Inadmissibility of correcting a bid that omits an essential technical requirement in public tendersImprocedencia de subsanar oferta que omite requisito técnico esencial en licitación pública

V.- CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING.- Before analyzing the dispute raised concerning the award decision that the Administration adopted in public tender 2015LN-000002-00040000001, whose annulment is requested in this judgment, it is considered pertinent to refer, in general, to the particularities of administrative contracting, since it was within its scope that the act challenged in this action was issued.

First: Administrative contracting has a special regulatory regime, which is based, in the first place, on the provisions of articles 182, 183 and 184 of the Political Constitution, from which its constitutional principles derive (free competition, equal treatment for all bidders, publicity, balance of interests, formalism in procedures, legality and transparency of procedures, mutuality of the contract, legal certainty and control of procedures), and on its legislative development –Law on Administrative Contracting, number 7494, of May 2, 1995, Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, number 7428, of September 7, 1994, the Law on the Financial Administration of the Republic, the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office– and regulatory development –Regulation to the Law on Contracting, the Regulation for the Countersignature, issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the economic limits established by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic to determine the various tender procedures and to regulate jurisdiction for administrative appeals in tender procedures–. Thus, article one of the Law on Administrative Contracting provided for the application of this special contracting regime, with respect to "... the contracting activity carried out by the organs of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Office of the Ombudsman, the decentralized territorial and institutional sector, non-state public entities and public enterprises." (The underlining is not from the original.)

The foregoing is of importance, inasmuch as the justification for administrative contracting is precisely the purpose of satisfying the public interest entrusted to a specific public agency. Thus, it must be clear that it is a mechanism or selection procedure, conducted by means of a competition, which makes effective the exercise of a public power, where the contractor is considered a collaborator of the Administration in the public management assigned to it (provision of a public service, construction of a public work, acquisition of a good for the Administration, etc.); for which reason, primary attention must be paid to the public need and the satisfaction of the public interest.

Second: The final result of the tender process is the award decision. It is a unilateral administrative act, since it is issued by the tendering Administration within the competitive process, in which it selects or determines the bid deemed most suitable to meet the public need that underpins the entire tender procedure (in this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has pronounced itself, in judgment number 1205-96), since the purpose of all administrative contracting is the choice of the most suitable proposal for the satisfaction of the public interest, for the benefit of the community; which, by its content, generates a legal-administrative relationship, inasmuch as it binds not only the administered party, but also the Administration itself. The most significant characteristic of this act (of award), is that it is a declaratory act of rights, because through it, the Administration declares, determines and defines who is the awardee of the process it has convened; therefore, it generates obligations and rights for both parties, since the tendering Administration is obliged to respect that agreement in accordance with what was agreed upon, in application of the principles that comprise administrative contracting, it can demand compliance with that agreement; and in turn, the awardee has the right to execute the contract declared in its favor, and the obligation to do so under the agreed terms. For this reason, and such being the content and effects of the award decision, pursuant to the provisions of cited article 140 of the General Law on Public Administration, its effectiveness arises from its adoption –not from its notification–; as constitutional case law has considered on various occasions (in this regard, among others, see judgments number 2000-10469, of ten hours twenty minutes of November 24, 2000; and number 2003-05671, of eight hours thirty-seven minutes of June 27, 2003).

Third: It should be remembered in this regard, that the bids submitted must comply with both formal legal and economic requirements –such as those referring to the accreditation of the company or person submitting their tender, such as the respective identification cards or documents, legal capacities, proof of payment of corporate taxes, being up to date with obligations under the social regime in our country (both social security and contributions to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund), the posting of participation bonds, etc.– and with special rigor, with the technical requirements established in the respective tender specifications (cartel de licitación). In this sense, it must be considered that pursuant to articles 51 and 52 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting, the tender specifications or conditions of the tender procedure constitute the specific regulation of the contracting, as a set of clauses comprising the technical specifications, which are clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective for the contracting to be resolved; since they establish the essential elements of the transaction, including: the subject of the competition, the description of the good or service to be acquired, the date for receipt of bids, as well as their minimum requirements and validity, general bases for selection, the documentation that must accompany the bid, the form of pricing, the delivery period, the payment method, among others. Thus, the basic content of tender specifications constantly changes, according to the needs that each contracting seeks to satisfy. That is why they have a regulatory nature –in the manner provided in subsection h) of article 4 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting–, because they contain a series of mandatory rules and are the basic instrument of the procedure for selecting the public contractor, becoming the true specific regulation of the contracting, both for the procedures to be followed and the conditions contained therein; and in that capacity, they constitute the specific rule that will govern the future contract. They are also a source of interpretation, since the clauses or conditions creating rights and duties for the parties are established therein. It follows then, based on the foregoing, that the tender specifications operate as a parameter of legal certainty, since they allow the Administration and potential contractors to know in advance the conditions governing the competition of their interest. (In the same sense, see, among others, judgments number 518-F-S1-2011, 1038-F-S1-2012 and 1305-F-S1-2016, all three from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.)

Fourth: Now then, it is of particular interest to this proceeding to refer to the possibility of correcting bids submitted on the occasion of any tender process; the foregoing, because the substantive evaluation of the various bids submitted, in good competition, will only occur for those upon which the final decision, i.e., the award, can be rendered. In this regard, it is necessary to specify that article 42 subsection j) of the Law on Administrative Contracting allows the correction of defects in bids, within the period indicated by the Regulation to that Law, provided that this does not grant an undue advantage in relation to the other bidders; and it adds that only the validity period of the bid, as well as the validity period and the amount of the participation bond, may be subject to correction, when such items have not been offered for less than eighty percent (80%) of what was fixed in the tender specifications, as well as the other items of the participation bond, as provided by the regulatory provision. For its part, the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Contracting specifies the aforementioned legal mandate. First, in the first paragraph of numeral 80, it determined the period and appropriate moment for making the correction, such that, within the five business days following the act of opening bids, the tendering Administration must conduct the admissibility analysis of the tenders submitted, and in case of omissions or errors, it grants five business days for the correction, amendment or clarification, but regarding correctable non-substantial aspects. In the second paragraph of the cited numeral (80), what is correctable or remediable is defined as the error or omission whose correction does not imply a variation in the essential elements of the bid, such as the fundamental characteristics of the works, goods or services offered, the price, the delivery periods or the product warranties, or that places the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Then, ordinal 81 lists, by way of example, not exhaustively, some elements that can be corrected, among them:

"a) Formal aspects, such as the nature and ownership of shares, sworn statements, copies of the bid, fiscal stamps or certifications from the CCSS.

• b)Certifications on qualities, characteristics or specifications of the good offered, provided that such circumstances existed at the time of bid submission, were referenced in the bid and can be proven by the interested party.
• c)Complementary technical or financial documentation of the bid, including financial statements.
• d)Formalities that were required in the tender specifications, such as free translations of complementary information.
• e)Data recorded in units other than those of the International System of Measures.
• f)The bid validity period, provided it was not offered for less than 80% of the period fixed in the tender specifications.
• g)The amount or validity of the participation bond, provided it originally covered at least 80%.
• h)Any material error related to the participation bond, including those referring to the identification of the competition or the entity backed. Likewise, in guarantee bonds it is valid to correct any substantial error, provided the issuing entity accepts the amendment and guarantees there is no problem for its liquidation.
• i)Documents necessary to prove the veracity of facts occurring prior to the opening of bids and that are fully referenced in the bid. This is admissible even in cases related to the evaluation of the bid.
• j)Any other item that, requested as an admissibility requirement, is required by the Administration for a thorough assessment of the proposal and does not confer an undue advantage over the remaining bidders, such as the official or free translation of technical or complementary information and the user manuals issued by the manufacturer when so permitted by the tender specifications.

Finally, it warns that the lack of a signature on a bid is not a correctable aspect." The aforementioned rules allow us to affirm that not every failure to comply with the tender specifications results in the exclusion of a bid, but rather our legal framework enables correction or remedying, it must be repeated, only of non-essential aspects of the bid. Thus, the institute of correction becomes an instrument for achieving principles such as efficiency and conservation of bids (article 4 of the Law on Administrative Contracting). The foregoing so that the Administration can count on a greater number of bids in the competition, in order to be able to choose, from the widest possible range, the most suitable tender for the public need sought to be satisfied. However, this possibility of correction finds, in the judgment of this Collegiate Body, two insurmountable limits. The first of them, the impossibility of correcting essential or substantial aspects of the bid, since the rules for correction have been established to correct formal defects, provided that this does not modify the very content of what was offered, nor its price, among others; and the second limit is constituted by the principles of equal treatment and free competition, in the sense that the correction cannot grant undue advantages to bidders, vis-à-vis those who initially did comply with all the requirements of the tender specifications. From this perspective, it is the criterion of these judges that in this matter it is necessary to distinguish between aspects that are evaluable and that in themselves admit margins of deviation among the bidders, and those that are not and are known as "invariable clauses." In this regard, if it concerns aspects not qualifiable with points, it must be observed that the correction of the defect does not itself imply a spurious opportunity to vary essential aspects of the bid such as price, delivery period, characteristics of the object. In the other case, when it concerns aspects that are evaluable, in addition to the foregoing, it must be observed with great care that the correction does not also allow an undue advantage to a bidder who has already learned the characteristics and conditions of other bids. Finally, when an aspect is subject to evaluation, the lack of information regarding it that would imply a modification to the terms of the bid cannot be corrected; although, information referenced in the bid can indeed be verified. In general, it can be concluded that the request for clarification that the Administration may validly make once bids are opened, relates to those aspects that were recorded or referenced in the bid, which the Administration considers incomplete or unclear; so that it can legitimately request the clarification of such elements, which, once again, cannot be translated or understood as an opportunity for bidders to modify the tender initially submitted. The opposite would be equivalent to allowing bidders, at times after the opening of tenders, to complete their bids on aspects that will be subject to evaluation, which would entail a breach of the cited principle of equality, since it would grant the bidder favored with the request for clarification an undue advantage in relation to the others. Obviously, there are no unique parameters, so the fundamental differences between what is evaluated and what is not, will depend on each competition and the system established for those purposes. This imposes the need for the study and assessment of bids to be carried out in a measured manner, responsibly applying the principles of effectiveness and efficiency so that they do not empty the content of the postulate of equal treatment and free competition. Only in this way will the so-called principle of balance of interests be guaranteed, according to which public interests should not be satisfied at the expense of private ones, but in harmony with them.

