Financial Equilibrium Not Applicable Due to Payment Delay and Exchange Rate DifferenceInaplicabilidad del equilibrio financiero por retraso en el pago y diferencia cambiaria

“IV.- REGARDING THE NON-COMPLIANCE AND APPLICATION OF THE FINE The plaintiff participated in a direct procurement (contratación directa) promoted by INS called TIFF Format Document Digitization Services, which sought the scanning of information from the Board of Directors of said institution. As the plaintiff's offer was the most advantageous to the administration, the aforementioned contract was awarded to it. When the party submitted its offer, it accepted all the terms and conditions of the bidding terms (cartel), in which it was established that the maximum delivery deadline would be December 31, 2009 (chapter II, section III, subsection E), however the company did not meet said deadline, as the final acceptance (recepción definitiva) of the service did not occur until February 3, 2010, thereby incurring in late execution (ejecución tardía). To justify this delay, the company alleged that they suffered some inconveniences, including being placed on the 3rd floor and not the 14th of the institution, which involved moving workers with the consequent loss of time, that the delivery of documents was not made in a single batch (tracto), but in small packages, and that even on one day none were delivered, a situation that affected the production line, besides the fact that the review and detection of errors was assigned to its workers, which contributed to the delay. However, these situations were not proven in administrative proceedings (sede administrativa) with the pertinent evidence, where instead it was demonstrated through error detection logs, among which the following can be cited: missing folios, incomplete scanning, documents that do not maintain the consecutive order or are incomplete, sheets numbered with pen and pencil, loose and unstapled, damaged, cut and torn, or with staples when they should not have them or poorly stapled when they should be, illegible numbers, folios without documents or without a sheet number, slips whose number does not match the consecutive order, which lack foliation (foliatura), or that do not correspond to that document resulting in an incorrect union. Following the plaintiff's thesis that the delay arose from causes beyond its control and attributable to INS, it is striking that it did not resort to the mechanism of the extension of the deadline (prórroga del plazo) provided for in article 198 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), which would have allowed it, had the contractual deadline been in force, to extend it. It was precisely this delay in the execution of the contract, attributable to the contractor, that led the defendant to apply the bidding terms clause that provided for the application of a fine (multa) of 2% for each day of delay up to 25%, and with which the plaintiff agreed when it signed the contract. We must be clear that although in the contract it is called a fine, in essence what is being applied is the figure provided for in article 50 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Decreto N°3411-H) called a “penalty clause” (cláusula penal), a compensatory mechanism for the damages that would be produced by the delay in execution or the premature execution of the contractual obligation, and which is introduced voluntarily in the bidding terms, setting the percentage to be paid. (See that it is not a fine for defects in the execution of the contract, where the collection of the fine provided for in article 47 of the cited Regulation does proceed). The initial determination of the amount that the non-compliant party would have to pay would allow it to know in advance the quantum of the compensation it should pay in case of committing a fault, and would exempt the contracting Administration from the obligation to demonstrate the value of the damage suffered. In the specific case, the plaintiff was aware of its non-compliance, since in the bidding terms (Chapter II, section III, subsection E) it was clearly stipulated that the maximum delivery deadline would be December 31, 2009, and the final acceptance of the service did not occur until February 3, 2010; it also knew the consequences that late execution entailed. Neither did it demonstrate with reliable evidence that the non-compliance was due to a situation of force majeure (caso fortuito) or Act of God (fuera mayor), or had been brought about by INS's own conduct, for in such cases and in accordance with articles 198 and 199 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law, it could have formulated the request for an extension of the contract deadline and did not do so. It is important to clarify that the imposition of this sanction is not set unilaterally by the Administration, but rather its insertion into the contract is the result of the will and consent of the parties; the fact that public procurement has a different scheme from private procurement could not lead us to conclude, as the plaintiff states, that the imposition of this sanction reflects a natural right of the administration.

