Inapplicability of penalty clause and contract rescission due to trust's breachImprocedencia de cláusula penal y rescisión contractual por incumplimiento del fideicomiso

**RESOLUTION No. 04631 - 2025** **Date of Resolution:** May 16, 2025, at 16:16 **Expediente:** 20-004040-1027-CA **Drafted by:** Marco Antonio Hernández Vargas, Ronaldo Hernández Hernández **Type of Matter:** Ordinary Proceeding **Analyzed by:** CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL **Content of Interest:** **Type of Content:** Majority Vote **Branch of Law:** Administrative Law **Topic:** Administrative Procurement **Subtopics:** Considerations on the application of the penalty clause in administrative procurement.

**Topic:** Penalty clause **Subtopics:** Considerations on the application of the penalty clause in administrative procurement.

"XI.- 1.- ON THE LEGITIMACY AND EFFECTS OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE (CLÁUSULA PENAL). [...] 2.- CONTINUATION. IMPROPRIETY OF INVALIDATING THE APPLICATION OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE (CLÁUSULA PENAL). IMPROPRIETY OF DECLARING A SUBJECTIVE RIGHT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSORTIUM FOR ITS INAPPLICABILITY.

As an effect derived from the termination (rescisión) and its intrinsic contractual result, the bidding terms (cartelaria) stipulation LPI-01-2017 stipulated and empowered the contracting Administration to liquidate in advance the damages arising from an early, late, or no delivery of the work by the contractor. Therefore, the purpose of this clause is for the contracting administration to have an agile mechanism to obtain reparation for the damages caused by the early advance or delay, considering that in certain cases the execution deadline is of vital importance and, given its specific purpose, must be executed in the event of non-compliance with the deadline for executing the agreed obligations, and by its means any misalignment—due to prematurity or delay—in the contractual execution deadline is punished. That is, the setting of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) in the bid specifications (cartel) constitutes a sum that will cover the possible damages attributable to the contractor in the event of a delay or misalignment in the deadline for executing the obligations, which is pre-fixed in advance in the administrative venue for the reparation of the damages that would be caused by an eventual delay in the established deadline, or which is the same, the conceptualization of an 'alternative administrative sanction system,' which intends to establish in advance what the economic effects of non-compliance will be, for which it is forceful to maintain that this type of pecuniary sanctions 'constitute mechanisms that seek to ensure the faithful observance of what was agreed, or failing that, to achieve compensation for the damage suffered. Hence, they have two basic functions, the compulsive and the compensatory. They appear in the administrative contract as eventual sanctions, which seek to better guarantee the Administration that the contractor will fulfill the provision within the deadline and with the agreed conditions, pre-fixing in advance the reparation of the damages that would be caused by an eventual delay in the indicated deadline or a non-compliance. In that consideration, the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), numeral 50, establishes that the "cláusula penal proceeds for late or early execution of contractual obligations, the scenarios and amounts must be included in the respective bid specifications (cartel) and the provisions indicated in the previous articles will be applicable." So that, for the collection of the penalty clause (cláusula penal), it will not be necessary to demonstrate the existence of the damage or prejudice and the collection may be made against the price retentions that have been practiced and the pending payment balances (article 48). However, its application is not automatic, or simply based on mere appreciations, conjectures, or suppositions not reliably accredited of having incurred in an early or late execution of the obligation; that would be abusive, leonine, and would imply the exercise of sanctioning powers based on mere presumptions, indications, and not on clear and conclusive proof [...]" ... See more **Legislation and Doctrine Citations** **Text of the Resolution** EV Machote Generation: F:\\Gestion-Judicial\\Servidor de Archivos\\Modelos\\Contencioso\\TCRESOL016.dpj *200040401027CA* **EXPEDIENTE:** **PROCEEDING:** ORDINARY PROCEEDING (CONOCIMIENTO) **PLAINTIFF:** CONSORCIO IDECO RUCO GCI **DEFENDANT:** BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA **N° 2025004631** TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECOND SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at sixteen hours and sixteen minutes on May sixteenth, two thousand twenty-five.- ORDINARY PROCEEDING (PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO) filed by the Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI (hereinafter "CONSORTIUM"), led by the company IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A. (hereinafter "IDECO"), represented by Mr. Jose Luis Brenes San Gil, identity card number 1-1043-0092, also comprising the companies GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A. represented by Carlos Luis Brenes Mena, identity card 1-0874-0191, CEMENTOS PROGRESO COSTA RICA S.A. (formerly CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A.) represented by Mr. Rolando C. Laclé Zúñiga, identity card number 1-0714-0897, and the company RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A. represented by Mr. Fernando Chavarría Bravo, identity card number 1-1183-0787, in his capacity as President with powers of generalísimo attorney-in-fact without limit of amount, for the International Public Tender 'LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction and Equipping of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers,' against the FIDEICOMISO BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA – MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA LEY NÚMERO 9124, Trust ID MEP-BNCR 3-112-672283 (hereinafter THE FIDEICOMISO), represented by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica by Mr. Arturo Gutiérrez Ballard and Randall Obando Araya, both in their capacity as general judicial attorneys-in-fact. The attorney Walter Brenes Soto intervenes as special judicial attorney for the plaintiff. The legal prescriptions in the substantiation of the proceeding have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing the nullity of what has been acted upon and resolved are observed. Next, the Collegiate Court, Second Section, which by turn was responsible for hearing this matter, proceeds to issue, within the legal deadline, after holding the Complementary Hearing (Audiencia Complementaria) and legal deliberation, the corresponding resolution with the unanimous vote of its members.

Drafted by Judge Hernández Hernández.

**CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO)** I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS. As part of the procedural path (íter procesal), the following is noted: 1) By means of a complaint brief, the plaintiff petitioned:

"PRINCIPAL CLAIM (PRETENSIÓN PRINCIPAL):

1.- That the non-conformity with the Legal System of the following resolutions of the defendant and all related acts or actions be declared, with their consequent annulment:

? Official Letter FID-2493-2020 (Annex 80) of June 29, 2020, by which the request for termination for convenience of the contractor (rescisión por conveniencia del contratista) filed by the Consortium is rejected and, in turn, the unilateral termination (rescisión unilateral) by the Contracting Party of contract No. 88-2017 is declared concerning Educational Center 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa.

? Official Letter FID-2692-2020 (Annex 79) of July 13, 2020, by which the request for termination for convenience of the contractor (rescisión por conveniencia del contratista) filed by the Consortium is rejected and, in turn, the unilateral termination (rescisión unilateral) by the Contracting Party of projects No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul is declared.

2.- That the non-conformity with the Legal System of the following resolutions of the defendant and all related acts or actions be declared, with their consequent annulment:

? Resolution No. 24-2020 (Annex 98) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of ten hours on July twenty-first, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Escuela La Hermosa, Code 058-0870, and which orders payment of USD $166,063.38 to the defendant; ? Resolution No. 26-2020 (Annex 87) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of twelve hours on August eleventh, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Code 023-5969, and which orders payment of USD $131,949.18 to the defendant; ? Resolution No. 31-2020 (Annex 88) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of eleven hours forty minutes on August twenty-eighth, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Code 024-1942, and which orders payment of USD $95,457.70 to the defendant; 4.- (sic) That the non-conformity with the Legal System of the following resolutions of the defendant and all related acts or actions be declared, with their consequent annulment:

? Official Letter FID-3278-2020 (Annex 84), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 24-2020 was rejected.

? Official Letter FID-3468-2020 (Annex 85), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 26-2020 was rejected.

? Official Letter FID-3331-2020 (Annex 88), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 31-2020 was rejected.

5.- That the plaintiff's subjective right to terminate for convenience (rescindir por conveniencia) the following contracts be declared:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

6.- That the plaintiff's subjective right to receive payment of the following amounts corresponding to payment for work progress be declared, sums that must be brought to present value under the terms of article 123 of the CPCA:

Summary of executed work pending payment by the Fideicomiso:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-0970 Escuela Hermosa the sum of $338,769.30 USD for work executed and unpaid.

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº023-5969 of Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; $274,142.53 USD corresponding to work executed and unpaid.

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 of Escuela Azul amount of $395,752.05 USD corresponding to work executed and unpaid.

7.- That the plaintiff's subjective right to have the following performance guarantees returned be declared:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; and ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

8.- The abstract condemnation of the defendant to pay both costs of the proceeding, which will be estimated in the execution of judgment.

**SUBSIDIARY CLAIM (PRETENSIÓN SUBSIDIARIA)** 1.- That the serious contractual breach by the Fideicomiso of its legal and contractual obligations and duties of collaboration, good faith, fulfillment of the agreed terms; processing; and maintenance of the financial equilibrium of the contract be declared.

2.- That it be declared that the plaintiff Consortium, as the non-breaching party, has the contractual subjective right to except itself from fulfilling its obligations to deliver the works detailed in the following contracts:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

3.- That it be declared that, as the non-breaching party, it is not appropriate to apply to the plaintiff Consortium, by the Fideicomiso -the breaching party- the penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) agreed upon in the referred contracts, for which the following resolutions and all related acts should be annulled:

? Resolution No. 24-2020 (Annex 98) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of ten hours on July twenty-first, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Escuela La Hermosa, Code 058-0870, and which orders payment of USD $166,063.38 to the defendant; ? Resolution No. 26-2020 (Annex 87) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of twelve hours on August eleventh, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Code 023-5969, and which orders payment of USD $131,949.18 to the defendant; ? Resolution No. 31-2020 (Annex 88) of the Project Steering Committee (Comité Director del Proyecto) of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, of eleven hours forty minutes on August twenty-eighth, 2020, by which it is decided to 'Apply penalty clause 26 "Guarantee of Completion Deadline," sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Specifications (Pliego de Bases) of the International Public Tender Process No. LPI-01-2017' to the plaintiff Consortium, as compensation for performance guarantee for the damages caused by the delivery delay of the works of Project Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Code 024-1942, and which orders payment of USD $95,457.70 to the defendant; ? Official Letter FID-3278-2020 (Annex 84), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 24-2020 was rejected; ? Official Letter FID-3468-2020 (Annex 85), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 26-2020 was rejected; ? Official Letter FID-3331-2020 (Annex 88), by which the appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed against the aforementioned Resolution No. 31-2020 was rejected.

4.- That the plaintiff's subjective right to receive payment of the following amounts corresponding to payment for work progress be declared, sums that must be brought to present value under the terms of article 123 of the CPCA:

Summary of executed work pending payment by the Fideicomiso:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-0970 Escuela Hermosa the sum of $338,769.30 USD for work executed and unpaid.

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 of Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; $274,142.53 USD corresponding to work executed and unpaid.

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 of Escuela Azul amount of $395,752.05 USD corresponding to work executed and unpaid.

5.- That the plaintiff's subjective right to have the following performance guarantees returned be declared:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

6.- That the contractual resolution of the following contracts be declared:

? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contract No. 88-2017 (Annex 1) concerning educational center Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

7.- The abstract condemnation of the defendant to pay both costs of the proceeding, which will be estimated in the execution of judgment.