VI.- ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE. The analysis of the legality of the award decision challenged in this contentious proceeding is conducted based on the special regime of administrative contracting, in the manner explained in the preceding Considerando and in attention both to the factual framework supporting this pronouncement and to the allegations underpinning this action and the opposition from the state representation.

First: Why the plaintiff company's bid was not the best option for the Tendering Administration: The plaintiff company maintains that the bid it submitted in public tender 2015LN-000000002-00400001, of the Office of the Ombudsman for the remodeling of a warehouse and construction of a parking lot, was the best, considering the lower price offered, because it complied with all legal, economic, and technical requirements. Thus, it reasons that not declaring it the awardee conflicts with the principles of efficiency, inviolability of assets, and legal certainty. Upon review of the proposals submitted, it is noted that indeed the price offered by the plaintiff here was the lowest, for a total amount of ¢88,700,000.00 (eighty-eight million seven hundred thousand exact colones); while the company finally awarded –Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima– offered a final price of ¢93,267,173.13 (ninety-three million two hundred sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three colones and thirteen céntimos) –statement of facts 5.), 10.) and 15.)–. In this regard, it must be considered that according to the method for evaluating bids established in the tender specifications, 85% was allocated for the best price, meaning the lowest price; and 15% in relation to the delivery period, setting a maximum period of ninety calendar days from the start order for the works –proven fact 3.)–. However, the plaintiff forgot that the tender specifications established a series of technical requirements regarding the works and materials to be used, to guarantee the safety and efficiency of the contractual object. The foregoing means that the Tendering Administration (Office of the Ombudsman) could not award the competition solely based on the price offered; rather, it had to evaluate those tenders that met the requirements of the tender specifications. In this sense, it can be noted that the Tendering Administration indeed considered that of the sixteen bidding companies, only six companies met the requirements of the tender specifications, namely: Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima (bid #1); Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima (bid #4); Ingeniería PCR Sociedad Anónima (bid #9); Constructora Joher Sociedad Anónima (bid #10); Rodríguez Constructores Asociados Sociedad Anónima (bid #11); and Construcciones Peñaranda Sociedad Anónima (bid #12) –proven fact 10.)–; and in the evaluation of the plaintiff's bid here, it concluded that it complied with the various attached forms, these being: #1, relating to the detailed budget breakdown; #2, referring to the list of construction materials; #3, which is the list of electrical materials; #4, which is the list of mechanical materials; #5, referring to the company's experience; and #6, regarding the experience of the engineer responsible for the work –proven fact 8.)–. It was also specified that the company was up to date with its obligations to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social), the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, FODESAF) and corporate tax –proven fact 10.)–. In the same vein, it was recorded that the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima complied with all forms and legal requirements –proven fact 10.)–; as a result of which, it gave a final score to Constructora ConteK Sociedad Anónima of 96.47 and to the company finally awarded, a final score of 93.67 –proven fact 10.)–. However, in the technical assessment of the electromechanical requirements of the bid submitted by the plaintiff, it was specified that it did not comply with one specific element, namely that of the fire protection gate valve, since the one required in the tender specifications, in point 5.20.8, was a "... outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) valve listed for fire protection by UL and approved by FM, these must be made of ductile iron for a working pressure of 1.7MPa (250 psi WWP). The gate must be rubber-coated internally and externally with a red epoxy enamel. Reference model: NIBCO model F-607-RW or equivalent" –proven fact 4.); while the one offered by the company Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima was "... a valve brand Nibco Model F-607-OTS, ..." –proven fact 7.)–. Regarding this particular model, the Tendering Administration reasoned the following in its technical report on the electromechanical requirements:

"... from the analysis of its technical data sheet, it is determined that it has a working pressure of 175 psi.

Since the fire suppression system constitutes a critical system in buildings, the possibility of a failure must be minimized to the maximum, given that the nature of these systems requires them to function in full working order when an emergency occurs. Thus, to guarantee proper functioning, all elements of said system must be capable of withstanding at least the working pressures generated by the pumping equipment, the foregoing not limiting the possibility of establishing a safety factor and installing components that can withstand pressures even higher than the working pressures.

The working pressures in the Ombudsman's Office pumping system can equal and exceed the working pressure for which the valve indicated in the bids of the companies CONSTRUCTORA CONTEK SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA was designed.

Furthermore, due to the nature and layout of the piping network of the fire suppression system of the Office of the Ombudsman, a section of iron pipe exposed to the elements is identified, with a length close to 100 meters, this section undergoes heating as a result of solar radiation during the day, thereby subjecting the entire network to an increase in fluid pressure above normal working pressures. This being a particularity of the system that motivates the administration to require a significant safety factor from the design point of view for the expansion of this system.

Now then, given the above, subsection 5.20.8 of the tender specifications is breached, where it states: ..." (The highlighting is not from the original) –proven fact 7.)–.

In turn, regarding the bid submitted by the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina, no non-compliance was found with the electromechanical requirements of its bid –proven fact 8.)–, nor in any other factor, as recorded in the final analysis of the bids –proven facts 9.) and 10.)–. By virtue of the foregoing, it is logical and appropriate to the circumstances –requirements of the tender specifications and bids submitted– that the award be recommended to the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima –proven fact 11.)– and not to the plaintiff company; which was finally done in an act dated August 12, 2015 –proven fact 13.)–. It is evident that the plaintiff company's tender presented a non-compliance or deviation from the requirements of the tender specifications, while in the file of the public tender in question, no objection whatsoever was found regarding the bid submitted by the company finally awarded. In this sense, it can be concluded that the plaintiff company has not proven its better right, that is, it was not the best option for the competition at hand.

Second: On the impossibility of amending the bid submitted by the plaintiff company and the improper attempt to correct its proposal: It must be noted that, in the tender specifications of the public tender at hand, clearly and precisely, in point 14, of Chapter I (Administrative Bases), relating to Investigations and clarifications, it was recorded that the Administration reserved "... the right to verify or to request clarifications on the content of any bid, including the request to one, several or all bidders to make an oral presentation or submit additional information via Mer Link" –proven fact 2.)– and in the following point (number 15), titled "Improvements to bids," it was indicated that "(I)mprovements to the bid that were submitted to the Administration after the respective opening will not be taken into account in the evaluation of the proposal, ..." (the highlighting is not from the original). Thus, regarding the bidders, none could submit clarifications or corrections in relation to their proposals, and we have already indicated that, pursuant to the legal framework governing the matter of administrative contracting –articles 42 subsection j) of Law number 7494, 80 and 81 of Executive Decree number 33411-H–, the Administration is enabled, after conducting the admissibility analysis of the tenders submitted, to request clarifications or corrections, but it is insisted, only regarding non-substantial elements of the bids. It should also be noted that this clarification or correction is possible to do in the first phase of study and analysis, prior to the substantive one, and only on the initiative of the Tendering Administration. In the case under study, the plaintiff company claims that the Office of the Ombudsman did not consider the emails it sent to the contracting entity, on dates July 29 and August 11, 2015 –proven facts 12.) and 13.)–, in which it "corrected and clarified" its bid in relation to the fire suppression system valve, occasions on which it indicated that the one recorded in the bid was due to an error by the supplying company, pursuant to which, it amends its offer to conform to the terms of the tender specifications, at no additional cost –proven facts 12.) and 13.)–; a clarification that was also uploaded to the Mer-Link system, with document number 7242015000000001 –proven fact 13.)–. From the content of such actions, it is immediately apparent that the plaintiff company itself acknowledges the error in its initial proposal, regarding the fire valve, the sole element objected to by the Tendering Administration in its bid; and therefore, its insistence on trying to resolve it. But such actions are not in accordance with the legal framework governing the matter, since on the one hand, it is not a material error –as it attempted to justify, both in the administrative venue and now in the jurisdictional venue–, and moreover, the action was taken after the period provided for making corrections or remedying non-substantial omissions had expired, since it was done after the corresponding technical analyses were conducted, one day before the Tendering Administration adopted the award decision. In this regard, we share the thesis of the state representation, that the "clarification/correction" that the company Construcciones Contek Sociedad Anónima attempted to make referred to a substantial element of the bid, since compliance with the technical requirements demanded in the tender specifications depended on it. For this reason, contrary to what was alleged, having considered that "correction/clarification" would have been in serious violation of the principle of equal treatment with respect to the rest of the bidders.

V.- CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PUBLIC PROCUREMENT (CONTRATACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA).- Before analyzing the dispute raised regarding the award act (acto de adjudicación) that the Administration adopted in public tender (licitación pública) 2015LN-000002-00040000001, whose nullity is requested to be declared in judgment, it is deemed pertinent to refer, in general, to the particularities of public procurement (contratación administrativa), since it was within its scope that the act challenged in this action was ordered.

First: Public procurement (contratación administrativa) has a special regulatory regime, which is based, first, on the provisions of articles 182, 183 and 184 of the Political Constitution, from which its constitutional principles derive (free competition, equal treatment for all bidders, publicity, balance of interests, formalism in procedures, legality and transparency of procedures, mutuality of the contract, legal certainty and control of procedures), and on its legislative development – the Public Procurement Law (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), number 7494, of May 2, 1995, the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), number 7428, of September 7, 1994, the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic, the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office – and regulatory development – the Regulation to the Procurement Law, the Regulation for the Approval, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the economic limits established by the Comptroller General of the Republic to determine the various tender procedures and to regulate the jurisdiction for administrative appeals in tender procedures –. Thus, article one of the Public Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) provided for the application of this special procurement regime, regarding "... the procurement activity carried out by the organs of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensoría de los Habitantes), the territorial and institutional decentralized sector, non-state public entities and public enterprises." (The underline is not from the original.)

The foregoing is of significance, since the justification for public procurement (contratación administrativa) is precisely the purpose of satisfying the public interest that has been entrusted to a specific public agency. Thus, it must be clear that it is a selection mechanism or procedure, which is done through a competition, that makes effective the exercise of a public power, where the contractor is considered a collaborator of the Administration in the public management awarded to it (provision of a public service, construction of a public work, acquisition of a good for the Administration, etc.); for which reason, the public need and the satisfaction of the public interest must primarily be attended to.