V.- REGARDING THE PRICE, PAYMENT, AND THE ECONOMIC EQUATION OF THE CONTRACT When the contractor fulfills the object of the contract and the final acceptance of the goods and services occurs, the Administration's obligation to pay arises. The payment deadline, as established in article 35 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law, may not exceed 30 calendar days (except in the case of the Central Government (Administración Central), which has a maximum of 42 calendar days), and would begin to run from the presentation of the invoice, after verification of satisfactory compliance. Once this period has elapsed, the Administration shall be in default and the interested party could claim the payment of interest on the amount owed in colones, recognition that shall be made upon prior claim by the administered party in accordance with the basic passive rate of the Central Bank. In the case of transactions in United States Dollars, the interest would be paid applying the international interest rate referenced by the Central Bank (prime rate). To adequately address this issue, we must be clear in the first instance that when the Administration wishes to contract, it has the power to indicate the type of currency in which it intends offers to be made; this is grounded in article 25 of the Regulation of the Administrative Procurement Law (Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), which expressly indicates that bidders may quote in any currency other than the colón. In that sense, article 48 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank states: "Acts, contracts, and obligations in foreign currency shall be valid, effective, and enforceable…", the foregoing allows the submission of offers in other types of currencies (dollar, euro, pound sterling, among others), which contributes to strengthening the principles of free concurrence, participation, and equality. Furthermore, obligations agreed upon in foreign currency may be paid in colones according to the effective commercial value that the foreign currency had on that date (in this regard, see Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) official communication N°4389 issued by DAGJ-573-2000).

We must be clear that legal tender is the preferred means of payment adopted by the State; however, this is no obstacle to contracting and paying in another currency, if the parties have so agreed, since in that respect there is broad freedom and it is permitted by law. Special mention must be made of obligations contracted in dollars, because the value of the American dollar has served for many years as a reference value against our inflationary processes, given that it is a stronger and more stable currency than the colón, which would indeed be affected by the fiscal deficit and the country's macroeconomic stability. However, this should not lead us to the mistaken belief that this currency is exempt from undergoing variations, as it is also subject to the global fluctuations of the economy. In the present case, the plaintiff formulated its offer within the broadest freedom of determination regarding price, currency, and term; as a result of this exercise, it decided to bid in dollars and accept payment in dollars, despite having the possibility of doing so in colones and receiving payment in colones. In making that decision, it accepted the benefits but also the risks that could arise from agreeing to a foreign currency, such as the variation in the dollar exchange rate (tipo de cambio), which is what happened in this case. With regard to this aspect, the plaintiff claims that when it submitted invoice No. 5623 for payment on January 29, 2010, the dollar exchange rate was 554.89, but when it received its payment on July 22, 2010, via check 2485 for $45,803.76 cents, the exchange rate was 527.31. That delay that the plaintiff attributes to the INS is, in its opinion, the cause of the considerable economic loss it suffered due to the variation in the dollar exchange rate. The foregoing assertion necessarily refers us to the bidding terms (cartel), which established that the contracting institution had 20 calendar days following the submission of the invoice (to the satisfaction of the INS) for its preferential payment through the SIMPE system, after approval of quality, through sampling of 10% of the digitized and delivered images, to be carried out within a maximum period of 2 weeks. The INS admitted the delay in payment of more than five months and justified it, alleging that the errors detected in the delivered product were so numerous and so significant that they had to undertake a total review of all the images and documents, in order not to harm the contractor with a termination (resolución) of the contract and to be able to pay for the work delivered to satisfaction. This situation was made known to the representative of the plaintiff company through several official communications (oficios), among them DA-00919-2010 of April 23, 2010, and DA-011-99-2010 