(images 2-71 and claims (pretensiones) set in the Preliminary Hearing of May 25, 2023, image 1351-1356 and audio supports in judicial file).

• 2)By brief filed on December 19, 2019, and within the summons given by the Court, the judicial representative of the defendant answered the complaint negatively, requesting that the complaint be dismissed and that costs be imposed on the plaintiff. It raised the defense of lack of right (imágenes 1042, 1046 to 1120 judicial file).
• 3)A precautionary measure (medida cautelar) was issued in this matter by resolution N°596-2020 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO at sixteen hours twenty minutes on November twenty-sixth, two thousand and twenty, which orders: "The request for a precautionary measure (medida cautelar) managed by the representation of CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA is ACCEPTED. Therefore, and as ordered on a provisionalísima basis, it is ordered to maintain the suspension of the effects and scope of Resolution number 29-2020 /FID-3278-2020 of thirteen hours ten minutes on August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty, issued by the Comité Director FID MEP-BNCR, by which the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) of Project Escuela La Hermosa was concluded. Consequently, the defendant is ordered to refrain from executing the cited resolution, that is, to refrain from executing the performance guarantee in the absence of payment ordered in the resolution that is suspended; also suspending the payment order of the penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) and the forced execution of the performance guarantees. The foregoing provision will be maintained for the entire time necessary until a final judgment is issued in the ordinary proceeding or another situation determines otherwise. Having indicated the foregoing, the representation of CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA must take into consideration that, according to the rules of article 26, second paragraph of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in the event that it has not yet done so, it must file the main complaint within a period of 15 days, counted from the day following the notification of this resolution, and under this same number (20-004040-1027-CA), with the warning that in case of omission, the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) decreed herein will be lifted, and it will be condemned to pay the damages caused, which will be liquidated through the execution of judgment procedure. As COUNTER-SECURITY (CONTRACAUTELA), the representation of the plaintiff party MUST maintain the performance guarantees in force; for ALL the time necessary for the issuance of the judgment on the merits; otherwise, the precautionary measure (medida cautelar) decreed herein will be lifted, with the consequences previously established. This matter is resolved without special condemnation for costs. In due time, file the case file." The foregoing was added by resolution N°596-2020-BIS of the TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO at ten hours twenty minutes on December fifteenth, two thousand twenty, which ordered: "POR TANTO. As indicated, resolution number N°596-2020 at sixteen hours twenty minutes on November twenty-sixth, two thousand twenty is added in the following sense: It is ordered to suspend, in addition to what has already been ordered, the payment order of the penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) and the forced execution of the performance guarantees, until the corresponding resolution is issued on the merits in the main proceeding, or another situation determines otherwise. In all other respects, the cited resolution remains unaltered." (see resolutions in precautionary measure file) 4) On May 25, 2023, the Preliminary Hearing provided for in article 90 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo was held. The claims (pretensiones) were set. The disputed facts of the proceeding were determined (facts 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the complaint), and the documentary evidence of both parties was admitted, as well as the testimonial evidence, as follows: for the plaintiff, the following were admitted: as expert witness Mr. Fernando Castro Ramírez, identity card 1-1091-0948, who will testify regarding the facts of the complaint, as well as expert witness Mr. Adrián Ruilova, identity card 1-0567-0565, who may testify to all the facts of the complaint, as expert witness Mr. Álvaro Chavarría Chaves, identity card 1-0532-0600, who may testify to his expertise, and expert witness Mr. Kristian Fallas Fonseca, identity card 1-1062-0095, who may testify to his expertise. For the defendant, the following were admitted: as witness Mr. Álvaro Quirós Rossi, identity card 3-0249-0719, who may testify to the projects Escuela La Hermosa and Escuela Azul, as witness Mr. Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado, identity card 1-0892-0255, as witness Mr. Guillermo Rojas Chaves, identity card 1-0491-0249, and as witness Mr. Sergio Solano Ugalde, identity card 1-0568-0750. (as stated in images 1351-1356 and audio supports in judicial file).
• 5)By brief visible at image 1368, the plaintiff party offers evidence for better provision, official letter JDG-1434-22/23 of agreement N°03 of the Board of Directors of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, in ordinary session N°37-22/23 G.E. dated September 19, 2023, where the case followed in expediente N°0220-2022 against its represented company is ordered to be archived. By resolution of 13:27 hours on March 4, 2025, a hearing was granted to the counterparty: "By brief visible at image 1368, the plaintiff party offers evidence for better provision, official letter JDG-1434-22/23 of agreement N°03 of the Board of Directors of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, in ordinary session N°37-22/23 G.E. dated September 19, 2023, where the case followed in expediente N°0220-2022 against it is ordered to be archived, and annexes, all visible at images 1368-1481 of the judicial file. In this regard, a 3-day hearing is granted for the defendant to refer to the relevance of the evidence offered, a situation that will be resolved at the holding of the complementary hearing (audiencia complementaria) scheduled in the court record. Your consultation will be directly from the virtual file, so style copies will not be sent." (as stated in images 1368-1481, 1627 in judicial file) 6) The Complementary Hearing (Audiencia Complementaria) was held on the dates indicated and convened. The first opened at 09:19 hours, in Courtroom 5, suspended at 17:31 hours; the second continued from 08:41 hours, in Courtroom 3, suspended at 17:45 hours; and therein it was ordered to continue with a third continuation of the complementary hearing for April 2, 2025, starting at 10:07 hours, in Courtroom 8, and concluding at 15:02 hours. The representatives of the defendant participated in the hearings remotely, via the Teams platform. The representative of the plaintiff was present on all dates in the designated Courtrooms. The hearing was recorded in audio and video in the corresponding electronic system and is attached to the file. The COLLEGIATE COURT, SECOND SECTION (Team 2), was constituted in person, made up of Judges EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA, MARCO HERNÁNDEZ VARGAS, and presided over by RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ. During this hearing, there were no rectification aspects.

The Court ordered the denial of the evidence for better resolution regarding: official letter JDG-1434-22/23 of agreement N°03 of the Board of Directors of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, in ordinary session N°37-22/23 G.E. dated September 19, 2023, because it was neither useful nor relevant to the facts of the complaint and the object of the litigation. The plaintiff withdrew the expert witness Mr. Adrián Ruilova, identity card 1-0567-0565, and the defendant dispensed with the witness Álvaro Quirós Rossi, identity card 3-0249-0719, and the Court resolved by accepting the withdrawals. The opening arguments of the parties and the witness depositions were heard. Regarding the statement of Mr. Fernando Castro Ramírez, the Court resolved, with the express agreement of the parties, to readjust his deposition so that it is understood as a party statement, as he is a direct partner of one of the plaintiff companies and as stated by him. The parties were granted a period of 10 business days to submit their written conclusions, with the deadline for issuing the judgment being May 16, 2025. All incidents of the hearing were recorded in the minutes thereof and in the recording of the judicial file.

II.ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. 1.- OBJECT AND POSITION OF THE COMPLAINT.- The plaintiff alleges in concrete, relevant, and literal terms in relation to the object of the proceeding the following: "LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. In this complaint, it is alleged that the FIDEICOMISO incurred multiple serious breaches of its contractual duties throughout the contractual execution, breaches that resulted in the impossibility for the Consortium (Consorcio) to fulfill its contractual obligations, causing pecuniary damage (daño patrimonial) to the companies that comprise it, especially to the lead company that assumed the tasks of planning, programming, and execution of the works, with the consequent financial burden that this entails. Throughout the statement of facts, the serious breaches incurred by the Fideicomiso have been detailed, as well as the manner in which this influenced the failure to deliver the contracted works, making the Consortium's request to declare the rescission (rescisión) of the contracts appropriate in accordance with the rules set forth in the bidding documents (cartel de la licitación) and the respective agreements.

In this plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento), it will be argued that the delay in the delivery of the works by the Consortium was due to:

• i)a series of differences between the Final Designs (Diseños Finales) approved by the FIDEICOMISO, which caused a series of additional requests, because what was requested by the FIDEICOMISO during the construction process differed substantially from the design approved in construction drawings (planos constructivos), which generated a series of additional costs, which are explained in the administrative claims, ii) failure to pay for important milestones (hitos), iii) start-up orders (órdenes de inicio) between projects took longer than due, iv) lack of definitions by the FIDEICOMISO generated delays in the contractual timeline (plazo contractual) of the project, v) communications from unauthorized third parties and lack of communications from the Project Manager.

Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the rejection of the administrative claim is illegitimate and entails a pecuniary loss (lesión patrimonial) for the CONSORTIUM (CONSORCIO) that it should not bear.

CONSTRUCTION DRAWING REVIEW STAGE. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN APPROVED DRAWINGS AND CONTRACTOR'S REQUESTS.

According to the provisions of the contracting conditions, once the start-up order was received, the Consortium proceeded to carry out the design and preparation of construction drawings, as appropriate. These tasks were carried out taking as a basis and reference the preliminary projects (anteproyectos) approved for each of the projects, which were provided as input; likewise, prototype drawings (planos prototipo) from the Fideicomiso were used. Once the design and construction drawing preparation tasks were completed, the Administration reviewed and approved said design and drawings for each project, these documents thereby becoming the Approved Final Design (Diseño Final Aprobado). As observed in official letters CG-2018-0506/ARQ-2018-0193 CON (Anexo 4), CG-2018-0810/ARQ-2018-0303 CON (Anexo 5) and GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-022 (Anexo 6), the Project Supervision (Supervisión de proyecto) reviewed the drawings and, upon conformity therewith, instructed us to begin the permit procedures before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos CFIA, which was done, in order to move forward. In the tender documents for Consultants for the management of PCEYE Final (Anexo 7), in section 7. Terms of Reference, numeral 4.1. ON THE PROJECT SUPERVISION UNIT (Unidad de Supervisión del Proyecto, USP), the following is identified: The USP is responsible for defining for the CDP either the prototypes or the guidelines and technical specifications that must be met by the contractors selected by the UEP for the design, construction, and equipping of the educational infrastructure developed under the Program. The prototypes of the buildings, which will be part of the trust's assets (patrimonio del fideicomiso), refer to the elements, the basic conditions, and the technical specifications of the spaces that an educational institution must have (square meters per classroom, ventilation, sanitary facilities per student, classroom prototype that must adjust to topographical conditions, among others) and constitute the requirements of the educational system regarding infrastructure. The designs, construction drawings, construction, and equipping of the educational infrastructure shall be executed in accordance with the prototypes or the guidelines and technical specifications defined by the USP, provided they do not contravene the Loan Agreement (Contrato de Préstamo), and in accordance with the conditions of the lands acquired by the Trustee (Fiduciario) with the support of the UEP.

The direct responsibility of the Project Supervision Unit (Unidad de Supervisión del Proyecto) was the review, verification, validation, and approval of the drawings submitted by the Consortium on the occasion of the design of the LPI-01-2017 projects. Once the approval of the design and construction drawings was received from the Administration, and its approval on the APC platform by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, the approved Final Design was generated, which corresponds to a deliverable prepared by the Consortium that was contractually established, and which began to be executed.