Second: The final result of the tender process is the award act (acto de adjudicación).

It is a unilateral administrative act, as it is issued by the tendering Administration within the competitive process, in which it selects or determines the offer deemed most convenient to supply the public need that underpins the entire bidding procedure (in this sense, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has stated, in judgment number 1205-96, in that *the purpose of all administrative contracting is the choice of the most convenient proposal for the satisfaction of the public interest, for the benefit of the community*); which, due to its content, generates a legal-administrative relationship, since it not only binds the administered party, but also the Administration itself. The most significant characteristic of this act (of award) is that it is a declaratory act of rights, because through it, the Administration declares, determines, and defines who the awardee is of the process it has convened; thus, it generates obligations and rights for both parties, since the tendering Administration is obliged to respect that agreement in accordance with what was agreed, in application of the principles that comprise administrative contracting, and may demand compliance with that agreement; and in turn, the awardee has the right to execute the contract declared in its favor, and the obligation to do so under the agreed terms. For this reason, and that being the content and effects of the act of award, pursuant to the provisions of the cited article 140 of the General Public Administration Law, its effectiveness arises from its adoption —not from its notification—; as constitutional jurisprudence has considered on various occasions (in this sense, among others, see judgments number 2000-10469, of ten hours and twenty minutes of November twenty-fourth, two thousand; and number 2003-05671, of eight hours and thirty-seven minutes of June twenty-seventh, two thousand three).

**Third:** It should be remembered in this sense that the bids submitted must comply with both formal requirements of a legal and economic nature —such as those referring to the accreditation of the company or person submitting their bid, such as the respective identification documents (cédulas) or identification documents, legal capacities (personerías jurídicas), proof of payment of corporate taxes, being up to date on obligations under the social regime (régimen social) in our country (both social security and the contribution to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund), the provision of participation guarantees (garantías de participación), etc.— and, with special rigor, the technical requirements established in the respective tender specifications (cartel de licitación). In this sense, it must be considered that pursuant to the provisions of articles 51 and 52 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law, the tender specifications or set of conditions (cartel o pliego de condiciones) of the bidding procedure becomes the specific regulation of the contracting, as a set of clauses that includes the technical specifications, clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective, of the contracting to be resolved; since it establishes the essential elements of the transaction, among them: the competitive object, the description of the good or service to be acquired, the date for receipt of bids, as well as their minimum requirements and validity, general bases for selection, the documentation that must accompany the bid, the form of quotation, the delivery term, the payment method, among others. Thus, the basic content of a tender specifications document constantly mutates, according to the needs that each contracting seeks to satisfy. This is why it has a regulatory nature —in the manner provided in subsection h) of article 4 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law—, because it contains a series of mandatory rules and is the basic instrument of the procedure for selecting the public contractor, becoming the true specific regulation of the contracting, both for the procedures to be followed and the conditions contained therein; and in such capacity, it becomes the specific norm that will govern the future contract. It is also a source of interpretation, because the clauses or conditions creating rights and duties for the parties are established in it.

It follows then, in accordance with the foregoing, that the tender documents (cartel) operate as a parameter of legal certainty, since they allow the Administration and potential contractors to know in advance the conditions governing the tender of their interest. (In the same vein, see, among others, judgments No. 518-F-S1-2011, 1038-F-S1-2012, and 1305-F-S1-2016, all three from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.)

**Fourth:** Now then, of particular interest to this proceeding is the possibility of correcting (subsanación) the bids submitted in any bidding process; the foregoing, because the substantive evaluation of the various bids submitted, in good faith, will only be conducted on those upon which the final decision, that is, the award (adjudicación), may fall. In this regard, it is necessary to specify that Article 42, subsection j) of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) allows defects in bids to be corrected, within the period indicated by the Regulation (Reglamento) of that Law, provided that this does not grant an undue advantage over the other bidders; and it adds that only the validity period of the bid, as well as the validity period and the amount of the bid bond (garantía de participación), may be subject to correction, when such aspects have not been offered for less than eighty percent (80%) of what was set forth in the tender documents, as well as the other aspects of the bid bond, in accordance with the regulatory provision. For its part, the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) specifies the aforementioned legal mandate. First, in the first paragraph of section 80, it determined the period and appropriate moment to make the correction, so that, within the five business days following the act of opening the bids, the procuring Administration must conduct the admissibility analysis of the bids presented, and in case of omissions or errors, it grants five business days for the correction, amendment, or clarification, but regarding non-substantial, correctable aspects. In the second paragraph of the cited section (80), what is amendable or correctable is specified, which it defines as the error or omission whose correction does not imply a variation in the essential elements of the bid, such as the fundamental characteristics of the works, goods, or services offered, the price, the delivery times, or the product warranties, or that places the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Then, section 81 lists, by way of example and not exhaustively, some elements that may be corrected, among them:

"a) Formal aspects, such as the nature and ownership of shares, sworn statements, copies of the bid, fiscal stamps, or CCSS certifications.

• b)Certifications on qualities, characteristics, or specifications of the offered good, provided that such circumstances existed at the time of bid submission, even if they had been referenced in the bid and the interested party manages to prove it.
• c)Technical or financial documentation supplementary to the bid, including financial statements.
• d)The formalities that were required in the tender documents, such as free translations of the supplementary information.
• e)Data recorded in units different from those of the International System of Measurements.
• f)The validity period of the bid, provided that it has not been offered for less than 80% of the period set in the tender documents.
• g)The amount or validity of the bid bond, provided that it originally covered, at least, 80%.
• h)Any material error related to the bid bond, including those referring to the identification of the tender or the backed subject. Likewise, in guarantee bonds it is valid to correct any substantial error, provided that the issuing entity accepts the amendment and guarantees that there is no problem whatsoever for its liquidation.
• i)The documents necessary to prove the veracity of facts that occurred before the opening of bids and that are completely referenced in the bid. This is appropriate even when dealing with aspects related to the qualification of the bid.
• j)Any other aspect that, requested as an admissibility requirement, is required by the Administration for a thorough assessment of the proposal and does not confer an undue advantage over the remaining bidders, such as the official or free translation of the technical or supplementary information and the user manuals issued by the manufacturer when this has been permitted by the tender documents.

Finally, it warns that the lack of a signature on a bid is not a correctable (subsanable) aspect." The exposed norms allow us to affirm that not every breach of the tender specifications (cartelario) leads to the exclusion of a bid, but rather our legal framework enables the correction or rectification (subsanación), it is repeated, *only of non-essential aspects of the bid*. Thus, the institution of rectification (subsanación) becomes an instrument for the achievement of principles such as efficiency and conservation of bids (article 4 of the Administrative Contracting Law, Ley de Contratación Administrativa). The foregoing is so that the Administration may count on a greater number of bids in the tender, in order to choose, from the widest possible range, the proposal (plica) of greatest convenience for the public need it seeks to satisfy. However, this possibility of rectification (subsanación) encounters, in the judgment of this Collegiate Body, two insurmountable limits. The first of these is *the impossibility of correcting essential or substantial aspects of the bid*, as the rules of rectification (subsanación) have been established to correct formal defects, *provided that this does not modify the content itself of what was offered, nor its price, among others*; and the second limit is constituted by *the principles of equal treatment and free competition*, in the sense that the rectification (subsanación) cannot grant undue advantages to the bidders, compared to those who initially did comply with all the tender specification requirements. From this perspective, it is the criterion of these judges that in this matter it is necessary to distinguish between those aspects that are evaluable and that in themselves admit margins of deviation among the bidders, and those that are not and are known as "*invariable clauses* (cláusulas invariables)". In this sense, if it concerns aspects not qualifiable with points, it must be observed that the rectification (subsanación) of the defect does not in itself imply a spurious opportunity to vary essential aspects of the bid such as price, delivery term, characteristics of the object. In the other case, when it concerns aspects that are evaluable, in addition to the foregoing, extreme care must be observed that the rectification (subsanación) also does not allow an undue advantage to a bidder who has already learned the characteristics and conditions of other bids. Finally, when an aspect is subject to evaluation, the lack of information regarding it that implies a modification to the terms of the bid cannot be rectified; although, the information that is referenced in the bid can be verified. In general, it can be concluded that the request for clarification (prevención) that the Administration can validly make once the bids are opened is regarding those aspects that have been recorded or referenced in the bid, which the Administration considers incomplete or obscure; so that it can legitimately require the clarification of such elements, which, once more, cannot be translated or understood as an opportunity for the bidders to modify the proposal (plica) initially presented. The contrary would be equivalent to allowing the bidders, at moments after the opening of the proposals (plicas), to complete their bids on aspects that will be subject to evaluation, which would entail a breach of the cited principle of equality, since it would grant the bidder benefited by the request for clarification (prevención) an undue advantage in relation to the others. Obviously, there are no unique parameters, so the fundamental differences between what is evaluated and what is not will depend on each tender and the system established for such effects. This imposes the need for the study and assessment of the bids to be carried out in a measured manner, applying in a responsible manner the principles of effectiveness and efficiency so that these do not empty the content of the postulate of equal treatment and free competition. Only in this way will the so-called principle of balance of interests be guaranteed, according to which public interests must not be satisfied at the expense of private ones, but in consonance with them.

**VI.- ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE.** The analysis of the legality of the award act challenged in this contentious-administrative process is made on the basis of the special regime of administrative contracting, in the manner explained in the preceding Considerando and in attention to both the factual framework that supports this pronouncement and the allegations that sustain this action and the opposition from the state representation.

**First: Why the bid of the plaintiff company was not the best option for the Tendering Administration:** The plaintiff company maintains that the bid presented by it in the public tender 2015LN-000000002-00400001, of the Defensoría de los Habitantes for the remodeling of a warehouse and construction of a parking lot, was the best, in view of the lower price offered, for complying with all legal, economic, and technical requirements. Thus, it reasons that not having declared it the awardee conflicts with the principles of efficiency, intangibility of the public patrimony, and legal certainty.