of May 21, 2010, in which it was indicated that payment could only be made once the digitization unit had finished the physical review of the files, since the errors detected in the delivered product were so numerous and so relevant that they necessitated the total review of all the images and documents, so they could be corrected and thus the work performed could be received to satisfaction, because failing to do so, they would have had to terminate (resolver) the contract, which would have caused greater harm to the contracted company. Finally, the company received its payment on July 22, 2010, via check No. 2485, and for the sum of $45,803.76. This Chamber reaches the conclusion that, even though the review of the totality of the work was due to errors incurred by the plaintiff, the fact is that the Administration took an excessively long time in reviewing what was delivered, a situation that led it to pay almost seven months later. Faced with such a situation—default in payment—the mechanism provided by the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) in its article 43 was the payment of interest on the amount owed (for obligations in dollars, the prime rate international interest rate), starting from the presentation of the invoice. However, the plaintiff did not claim the payment of such interest, but rather erroneously sought, by virtue of the delay, recognition of the financial equilibrium of the contract (equilibrio financiero del contrato), since in its opinion an imbalance operated in the cost structure originally established in the contract due to the economic fluctuation that affected the economic equation of the contract, since when it submitted its offer, the dollar selling price was 584.55 per colón, and when the partial payment was made on July 22, 2010, the selling price was 527.31, which represented for its client a loss of ¢1,263,267.70, which it considers must be recognized. What is requested by the plaintiff allows us to infer a crucial issue, which refers to the exchange rate that must prevail at the time of paying the debt. For this, we must differentiate that one thing is the exchange rate that is valued when bids are opened and the offered prices are compared to select a contractor, and another is the exchange rate that is valued when payment must be made effective, because depending on the position adopted, a party may be favored or harmed. Given the legal gap surrounding this point, and in order not to use casuistic procedures, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) has opted for an analogical approach in accordance with the existing regulation on the bid bond (garantía de participación) and has indicated that: *"Indeed, numeral 37.4 of the repeatedly cited Regulation specifically indicates that the bond must be rendered in the currency in which it is quoted, or its equivalent in national currency on the day prior to the submission of the offer, which evidently provides legal certainty as to the exact amount on which the surety must be rendered. Otherwise, as precisely occurs in the situation under analysis (exchange rate of the foreign currency to be used for comparative purposes), it would result in an imprecision in said amount, since if the exchange rate of the evaluation day were taken as a parameter and not that of the bid opening day, given the eventuality of a bond rendered in colones, it could become insufficient, leading to the exclusion of the offer for that reason…"* The foregoing allows us to conclude that when in the contract execution stage, the exchange rate that should have prevailed at the time of settling the debt should have been the one closest to its payment, discarding the rate that was in effect when the offer was submitted, which is what the plaintiff seeks when estimating its claim. Having clarified the foregoing, we return to the claim put forward by the contractor, that the financial equilibrium of the contract be applied in the specific case. For this purpose, we must point out that the principle of patrimonial intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial) indeed obligates the Administration to maintain the financial equilibrium of the contract, which is central to the legal regime of public procurement, where the aim is to guarantee the maintenance of equality or equivalence between the rights and obligations arising at the time of proposing or contracting, so that if it is broken by supervening, unforeseeable causes not attributable to the party affected, the parties shall adopt the necessary measures for its reestablishment, through compensation mechanisms. While the contractor must assume the normal risk inherent in any business, it does not have the duty to bear being deprived of the reasonable income and profits it could have obtained if the contractual relationship had been executed under the initially agreed conditions. For the obligation of the contracting Administration to compensate or indemnify the contractor to arise, unforeseeability, extraordinary