The completion of the pre-construction phase and the generation of the approved Final Design was additionally formalized by the Administration, through the payment of the corresponding milestone (hito), once again confirming its approval of the deliverable and bringing the pre-construction phase of the projects to a conclusion, completion, and closure.

From this moment, the construction stage began with the Final Design approved by the Administration, and if there were errors and/or omissions between the designs and drawings submitted for review and the minimum specifications, it was the Administration's duty, through the Project Supervision Unit USP during the drawing review process, to request the correction of the final designs from the Consortium through the drawing review report before considering the Final Designs approved, which did not occur.

Upon approval of the design and drawings by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos through the aforementioned APC platform, after receiving the aforementioned approval from the Administration, the possibility of making modifications to the projects is significantly limited by the regulations established by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, which reinforces the need for the FIDEICOMISO to act diligently in the review and approval of the designs and drawings prior to authorization, knowing that they could not subsequently be subject to major changes. Since the approval of the designs was a precluded stage (etapa precluida), the scopes that were not in the approved Final Designs should have been recognized and requested from the CONSORTIUM as Modification Orders (Órdenes de Modificación, OM).

The contract signed between the parties (Anexo 1), in reference to precedence (Preeminence of one thing over another), in this case between the final design and the specifications of the documents, on page 3, article 1 Contract Documents, states the following:

"1.1 Contract Documents (Reference to Clause 2 of the General Conditions CG) The following documents constitute the Contract between the Employer (Contratante) and the Contractor (Contratista), and each shall be deemed and interpreted as an integral part of the Contract:

(a) approved contract modification orders (if any), (b) the Contract, (c) the Letter of Acceptance, (d) the approved Final Design, (c) the Bid, (1) the Contractor's Technical Bid Proposal, (g) the Special Conditions-Part A, (h) the General Conditions-Part B, (i) the Specifications, (j) the Forms and any other document included in the document that forms part of the Contract.

(k) the bidding documents (pliego de licitación) and its amendments 1.2 Order of Precedence (Reference to Clause 2 of the CG) In case of ambiguity or conflict between the Contract documents listed above, the order of precedence shall be the order in which said documents are listed in article 1.1 (Contract Documents)." Throughout the entire construction process, there was conflict regarding the hierarchy between the approved Final Design and the Specifications. The Fideicomiso arbitrarily, at its convenience, and contrary to the principles of preclusion, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and asset intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), decided to omit the contractual instruction on the order of precedence indicated in article 1.1.2 of the contract, where it is clearly defined that the approved Designs (d) govern over the specifications (i). At times, the Fideicomiso's Supervision Unit refused to recognize that works not in the Approved Final Design (but which were indeed needs of the Fideicomiso) should be recognized as Modification Orders, given that the Final Design review process was a previously precluded process, so the Consortium proceeded to execute the works in accordance with the Approved Final Design.

However, it should be noted that the milestone payments throughout the entire process were conditioned on the execution of additional works that were not indicated in the Approved Final Design, refusing to comply with what was contractually agreed in article 1.1.2 of the contract, regarding how to proceed in case of ambiguity or conflict, exposing the Consortium to a scenario of uncertainty.

The Consortium, in order to collect the Milestones, was forced to invest time and money in works that were not described in the approved Final Designs to maintain the cash flow necessary to carry out the projects, resulting in unjust enrichment (enriquecimiento indebido) by the Fideicomiso by demanding the execution of additional works not included in the Approved Final Designs, a situation that caused a series of material damages (daños materiales) (to the assets) of our CONSORTIUM.

SITUATIONS GENERATED BY THE FIDEICOMISO. THEY AFFECTED THE EFFICIENCY IN PROJECT DELIVERY AND DAMAGED THE ASSET INTANGIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM.

During the execution of the works, serious causes arose that led the economic imbalance of the contract, in one of the projects, specifically the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, to be so severe that it ultimately affected the progress of the other two projects, without adding the problems of delay in definitions for the Escuela La Azul, in this bidding process.

ABOUT THE PROJECT: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA Findings of an unforeseeable situation (situación no previsible) regarding the soil conditions of the land. The project began construction on time and properly, and everything proceeded normally until July 16, 2018, when official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8) was submitted to the Supervision, through which the request for temporary suspension of the works timeline (plazo de obras) due to an unforeseeable situation in the soil condition, during the earthworks (movimiento de tierras) activity, was made known. As part of the input information for the quotation and design of the project in question, the Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI-CEMEX received the preliminary project (anteproyecto) prepared by architect Bruno Stagno, dated March 2016, and the soil study with report number 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) prepared by Vieto Ingenieros Consultores dated June 2016. The preliminary project showed retaining walls at the rear of the buildings with variable heights between 1 and 7 meters; however, it did not indicate a treatment for the natural slopes or hillsides behind the wall, nor an approximate dimension of the foundation slabs associated with the wall. The soil report 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) supplied by the FIDEICOMISO includes in Annex A.2 a terrain stability analysis, which concludes that the natural slopes are susceptible to deformations or localized detachments of the upper layers of the terrain, and that complementary studies should be carried out. This study does not include conducting SPT drilling in the upper part of the slope, which would allow determining the strata and their thicknesses in that sector and, therefore, performing a more precise stability modeling. Taking into account that report 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) also makes a conclusion: "It is considered that the slopes present on the terrain may be vulnerable to deformations and instability." The Consortium carried out a complementary soil study during the design stage that included a stability analysis of the site's slopes, based on tests both at the base and at the top of the slope. Tecnocontrol was contracted, which carried out the respective slope stability studies included as annex a) to the official letter with report number 1538.18 and dated January 6, 2018. (Anexo 14). The Consortium's design team made a proposal for earthworks for the project in which the slopes to be formed would have an inclination of 1.5H:1V, which is equal to or less than the natural inclination of the original hillsides, thereby maintaining their stability condition. After the start of earthworks for the project, and the cutting of the slopes, "pockets" of loose rocky material and a loose fill material contaminated with garbage appeared, which can be observed in Figure 1 and 2, which aggravated the unforeseen situation at the site. Due to the selective nature of the initial soil tests, it was clear that the stability determination originally defined in the study could not be guaranteed, and during construction, conditions were detected that differed substantially from the selective results obtained in the study made for design.

Under normal conditions, soil studies could allow adequately inferring the global condition of the terrain with selective tests. However, these fills of unconsolidated materials found beneath other soil layers were not detected by the selective tests, nor were they detectable (in conventional studies) qualitatively through direct observation given the existing vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), which is why it was considered an unforeseeable situation that required additional studies and analyses, which complicated the start of this project.

Due to the conditions detected at the site, two complementary visits were made by Civil and Geotechnical Engineer Róger Esquivel, in which he concluded that the situation presented new conditions not considered in the slope stability study. Given the concern expressed by Eng. Esquivel, shared from the designer's viewpoint, the need was determined to carry out complementary stability studies that took into account the earthworks situation at that moment, i.e., a new review under real and not statistical conditions, as well as the different variable soil conditions detected on site, to generate a recommendation for possible modifications to the original design. Therefore, to propose the final design of the solutions, it was necessary to have the respective studies of the current slope condition; therefore, tests considering additional variables were carried out. It is important to highlight that, given the uncertainty related to the stability of the slopes and the possible requirement for additional earthworks with heavy machinery, a temporary suspension of the construction works timeline was requested for a period of four weeks to conduct the complementary soil and stability studies, in order to propose modifications to the current design.

On November 2, 2018, the Consortium receives official letter SUP-RD-670-2018 (Anexo 10), where the FIDEICOMISO requested evidence of the findings and information with a proposal on how to solve it, making it clear that this additional work would represent a modification of the Contract Elements. That Official Letter was responded to with official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 (Anexo 11), with the requested information. Thus initiating OM-01: Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

Hereinafter, official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 (Anexo 12) is taken into consideration to detail the situation of carrying out works for slope stabilization and the request for OM-01 related to OS-1 Request for timeline Suspension Order for Liceo Santa Rosa mentioned in GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8) and OS-2 Follow-up to the slope stability review in Santa Rosa mentioned in GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-058 (Anexo 13). This was due to the new conditions found at the site, which required additional studies, among them: a complementary soil study to those carried out during the design stage. This generated report number 1538.18 (Anexo 14), prepared by Tecnocontrol, serving as input to propose the 1.5H:1V slope conformation proposal, which was included in the original approved drawings of the project. This solution corresponded to a slope less than or equal to the natural inclination of that terrain.

Once the timeline corresponding to Service Order OS-1 (Anexo 15) ended, my represented party requested an additional timeline suspension through Service Order OS-2 (Anexo 16) because during the construction earthworks process, "pockets" of loose rocky material and loose fill material contaminated with garbage appeared; differing from what had already been initially identified in the study carried out by Tecnocontrol. From this finding, the initially determined stability ceased to be applicable; therefore, Eng. Róger Esquivel was asked to make an additional visit to the site, which was recorded through Geotechnical Visit Report 1602.18 (Anexo 17), in which the need to conduct additional studies given the emergence of these unforeseeable conditions was indicated, which coincides with the designers' criteria and leads to the request for new studies.

For this, the Consortium opted to contract new geotechnical studies, from the companies Tecnocontrol and MyV, to have broader decision-making criteria.

The timeline suspension was approved until July 23, 2018, for the proposal of a new solution through Official Letter CG-2018-1403 (Anexo 18). On August 16, report number 1607.18 was received from Tecnocontrol (Anexo 19), which showed the results of the stability analyses performed for both the static condition and the pseudo-static condition. Subsequently, on August 23, report number 102-2018-001 was received from the company MyV. The results of this study also demonstrated that the minimum safety factors indicated in the Código de Cimentaciones de Costa Rica were not met for either the static condition or the dynamic seismic condition, and it was recommended to carry out geotechnical solution designs to guarantee the stability of the slopes and ensure compliance with the minimum safety factors.

In adherence to the previous point, the design and construction drawings derived from the studies carried out by Tecnocontrol and in charge of Eng. Roger Esquivel B, resident of the company, were made. The designs are presented as an annex to Report 1607.18. The solution included three different geotechnical solutions depending on the slope zone to be reinforced.

On November 6, 2018, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 (Anexo 11), the suspension of the timeline for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project was requested, and the response to CG-2018-2105/ARQ-2018-0795 CONCG-2018-2105/ARQ-2018-0795 (Anexo 20) was provided, in which the Supervision was made aware that, to present an updated work schedule for the execution of the works, a formal pronouncement was required on Modification Order OM-1 delivered for the update of the work schedule, since the execution thereof affected the project's work schedule. Additionally, the Supervision was reminded that there was a technical criterion regarding the instability of the slope; therefore, the danger in vulnerable work areas remained, and it was an irresponsible act to decide to restart work with full knowledge of the situation.

The requests made were:

? Request for approval of a new timeline suspension starting November 3, 2018, and until a solution to the slope instability problem was defined, which responded to the problematic situation at the project site.

? In case the request to resume execution of works without a solution to the slope instability was maintained, a request was made to release the Consortium from liability in the event of any situation (landslides, failures, among others) related to the instability identified in the studies, because there were technical studies evidencing the high danger in this work area.