Having reviewed the proposals submitted, it is noted that the price offered by the plaintiff herein was indeed the lowest, for a total amount of ¢88,700,000.00 (eighty-eight million seven hundred thousand colones exactly); while the company ultimately awarded the contract—**Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima**—offered a final price of ¢93,267,173.13 (ninety-three million two hundred sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three colones with thirteen céntimos)—statement of **facts 5.), 10.)** and **15.)**—. In this regard, it must be considered that according to the bid evaluation method established in the tender specifications, 85% was allocated to the best price, understood as the lowest price; and 15% in relation to the delivery term, setting a maximum term of ninety calendar days from the order to commence the works—**proven fact 3.)**—. However, the plaintiff forgot that the tender specifications established a series of technical requirements in relation to the works and materials to be used, to guarantee the safety and efficiency of the contractual object. The foregoing means that the Tendering Administration (Defensoría de los Habitantes) could not award the tender solely based on the price offered; rather, it had to evaluate those bids that met the requirements of the tender specifications. In this sense, it can be observed that the Tendering Administration indeed considered that of the sixteen bidding companies, only six companies met the requirements of the tender specifications, namely: **Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima** (bid #1); **Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima** (bid #4); **Ingeniería PCR Sociedad Anónima** (bid #9); **Constructora Joher Sociedad Anónima** (bid #10); **Rodríguez Constructores Asociados Sociedad Anónima** (bid #11); and **Construcciones Peñaranda Sociedad Anónima** (bid #12)—**proven fact 10.)**—; with the evaluation of the plaintiff's bid concluding that it complied with the various attached forms, these being: #1, regarding the detailed budget breakdown; #2, referring to the list of construction materials; #3, which is the list of electrical materials; #4, which is the list of mechanical materials; #5, referring to the company's experience; and #6, in relation to the experience of the engineer responsible for the work—**proven fact 8.)**—. It was also specified that the company was up to date with its obligations to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF), and the corporate tax—**proven fact 10.)**—. In the same vein, it was recorded that the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima complied with all the forms and legal requirements—**proven fact 10.)**—; as a result of which, a final score of 96.47 was given to Constructora ConteK Sociedad Anónima and a final score of 93.67 to the company ultimately awarded the contract—**proven fact 10.)**—. However, in the technical evaluation of the electromechanical requirements of the bid submitted by the plaintiff, it was specified that it did not comply with one specific element, namely the fire gate valve, given that the requirement in the tender specifications, at point 5.20.8, was *"... outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) listed for fire service by UL and approved by FM, these shall be of ductile iron for a working pressure of 1.7MPa (250 lbs WWP). The gate shall be rubber coated internally and externally with a red epoxy enamel. Reference model: NIBCO model F-607-RW or equivalent*"—**proven fact 4.)**—; while the one offered by the company Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima was "*... a Nibco brand valve Model F-607-OTS, ...*"—**proven fact 7.)**—. Regarding this particular model, the Tendering Administration reasoned as follows in its technical report on the electromechanical requirements:

"*...* ...from the analysis of its technical data sheet, it is determined that it has a working pressure of 175 psi.

Since the fire suppression system constitutes a critical system in buildings, the possibility of a failure must be minimized as much as possible, given that the nature of these systems requires that it function in full condition when an emergency occurs. Thus, to guarantee proper functioning, all elements of said system must be capable of withstanding, as a minimum, the working pressures generated by the pumping equipment, without the foregoing limiting the possibility of establishing a safety factor and installing components that can withstand pressures even higher than the working pressures.

The working pressures in the pumping system of the Defensoría can equal and exceed the working pressure for which the valve indicated in the bids of the companies CONSTRUCTORA CONTEK SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA was designed.

Furthermore, due to the nature and distribution of the pipe layout of the fire suppression system of the Defensoría de los Habitantes, a section of exposed iron pipe is identified outdoors, with a length close to 100 meters; this section undergoes heating as a result of solar radiation during the day, thereby subjecting the entire network to an increase in fluid pressure above normal working pressures. This being a particularity of the system that motivates the administration to require a significant safety factor from the design standpoint for the expansion of this system.

Now, given the foregoing, subsection 5.20.8 of the specifications is breached, which states: ..." (The highlighting is not from the original) -**proven fact 7.)**-.

For its part, regarding the bid submitted by the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina, no non-compliance whatsoever was found with the electromechanical requirements of its bid -**proven fact 8.)**-, nor in any other factor, as was recorded in the final analysis of the bids -**proven facts 9.)** and **10.)**-. By virtue of the foregoing, it is logical and appropriate under the circumstances – requirements of the tender document and bids submitted – that the award be recommended to the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima -**proven fact 11.)**- and not to the plaintiff company; which was finally done in the proceeding dated August twelfth, two thousand fifteen -**proven fact 13.)**-. It is evident that the plaintiff company's sealed bid presented a non-compliance with or departure from the requirements of the tender document, while in the file of the public procurement in question, no objection whatsoever was found regarding the bid submitted by the company finally awarded. In this sense, it can be concluded that the plaintiff company has not proven its better right, that is, it was not the best option for the contest that concerns us.

**Second: On the impossibility of amendment of the bid submitted by the plaintiff company and the improper attempt to correct its proposal:** It should be noted that, in the tender document for the public procurement that concerns us, clearly and precisely, in point 14, of Chapter I (of the Administrative Bases), regarding Investigations and clarifications, it was recorded that the Administration reserved "... the right to verify or request clarifications on the content of any bid, including requesting one, several, or all bidders to make an oral presentation or submit additional information via Mer Link" -**proven fact 2.)**- and in the following point (number 15), titled "Improvements to bids", it was indicated that "(I)mprovements to the bid that are submitted to the Administration after the respective opening will not be taken into account in the evaluation of the proposal, ..." (the highlighting is not from the original). Thus, regarding the bidders, none could submit clarifications or corrections in relation to their proposals, and we have already indicated that, in accordance with the regulations governing the matter of administrative contracting -articles 42, subsection j) of Law No. 7494, 80 and 81 of Executive Decree No. 33411-H-, the Administration is enabled, once the admissibility analysis of the submitted sealed bids has been carried out, to request clarifications or corrections, but it is reiterated, only regarding non-substantial elements of the bids.

Note also that this clarification or correction (subsanación) may be made in the first phase of study and analysis, prior to the substantive phase, and solely at the initiative of the Contracting Administration. In the case under review, the plaintiff company alleges that the Defensoría de los Habitantes did not consider the emails it sent to the contracting entity, on dates of July twenty-ninth and August eleventh, two thousand fifteen —**proven facts (hechos probados) 12.)** and **13.)**—, in which it "corrected (subsanó) and clarified (aclaró)" its offer in relation to the fire suppression system valve, occasions on which it indicated that the one stated in the offer was due to an error by the supplier company, pursuant to which, it rectifies its offering under the terms of the tender specifications (cartel), at no additional cost —**proven facts (hechos probados) 12.)** and **13.)**—; a clarification that it also uploaded to the Mer-Link system, with document number 7242015000000001 —**proven fact (hecho probado) 13.)**—. From the content of these actions, it is evident that the plaintiff company itself recognizes the error in its initial proposal, regarding the fire valve, the only element objected to by the Contracting Administration to its offer; and therefore, its insistence on attempting its solution. But such actions do not conform to the regulations governing the matter, since on the one hand, it does not involve a material error —as it attempted to justify, both in administrative proceedings and now in court—. but furthermore, the action is carried out after the deadline provided for making corrections or correcting (subsanar) non-substantial omissions had expired, given that it did so after the corresponding technical analyses were completed, one day before the Contracting Administration adopted the award act (acto de adjudicación). In this sense, the thesis of the state representation is shared, that the "clarification/correction (aclaración/subsanación)" that the company Construcciones Contek Sociedad Anónima attempted, referred to a substantial element of the offer, since compliance with the technical requirements demanded in the tender specifications (cartel) depended on it. For this reason, contrary to what was alleged, having considered that "correction/clarification (subsanación/aclaración)" would have seriously harmed the principle of equal treatment with respect to the other bidders.

Thus, it is concluded that the Tendering Administration acted in accordance with the body of legality governing administrative procurement (contratación administrativa); since only by contravening that order could it have considered the "correction/clarification (subsanación/aclaración)" that the plaintiff company made to its bid." the contracting activity deployed by the organs of the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes), the decentralized territorial and institutional sector, non-state public entities, and public enterprises." (The underline is not in the original.)

The foregoing is of importance, since the justification for administrative contracting is precisely the purpose of satisfying the public interest that has been entrusted to a specific public agency. Thus, it must be clear that it is a mechanism or selection procedure, which is carried out by means of a competitive process, that makes effective the exercise of a public power, where the contractor is regarded as a collaborator of the Administration in the public management awarded to them (provision of a public service, construction of a public work, acquisition of a good for the Administration, etc.); for which reason, the public need and the satisfaction of the public interest must be primarily addressed.

**Second:** The final result of the bidding process is the award (adjudicación). It is a unilateral administrative act, since it is issued by the tendering Administration within the competitive process, in which it selects or determines the offer deemed most suitable to meet the public need that underpins the entire bidding procedure (in this regard, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment number 1205-96, states that *the purpose of all administrative contracting is the choice of the most suitable proposal for the satisfaction of the public interest, for the benefit of the community*); which, by its content, generates a legal-administrative relationship, since it not only binds the administered party, but also the Administration itself. The most significant characteristic of this act (of award) is that it is a declaratory act of rights, because through it, the Administration declares, determines, and defines who the successful awardee (adjudicatario) of the process it has convened is; therefore, it creates obligations and rights for both parties, since the tendering Administration is obliged to respect that agreement in accordance with what was agreed, and in application of the principles that comprise administrative contracting, it may demand compliance with that agreement; and in turn, the successful awardee has the right to execute the contract declared in its favor, and the obligation to do so under the agreed terms.

For this reason, and given that this is the content and effects of the award (adjudicación) act, pursuant to the provisions of the cited Article 140 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, its effectiveness commences from its adoption—not from its notification—as constitutional jurisprudence has considered on various occasions (in this regard, among others, see judgments number 2000-10469, of ten hours and twenty minutes on November twenty-fourth, two thousand; and number 2003-05671, of eight hours and thirty-seven minutes on June twenty-seventh, two thousand three).