alteration, and fundamentally the demonstration of a real, serious, and abnormal loss in the economy of the contract must be proven, provided that the affectation occurs in the contract's cost structure. Article 18 of the Law on Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), when referring to the financial equilibrium of the contract, states that "… the Administration shall readjust the prices, increasing or decreasing them, when direct or indirect costs, strictly related to the work, service, or supply, are varied, through mathematical equations based on official price indices…." It is therefore evident that this legal mechanism for restoring the real value of the obligation was not applicable in the face of the two scenarios claimed by the plaintiff: the delay in payment and the difference in the exchange rate, since they do not form part of the cost structure, and furthermore, it also did not prove unforeseeability, extraordinary alteration, or a real, serious, and abnormal loss in the economy of the contract; hence such a claim is unfeasible." In this case, the plaintiff formulated its offer within the broadest freedom of determination, regarding price, currency, and term; as a result of this exercise, it decided to bid in dollars and accept payment in dollars, even though it had the possibility of doing so in colones and receiving payment in colones. In making that decision, it accepted the benefits but also the risks that could arise from contracting in a foreign currency, such as the variation in the exchange rate of the dollar, which is what happened in this case. Regarding this aspect, the plaintiff claims that when it submitted invoice No. 5623 for payment on January 29, 2010, the dollar exchange rate was at 554.89, but that when it received its payment on July 22, 2010, by means of check 2485 for $45,803.76 cents, the exchange rate was at 527.31. That delay, which the plaintiff attributes to the INS, is, in its opinion, the cause of the considerable economic loss it suffered due to the variation in the dollar exchange rate. The foregoing assertion necessarily refers us to the tender document, which established that the contracting institution had 20 calendar days following the presentation of the invoice (to the satisfaction of the INS) for its preferential payment through the SIMPE system, subsequent to quality approval, through sampling of 10% of the digitized images delivered, to be carried out within a maximum period of 2 weeks. The INS admitted the payment delay of more than five months and justified it, alleging that the errors detected in the delivered product were so numerous and so significant that they had to undertake a complete review of all the images and documents, in order not to harm the contractor with a contract termination and to be able to pay for the work delivered to its satisfaction. This situation was made known to the representative of the plaintiff company through several official letters, including DA-00919-2010 of April 23, 2010, and DA-011-99-2010 of May 21, 2010, in which it was indicated that payment could be made only once the digitization unit had finished the physical review of the files, since the errors detected in the delivered product were so numerous and so relevant that they necessitated the complete review of all the images and documents, so they could be corrected and the completed work could then be received to satisfaction, because otherwise the contract would have had to be terminated, which would have caused greater harm to the contracted company. Finally, the company received its payment on July 22, 2010, by means of check No. 2485, and for the sum of $45,803.76. This Chamber reaches the conclusion that, even though the review of the entirety of the work was due to errors incurred by the plaintiff, the fact is that the Administration took an excessively long time in reviewing the deliverables, a situation that led it to pay almost seven months later. In the face of such a situation—delay in payment—the mechanism provided for in the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law, in its Article 43, was the payment of interest on the amount owed (for obligations in dollars, the prime rate international interest rate), from the presentation of the invoice. However, the plaintiff did not claim the payment of such interest but rather erroneously sought that, by virtue of the delay, the financial equilibrium of the contract be recognized, because, in its opinion, an imbalance occurred in the cost structure originally established in the contract, due to the economic fluctuation that affected the economic equation of the contract, since when it submitted its bid, the dollar sale value was at $584.55 per colon, and when the partial payment was made on July 22, 2010, the sale price was at $527.31, which represented a loss for its represented party of ¢1,263,267.70, which it considers must be recognized. What is requested by the plaintiff allows us to deduce