Regarding delays beyond the contractor's responsibility in the review, approval, and start-up order for OM-01: Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

Hereinafter, the chronology of the relevant events and their respective explanations regarding the delays in question are described, in order to evidence the delay.

1.1.1. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (Anexo 21): Request for OS-5 Extension of timeline suspension 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.2. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Anexo 22): Request for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.3. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-093 (Anexo 23): Clarifications on OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.4. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-102 : (Anexo 24) In response to SUP-RD-789-2018 (Anexo 25) and SUP-RD-790-2018 (Anexo 26) Observations on review of OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site. (Version 2), in which an extended response was given to the queries that the Supervision made regarding the proposal for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site, submitted for the concept of slope stabilization in the project.

1.1.5. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-108 (Anexo 27): on December 12, 2018, version three of OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site of LPI-01-2017 was provided, in response to official letter SUP-RD-853-2018, where modifications to the proposal were requested.

1.1.6. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-112 (Anexo 28): on December 12, 2018, a response to SUP-RD-865-2018 (Anexo 29) was provided regarding the request for additional information requested by the administration for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site. Where the administration requested additional information.

1.1.7. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-113 (Anexo 30): on December 14, 2018, the milestone (hitos) table update (Anexo 30) for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site was made.

1.1.8. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127 (Anexo 31): complementarily, on January 3, 2019, this official letter was provided with the updated milestone table for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.9. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-129 (Anexo 32): complementarily, official letter SUP-RD-005-2019 (Anexo 33) was responded to, in which the update was made with the breakdown of the milestones corresponding to OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.10. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (Anexo 34): on January 29, 2018, my represented party made the Supervision aware that, as OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site had not been approved by January 24, 2019, the indirect costs contained in the offer sent in December had changed; therefore, it was no longer valid.

1.1.11. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-157 (Anexo 35): on February 15, 2019, the extension of the project timeline suspension was requested, based on the non-approval, by that date, of OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.12. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-161 (Anexo 36): Following the meeting held in the Trusts section of Banco Nacional at 11:00 am, technical information was delivered to proceed with the review of our proposal in a comprehensive manner. It contained the following detail:

Information 1: documents referring to the design of the solution.

Information 2: Official Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8) in which a review is made of the design conditions and those found on site; additionally, the need to conduct additional studies was indicated.

Information 3: Official Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-054 (Anexo 37) reference is made to the results obtained from the studies, which are attached as an annex.

Information 4: Official Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Anexo 22) corresponds to version 2 of the modification order.

1.1.13. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-174 (Anexo 38): it was communicated that the "OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site" sent had expired, due to the delays in its approval on March 5, 2019. This situation was reported on January 28, 2019, official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (Anexo 34). Therefore, to ensure the efficiency of the process, it was recommended that the Supervision request the cost update for OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site.

1.1.14. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-178 (Anexo 39): the information requested by the supervision was provided regarding the execution of tests and reports concerning the design of OM-01.

1.1.15. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-186 (Anexo 40): the fifth update of OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site was provided, and it was detailed that, based on OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site, and the timeline suspension order requests OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, OS-04, OS-05, and OS-06 for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, the Supervision was asked to consider that, as of March 26, 2019, 248 days had elapsed (folio 3, last paragraph) since the first project suspension was issued, and since that moment no progress had been made. Therefore, it was requested to prioritize the review and approval of this OM-01, which from our part was sufficiently broken down and detailed to be approved within the established period of 8 days in the "Procedure Manual for the preparation, approval, and communication of service orders, modification orders, and addenda to work contracts financed by the Bank." 1.1.16. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-189 (Anexo 41): following the meeting of March 27, 2019, to review the latest version of OM-01 Stabilization work for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site of LPI-01-2017, the recount and its current status were sent to the Supervision.

1.1.17. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-190 (Anexo 42): In response to SUP-RD-658-2019 (Anexo 43), the commercial conditions of the modification order were presented regarding timeline, validity, design and construction, processing of construction permits, as well as its cost. In point 3 of this official letter, the administration indicated to the Consortium: "3.

Any other cost derived from the temporary suspension must be processed in another instance; it cannot be included within the cost of the modification required to stabilize the slopes of the Northern Sector of the land." Costs that were subsequently submitted as administrative claims and rejected without just cause, as will be stated, which are the main cause of the economic imbalance of the contract.

1.1.18. CG-2019-0931 (Anexo 44) on May 9, 2019, 290 days after the suspension of the project (1.61 times the contractual term in suspension period). The Consortium is notified that the Modification Order OM-01 is approved, it is requested to review the addendum to the contract and it is indicated that the works will not begin until there is a start order for this additional work.

1.1.19. On August 28, 2019, Service Order No. 13 (Anexo 45) was signed, where the start order for Modification Order OM-01 is finally given, this 403 days after the project was suspended. Said modification order was approved for a value of $1,015,342.70 (77% of the original contract amount) and an additional term of 5 months (equivalent to 100% of the original project term).

1.1.20. The project should have started immediately; however, in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 (Anexo 46) dated October 3, 2017, the Consortium communicated that the construction permits for the additional works had not yet been approved by the corresponding authorities on the part of the Administration, so the start of the works could not be made effective, for reasons beyond the Consortium's responsibility.

1.1.21. Under the principles of effectiveness and efficiency, the Consortium, via GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 (Anexo 47), communicated to the local government (Municipalidad de Oreamuno) regarding the restart of works as of October 10, 2019.

1.1.22. By means of official communication MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 (Anexo 48) of October 10, 2019, the Municipalidad de Oreamuno objected to the start of works, making the start of works impossible.

1.1.23. After almost a month of internal negotiations between Fideicomiso del Banco Nacional and the Municipalidad de Oreamuno, on November 7, 2019, the Consortium received an email from the administration (Anexo 49) where the start order for November 11 is informally confirmed, 478 days after the project was suspended.

1.1.24. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333 (Anexo 50), October 28, 2019, titled "Request for OS-14 for delays in the start of works Liceo Rural Santa Rosa", the Consortium communicated to the administration the institutional obstacles that prevented the start of the Works after service order OS-13, and requested an additional Service Order to compensate for that period in which the Municipalidad de Oreamuno and the Fideicomiso del Banco Nacional resolved their internal differences, that is, the period in which the Public Administration resolved internally, giving an informal start order for November 11, 2019, via email from the administration (Anexo 49).

1.1.25. Even knowing the Administration that the delay in the re-start of the work should have extended the delivery deadline by 75 days (from August 28, 2019, when Service Order No. 13 (Anexo 45) was signed until November 11, 2019, when the Fideicomiso resolved differences with the Municipalidad de Oreamuno as evidenced in the email from the administration (Anexo 49)), the Administration rejected the request for a new service order to extend the project term via official communication SUP-RD-0440-2020 (Anexo 51), evidencing an act of bad faith, since the Consortium COULD NOT restart the works until November 11, 2019. That situation should have extended the delivery deadline to 200 calendar days, with the contractual delivery date of the project being May 29, 2020.

It is important to highlight to this Tribunal that with the evidence provided, it is evident that the project was suspended for 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days, due to situations beyond the Contractor's responsibility, and that during this entire period, the Consortium was obliged to bear the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administration expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public services, policies, financial expenses for extension of guarantees, financial expenses for extension of credit lines, bank commissions, default interest on working capital line, office rentals, administrative salaries, social charges, among others), which were submitted through a claim and rejected without just cause, causing serious damage to the financial assets of the Consortium, deteriorating the capacity for work execution in this and in our other projects of the Bidding Process.

Presentation and rejection of request for contractual compensation and first administrative claim for delays beyond the Consortium's responsibility In this project, there was a period of 478 days in which, for reasons beyond the Consortium's responsibility, the project was suspended or it was not possible to start works due to the responsibility of the Fideicomiso. For 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days, the Consortium bore the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administration expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public services, policies, financial expenses for extension of guarantees, financial expenses for extension of credit lines, bank commissions, default interest on working capital line, office rentals, administrative salaries, social charges, among others), without payment.

For this reason, we resorted to the tender document of the bidding process in the article called: Suspension, which indicates in point 41.5. the following regarding compensation, namely: "If the Contractor's fulfillment of its obligations is suspended or the rate of progress is reduced in accordance with this Clause 41 of the GC, the time for completion shall be extended in accordance with Sub-Clause 40.1 of the GC, and all additional costs or expenses that the Contractor must assume as a result of that suspension or reduction shall be paid by the Employer to the Contractor in addition to the Contract price." We do not omit to indicate the content of sub-clause 25.5.3 point d) indicating that "the additional charges related to the care of the Works in accordance with Sub-Clause 32.1 of the GC shall be reimbursed to the Contractor by the Employer for the period elapsed between the aforementioned notification and the notification mentioned further on in Sub-Clause 25.5.4. The provision of Sub-Clause 33.2 of the GC shall apply to the Works during the same period".

Because the suspension period at a certain point exceeded 180 days of suspension, with the goal of reestablishing the economic balance of the contract and thus fulfilling the principle of patrimonial intangibility, given that the works and costs during the suspension period represented a damage to the Consortium, and that the investment of resources without associated remuneration and profit generates loss, the Consortium resorted to sub-clause 25.5.3 of the tender document, which states: "In the event that the suspension period in accordance with the preceding Sub-Clause 25.5.1 exceeds in practice one hundred and eighty (180) days, the Employer and the Contractor shall agree on an additional compensation payable to the Contractor." Protected by the cited clauses of article 25.5.3, the Consortium proceeded to initiate an administrative claim with the objective of reestablishing the economic balance of the contract, obeying the principle of patrimonial intangibility and restoring the financial balance of the contract, which at the time of the claims had been severely affected, and consequently the Consortium's capacity for work execution, the main reason for this judicial process.

Even knowing the FIDEICOMISO of the delays beyond the Consortium's responsibility (equivalent to 3.18 times the term of the original contract), the collection actions regarding administrative claims were rejected, despite the fact that from July 23, 2018, see official communication CG-2018-1403 (Anexo 18) and officially until August 28, 2019 (Unofficially until November 11), the project remained suspended by the Supervision, since at the time the claim was requested - July 1, 2019 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52) -, the damage and harm were in full development. Leaving the contract with a serious financial imbalance and the Consortium in a state of defenselessness.

Even supposing there had been aspects related to the filing dates of the claim that could have been interpreted as "aspects of untimeliness," the Administration could have modified them unilaterally or by mutual agreement, under the principles of mutability of the contract, effectiveness, efficiency, and good faith, in order to procure the principle of patrimonial intangibility and reestablish the financial balance of the contract in order to fulfill the contractual object.

In this decision of rejection, there was a clear violation of the principles of good faith, effectiveness, and efficiency, by not applying the principle of mutability of the contract, which empowers the public administration to partially modify the contract in order to protect the public interest, which in this case meant restoring the economic balance of the contract to finish the execution of the projects awarded to the Consortium. Thus leaving the contract with a serious financial imbalance.

The evidence is chronologically detailed, supporting these facts:

1.1.26. SUP-RD-973-2019 (Anexo 53), received on May 13, 2019, the Fideicomiso requests the Consortium to address a series of observations generated by the environmental regent (regente ambiental).