**Third:** It should be recalled in this regard that the bids submitted must comply with both formal requirements of a legal and economic nature—such as those referring to the accreditation of the company or person submitting their sealed bid (plica), such as the respective identification cards or documents, legal capacities (personerías jurídicas), proof of payment of corporate taxes, being up to date with obligations under the social regime in our country (both social security and contributions to the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares), the provision of participation guarantees (garantías de participación), etc.—and, with special rigor, the technical requirements established in the respective tender specifications (cartel de licitación). In this sense, it must be considered that pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 52 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, the tender specifications (cartel) or set of conditions for the bidding procedure constitutes the specific regulation of the procurement, as a set of clauses comprising the technical specifications—clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective—of the procurement to be resolved; since it establishes the essential elements of the transaction, including: the purpose of the tender, the description of the good or service to be acquired, the date for receipt of bids, as well as their minimum requirements and validity, general basis for selection, the documentation that must accompany the bid, the quotation format, the delivery period, the payment method, among others. Thus, the basic content of a tender specification constantly changes, according to the needs each procurement intends to satisfy. This is why it has a regulatory nature—in the manner provided in subsection h) of Article 4 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa—because it contains a series of rules of mandatory compliance and is the basic instrument of the procedure for selecting the public contractor, becoming the true specific regulation of the procurement, both in terms of the procedures to follow and the conditions contained therein; and in such capacity, it constitutes the specific norm that will govern the future contract. It is also a source of interpretation, since the clauses or conditions creating rights and duties for the parties are established therein. It follows, then, from the foregoing that the tender specification operates as a parameter of legal certainty, since it allows the Administration and potential contractors to know in advance the conditions governing the tender of their interest. (In the same vein, one may consult, among others, judgments numbers 518-F-S1-2011, 1038-F-S1-2012, and 1305-F-S1-2016, all three from the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia.)

**Fourth:** Now, it is of particular interest to this proceeding to refer to the possibility of rectifying (subsanación) bids submitted in any bidding process; the foregoing, because the substantive evaluation of the various bids submitted, in fairness, will only be performed on those upon which the final decision, i.e., the award (adjudicación), may be made. In this sense, it is necessary to specify that Article 42, subsection j) of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, allows for the rectification of defects in bids, within the period indicated by the Regulation to that Law, provided that this does not grant an undue advantage in relation to the other bidders; and adds that only the bid's validity period, as well as the validity period and the amount of the participation guarantee (garantía de participación), when such aspects have not been offered for less than eighty percent (80%) of what was set in the tender specifications, may be subject to rectification, as well as the other aspects of the participation guarantee, as provided by the regulatory norm. For its part, the Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa specifies the foregoing legal mandate.

First, in the first paragraph of section 80, it determined the timeframe and opportune moment to make the correction (subsanación), so that, within the five business days following the act of opening the bids, the contracting Administration must conduct the admissibility analysis of the bids (plicas) presented, and in case of omissions or errors, it grants five business days for correction, amendment, or clarification, but only regarding non-substantial, correctable aspects. In the second paragraph of the cited section (80), what is amendable or correctable is specified, which it defines as the error or omission whose correction does not imply a variation in the essential elements of the bid, such as the fundamental characteristics of the works, goods, or services offered, the price, the delivery timelines or the guarantees of the products, or that would place the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Then, section 81 lists, by way of example and not exhaustively, some elements that can be corrected, among them:

"a) Formal aspects, such as the nature and ownership of shares, sworn statements, copies of the bid, fiscal stamps, or certifications from the CCSS.

• b)Certifications regarding qualities, characteristics, or specifications of the good offered, provided that such circumstances existed at the time of submission of the bid, even if they were referenced in the bid and the interested party succeeds in accrediting them.
• c)Technical or financial documentation supplementary to the bid, including financial statements.
• d)Formalities that were thus required in the tender specifications (cartel), such as free translations of supplementary information.
• e)Data recorded in units different from those of the International System of Measures.
• f)The validity period of the bid, provided that it was not offered for less than 80% of the period established in the tender specifications.
• g)The amount or validity of the bid bond (garantía de participación), provided that they originally covered at least 80%.
• h)Any material error related to the bid bond, including those referring to the identification of the tender or the backed subject. Likewise, in surety bonds (bonos de garantía), it is valid to correct any substantial error, provided that the issuing entity accepts the amendment and guarantees that there is no problem for its settlement.
• i)The documents necessary to prove the veracity of events that occurred before the bid opening and that are completely referenced in the bid. This is appropriate even when dealing with aspects related to the qualification of the bid.
• j)Any other point that, requested as an admissibility requirement, is required by the Administration for a full evaluation of the proposal and does not confer an undue advantage over the remaining bidders, such as the official or free translation of technical or supplementary information and the user manuals issued by the manufacturer when so permitted by the tender specifications.

Finally, it warns that the lack of a signature on a bid is not a correctable aspect." The exposed norms allow us to affirm that not every breach of the tender specifications leads to the exclusion of a bid, but rather our body of legality enables the correction or cure (subsanación), it is repeated, only of non-essential aspects of the bid. Thus, the institution of correction becomes an instrument for the achievement of principles such as efficiency and preservation of bids (article 4 of the "Ley de Contratación Administrativa"). The foregoing is for the purpose of the Administration being able to count on a greater number of bids in the tender, so that it may choose, from the widest possible range, the bid (plica) of greatest convenience for the public need it intends to satisfy. However, that possibility of correction finds, in the judgment of this Collegiate Body, two insurmountable limits. The first of them, the impossibility of correcting essential or substantial aspects of the bid, insofar as the rules of correction have been established to remedy formal defects, provided that this does not modify the very content of what was offered, nor its price, among others; and the second limit is constituted by the principles of equal treatment and free competition (libre concurrencia), in the sense that the correction cannot grant undue advantages to bidders, in comparison with those who initially did meet all the tender specification requirements. From this perspective, it is the criterion of these judges that in this matter it is necessary to distinguish between the aspects that are evaluable and that by themselves admit margins of deviation among the bidders themselves, and those that are not and are known as "invariable clauses". In this sense, if dealing with aspects not qualifiable with points, it must be observed that the correction of the defect does not itself imply a spurious opportunity to vary essential aspects of the bid such as price, delivery timeline, or characteristics of the object.

In the other case, when aspects that are indeed subject to evaluation are involved, in addition to the foregoing, great care must be taken to ensure that the correction (subsanación) does not also grant an undue advantage to a bidder who has already learned the characteristics and conditions of other bids. Finally, when an aspect is subject to evaluation, the lack of information regarding it cannot be corrected if it implies a modification to the terms of the bid; although, information that is referenced in the bid can be verified. In general, it can be concluded that the valid request for clarification (prevención) that the Administration may make once the bids have been opened relates to those aspects that were recorded or referenced in the bid, which the Administration considers incomplete or unclear; such that it may legitimately request clarification (aclaración) of such elements, which, once again, cannot translate or be understood as an opportunity for bidders to modify the initially submitted bid. The contrary would be equivalent to allowing bidders, at a time after the opening of the bids, to complete their bids on aspects that will be subject to evaluation, which would entail a violation of the aforementioned principle of equality, since it would grant the bidder benefited by the request for clarification (prevención) an undue advantage over the others. Obviously, there are no single parameters, so the fundamental differences between what is evaluated and what is not will depend on each procurement process and the system established for such purposes. This imposes the need for the study and assessment (valoración) of the bids to be carried out in a measured manner, responsibly applying the principles of effectiveness and efficiency so that these do not empty the postulate of equal treatment and free competition of its content. Only in this way will the so-called principle of balance of interests be guaranteed, according to which public interests must not be satisfied at the expense of private ones, but in harmony with them.

VI.- ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE. The analysis of the legality of the award act challenged in this contentious proceeding is carried out based on the special regime of administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), in the manner explained in the preceding Considerando and in consideration of both the factual framework supporting this ruling and the allegations underpinning this action and the opposition from the state representation.

First: Why the plaintiff company’s bid was not the best option for the Procuring Administration: The plaintiff company maintains that the bid presented by it in the public tender (licitación pública) 2015LN-000000002-00400001, by the Defensoría de los Habitantes for the remodeling of a warehouse and construction of a parking lot, was the best, given the lower price offered and because it met all the legal, economic, and technical requirements. Thus, it reasons that not having been declared the awardee conflicts with the principles of efficiency, inviolability of public assets, and legal certainty. Upon review of the bids submitted, it is noted that the price offered by the plaintiff here was indeed the lowest, for a total amount of ¢88,700,000.00 (eighty-eight million seven hundred thousand colones exactly); while the company finally awarded the contract —Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima— offered a final price of ¢93,267,173.13 (ninety-three million two hundred sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three colones with thirteen céntimos) —statement of facts 5.), 10.) and 15.)—. In this regard, it must be considered that according to the bid evaluation method established in the tender specifications (cartel), 85% was foreseen for the best price, understood as the lowest price; and 15% in relation to the delivery term, setting a maximum term of ninety calendar days from the works commencement order —proven fact 3.)—. However, the plaintiff forgot that the tender specifications established a series of technical requirements regarding the works and materials to be used, to guarantee the safety and efficiency of the contractual object. The foregoing meant that the Procuring Administration (Defensoría de los Habitantes) could not award the procurement process (concurso) solely based on the price offered; rather, it had to evaluate those bids that met the requirements of the tender specifications.