a crucial issue, which refers to the exchange rate that should prevail at the time of paying the debt, and for this we must differentiate that the exchange rate valued when bids are opened and offered prices are compared to select a contractor is one thing, and the exchange rate valued when payment must be made is another, because depending on the position adopted, a party may be favored or harmed. Given the legal gap surrounding this point, and in order not to use casuistic procedures, the Comptroller General of the Republic has settled on an analogical approach consistent with the existing regulation on the participation guarantee and has indicated that: *“Indeed, numeral 37.4 of the repeatedly cited Regulation specifically indicates that the guarantee must be provided in the currency in which the quotation is made, or in its equivalent in national currency at the day prior to the submission of the bid, which evidently provides legal certainty as to the exact amount on which the bond must be provided. Otherwise, as happens precisely in the situation under analysis (exchange rate of the foreign currency to be used for comparative purposes), it would result in an imprecision in said amount, since if the exchange rate on the day of evaluation were taken as the parameter and not that of the day of bid opening, in the eventuality of a guarantee provided in colones, it could become insufficient, resulting in the exclusion of the bid for that reason…”* The foregoing allows us to conclude that when the contract is in the execution phase, the exchange rate that should have prevailed at the time of settling the debt should have been the one closest to its payment, discarding the rate that prevailed when the bid was submitted, which is what the plaintiff seeks when it estimates its claim. Having clarified the above, we return to the claim raised by the contractor, that the financial equilibrium of the contract be applied in this specific case, and for this purpose we must point out that the principle of patrimonial intangibility effectively obligates the Administration to maintain the financial equilibrium of the contract, which is fundamental in the legal regime of public procurement, where the aim is to guarantee the maintenance of the equality or equivalence between rights and obligations arising at the time of proposing or contracting, so that if it is broken by supervening, unforeseeable causes not attributable to the affected party, the parties shall adopt the necessary measures for its reestablishment, through compensation mechanisms. While the contractor must assume the normal and inherent risk of any business, it does not have the duty to bear being deprived of the reasonable income and profits it could have obtained, had the contractual relationship been executed under the conditions initially agreed. For the obligation of the contracting Administration to compensate or repair the contractor to arise, unforeseeability, extraordinary alteration, and fundamentally the demonstration of a real, serious, and abnormal loss in the economics of the contract must be proven, always provided that the impact occurs within the contract’s cost scheme. Article 18 of the Administrative Contracting Law, when referring to the financial equilibrium of the contract, states that “… the Administration shall readjust prices, increasing or decreasing them, when direct or indirect costs, strictly related to the work, service, or supply, vary, through mathematical equations based on official price indices…”. It is then manifestly clear that this legal mechanism for restoring the real value of the obligation was not applicable under the two assumptions claimed by the plaintiff: the delay in payment and the exchange rate difference, since they do not form part of the cost scheme, and furthermore, it did not prove unforeseeability, extraordinary alteration, or a real, serious, and abnormal loss in the economics of the contract; hence, such a claim is unviable.”

“IV.- SOBRE EL INCUMPLIMIENTO Y LA APLICACIÓN DE LA MULTA La parte actora participó en una la contratación directa promovida por el INS denominada Servicios de Digitalización de Documentos en Formato TIFF, que pretendía del escaneo de información de la Junta Directiva de dicha institución. Como la oferta de la actora fue la más conveniente a la administración se le adjudicó el citado contrato. Cuando la parte presentó su oferta, aceptó todos los términos y condiciones del cartel, en el cual se estableció que el plazo de entrega máximo sería al 31 de diciembre de 2009 (capítulo II apartado III inciso E,), sin embargo la empresa no observó dicho plazo, pues no fue sino hasta el 3 de febrero de 2010, que se dio la recepción definitiva del servicio, por lo cual incurrió en una ejecución tardía. Para justificar ese retraso la empresa alegó que sufrieron algunos inconvenientes, entre ellos que se les ubicó en el piso 3 y no en el 14 de la institución, lo que implicó el desplazamiento de trabajadores con la consecuente