1.1.27. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204 (Anexo 54), dated May 20, 2019, the Consortium responds to the observations of the environmental regent (regente ambiental). Additionally, on folio 2, it notifies the administration that the administrative claim protected by the tender document will be submitted to restore the economic balance of the contract and additionally, on folio 3, paragraph 1, the Consortium requested a meeting to define the amount of the compensation to which the Consortium was entitled after 180 days of the suspension period.

1.1.28. On July 1, 2019, by means of Official Communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52), matters of legality, costs, and term are detailed; the first Administrative Claim for Suspension of the Project Execution Term was submitted for an amount of $162,449.89, and the expenses in which the Consortium invested its resources in compliance with its contractual obligations were extensively detailed, all during the suspension period, as well as the legal justification for the claim.

1.1.29. On July 29, 2019, given that 39 days elapsed and there was no response from the Administration regarding the meeting requested for the definition of the Compensation, the Consortium followed up on the request, by means of official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-263 (Anexo 55). This communication received no response. Note, this tribunal, the serious damage caused to the Consortium by the omission to define or at least respond to the Consortium's request on such a delicate matter as compensation for damages to the Consortium within the administrative process, as it is said.

1.1.30. On October 2, 2019, by means of official communication FID-3566-2019 (Anexo 56), the Administration rejected the administrative claim with the following conclusion: "Under the foregoing, it is clear to this Administration that the Contractor DID NOT COMPLY with the duties imposed by the Sub-clauses cited in this response, and consequently, the effects provided in Subclause 44.2 of the General Conditions are applicable, according to which '...If the Contractor has not notified a claim within said twenty-eight (28) day period, the time for completion shall not be extended, and the Contractor shall not be entitled to receive additional payments, and the Employer shall be released from all liability related to the claim'. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is considered that the claim must be rejected, for not having met the requirements for timely presentation. Regarding the detail and quantification of the claim itself, this Administration considers that it lacks all practical interest to refer to it, by virtue of the rejection that, due to aspects of untimeliness, is being ordered." Erroneous conclusion, since at the time of the presentation of the claim, as at the time of the rejection, the project remained suspended, meaning the harm was ongoing, and second, the Fideicomiso had 42 days to respond to the claims and took 93 days to respond.

Serious damages due to rejection of second, third, and fourth administrative claim The project remained suspended until November 11, 2019, so the first administrative claim cutoff (GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52)) considered the costs from July 21, 2018, to June 7, 2019. In March 2020, the second administrative claim was made through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-483 (Anexo 57), which detailed the indirect costs incurred by the Consortium for the restart of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, as well as the indirect costs that the project entailed after its contractual completion date due to the Fideicomiso's lack of definition regarding additional works not contemplated in the approved Final Design. The Fideicomiso proceeded to reject ex officio the request contained in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-483 (Anexo 57) through FID-1604-2020 (Anexo 58).

Considering the provisions in Section VII. General Conditions (GC) of the Bidding Documents (LPI), specifically in the section identified as H. Modification of Contract Elements I. Claims, Disputes, and Arbitration, point 44.5, "(b) the Contractor shall submit monthly additional interim claims, specifying the accumulated delay or the amount claimed, as well as all the additional information that the Project Manager may reasonably require", the Consortium proceeded with the submission of the third and fourth administrative claims cutoff GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 (Anexo 59) and GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 (Anexo 60), respectively, on the occasion of documenting the damages and losses following the rejection of the compensation request, rejection of the first administrative claim submitted, and the effects on cash flow and the correct progress of the projects, in order to continue seeking financial balance.

The Law Authorizing the Executive Branch to Subscribe a Public Credit Operation and Constitute a Trust with Lease Contracts for the Financing of the MEP National Educational Infrastructure Construction and Equipment Project establishes as an obligation to use the principles of administrative contracting of effectiveness and efficiency, equality and free competition, publicity, free concurrence, equal treatment among all possible offerors, legality and transparency of procedures, as well as legal certainty, formalism in bidding procedures, balance of interests, good faith, mutability of the contract, patrimonial intangibility, and control of procedures, as detailed below.

In point 40.1) e) of the Modification of Contract Elements, according to the General Conditions of the Biddings, the following is established: "...(e) any default or breach of the Contract by the Employer .... or any activity, act, or omission of the Employer, or the Project Manager, or any other Contractor employed by the Employer...". Furthermore, point 44.5 called Claims, Disputes, and Arbitration of the General Conditions establishes "...from the moment the Contractor becomes aware (or should have become aware) of the fact or circumstance giving rise to the claim, or within any other period proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Project Manager, the Contractor shall send to the Project Manager a complete and detailed claim that includes all the complementary information related to the basis of the claim ...". As will be explained.

According to this same point 44.5 of the General Conditions, if the fact or circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuous effect, the period begins to run from the moment its error is recognized, in this case, it begins to be counted from the moment in which the Fideicomiso’s Inspection Unit began sending the Consortium notes signed by the Works Managers of the Projects.

These claims are also based on that action and omission of the Employer, which corresponds to patrimonial damages that have been caused by a situation not attributable to this Consortium. For this reason, as there is a contractual breach by the FIDEICOMISO, a contractual liability is alleged, this in application of the principles of contractual liability, contract integration, patrimonial intangibility, legality, and reasonableness, as explained above.

In matters of contractual breach, the main reason for this claim is alleged to be a violation in all the contracts that were signed between the parties, specifically in relation to communications generated by unauthorized third parties, and this with respect to the (non-existent) communications from the Works Managers (GO) in each project, who, being representatives of the Employer, omitted their obligation to maintain—in the strict sense—communications with our Consortium.

This situation has been recognized by the same Works Managers (GO) and the Supervision Unit, regarding the fact that the communications made to my represented party were not formal or official. In that sense, the Works Manager did not act according to the provisions of the General Conditions; rather, their communications were handled by persons who were not authorized to do so. See point 17.2 of the GC. With this, my represented party demonstrated a fact and unequivocal reason establishing a real motive to allege the existence of an administrative liability caused by a repeated omission by the Works Managers of this Fideicomiso, which has been to allow the Inspection Unit to breach — during the execution of these contracts — the formality established via contract, regarding communications. The Consortium was a victim of a contractual violation in the fulfillment of the GO's communications, specifically Section Modification of Contract Elements, point 40.1) e) of the General Conditions of this Public Bidding Process.

The functioning of the Inspection Unit (UI), as well as the Works Managers of each project, has been abnormal, since their material actions associated with rejections in different instances of these projects, added to Service and Modification Orders that were denied or not duly required from us, have caused us unforeseeable situations, which caused serious patrimonial damages.

Despite, as explained, the administrative claims submitted to the FIDEICOMISO had all the elements to be recognized, the payment request was rejected through official communication FID-1604-2020 (Anexo 58), which stated: "... the Contractor has also breached its duty to indicate and prove the alleged damages and losses claimed, their estimation, their origin, and nature, specifically the stipulations in Sub-clauses 44.4, and 44.5, as well as the provisions of article 193 of the LFAP, because a claim like the one intended, which concerns some alleged higher costs incurred, necessarily requires providing all complementary information related to the basis of the claim, and must prove through pertinent, conducive, and suitable evidence, both the quantum and the corresponding disbursement claimed, all of which is found lacking in the claims presented, since such higher costs can in no way be 'supposed or assumed', from a summation of simple photocopies without any foundation, relation, or accreditation of their link to the contracts and works, the proof that they originated in the alleged event and not in the contractor's negligence or in the risks assumed upon entering into the contract…".

Given that response, we requested with official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-528 (Anexo 61), this: "Therefore, I request that you proceed to give the reasons with detailed comments as to why our claim was not accepted, since the reasons for its rejection are not clearly established, and you must also rectify the error of not having requested the information that proved necessary to approve the claim or to have sufficient elements for its rejection. I request this matter be referred to a Dispute Resolution Committee, as established in the appendix of General Conditions of the Dispute Resolution Committee Agreement". Given that the Consortium was meticulous in presenting the administrative claims, providing explanations at the level of the claim for damages, their origin, and the corresponding estimation, however, the FIDEICOMISO focused on rejecting the communications outright, alleging that the claims do not contain sufficient information to carry out the analysis, avoiding the request for additional documentation to continue with the exhaustive analysis of the information proposed by us.

In the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa alone, the administrative claims amounted to ¢220,900,241.63 (approximately $400,000), that is, a significant portion of the original contract amount, with these unjustified rejections causing serious damage to the economic balance of the contract by not recognizing, knowing of the existence of more than a year of definition delays; the investment that the Consortium made to fulfill its contractual commitments in the awarded projects.

ABOUT THE ESCUELA LA HERMOSA PROJECT In response to FID-2317-2020 (Anexo 62) INITIAL ACT OF SUMMARY PROCEEDING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE, my represented party proceeded to respond in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 (Anexo 63) appealing to the Defense of Non-Performed Contract (non adimpleti contractus) based on article 692 of the Civil Code, applicable supplementarily in accordance with article 9.2 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP); no factual circumstances for the application of the penalty clause were evident. This assertion was supported through resolution number 6639-2013 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), which considers that the Public Administration must always demonstrate that the contractor's breach is effectively attributable to it, since (as happens in this case) there may be exonerating causes for that liability: "...prior to the execution of a penalty clause, it must be corroborated through due process whether the late or premature fulfillment was effectively the contractor's responsibility or, on the contrary, whether there was some exonerating circumstance from liability... Certainly, the contracting Administration is called to safeguard the public interest in each of the administrative contracts it agrees to with private parties, as well as to guarantee the regularity of public services and, consequently, avoid any type of unjustified delays in the execution of the object of the administrative contract; however, these constitutional principles do not authorize the Administration to incur arbitrariness, such as automatically executing the agreed penalty clauses without first ruling out exonerating circumstances from contractual liability". In this case, it is evident that what happened is a direct responsibility of the Fideicomiso and, consequently, it is not fair nor in accordance with the postulates of the social and democratic Rule of Law to apply the penalty clause against the Consortium, when it is evident that the one who breached was the Fideicomiso, by failing to seek, guarantee, and maintain the economic balance in the execution of this contract; my represented party was seriously affected by the rejection of the first administrative charge and subsequent ones made for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, as well as the non-response to the request for compensation for more than 180 days in the same project. This situation leads to the fact that progress could not be made on this Project from January 2019 onward.

ABOUT THE ESCUELA AZUL PROJECT In the case of the Escuela Azul de Turrialba project, delays occurred in the project due to the definition by the Supervision and the Fideicomiso regarding the archaeological findings encountered in the project. This situation was notified through official communications GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289 (Anexo 64), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290 (Anexo 65), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 (Anexo 66), and the Administration scheduled an appointment with the Department of Anthropology and History of the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, which took place 10 days after that notification.

Additionally, beyond the Consortium's responsibility, a boundary (colindancia) problem was identified involving the neighbors and the Ministerio de Salud that has not been resolved to this day, generating serious problems to continue executing this project.