In this regard, it can be noted that the Contracting Administration (Administración Licitante) indeed considered that of the sixteen bidding companies, only six companies met the requirements of the tender document (cartel), namely: **Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima** (bid #1); **Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima** (bid #4); **Ingeniería PCR Sociedad Anónima** (bid #9); **Constructora Joher Sociedad Anónima** (bid #10); **Rodríguez Constructores Asociados Sociedad Anónima** (bid #11); and **Construcciones Peñaranda Sociedad Anónima** (bid #12) -**proven fact 10.)**-; and in the evaluation of the plaintiff's bid herein, it concluded that it met the various attached forms, namely: #1, relating to the detailed breakdown of the budget; #2, referring to the list of construction materials; #3, which is the list of electrical materials; #4, which is the list of mechanical materials; #5, referring to the company's experience; and #6, in relation to the experience of the engineer responsible for the work -**proven fact 8.)**-. It was also specified that the company was up to date with its obligations to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF), and corporate taxes -**proven fact 10.)**-. In the same vein, it was recorded that the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima fulfilled all the forms and legal requirements -**proven fact 10.)**-; as a result of which, it gave a final score to Constructora ConteK Sociedad Anónima of 96.47 and to the company finally awarded the contract, a final score of 93.67 -**proven fact 10.)**-. However, in the technical assessment of the electromechanical requirements of the bid submitted by the plaintiff, it was specified that it did not comply with a specific element, namely the fire gate valve, since the one required in the tender document, in point 5.20.8, was "*... outside screw and yoke (OS&Y) rising stem, listed for fire protection by UL and approved by FM, these must be made of ductile iron for a working pressure of 1.7MPa (250 pounds WWP). The gate must be rubber lined internally and externally with a red epoxy enamel. Reference model: NIBCO model F-607-RW or equivalent*" -**proven fact 4.)**; while the one offered by the company Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima was "*... a Nibco brand valve Model F-607-OTS, ...*" -**proven fact 7.)**-. Regarding this particular model, the Contracting Administration reasoned as follows in its technical report on electromechanical requirements:

"*... from the analysis of its technical data sheet, it is determined that it has a working pressure of 175 psi.* *Since the fire suppression system constitutes a critical system in buildings, the possibility of a failure must be minimized as much as possible, given that by the nature of these systems it is required to function in full conditions when an emergency occurs. In this way, to guarantee proper functioning, it is required that all elements of said system be capable of withstanding, as a minimum, the working pressures generated by the pumping equipment, the foregoing not limiting the possibility of establishing a safety factor and installing components that can withstand pressures even higher than the working pressures.* The working pressures in the pumping system of the Defensoría can equal and exceed the working pressure for which the valve indicated in the bids of the companies **CONSTRUCTORA CONTEK SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA** was designed.

Furthermore, due to the nature and layout of the piping network of the fire suppression system of the Defensoría de los Habitantes, a section of iron pipe exposed to the elements is identified, with a length of approximately 100 meters; this section undergoes heating caused by solar radiation during the day, thereby subjecting the entire network to an increase in fluid pressure above normal working pressures. This is a particularity of the system that motivates the administration to require a significant safety factor from the design perspective of the expansion of this system.

Now, given the foregoing, subsection 5.20.8 of the tender specifications is breached, which states: ..." (The highlighting is not from the original) -**proven fact 7.)**-.

For its part, regarding the bid submitted by the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina, no breach whatsoever was found of the electromechanical requirements of its bid -**proven fact 8.)**-, nor in any other factor, as recorded in the final analysis of the bids -**proven facts 9.)** and **10.)**-. By virtue of the foregoing, it is logical and appropriate under the circumstances -requirements of the tender documents and bids submitted- that the award be recommended to the company Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima -**proven fact 11.)**- and not to the plaintiff company; which was finally done in an act dated the twelfth of August, two thousand fifteen -**proven fact 13.)**-. It is clear that the bid of the plaintiff corporation presented a breach or deviation from the requirements of the tender documents, whereas in the file of the public procurement in question, no objection whatsoever was found regarding the bid submitted by the company finally awarded. In this sense, it can be concluded that the plaintiff company has not proven its superior right, that is, it was not the best option for the contest at hand.

**Second: On the impossibility of amending the bid submitted by the plaintiff corporation and the improper attempt to remedy its proposal:** It should be noted that, in the tender documents of the public procurement at issue, clearly and precisely, in point 14 of Chapter I (on the Administrative Bases), regarding Investigations and clarifications, it was stated that the Administration reserved "... the right to verify or request clarifications on the content of any bid, including requesting one, several, or all bidders to make an oral presentation or submit additional information via Mer Link" -**proven fact 2.)**- and in the following point (number 15), titled "Improvements to bids", it was indicated that "(I)mprovements to the bid that are submitted to the Administration after the respective opening will not be taken into account in the evaluation of the proposal, ..." (the highlighting is not from the original). Thus, regarding the bidders, none could submit clarifications or remediations in relation to their proposals, and we have already indicated that, according to the regulations governing administrative procurement matters -articles 42 subsection j) of Law number 7494, 80 and 81 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 33411-H-, the Administration is enabled, once the admissibility analysis of the submitted bids has been carried out, to request clarifications or remediations, but it is reiterated, only regarding non-substantial elements of the bids. It should also be noted that this clarification or remediation is possible in the first phase of study and analysis, prior to the substantive phase, and solely at the initiative of the Contracting Administration.

In the case under study, the plaintiff company alleges that the Ombudsman's Office did not weigh the emails it sent to the contracting entity on July twenty-ninth and August eleventh, two thousand fifteen —**proven facts 12.)** and **13.)**—, in which it "corrected and clarified" its offer concerning the valve of the fire suppression system, occasions on which it indicated that the one stated in the offer was due to an error by the supplier company, in light of which, it rectifies its offering under the terms of the tender specifications, at no additional cost —**proven facts 12.)** and **13.)**—; a clarification that it also uploaded to the Mer-Link system, with document number 7242015000000001 —**proven fact 13.)**—. From the content of such actions, it is obvious that the plaintiff company itself acknowledges the error in its initial proposal, regarding the fire valve, the sole element objected to by the Contracting Administration to its offer; and for this reason, its insistence on attempting its solution. But such actions are not in accordance with the regulations governing the matter, since on the one hand, it is not a material error —as it tried to justify, both in the administrative venue and now in the jurisdictional venue—. but also, the action is carried out after the deadline provided for making corrections or correcting non-substantial omissions has expired, given that it did so after the corresponding technical analyses were performed, one day before the Contracting Administration adopted the award act. In this regard, the thesis of the state representation is shared, that the "clarification/correction" that the company Construcciones Contek Sociedad Anónima attempted to make referred to a substantial element of the offer, since compliance with the technical requirements demanded in the tender specifications depended on it. For this reason, contrary to what is alleged, having weighed that "correction/clarification" would have been a serious violation of the principle of equal treatment with respect to the rest of the bidders. Thus, it is concluded that the Contracting Administration acted in accordance with the legal framework governing administrative contracting; since only by contravening that framework could it have considered the "correction/clarification" that the plaintiff company made to its offer.

"V.- CONSIDERACIONES EN TORNO A LA CONTRATACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA.- Previo a analizar el diferendo planteado respecto del acto de adjudicación que la Administración adoptó en la licitación pública 2015LN-000002-00040000001, cuya nulidad se pide declarar en sentencia, se estima pertinente referirnos, de manera general a las particularidades de contratación administrativa, ya que fue en su ámbito que se dispuso el acto impugnado en esta acción.

Primero: La contratación administrativa tiene un régimen especial de regulación, que se sustenta, en primer lugar, de lo dispuesto en los artículos 182, 183 y 184 de la Constitución Política, del que derivan sus principios constitucionales (libre concurrencia, igualdad de trato para todos los oferentes, publicidad, equilibrio de intereses, formalismo en los procedimientos, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos, mutualidad del contrato, seguridad jurídica y control de los procedimientos), y de su desarrollo legislativo –Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, número 7494, de dos de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, número 7428, de siete de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República, la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento en la Función Pública– y reglamentario –Reglamento de la Ley de la Contratación, el Reglamento para el Refrendo, emitido por la Contraloría General de la República, los límites económicos que establece la Contraloría General de la República para determinar los diversos procedimientos licitatorios y para regular la competencia para las apelaciones administrativas en los procedimientos licitatorios–. Es así, como en el artículo primero de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa se previó la aplicación de este régimen especial de contratación, respecto de "... la actividad de contratación desplegada por los órganos del Poder Ejecutivo, el Poder Legislativo, el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, la Contraloría General de la República, la Defensoría de los Habitantes, el sector descentralizado territorial e institucional, los entes públicos no estatales y las empresas públicas." (El subrayado no es del original.)

Lo anterior resulta de trascendencia, en tanto la justificación de la contratación administrativa es precisamente la finalidad de satisfacer el interés público que le ha sido encomendado a una determinada dependencia pública. Así, se debe tener claro que es un mecanismo o procedimiento de selección, el cual se hace por medio de un concurso, que hace efectivo el ejercicio de una potestad pública, donde al contratista se le tiene como colaborador de la Administración en la gestión pública que se le adjudica (prestación de un servicio público, construcción de una obra pública, adquisición de un bien para la Administración, etc.); motivo por el cual, primariamente debe atenderse a la necesidad pública y a la satisfacción del interés público.

Segundo: El resultado final del proceso licitatorio es el acto de adjudicación. Se trata de un acto administrativo unilateral, ya es dictado por la Administración licitante dentro del proceso concursal, en el que selecciona o determina la oferta que se estima más conveniente para suplir la necesidad pública que sustenta todo el procedimiento de licitación (en este sentido, se manifiesta la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en sentencia número 1205-96), en tanto el fin de toda contratación administrativa es la elección de la propuesta más conveniente para la satisfacción del interés público, en beneficio de la colectividad; que por su contenido, genera una relación jurídico-administrativa, por cuanto, no sólo obliga al administrado, sino también, a la Administración misma. La característica más significativa de este acto (de adjudicación), es que se trata de un acto declarativo de derechos, por cuanto por él, la Administración declara, determina y define quién es el adjudicatario del proceso que ha convocado; por lo que genera obligaciones y derechos para ambas partes, ya que la Administración licitante está obligada a respetar ese acuerdo conforme a lo pactado, en aplicación de los principios que integran la contratación administrativa, puede exigir el cumplimiento de ese acuerdo; y a su vez, el adjudicatario, tiene el derecho de ejecutar el contrato declarado a su favor, y la obligación de hacerlo en los términos acordados. Por tal motivo, y siendo ese el contenido y efectos del acto de adjudicación, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el citado artículo 140 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, su eficacia se da desde su adopción -que no a partir de su comunicación-; tal y como lo ha considerado la jurisprudencia constitucional en diversas ocasiones (en este sentido, entre otras, consultar las sentencias número 2000-10469, de las diez horas con veinte minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil; y la número 2003-05671, de las ocho horas con treinta y siete minutos del veintisiete de junio del dos mil tres).