pérdida de tiempo, que la entrega de los documentos no dio en un solo tracto, sino en pequeños paquetes, y que incluso en un día no se entregó ninguno, situación que afectó la línea de producción, amén de que la revisión y detección de errores se les asignó a sus trabajadores, lo cual contribuyó con el atraso. Sin embargo esas situaciones no fueron acreditadas en sede administrativa con la prueba pertinente, en donde más bien se demostró por medio de las bitácoras de detección de errores, entre los cuales se pueden citar: falta de folios, escaneo incompleto, documentos que no guardan el consecutivo o se encuentran incompletos, hojas numeradas con lapicero y con lápiz, sueltas y sin grapar, dañadas, cortadas y rotas, o con grapas cuando no deben de traerlas o mal grapados cuando deben de hacerlo, número ilegibles, folios sin documentos o sin número de hojas, boletas cuyo número no coincide con el consecutivo, que carecen de foliatura, o que no corresponden a ese documento por lo que se da una unión incorrecta. Siguiendo la tesis del actor, de que la demora se suscitó por causas ajenas a ella y atribuibles al INS, llama la atención que no acudiera mecanismo de la prórroga del plazo previsto en el artículo 198 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativo el cual le hubiera permitido en caso de estar vigente el plazo contractual, la prórroga del mismo. Fue precisamente ese atraso en la ejecución del contrato, imputable al contratista lo que llevó a la parte accionada, a la aplicación de la cláusula cartelaria que preveía la aplicación de la multa de un 2% por cada día de atraso hasta un 25%, y con la que estuvo de acuerdo la parte actora cuando suscribió el contrato. Debemos tener claro que aunque en el contrato se le denomina con el nombre de multa, en el fondo lo que se está aplicando es la figura prevista en el artículo 50 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa (Decreto N°3411-H) denominada “cláusula penal”, mecanismo resarcitorio de los daños y perjuicios que se producirían, por el atraso o demora en la ejecución o por la ejecución prematura de la obligación contractual, y que se introduce de forma voluntaria en el cartel, fijando el porcentaje a pagar. (Véase que no se trata de multa por defectos en la ejecución de contrato, en donde sí procede al cobro de la multa prevista en el artículo 47 del Reglamento citado). La determinación inicial del monto que tendría que cancelar la parte incumplimiento, le permitiría conocer de manera anticipada el cuantun de la indemnización que debería pagar en caso de cometer una falta, y eximiría a la Administración contratante, de la obligación de demostrar a cuánto ascendería el valor del daño sufrido. En la especie la parte actora era conocedora de su incumplimiento, pues en el cartel (Capítulo II apartado III inciso E) se estipuló de forma clara que el plazo de entrega máxima sería el 31 de diciembre de 2009, y la recepción definitiva del servicio se dio hasta el 3 de febrero de 2010, además también sabía de la consecuencias que la ejecución tardía acarreaba.Tampoco demostró con prueba fehaciente que el incumplimiento obedeciera a una situación de caso fortuito o fuera mayor, o hubiera sido propiciado por la propia conducta del INS, pues en esos supuestos y de conformidad con los artículo 198 y 199 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa hubiera podido formular la solicitud de prórroga del plazo del contrato y no lo hizo. Resulta importante aclarar que la imposición de esa sanción, no es fijada de forma unilateral por la Administración, sino que su inserción en el contrato es el resultado de la voluntad y el consentimiento de las partes, el hecho de que la contratación pública tenga un esquema diferente a la contratación privada, no nos podría llevar a concluir tal como lo señala el actor, que la imposición de esta sanción sea el reflejo de un derecho natural de la administración.

V.- SOBRE EL PRECIO EL PAGO Y LA ECUACIÓN ECONÓMICA DEL CONTRATO Cuando el contratista cumple con el objeto del contrato y se da la recepción definitiva de los bienes y servicios, surge la obligación de la Administración al pago. El plazo de pago tal y como establece el artículo 35 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación administrativa no podrá ser superior a 30 días naturales, (salvo el caso de la Administración Central, que dispone de máximo de 42 días naturales), y empezaría a correr a partir de la presentación de la factura, previa verificación del cumplimiento a satisfacción, una vez transcurrido el mismo, la Administración se constituirá en mora y el interesado podría reclamar el pago de los intereses sobre el monto adeudado en colones, reconocimiento que se hará previo reclamo del administrado conforme a la tasa básica pasiva del Banco Central. En caso de operaciones en dólares de los Estados Unidos de América, los intereses serían cancelados aplicando la tasa de interés internacional referenciada por el Banco Central (prime rate). Para abordar de forma