The Consortium was unable to continue executing works at the Escuela Azul, since resolution number 2020008458 (Anexo 67) of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice from nine twenty in the morning on May eight, two thousand twenty, granted an amparo appeal for non-compliance with a sanitary order to prevent the discharge of wastewater on the Escuela Azul property, "... it is ordered to Guiselle Solano Fernández, in her capacity as Director of the Rector Area of Health of Turrialba, or to whoever holds that position, that within a period of TEN DAYS, counted from the notification of this judgment, she must respond to the appellant regarding the complaint filed since June 10, 2019." "Likewise, the respondent is ordered to IMMEDIATELY verify compliance with the sanitary order issued in order to prevent the discharge of wastewater on the Escuela de Azul property. If said order has not been complied with, she must adopt the necessary measures to safeguard the health of the affected persons, this within a maximum period of ONE MONTH, counted from the notification of this resolution".

It should be noted that this wastewater situation on the Escuela Azul property is a force majeure situation outside the control of the Consortium, so we are facing a situation that suspended the contract and prevented continuing to execute its object, and is sufficient reason to be forced to suspend the counting of days for its delivery. The project had Extensions, at the date of its termination (given that the amparo appeal to this day has not been fulfilled) of up to 3.2 times its contractual term, generating additional indirect costs, and the administrative claims for these periods were rejected by the Administration, without just cause or detailed analysis.

The Escuela Azul project began approximately four months later -December 2018- than all the projects of the biddings awarded to my represented party. At this point, the economic imbalance of the contracts was already serious, implying the decision by the Consortium, in January 2019, to suspend the works on the Escuela La Hermosa project. Additionally, the term was extended due to lack of definition by the Fideicomiso, service orders for term extension, and an improper reception of the projects from the other biddings awarded to my represented party, affecting the economic balance of the contracts and preventing my represented party from making the definitive delivery of the project on June 17, 2019. This entire situation led the Consortium to request the termination of the contracts, in protection of the principle of patrimonial intangibility, which, in this case, was violated by the Fideicomiso, by not having guaranteed us an objective determination between the execution timelines of that work and the revision of the prices that were originally contracted versus the reality that has been executed in contract 88-2017 (Anexo 1). Said substantial breach by the Fideicomiso makes it impossible for the Consortium to continue executing construction work, a reason that has been extensively explained in the cited considerations of this section of law.

PROJECT COMMUNICATION THROUGH PERSONS NOT AUTHORIZED CONTRACTUALLY FOR THE CONTRACT COMMUNICATION.

VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CONTRACTUAL LEGAL CERTAINTY Throughout the entire process, the person designated as the Works Manager, contractually responsible for project communication, did not carry out the official communications, violating the contractual instructions regarding the issuance of notifications, instructions, orders, certificates, and approvals. This situation was notified to the administration through official letters GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-450 (Anexo 68), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-456 (Anexo 69), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-461 (Anexo 70); the Project Supervisory Unit normalized the situation only upon issuance of official letter SUP-RD-0374-2020 (Anexo 71) in which the works manager signed the written communication. We request that this tribunal pay special attention to the seriousness of this matter, since throughout the entire process, persons who did not have the contractual authority to communicate with the contractor communicated with the contracting party; despite the clear contractual instruction and subsequent instruction provided in official letter CG-2018-1995/AD-2018-0166 (Anexo 72) where we were instructed, again, that all communications were to be made to the Works Manager, an instruction respected by the Consortium during the exchange of communications.

AMOUNTS OWED FOR WORK PROGRESS The TRUST illegally refused to fulfill its payment obligation for work progress, despite the fact that in this case there was a meeting of the minds, i.e., the contracting and respective delivery of a specific work, which complies with Articles 1022 and 1023 of the Civil Code, regarding the principle of general binding force of contracts, which stipulates that contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties; therefore, the TRUST is obligated to pay us for the work progress executed.

The Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI performed a series of works that were not paid for during the process because they were supposedly not finished, but certainly work had been executed at the time of the contract termination (rescisión del contrato), there was a real progress, as recorded in monthly reports delivered to the Fideicomiso in March 2020, and these must be recognized, according to clause 42.4 of the general conditions of the bid documents (cartel): “In this Clause 42 of the GC, the expression ‘Executed Works’ shall include all works executed, installation services provided, and all plant items purchased (or subject to a legally binding obligation to purchase) by the Contractor and used or intended for use for the purposes of the Works, up to and including the date of termination (rescisión).” In the case of the Tender identified as LPI-01-2017 Design, Construction, and Equipment of 6 lots of 15 Educational Centers and 10 Multi-use Courts, lot #2, there are executed works pending payment for an amount totaling $1,008,663.88 –ONE MILLION EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-EIGHT CENTS–, as detailed in the following Tables. (tables attached) The total of advance payment guarantees that the TRUST intends to execute is for an amount of $535,604.15 USD. However, the TRUST disregards that the CONSORTIUM executed a series of constructive works that have not been paid for. In that sense, there are a series of amounts pending payment for work progress to be paid in favor of the CONSORTIUM, which total the sum of $1,008,663.88 USD, monies that must be deducted from the alleged balances of the advanced guarantees, as established in section IX. Contract Forms, subsection “C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures”, specifically in the section for Advance Payment 2.a., which states: 2. The Advance Payment shall be amortized through deductions, at the same percentage requested, from all contract payments until its complete repayment (excluding those related to the Advance Payment itself). If the advance payment has not been amortized before the Works Completion Certificate or before the termination according to Clause 42 of the GC, then the entire balance pending at that time shall be paid immediately by the Contractor to the Contracting Party. Such payment may be made according to the following detail: a. It shall be deducted from the pending balances for works to be invoiced or from any payment owed by the Contracting Party; (Underlining and highlighting is not from the original).

Currently, there is a balance of $473,059.73 USD in favor of the CONSORTIUM, which is demonstrated by the project works progress reports provided in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-565 (see annex 96); monies that were not paid, even though they are balances associated with works inherent to the constructive execution of the projects of this Tender.

DAMAGES (PERJUICIOS) We request a declaration for the payment of interest on the sums declared in the judgment for payments illegitimately withheld by the TRUST for work progress, as damages (perjuicios) on the sums collected for material damages, given that the TRUST has breached its payment obligation, for which reason my represented party has the right to have a breach declared, and to order the forced execution of its obligation, i.e., to pay what is owed to my represented party, as well as its respective interest, for the damages (daños y perjuicios) caused, until its effective payment. In this regard, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has established: (…) In these cases and in accordance with Article 706 of the Civil Code: “If the obligation is to pay a sum of money, the damages (daños y perjuicios) always and solely consist of the payment of interest on the sum owed, counted from the maturity of the term. By provision of law, when the obligation is a so-called monetary or pecuniary one, the claimable damages (daños y perjuicios) consist of the payment of default interest (…). First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, at 15:20 hrs on June 28, 1996.

III.- OPPOSITION OF BNCR. The following is alleged and adduced concretely and pertinently in relation to the object of the proceeding: REGARDING THE FACTS. FIRST.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. SECOND.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. However, there is no record that said plaintiff Consortium designated IDECO as the lead company. THIRD.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. FOURTH.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. FIFTH.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. SIXTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The dates indicated by the plaintiff are not the delivery dates of the start orders. Instead, these dates correspond to the day on which the effective start of the works in each Project was to begin. Likewise, the plaintiff omits indicating that the start orders are for both construction and equipment.

REGARDING THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. SEVENTH.- I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. I rely on the evidentiary record. EIGHTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The design stage of the Projects is analyzed until the plaintiff communicated to the contracting Fideicomiso that the corresponding permits before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos (CFIA) have been approved. Annex 74 of the complaint corresponds to official letter CG-2018-0506 ARQ-2018-0193 CON of March fifteenth, two thousand eighteen, and this deals with the authorization that the Executing Unit of the Fideicomiso grants to the plaintiff Consortium so that it proceeds with the permit procedures before the CFIA, but only in relation to the Escuela La Hermosa project. See the administrative file for each Project as indicated: a. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO LPI-01-2017-024 of April twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen (Exp. LRSR, Ampo D. folios 1372 and 1373). It is not until April 24, 2018, that the design stage is considered completed. Additionally, regarding the construction plans, see Exp. LRSR, Ampo C, folios 1237 to 1293 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports) and Ampo D, folios 1668, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1674 and 1675 (Communications regarding APC). b. Escuela Azul: Official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-034 of July twelfth, two thousand eighteen (Exp. EA Ampo D. folios 1300 and 1301). It is not until July 12, 2018, that the design stage is considered completed. Additionally, regarding the construction plans, see Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 1153 to 1190 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports). c. Escuela La Hermosa: Official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-025 of May second, two thousand eighteen (Exp. EH Ampo D. folios 1377 and 1376). It is not until May 11, 2018, that the design stage is considered completed. Additionally, regarding the construction plans, see Exp. EH Ampo C, folios 1277 to 1298 and 1274 to 1234 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports) and Exp. EH Ampo D, folios 1364 to 1375 (Communications regarding APC).

CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT EXECUTION PHASE REGARDING THE LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA PROJECT.