Tercero: Recuérdese en este sentido, que las ofertas que se presenten deben cumplir, tanto requisitos formales de orden jurídico y económico -tales como los referidos a la acreditación de la empresa o persona que presenta su plica, tales, como las respectivas cédulas o documentos de identificación, personerías jurídicas, acreditación de pago de impuestos de sociedades, el estar al día en las obligaciones del régimen social en nuestro país (tanto de la seguridad social como para la contribución del Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares), la rendición de las garantías de participación, etc.- y con especial rigor, a los requerimientos técnicos establecidos en el respectivo cartel de licitación. En este sentido, debe considerarse que al tenor de lo establecido en los artículos 51 y 52 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, el cartel o pliego de condiciones del procedimiento licitatorio, se constituye en el reglamento específico de la contratación, a modo de clausulado que comprende las especificaciones técnicas, claras, suficientes, concretas, objetivas de la contratación a dirimir; ya que en él se fijan los elementos esenciales del negocio, entre ellos: el objeto concursal, la descripción del bien o servicio por adquirir, la fecha de recepción de las ofertas, así como sus requisitos mínimos y vigencia, bases generales para la selección, la documentación que debe acompañar la oferta, la forma de cotización, el plazo de entrega, la modalidad de pago, entre otras. Así pues, el contenido básico de un cartel muta constantemente, según las necesidades que cada contratación pretenda satisfacer. Es por ello que tiene carácter reglamentario -en la forma dispuesta en el inciso h) del artículo 4 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa-, debido a que contiene una serie de normas de acatamiento obligatorio y es el instrumento básico del procedimiento de selección del contratista público, llegando a constituir el verdadero reglamento específico de la contratación, tanto de los trámites a seguir, como de las condiciones contenidas en éstos; y en tal condición, se configura en la norma específica que regulará el futuro contrato. Es también fuente de interpretación, pues en él quedan establecidas las cláusulas o condiciones creadoras de derechos y deberes de las partes. Se sigue entonces a tenor de lo expuesto que el cartel opera como parámetro de seguridad jurídica, puesto que permite a la Administración y potenciales contratantes conocer con anterioridad las condiciones que gobiernan el concurso de su interés. (En igual sentido, se pueden consultar, entre otras, las sentencias números 518-F-S1-2011, 1038-F-S1-2012 y 1305-F-S1-2016, las tres de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia.)

Cuarto: Ahora bien, interesa en particular a este proceso, referirnos a la posibilidad de subsanación de las ofertas que se presenten con ocasión de cualquier proceso licitatorio; lo anterior, por cuanto, la evaluación de fondo de las diversas ofertas presentadas, en buena lid, sólo se dará de aquellas sobre las que pueda recaer la decisión final, sea la adjudicación. En este sentido, es necesario precisar que el artículo 42 inciso j) de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, permite subsanar los defectos de las ofertas, en el plazo que indique el Reglamento de esa Ley siempre y cuando, con ello no se conceda una ventaja indebida, en relación con los demás oferentes; y agrega que sólo podrán ser objeto de subsanación, el plazo de vigencia de la oferta, así como el plazo de vigencia y el monto de la garantía de participación, cuando tales extremos no se hayan ofrecido por menos del ochenta por ciento (80%) de lo fijado en el cartel, así como los demás extremos de la garantía de participación, conforme lo disponga la norma reglamentaria. Por su parte, el Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, precisa el anterior mandato legal. En primer lugar, en el párrafo primero del numeral 80, determinó el plazo y momento oportuno para hacer la subsanación, de manera que, dentro de los cinco días hábiles siguientes al acto de apertura de las ofertas, la Administración licitante debe hacer el análisis de admisibilidad de las plicas presentadas, y en caso de omisiones o errores, confiere cinco días hábiles para la corrección, enmienda o aclaración, pero respecto de aspectos subsanables no sustanciales. En el párrafo segundo del citado numeral (80), se precisa lo enmendable o subsanable, el cual define como el error u omisión cuya corrección no implique una variación en los elementos esenciales de la oferta, tales como las características fundamentales de las obras, bienes o servicios ofrecidos, el precio, los plazos de entrega o las garantías de los productos, o bien, coloque al oferente en posibilidad de obtener una ventaja indebida. Luego, el ordinal 81 enlista a modo ejemplicativo, no taxativo, algunos elementos que pueden ser subsanados, entre ellos:

"a) Los aspectos formales, tales como, la naturaleza y propiedad de las acciones, declaraciones juradas, copias de la oferta, especies fiscales o certificaciones de la CCSS.

• b)Certificaciones sobre cualidades, características o especificaciones del bien ofrecido, siempre y cuando tales circunstancias existieran al momento de presentación de la oferta, así hubieren sido referenciadas en la oferta y lo logre acreditar el interesado.
• c)La documentación técnica o financiera complementaria de la oferta, incluyendo los estados financieros.
• d)Las formalidades que así se hayan exigido en el cartel, tales como traducciones libres de la información complementaria.
• e)Datos consignados en unidades diferentes a las del Sistema Internacional de Medidas.
• f)El plazo de vigencia de la oferta, siempre que no se haya ofrecido por menos del 80% del plazo fijado en el cartel.
• g)El monto o vigencia de la garantía de participación, siempre y cuando originalmente hayan cubierto, al menos, un 80%.
• h)Cualquier error material relacionado con la garantía de participación, incluyendo los referidos a la identificación del concurso o del sujeto respaldado. De igual forma, en los bonos de garantía es válido corregir cualquier error sustancial, siempre y cuando la entidad emisora acepte la enmienda y garantice que no existe problema alguno para su liquidación.
• i)Los documentos necesarios para probar la veracidad de hechos acaecidos antes de la apertura de ofertas y que estén referenciados de forma completa en la oferta. Esto es procedente aún tratándose de aspectos relacionados con la calificación de la oferta.
• j)Cualquier otro extremo que solicitado como un requisito de admisibilidad, sea requerido por la Administración, para una cabal valoración de la propuesta y no confiera una ventaja indebida frente a los restantes oferentes, tal como la traducción oficial o libre de la información técnica o complementaria y los manuales de uso expedidos por el fabricante cuando así haya sido permitido por el cartel.

Finalmente, advierte que la falta de la firma de una oferta no es un aspecto subsanable." Las normas expuestas, permiten afirmar que no todo incumplimiento cartelario conlleva la exclusión de una oferta, sino que más bien nuestro bloque de legalidad habilita la corrección o subsanación, se repite, únicamente de aspectos no esenciales de la oferta. Así, el instituto de la subsanación se convierte en un instrumento para la consecución de principios como el de eficiencia y conservación de las ofertas (artículo 4 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Lo anterior a efectos de que la Administración pueda contar con un mayor número de ofertas en el concurso, a fin de que pueda elegir, dentro de la más amplia gama posible, la plica de mayor conveniencia para la necesidad pública que se pretenda satisfacer. Sin embargo, esa posibilidad de subsanación encuentra, a juicio de este Cuerpo Colegiado, dos límites infranqueables. El primero de ellos, la imposibilidad de subsanar aspectos esenciales o sustanciales de la oferta, en tanto las reglas de la subsanación se han establecido para corregir defectos formales, siempre que con ello no se modifique el contenido mismo de lo ofrecido, ni su precio, entre otros; y el segundo límite lo constituyen los principios de igualdad de trato y libre concurrencia, en el sentido que la subsanación no puede otorgar ventajas indebidas a los oferentes, de frente a los aquellos que inicialmente sí han cumplido con todos los requisitos cartelarios. Desde esta perspectiva, es criterio de estos juzgadores que en esta materia es necesario distinguir entre los aspectos evaluables y que por sí mismos admiten márgenes de desviación entre los mismos oferentes, y aquellos que no lo son y que se conocen como "cláusulas invariables". En este sentido, si se trata de aspectos no calificables con puntos, se debe observar que la subsanación del defecto no implique por sí una espuria oportunidad de variar aspectos esenciales de la oferta como precio, plazo de entrega, características del objeto. En el otro caso, cuando se trate de aspectos que sí son evaluables, además de lo anterior, se debe observar con sumo cuidado que la subsanación no permita además una ventaja indebida a un oferente que ya ha conocido las características y condiciones de otras ofertas. Finalmente, cuando un aspecto es objeto de evaluación no puede ser subsanada la falta de información referente al mismo que implique una modificación a los términos de la oferta; aunque, sí se puede comprobar la información que quede referenciada en la oferta. En general, puede concluirse que la prevención que válidamente puede realizar la Administración una vez abiertas las ofertas, lo es sobre aquellos aspectos que hayan quedado consignados o referenciados en la oferta, que la Administración considere incompletos u oscuros; de manera que legítimamente puede requerir la aclaración de tales elementos, que una vez más, no puede traducirse ni entenderse, en una oportunidad para los oferentes, para que modificen la plica inicialmente presentada. Lo contrario equivaldría a permitir que los oferentes, en momentos posteriores a la apertura de las plicas, completen sus ofertas sobre aspectos que serán objeto de evaluación, lo que conllevaría un quebranto al citado principio de igualdad, toda vez que otorgaría al oferente beneficiado con la prevención, una ventaja indebida en relación con los demás. Obviamente, no existen parámetros únicos, por lo que las diferencias fundamentales entre lo que se evalúa y lo que no, dependerá de cada concurso y el sistema que para tales efectos se establezca. Ello impone la necesidad de que el estudio y valoración de las ofertas se realice de forma mesurada, aplicando en forma responsable los principios de eficacia y eficiencia a efectos de que éstos no vacíen el contenido el postulado de igualdad de trato y libre concurrencia. Solo así se garantizará el llamado principio de equilibrio de intereses, según el cual los intereses públicos no deben ser satisfechos a costa de los privados, sino en consonancia con ellos.

VI.- ANÁLISIS DE LA CUESTIÓN. El análisis de la legalidad del acto de adjudicación impugnado en este proceso contencioso se hace sobre la base el régimen especial de la contratación administrativa, en la forma explicada en el Considerando anterior y en atención, tanto al cuadro fáctico que sostiene este pronunciamiento, como a las alegaciones que sustentan esta acción y de la oposición de parte de la representación estatal.