adecuada este tema debemos tener claro en primera instancia, que cuando la Administración quiere contratar, goza de la facultad de señalar el tipo de moneda por medio de la cual pretende se oferte, ello encuentra fundamento en el artículo 25 del Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, que de forma expresa indica que los oferentes podrán cotizar en cualquier moneda diferente al colón. En ese sentido el artículo 48 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central señala “Los actos contratos y obligaciones en moneda extranjera serán válidos eficaces y exigibles…”, lo anterior permite la presentación de ofertas en otro tipo de monedas (dólar, euro, libra esterlina, entre otras) lo cual contribuye a fortalecer los principios de libre concurrencia, participación e igualdad. Además las obligaciones pactadas en moneda extranjera, podrán ser pagadas en colones según el valor comercial efectivo, que a la fecha tuviera la moneda extrajera(al respecto ver Contraloría General de la República oficio N°4389 dictado por DAGJ-573-2000). Debemos tener claro que la moneda de curso legal es el medio preferente de pago adoptado por el Estado, sin embargo ello no es óbice para que se pueda contratar y pagar en otra moneda, si las partes así lo han pactado, pues en ese aspecto existe amplia libertad y está permitido por la ley. Mención especial nos merece las obligaciones contraídas en dólares, pues el valor del dólar americano, ha fungido por muchos años como un valor referencial, frente a nuestros procesos inflacionario, ya que se trata de una moneda más fuerte y estable que el colón, que sí se vería afectado por el déficit fiscal y a la estabilidad macroeconómica del país, sin embargo ello no puede llevarnos al equívoco de pensar que esta moneda no está exenta de sufrir variaciones, pues también ella está sujeta a los vaivenes globales de la economía. En la especie la parte actora formuló su oferta dentro de la más amplia libertad de determinación, en cuanto al precio, la moneda y el plazo, producto de este ejercicio decidió ofertar en dólares y aceptar el pago en dólares, pese a que tenía la posibilidad de hacerlo en colones y recibir el pago en colones. Al tomar esa decisión, aceptó los beneficios pero también los riesgos que podrían presentarse a pactar en una moneda extranjera, como lo era la variación en el tipo de cambio del dólar, que fue lo que sucedió en la especie. En lo concerniente a este aspecto la accionante reclama que cuando presentó la factura N°5623 para su cancelación el 29 de enero de 2010, el tipo de cambio del dólar estaba a 554.89, pero que cuando recibió su pago el 22 de julio de 2010 por medio del cheque 2485 por $45.803.76 centavos el tipo de cambio estaba en 527.31 Ese retraso que la actora le endilga al INS, es a su criterio la causa de la considerable pérdida económica que sufrió, por la variación en el tipo de cambio en el dólar. La anterior aseveración necesariamente nos remite al cartel, el cual establecía que la institución contratante contaba con 20 días naturales posteriores a la presentación de la factura (a satisfacción del INS), para su pago preferente a través del sistema SIMPE, posterior a la aprobación de calidad, a través de muestreo del 10% de las imágenes digitalizadas y entregadas, a realizar en un período máximo de 2 semanas. El INS admitió el retraso en el pago de más de cinco meses, y lo justificó, alegando que los errores detectados en el producto entregado eran tantos y tan importante que, tuvieron que avocarse a la revisión total de toda las imágenes y documentos, a fin de no perjudicar a la contratada con una resolución del contrato y poder pagarle el trabajo entregado a satisfacción, Esa situación se hizo de conocimiento del representante de la empresa actora mediante varios oficios, entre ellos el DA-00919-2010 del 23 de abril de 2010, y el DA-011-99-2010 del 21 de mayo de 2010, en los cuales se le indicaba que el pago podría efectuarse hasta que la unidad de digitalización no finalizara con la revisión física de los expedientes, pues los errores detectados en el producto entregado, eran tantos y tan relevantes, que se obligaban a la revisión total de la totalidad de las imágenes y documentos, para que fueron corregidos y así poder entonces recibir a satisfacción el trabajo realizado, pues en caso de no hacerlo así hubieran tenido que resolver el contrato lo cual hubiera ocasionado un perjuicio mayor a la empresa contratada. Finalmente la empresa recibió su pago el 22 de julio de 2010, mediante el cheque N° 2485, y por la suma de $ 45.803.76. Esta cámara llega a la conclusión, que aún y cuando la revisión de la totalidad del trabajo se debió a los errores en que incurrió la actora, lo cierto es que la Administración duró excesivamente en la revisión de los entregado, situación que la llevó a pagar casi siete meses después, ante tal situación – morosidad en el pago- el mecanismo que preveía el Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa en su artículo 43, era el pago de