeral 4 inciso b)y concordantes de la Ley 7600, Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para Personas con Discapacidad, y con las peticiones del Departamento de Salud Ocupacional de esa Dirección, tanto antes de ocupar el inmueble como una vez que se instalen en el mismo y se realicen mejoras en función de esas disposiciones legales. Reiteramos nuestra disposición de cumplir con las obligaciones otorgadas por la legislación y que carácter de propietarios del inmueble nos correspondan, por lo que atenderemos a la mayor brevedad los requerimientos que se efectúen por escrito. Entendemos que como institución pública y con atención a público debe cumplir con dicha ley, y que el inmueble no cumple actualmente con ellas pues no fue previsto para ese fin, sin embargo, colaboraremos en la medida de nuestras posibilidades para cumplir con las exigencias de dicha ley, en beneficio de las personas que necesiten de esos servicios y en aras de una buena relación contractual con la Dirección de Migración. A corto plazo, sea a unos seis meses de entrar en posesión del inmueble tendremos la rampa, señalización y demás requerimientos que nos efectúe la Oficina de Salud Ocupacional de cita." Con respecto a los alcances y efectos del compromiso citado, debe tomarse en consideración que lo indicado en la nota de cita suscrita por el representante de la parte actora, forma parte de la oferta planteada, de conformidad con el artículo 20 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, en tanto dispone lo siguiente: "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". De conformidad con lo anterior, el contrato suscrito dispuso como una de las obligaciones del arrendante lo siguiente: " "Realizar en un plazo de seis meses, contados a partir del momento de iniciar la relación, las modificaciones necesarias al inmueble, con el fin de alcanzar las condiciones dispuestas por la ley 7600, Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para Personas con Discapacidad". Al ser los indicados cambios estructurales parte de las obligaciones contractuales pactadas originalmente, este Tribunal no estima de recibo la posibilidad de solicitar reajustes en el precio, con base en deberes pactados libre y conscientemente por el contratante, y que como en el caso, eran requisitos sine qua non para que su oferta pudiera llegar a ser elegible. Con respecto a otros cambios y ampliaciones en la estructura del inmueble, no consta en autos conducta formal o material en donde se haya realizado requerimiento concreto de realizar determinadas obras por parte de algún funcionario hacia la asociación actora, a cambio de un incremento en el precio del arrendamiento. Por el contrario, tal y como se ha indicado, de la prueba se evidencia la realización de las obras de manera voluntaria y sin que del mismo se desprenda condicionamiento alguno de modificación en el arrendamiento de los inmuebles. De conformidad con lo anterior, procede rechazar lo pedido en cuanto al extremo indicado al inicio del presente considerando por improcedente.

VII.- La parte actora solicita que se declare la nulidad parcial de la resolución AJUR-400-2008-ACG de las 08:00 horas del 20 de agosto del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía. Al respeto, estima este Tribunal que de un análisis de los elementos materiales y formales del acto administrativo objetado, no se advierte motivo de nulidad alguno. La representación de la asociación actora no concreta los vicios que afectan parcialmente dicha conducta administrativa. No obstante, tal y como se ha indicado lo resuelto en el acto administrativo objetado se encuentra conforme a derecho, en tanto que existen normas expresas del ordenamiento jurídico que avalan el no reconocimiento de reajustes de precios en contratos de arrendamiento con motivo de mejoras introducidas por el actor, que sean diferentes al reajuste de renta establecido en la Ley de Arrendamientos respectiva. Es así como, realizando un análisis del acto impugnado, en aplicación del artículo 182 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, no advierte este Tribunal la inexistencia de vicios en algún elemento del acto administrativo consistente en la resolución AJUR-400-2008-ACG de las 08:00 horas del 20 de agosto del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, siendo en consecuencia dicho acto válido y eficaz. Por otra parte, la actora solicita la aplicación del artículo 142 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, indicando la retroactividad del referido acto administrativo. Al respecto, este argumento también debe ser rechazado, habida cuenta que la indicada conducta administrativa se funda en la existencia de un addendum para modificación del contrato principal, cuyos efectos son a futuro y la improcedencia de reconocer lo pedido como un reajuste de precio, al existir norma expresa en contrario. En razón de lo anterior, debe rechazarse esta pretensión anulatoria y mantenerse el acto objetado.

VIII.- Como consecuencia del rechazo de las pretensiones de orden declarativo, también debe rechazarse las pretensiones de condena hechas por la parte actora en el sentido de que se reconozcan las diferencias en el precio del arrendamiento en el período dicho a título de daños, junto con sus intereses como perjuicios. Lo anterior, en tanto que las mismas son derivadas de las peticiones rechazadas en los considerandos anteriores.”