NINTH.- IT IS TRUE.- Admitted. TENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE.- Rejected as inaccurate. Official letter SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, responded to official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 of November first, two thousand eighteen, through which the plaintiff made an additional request for an extension of the suspension of the timeline (suspensión de plazo) for 15 calendar days (días naturales) to prepare an updated offer with technical and economic improvements for OM-1 (folio 29 of the LRSR penalty collection file). This request was rejected by the Supervisory Unit through official letter SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, because it was not economically viable. Furthermore, the plaintiff had not provided the proposal with technical and economic improvements that it had committed to present. On the other hand, the new suspension of the timeline (suspensión de plazo) was denied because, despite the fact that at that moment the works were under a suspension order at the request of the plaintiff itself, it contradictorily disregarded said suspension and proceeded to execute works that were not supervised and endorsed by the contracting party (annex 10 of the complaint). ELEVENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. While it is true that the plaintiff, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen (annex 11 of the complaint), responded to the points indicated in official letter SUP-RD-670-2018, it is not true that this is how OM-1 was initiated, since it originated with the presentation of the first version of the modification order (orden de modificación) that the plaintiff presented through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 of October twelfth, two thousand eighteen. TWELFTH.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. Admitted with variations. It is clarified that the request for OS-02 was made by the plaintiff on August 26, 2018, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 of August twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen (folios 17 to 23 of the LRSR penalty collection file) and was duly approved on September 13, 2018 (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 335 to 337). THIRTEENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The first suspension request was made by the plaintiff Consortium on July 16, 2018, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 and was approved by OS-01 on July 20, 2018 (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 338 to 340). The approval of OS-01 occurred with the acceptance of all parties and said acceptance took place on July 20, 2018, including the signature of Mr. José Luis Brenes San GI, Legal Representative of the plaintiff (Exp. LRSR Ampo B, folio 339). Now, due to formal and procedural matters pertaining to the execution of the projects, the approval of OS-01 was communicated to the Trust Management (Dirección del Fideicomiso) on July 23, 2018, through official letter CG-20181403IARQ-2018-0536 (annex 18 of the complaint). When the communication to the Trust Management was deemed effective, Engineer Allan Muñoz Vives (Technical Director of the Project, an employee of the plaintiff itself, see Exp. LRSR Ampo B, folios 485 to 492) was notified that said procedure had been carried out. This was done on July 26, 2018, through official letter SUP-RD-370-2018 (folio 16 of the LRSR penalty collection file) by means of which OS-01, as well as official letter CG-2018-1403IARQ-2018-0536 of July twenty-third, two thousand eighteen, were attached for said engineer. FOURTEENTH.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. Admitted with variations. While it is true that among the petitions of official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen (annex 11 of the complaint) was the request for a new suspension of the timeline (suspensión de plazo), it should be clarified that the plaintiff Consortium on November 1, 2018, had made the presentation of OS-04 through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (folio 29 of the LRSR penalty collection file), in which it requested a suspension of the timeline (suspensión de plazo) because it required additional time to present an updated offer with technical and economic improvements to OM-01. FIFTEENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. It is clarified that even though OS-13 was signed by the plaintiff Consortium on August 28, 2019, it was considered approved with the acceptance of all parties only until September 2, 2019. Likewise, said OS granted an extension of the timeline (plazo) of 200 calendar days (días naturales) (150 days for OM-01 and 50 days from the remainder of the original contract) in the execution of the project (folios 67 to 71 LRSR penalty collection file). Similarly, what was stated by the plaintiff regarding OM-01 must be specified, since it was approved for an amount of $1,015,346.08 and the accumulated variation corresponded to an increase of 76.95% of the original amount (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 326 to 334). Moreover, the project was suspended for 338 calendar days (días naturales) and not 403 as the plaintiff Consortium erroneously indicates; this is verified by the sum of days of the thirteen service orders (Exp. LRSR Ampo B, folios 335 to 385-L). SIXTEENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The reason why the plans were not effectively approved within the period of 30 calendar days (días naturales) following the resumption of the project execution falls exclusively on the responsibility of the plaintiff, per the stipulations in the “Section VI. Design, Work, and Equipment Requirements”, subsection “K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered” of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de Licitación). Note that the plaintiff Consortium entered the plans into the APC, which is the Administrador de Proyectos de Construcción platform of the CFIA, through which project plans are reviewed for their respective approval (visto bueno) (Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1637), and informed the Executing Unit of the Fideicomiso about this procedure on September 24, 2019, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-305 (Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1638). However, this procedure was rejected by the CFIA through the APC platform due to formal errors in the submission, whereupon the plaintiff had to proceed on September 27, 2019, with a new submission of the plans on the APC platform. This was informed by the plaintiff Consortium itself to the Executing Unit through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-308 (Exp. LRSR Ampo D folios 1639 to 1645), and given that carrying out this procedure is part of the plaintiff's obligations as stipulated in “Section VI. Design, Work, and Equipment Requirements”, subsection “K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered”, as well as what is indicated in subclauses 7.1.20.1 of the General Conditions and Clause 40 of the Special Conditions of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de Licitación). It is for the foregoing reason that the plaintiff Consortium is incorrect in asserting that the works could not commence on the expected date for reasons beyond its responsibility. Therefore, granting the suspension of the timeline (suspensión de plazo) requested through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 of October third, two thousand nineteen (annex 46 of the complaint) was not appropriate. SEVENTEENTH.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. In this sense, the municipal entity's objections were related to the non-compliance with the construction permit procedure that the plaintiff had not correctly processed and finalized. Likewise, the problems that arose were the product of poor coordination and misguided communication between the plaintiff Consortium and the local government. The fact that these objections made the normal execution of the works impossible is the exclusive responsibility of the plaintiff Consortium, for not having finalized the construction permit procedure and thereby avoiding any objection from the Municipality. EIGHTEENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The problem with the construction permit for the resumption of work was the exclusive responsibility of the plaintiff. See that the plaintiff Consortium dragged this inconvenience along from the beginning of the execution of the works, since on June 5, 2018, the Municipalidad de Oreamuno had closed down the execution of the project because the plaintiff Consortium had not correctly carried out the construction permit procedure before said local government, as was its contractual responsibility (Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 to 1377). Given this, the Executing Unit classified said event as a major nonconformity, because the plaintiff did not attend to said requirement in a timely manner (Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1703). In that same sense, in October 2019, when the plaintiff notified the Municipalidad de Oreamuno via official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 about the resumption of works, the same inconvenience occurred, because the plaintiff Consortium did not correctly carry out the respective procedure, and that was reflected in the response given by the Dirección de Control Urbano of the Municipalidad de Oreamuno, through official letter MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 of October tenth, two thousand nineteen (annex 49 of the complaint). Consequently, due to the inefficiency of the plaintiff Consortium in addressing the problem, the Executing Unit intervened in the procedures before the Dirección de Control Urbano of the Municipalidad de Oreamuno, with the goal of clarifying the construction permit issue, where it was verified that said license was submitted to the Municipality on June 20, 2018, but the plaintiff Consortium had not signed for or collected the construction permit certificate and the respective plans (annex 49 of the complaint). Likewise, the inconsistency and essence of the problem was that the plaintiff Consortium exempted itself from the construction permit requirement for having submitted the project as an Edificación Nacional. However, when the Supervisory Unit of the Fideicomiso requested the Edificaciones Nacionales permit from the plaintiff through official letter SUP-RD-0375-2020, what it provided was municipal permit No. 24046. Subsequently, it was verified that the plaintiff had also not provided the Municipality with the supposed Edificaciones Nacionales permit. In summary, the problem arose because, although the plaintiff initiated the municipal permit procedure, it did not complete it before Edificaciones Nacionales or before the municipal entity (annex 51 of the complaint). For this reason, there was an inconsistency between what was expressed by the plaintiff and what was indicated by the Municipality, and since said problem was exclusively caused by poor management by the plaintiff Consortium, the approval of OS-14 was not appropriate, especially since what the plaintiff sought was a 75-day extension of the timeline (prórroga de plazo) for the project delivery, and this was unjustifiable, as it had the entire project suspension period, which was more than one calendar year, to proceed to finalize the construction permit procedure before the Municipalidad de Oreamuno, a procedure that was the contractual responsibility of the plaintiff. NINETEENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. As has been indicated in the response to the facts, the period that the project was suspended for reasons beyond the responsibility of the plaintiff Consortium was 338 calendar days (días naturales). Now, the suspension was due to an unforeseeable situation, which was not the responsibility of either party. Likewise, said situation was effectively financially indemnified through the approval of OM-01, and a prudential timeline (plazo) was granted to the plaintiff to complete the project. TWENTIETH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The period indicated by the Consortium is imprecise; the days during which the plaintiff had to bear a financial burden beyond its responsibility was 338 calendar days (días naturales). Now, this burden does not include all the items that the plaintiff Consortium cites in its complaint, since the project was under suspension, meaning the resources the plaintiff Consortium needed to keep operational were minimal. Added to this, the credibility of the investment of resources in the project by the plaintiff Consortium during the works suspension is doubtful. See that it had to be asked on several occasions to take charge of the maintenance of the works because it had them completely abandoned. In this way, through official letter SUP-RD-973-2019 of May tenth, two thousand nineteen, the Consortium was instructed, among other things, to address that situation (annex 53 of the complaint). Likewise, the Consortium admits through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204 that it does not maintain any type of materials and equipment at the project site. For this reason, it also does not have a security guard under contract (annex 54 of the complaint). Consequently, the financial burden that the plaintiff Consortium had to bear was minimal, and it did not do so in an acceptable manner either.

TWENTY-FIRST.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. The rejection of the Administrative Claim was made in accordance with the legal framework that governed the contract. The plaintiff Consortium did not adhere to the procedure stipulated in the bid documents for filing claims, since for this type of claim to be admitted for study, they must be filed according to the procedure stipulated in Clause 44 of the General Conditions of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de Licitación). For this reason, the Administrative Claim presented through official letter GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 was inadmissible, as it was untimely.

REGARDING THE ESCUELA LA HERMOSA PROJECT TWENTY-SECOND.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. TWENTY-THIRD.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. What happened in the Liceo Santa Rosa project has no direct or indirect relationship with the delays incurred by the plaintiff Consortium in the execution of the Escuela La Hermosa project, as these are two distinct works, with different construction objects, specifications, timelines (plazos), and other conditions and characteristics, and independent execution from one another. In this sense, it is evident that the plaintiff intends to develop a causal relationship between the projects, when the truth of the matter is that the delays and abandonments by the plaintiff in each of them were the product of non-compliance with its contractual obligations. Note in this regard that neither the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de la Licitación) nor the Contract signed between the plaintiff and the Fideicomiso provide that the execution of Escuela La Hermosa is conditional upon the prior success of the execution of the Liceo Rural de Santa Rosa Project, and this is because they are completely independent projects. Likewise, it is improper for the plaintiff Consortium to make such a causal relationship, since as an offeror and awardee company, it had to have budgeted its economic capacity to undertake each project independently; this includes foreseeing risks and unforeseeable situations. Now, it is through this fact of the complaint that the plaintiff Consortium tells us for the first time of this supposed relationship and impact between projects, since during the execution of the works, the plaintiff's representatives at no time expressed the existence of a risk of abandonment of the Escuela La Hermosa project due to what occurred in the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project. On the other hand, what is indicated by the plaintiff Consortium makes no sense when the execution timelines (plazos) for each project are analyzed, since if the plaintiff had efficiently complied with the execution work on the Escuela La Hermosa project, in no case could it have been affected by the suspension of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project. In this regard, note that the definitive timeline (plazo) to deliver the works of Escuela La Hermosa, including the timeline extensions (extensiones de plazo) due to rain (OS-01 and OS-02), was January 23, 2019 (folios 16 and 17 ELAH penalty collection file). However, as of January 15, 2019, the Supervision warned the plaintiff Consortium through official letter SUP-RD-043-2019 of January fifteenth, two thousand nineteen (folio 14 ELAH penalty collection file), that, according to the inspection visits made to the project, it showed serious delays in the work schedule. So, the plaintiff Consortium had from August 6, 2018, until January 23, 2019, to execute the works of Escuela La Hermosa; however, it never made that delivery, nor did it do so subsequently, as evidenced by the fact that on November 8, 2019, the Supervision warned the plaintiff through official letter SUP-RD-2634-2019 that the project had accumulated a delay of 289 calendar days (días naturales) (folio 18 ELAH penalty collection file), and even under this warning, the plaintiff Consortium stopped executing the works and on June 8, 2020, even abandoned their security. Note that ordinally, the difference in the timeline (plazo) to deliver the Escuela La Hermosa and Liceo Rural Santa Rosa projects was three months, with simultaneous executions during the months of August, September, and October 2018. However, from the issuance of the start order for Escuela La Hermosa (August 6, 2018) until the original project delivery date (January 23, 2019), Liceo Rural Santa Rosa was suspended for 116 calendar days (días naturales). However, ordinally, it was scheduled to be delivered on October 21, 2018. Therefore, with Liceo Rural Santa Rosa suspended, the logical course for the plaintiff Consortium to maximize its performance would have been to concentrate its financial and human resources on the construction of Escuela La Hermosa, as well as the Escuela Azul, Escuela de Enseñanza Especial Santa Ana, Cancha Multiuso CTP Hojancha, Cancha Multiuso CTP 27 de Abril, and Cancha Multiuso CTP Santa Lucia projects, which were also under execution in the same period of time during which Liceo Rural Santa Rosa was suspended. However, the administrative execution files, as well as the files for the application of penal clauses for each project, show that the plaintiff Consortium failed to achieve the effective delivery of each of these works due to its exclusive responsibility (See the Final Acts of each penalty collection file). Finally, it is not true that the plaintiff Consortium complied with a proper contract termination (rescisión contractual) process. Firstly, because at no time did a cause arise for a termination by the plaintiff to proceed. For the plaintiff Consortium to have been entitled to terminate (rescindir) the contract, the Fideicomiso would have had to have omitted paying sums due for the execution of the contract, or refused to approve invoices or supporting documents without valid reason, and these scenarios never occurred within the contracting process, as stipulated in Subclause 42.3 of the General Conditions of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de la Licitación). Second, because regardless of the impropriety of the termination, the alleged attempt invoked by the plaintiff Consortium was not carried out according to the procedure stipulated for such purposes. Said procedure, which is set out in Subclause 42.3 of the General Conditions of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de la Licitación), requires that when a cause for termination originates from the contracting party regarding non-compliance with payment procedures or conditions, the contractor who has not breached first must send a notification to the other contracting party demanding that it correct the conduct giving rise to the possibility of termination. If the breaching contracting party does not regularize said situation within 14 days following said warning, the non-breaching contractor is empowered to send a new notification to the other contracting party, and only if the latter does not respond to said request (either approving it or giving the reasons for its rejection), can the non-breaching contractor terminate (rescindir) the contract. Note that on May 22, 2020, the plaintiff, through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 of May twenty-second, two thousand twenty, filed an administrative claim in which it sought the recognition of certain economic amounts. Subsequently, on May 25, 2020, it presented a memorandum through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539 of May twenty-second, two thousand twenty, in which it indicated that if the Fideicomiso did not recognize those economic amounts from the claim, it would proceed to unilaterally terminate (rescindir) the contract. Said claim was rejected on June 4, 2020, in a valid and reasoned manner by the Fideicomiso through official letter FID-2100-2020 of June fourth, two thousand twenty, because it did not adhere to the pertinent procedure for the filing of claims according to Clause 44 of the General Conditions of the referenced Bid Documents (Cartel de la Licitación).