los intereses sobre el monto adeudado,( para obligaciones en dólares tasa de interés internacional prime rate), a partir de la presentación de la factura. Sin embargo la parte actora no reclamó el pago de tales intereses, sino que pretendió de forma errónea que en virtud del atraso se le reconociera el equilibrio financiero del contrato, pues a su criterio operó un desequilibrio en la estructura de los costos establecidos originalmente en el contrato, por la fluctuación económica que afectó la ecuación económica del contrato, ya que cuando presentó su oferta el valor del dólar para la venta estaba en $584.55 por colón, y cuando se hizo el pago parcial el 22 de julio de 2010, el precio de venta estaba a $527.31, lo cual representó para su representada un pérdida de ¢1.263.267.70, que se considera se le debe reconocer. Lo peticionado por la actora permite colegir un tema crucial, que se refiere al tipo de cambio que debe imperar al momento de pagarse la deuda, y para ello debemos diferenciar que una cosa es el tipo de cambio que se valora cuando se abren las ofertas y se comparan los precios ofertados para seleccionar un contratista, y otro es el tipo de cambio que se valora cuando se debe de hacer efectivo el pago, pues dependiendo de la posición que se adopte se puede favorecer o perjudicar a la parte, ante la laguna jurídica en torno a este punto, y a efecto de no utilizar procedimientos casuísticos la Contraloría General de la República, ha decantado por un enfoque analógico acorde con la regulación que existe sobre la garantía de participación y ha señalado que: “Efectivamente, el numeral 37.4 del Reglamento de repetida cita señala específicamente que la garantía deberá rendirse en la moneda en que se cotiza, o en su equivalente en moneda nacional al día anterior a la presentación de la oferta, lo cual evidentemente imprime seguridad jurídica en cuanto al monto exacto sobre el cual deberá rendirse la caución. De lo contrario, como sucede precisamente en la situación que se analiza (tipo de cambio de la moneda extranjera a utilizar para efectos comparativos), daría como resultado una imprecisión en dicho monto, toda vez que si se tomara como parámetro el tipo de cambio del día de la evaluación y no el del día de la apertura de ofertas, ante la eventualidad de una garantía rendida en colones podría devenir ésta en insuficiente trayendo consigo la exclusión de la oferta por dicho motivo…” Lo anterior nos permite concluir que cuando se está en etapa de ejecución del contrato, el tipo de cambio que debía imperar al momento de saldar la deuda, debía ser el más próximo a su pago, descartándose el tipo que regía cuando se presentó la oferta, que es lo que pretende la actora cuando estima lo reclamado. Aclarado lo anterior, volvemos a retomar la pretensión esgrimida por el contratista, de que se aplique el caso concreto el equilibrio financiero del contrato, y para tal efecto debemos señalar que el principio de intangibilidad patrimonial, efectivamente obliga a la Administración a mantener el equilibrio financiero del contrato, lo cual resulta medular en el régimen jurídico de la contratación pública, en donde se pretende garantizar el mantenimiento de la igualdad o equivalencia entre derechos y obligaciones surgidos al momento de proponer o de contratar, de manera que si se rompe por causas sobrevinientes, imprevisibles y no imputables a quien resulte afectado, las partes adoptarán las medidas necesarias para su restablecimiento, mediante los mecanismos de indemnización. Si bien el contratista debe asumir el riesgo normal y propio de cualquier negocio, no tiene el deber de soportar que lo priven de los ingresos y las ganancias razonables que podría haber obtenido, si la relación contractual se hubiese ejecutado en las condiciones inicialmente convenidas. Para que surja la obligación de la Administración contratante de compensar o reparar al contratista deben acreditarse la imprevisibilidad, la alteración extraordinaria y fundamentalmente la demostración de una pérdida real, grave y anormal en la economía del contrato, siempre y cuando la afectación se de en el esquema de costos del contrato. El artículo 18 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa cuando se refiere al equilibrio financiero del contrato sostiene que “… la Administración reajustará los precios aumentándolos o disminuyéndolos, cuando se varíen los costos, directos o indirectos, estrictamente relacionados con la obra, el servicio o el suministro, mediante ecuaciones matemáticas basadas en los índices oficiales de precios….”. Resulta palmario entonces que este mecanismo jurídico de restitución del valor real de la obligación, no procedía ante los dos supuestos que reclama la actora: por el retraso en el pago y la diferencia en el tipo cambiario, pues no forman parte del esquema de costos, y además tampoco acreditó la imprevisibilidad, la alteración extraordinaria o la pérdida real, grave y anormal en la economía del contrato, de ahí que resulte inviable tal pretensión.”