Primero: Porqué la oferta de la sociedad actora no era la mejor opción para la Administración Licitante: Sostiene la sociedad actora que la oferta por ella presentada en la licitación pública 2015LN-000000002-00400001, de la Defensoría de los Habitantes para la remodelación de bodega y construcción de un parqueo, era la mejor, en atención al menor precio ofertado, por cumplir con todos los requerimientos legales, económicos y técnicos. Así, razona que el no haberle declarado adjudicataria, riñe con los principios de eficiencia, intangibilidad del patrimonio y seguridad jurídica. Revisada que fueran las propuestas presentadas, se advierte que en efecto el precio ofertado por la aquí accionante, fue el menor, por un monto total de ¢88.700.000.00 (ochenta y ocho millones setecientos mil colones exactos); mientas que la empresa finalmente adjudicada -Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima-, ofertó un precio final de ¢93.267.173.13 (noventa y tres millones doscientos sesenta y siete mil ciento setenta y tres colones con trece céntimos) -relación de hechos 5.), 10.) y 15.)-. En este sentido, debe considerarse que conforme al método de calificación de las ofertas establecido en el cartel, se previó un 85% para el mejor precio, entendiendo por tal, el menor precio; y un 15% en relación al plazo de entrega, fijando como plazo máximo noventa días naturales a partir de la orden de inicio de las obras -hecho probado 3.)-. No obstante, olvidó quien demanda, que en el cartel se establecieron una serie de requerimientos técnicos en relación a las obras y materiales a utilizar, para garantizar la seguridad y eficiencia del objeto contractual. Lo anterior hace que la Administración Licitante (Defensoría de los Habitantes) no pudiera adjudicar el concurso únicamente en razón del precio ofertado; sino que debía de valorar aquellas plicas que cumplieran los requerimientos del cartel. En este sentido se logra advertir que en efecto la Administración Licitante consideró que de las dieciséis empresas oferentes, cumplían los requerimientos del cartel únicamente seis empresas, a saber: Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima (oferta #1); Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima (oferta #4); Ingeniería PCR Sociedad Anónima (oferta #9); Constructora Joher Sociedad Anónima (oferta #10); Rodríguez Constructores Asociados Sociedad Anónima (oferta #11); y Construcciones Peñaranda Sociedad Anónima (oferta #12) -hecho probado 10.)-; siendo que en la evaluación de la oferta de la aquí actora, concluyó que cumplía los diversos formularios adjuntos, estos son: el #1, relativo al desglose de l presupuesto de manera detallada; el #2, referido a la lista de materiales de construcción; el #3, que es la lista de materiales eléctricos; el #4, que es la lista de los materiales mecánicos; el #5, referido a la experiencia de la empresa; y el #6, en relación a la experiencia del ingeniero responsable de la obra -hecho probado 8.)-. También se precisó que la empresa estaba al día con las obligaciones de la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF) y al impuesto de sociedades -hecho probado 10.)-. En el mismo sentido, se consignó que la empresa Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima cumplió todos los formularios y exigencias jurídicas -hecho probado 10.)-; resultado de lo cual, le dio un puntaje final a Constructora ConteK Sociedad Anónima de 96.47 y a la empresa finalmente adjudicada, un puntaje final de 93.67 -hecho probado 10.)-. Sin embargo, en la valoración técnica de los requerimientos electromecánicos de la oferta presentada por la actora, se precisó que no cumplía con un elemento concreto, a saber el de la válvula de compuerta de incendios, toda vez que la exigida en el cartel, en el punto 5.20.8 fue la de "... yugo externo vástago ascendente (OS&Y) listadas para incendios por UL y aprobadas por FM, éstas deberán ser de hierro dúctil para una presión de trabajo de 1.7MPa (250 libras WWP). La compuerta deberá ser revestida de hule interna y externamente con un esmalte epóxico color rojo. Modelo de referencia: NIBCO modelo F-607-RW o equivalente" -hecho probado 4.); mientras que la ofertada por la empresa Constructora Contek Sociedad Anónima fue "... una válvula marca Nibco Modelo F-607-OTS, ..." -hecho probado 7.)-. Respecto de este modelo en particular, la Administración Licitante razonó lo siguiente en su informe técnico de los requerimientos electromecánicos:

"... del análisis de la ficha técnica de la misma se determina que ésta presenta una presión de trabajo de 175 psi.

Al constituir el sistema de supresión de incendios un sistema critico en las edificaciones se debe minimizar al máximo la posibilidad de una falla, dado que por la naturaleza de estos sistemas se requiere que funcione en plenas condiciones cuando se de una emergencia. De este modo para poder garantizar un buen funcionamiento se requiere que todos los elementos de dicho sistema sean capaces de soportar como mínimo las presiones de trabajo generadas por los equipos de bombeo no limitando lo anterior la posibilidad de establecer un factor de seguridad e instalar componentes que puedan soportar presiones aun superiores a las presiones de trabajo.

Las presiones de trabajo en el sistema de bombeo de la Defensoría pueden igualar y superar la presión de trabajo para la cual fue diseñada la válvula que se indica en las ofertas de las empresas CONSTRUCTORA CONTEK SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA.

Además por la naturaleza y distribución del tendido tuberías del sistema de supresión de incendios de la Defensoría de los Habitantes, se identifica un tramo de tubería de hierro expuesto a intemperie, con una longitud cercana a los 100 metros de distancia, este tramo sufre un calentamiento producto de la radiación solar durante el día, sometiendo por ende a toda la red a un aumento de la presión del fluido por encima de las presiones normales de trabajo. Siendo esta una particularidad del sistema que motiva a la administración a requerir un factor de seguridad importante desde el punto de vista de diseño de la ampliación de este sistema.

Ahora bien dado lo anterior se incumple el inciso 5.20.8 del pliego de condiciones donde se indica: ..." (El resaltado no es del original) -hecho probado 7.)-.

Por su parte, respecto de la oferta presentada por la empresa Multiservicios Isabel Cristina, no se encontró incumplimiento alguno de los requerimientos electromecánicos de su oferta -hecho probado 8.)-, ni en ningún otro factor, como se consignó en el análisis final de las ofertas -hechos probados 9.) y 10.)-. En virtud de lo anterior, es que resulta lógico y adecuado a las circunstancias -exigencias del cartel y ofertas presentadas-, que se recomendase la adjudicación a la empresa Multiservicios Isabel Cristina Sociedad Anónima -hecho probado 11.)- y no a la empresa actora; lo que finalmente se hizo en acto de fecha doce de agosto del dos mil quince -hecho probado 13.)-. Resulta evidente que la plica de la sociedad actora presentaba un incumplimiento o separación de los requerimientos del cartel, mientras que en el expediente de la licitación pública en cuestión, no se encontró reparo alguno respecto de la oferta presentada por la empresa finalmente adjudicada. En este sentido, es que puede concluirse que la empresa actora no ha acreditado su mejor derecho, es decir, no era la mejor opción para el concurso que nos ocupa.

Segundo: De la imposibilidad de enmienda de la oferta presentada por la sociedad actora e intento improcedente para subsanar su propuesta: Debe advertirse que, en el cartel de la licitación pública que nos ocupa, de manera clara y precisa, en el punto 14, del Capítulo I (de las Bases Administrativas), relativo a las Investigaciones y aclaraciones, se consignó que la Administración se reservaba "... el derecho de verificar o de solicitar aclaraciones sobre el contenido de cualquier oferta, incluyendo la solicitud a alguno, varios o a todos los oferentes para que hagan una presentación oral o presenten información adicional mediante Mer Link" -hecho probado 2.)- y en el punto siguiente (número 15), titulado "Mejoras a las ofertas", se indicó que "(L)as mejoras a la oferta que fueren sometidas a la Administración después de la apertura respectiva no serán tomadas en cuenta en la valoración de la propuesta, ..." (el resaltado no es del original). Así pues, respecto de los oferentes, ninguno podía presentar aclaraciones o subsanaciones en relación a sus propuestas, y ya indicamos, que conforme al ordenamiento que rige la materia de la contratación administrativa -artículos 42 inciso j) de la Ley número 7494, 80 y 81 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 33411-H-, se posibilita a la Administración para que, realizado el análisis de admisibilidad de las plicas presentadas, requiera aclaraciones o subsanaciones, pero se insiste, únicamente respecto de elementos no sustanciales de las ofertas. Nótese además, que esta aclaración o subsanación es posible de hacerse en la primera fase de estudio y análisis, previo al de fondo, y únicamente por iniciativa de la Administración Licitante. En el caso en estudio, acusa la sociedad actora que no ponderó la Defensoría de los Habitantes los correos que envió a la entidad contratante, en fechas del veintinueve de julio y once de agosto del dos mil quince -hechos probados 12.) y 13.)-, en los que "subsanó y aclaró" su oferta en relación a la válvula del sistema de supresión de incendio, ocasiones en las cuales indicó que la consignada en la oferta se debió a un error de la empresa suplidora, al tenor de lo cual, rectifica su ofrecimiento en los términos del cartel, sin costo adicional -hechos probados 12.) y 13.)-; aclaración que además subió al sistema Mer-Link, con el número de documento 7242015000000001 -hecho probado 13.)-. Del contenido de tales gestiones, salta a la vista que la propia sociedad actora reconoce el error en su propuesta inicial, respecto de la válvula de incendio, único elemento objetado por la Administración Licitante a su oferta; y por ello, su insistencia en intentar su solución. Pero tales gestiones no son conformes al ordenamiento que rige la materia, ya que por un lado, no se trata de un error material -como intentó justificar, tanto en sede administrativa, como ahora en la sede jurisdiccional-. sino que además, la gestión se realiza vencido el plazo previsto para hacer correcciones o subsanar omisiones no sustanciales, toda vez que lo hizo luego de realizados los análisis técnicos correspondientes, a un día de que la Administración Licitante adoptase el acto de adjudicación. En este sentido, es que se comparte la tesis de la representación estatal, de que la "aclaración/subsanación" que intentó hacer la empresa Construcciones Contek Sociedad Anónima, refirió a un elemento sustancial de la oferta, ya que de ello dependía o no el cumplimiento de los requerimientos técnicos exigidos en el cartel. Por este motivo, contrario a lo alegado, el haber ponderado aquella "subsanación/aclaración", hubiese sido en grave lesión del principio de igualdad de trato respecto del resto de oferentes. Así pues, se concluye que la Administración Licitante actuó conforme al bloque de legalidad que rige la contratación administrativa; ya que sólo contrariando aquel orden, podía haber considerado la "subsanación/aclaración" que hizo la empresa actora de su oferta."