Subsequently, on June 24, 2020, the plaintiff Consortium, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 (Annex 78 of the complaint), filed a contractual termination based on an alleged contractual breach that had been communicated to the Trust on May 22, 2020. As verified, what the plaintiff Consortium presented on May 22, 2020 was an administrative claim, which was rejected by the Trust with a reasoned and substantiated response. That is, the plaintiff alluded to an alleged substantial breach that never existed and which, much less, was communicated on the date it indicates. Now, the warning that the plaintiff Consortium presented to the Trust on May 25, 2020 does not constitute a notification of contractual termination, as it is not reliably based on a ground of breach by the employer in accordance with the provisions of Sub-clause 42.3.1 of the General Conditions of the referenced Tender Documents. Furthermore, the notification of May 25, 2020 cites clauses that only the employer can invoke. For this reason, conversely, given the existence of evident grounds for breach by the plaintiff Consortium, on June 12, 2020, the Trust sent official communication FID-2213-2020 to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), to request the no-objection for the contractual termination of Contract No. 88-2017, corresponding to the Escuela La Hermosa project. The no-objection request is a prerequisite, as this is a procurement excluded from the ordinary procedures of the Public Procurement Law, and authorization from the lending body for the funds must be obtained. Thus, the no-objection was granted by the IDB through official communication CID/CCR/673/2020 of June eighteen, two thousand twenty, and the Trust proceeded on June 29, 2020 to notify the plaintiff Consortium, through official communication FID-2493-2020 of June twenty-nine, two thousand twenty, of the contractual termination by the employer, as stipulated in Sub-clause 42.2.2, items c) and d) of the General Conditions of the referenced Tender Documents. Likewise, it is important to note that the plaintiff Consortium did not challenge the Trust's decision to terminate the contract, from which derives a legal fact accepted by the plaintiff with full contractual effects. TWENTY-FOURTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. According to the "Technical Report on the Physical-Financial Progress Status and Cost Projection of the Remaining Work, Project No. 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa," prepared on May 12, 2020 by the Supervision Unit (File ELAH Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87), the actual progress of the work at the time of abandonment of the work by the plaintiff Consortium was 73.40%. Said progress is calculated based on the outstanding works that the plaintiff left in process, complements, and the reprocesses that occurred during the period in which the project had no progress, spanning from June 6, 2019 to December 6, 2019 (See monthly inspection reports, File ELAH Ampo C, folios 919 to 1192). Likewise, for the actual estimate, one must consider the deterioration to which the materials stockpiled at the construction site were exposed, as these deteriorated due to the unilateral abandonment carried out by the plaintiff, and they could not be included within the project's estimate. Regarding the executed works, one must also estimate the deteriorations in plastering, repair of elements with cracks in ramps and hallways, completion of pending handrails, detailing of sheet metal elements, and others, resulting from the neglect derived from the plaintiff Consortium's abandonment.

REGARDING THE ESCUELA AZUL PROJECT.

TWENTY-FIFTH.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. The construction work began on December 17, 2018. TWENTY-SIXTH.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. Admitted with variations. It is true that archaeological findings occurred during the course of the work; however, these did not affect the project's critical path, nor did they constitute an aggravating factor in the delays incurred by the plaintiff in the execution of the work. It is confirmed that on September 10, 2019, the plaintiff Consortium informed the Executing Unit, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289 of September ten, two thousand nineteen, that archaeological objects were found at the Escuela Azul project (Annex 64 of the complaint). Given this situation, on that same September 10, 2019, the Trust's Supervision informed the plaintiff, through official communication SUP-RD-2098-2019, not to carry out work in the sectors where the archaeological remains had been found until a visit by the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica was conducted, which was scheduled for Tuesday, September 17, 2019 (File EA Ampo D, folio 1781). Subsequently, on September 11, 2019, the plaintiff Consortium sent official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290 to the Executing Unit, stating that it considered the situation of the archaeological findings to be an urgent matter that must be notified to the corresponding entities (Annex 65 of the complaint). Said communication lacks purpose, as already indicated, on September 10, 2019 itself, the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica was notified of this event, and the date for the site visit was set. On September 13, 2019, the plaintiff Consortium informed the Executing Unit through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 (Annex 66 of the complaint) that the archaeological remains were affecting the progress of the work execution and that, for this reason, as of said date, they would halt the project. Subsequently, on September 16, 2019, the Supervision sent official communication SUP-RD-2149-2019 to the plaintiff (File EA Ampo D, folio 1790), confirming the visit scheduled by the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica. Said visit was effectively conducted; thus, on September 23, 2019, the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica notified the Supervision through official communication DAH-2019-O-321 of September twenty, two thousand nineteen, that the on-site inspection showed that no complementary archaeological studies were necessary. Consequently, on September 24, 2019, the Supervision instructed the plaintiff Consortium, through official communication SUPRD-2208-2019 (File EA Ampo D, folio 1852), to resume normal work in the sector where activities had been halted. Therefore, this situation caused that in one sector of the Escuela Azul project, work could not be performed for twelve calendar days; however, it was a partial suspension. Moreover, during said suspension, the project was under an extension granted through official communication CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 of June sixteen, two thousand nineteen, due to the processing of OM-02 (folios 08 of the EA fine collection file and File EA Ampo D, 1851 and 2179). Said extension was rendered without effect on November 25, 2019, through official communication CG-2019-2069-ARQ-2019-558 (folio 12 of the fine collection file), and therefore, it did not really affect the plaintiff in the execution period for the delivery of the works. TWENTY-SEVENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. While it is true that on June 10, a complaint was filed before the Ministry of Health regarding wastewater, it was filed by Mr. Víctor Romero Jiménez, Director of the Escuela Azul educational center, through official communication DEA-16-2019 (File EA Ampo D, folio 1931), at the request of the Project Supervision Unit (USP) (File EA Ampo D, folio 1929). Now, this complaint resulted from the efforts coordinated by the Trust to avoid affecting the project's progress, as on May 21, 2019, it sent official communication DVM-A-USP-0377-2019 to the plaintiff Consortium, instructing it to submit a proposal for temporarily collecting the wastewater while the matter was being resolved before the competent authorities. However, the plaintiff Consortium did not comply with the recommendations given by the Supervision Unit, nor did it implement any palliative measure, despite being warned on multiple occasions of its obligations to comply with environmental measures. For this reason, although it is true that there was a situation of water discharge coming from an adjoining property and ending up on the land where the Escuela Azul project was being built, this situation should not have represented serious problems, much less a possibility for the plaintiff to continue with the normal execution of the works (folio 118 of the EA fine collection file and Judgment 2020-008458, Annex 67 of the complaint). TWENTY-EIGHTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The plaintiff party does not provide any evidence demonstrating this fact. Contrarily, it is evidenced that the rejection of OS-01, OS-02, and OS-04 was correctly made because these were inadmissible. TWENTY-NINTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The project was never suspended at any time, but extensions of time did exist due to modification orders, which, in principle, should have benefited the plaintiff so it could finish the works within the contracted term. However, even with these time extensions, it failed to meet its contractual obligations, as it abandoned the project as of June 8, 2020. As deduced from the "Special Report - Unfinished Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul," prepared in March 2021 by the Supervision, the most relevant facts that led the plaintiff Consortium to fail to meet its obligations were the result of its own responsibility. Said report shows that the plaintiff did not carry out an adequate risk analysis, as a delay was noted in the initial stage of the work, which could not be corrected in time and, rather, tended to worsen. The plaintiff Consortium breached the execution schedule and failed to implement a remedial plan to attempt to resolve the delays it had incurred. Additionally, arising from poor business management, the plaintiff found itself with a lack of cash flow to undertake the project. This situation, which is the complete responsibility of the plaintiff Consortium, caused a lack of resource availability, absence of materials on site, and a lack of suitable personnel for the execution of the work. For this reason, the abandonment carried out by the plaintiff Consortium in the execution of the Escuela La Hermosa project has no relation to what happened at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project. Likewise, there was never, on the part of the Trust as employer, a refusal to receive other projects awarded to the plaintiff Consortium; on the contrary, it is confirmed that there was a breach by the plaintiff in the delivery of the works for all projects in which it was awarded. THIRTIETH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. According to the "Special Report - Unfinished Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul," prepared in March 2021 by the Supervision Unit, it is verified that the works at the time of the suspension of activities had a nominal progress of 56%. Now, within this estimate, the reprocesses due to the deterioration that the project may have suffered because of the abandonment of the work execution carried out by the plaintiff are not contemplated.

COMMUNICATION OF THE PROJECT THROUGH PERSONS NOT CONTRACTUALLY AUTHORIZED FOR CONTRACT COMMUNICATION.

THIRTY-FIRST.- WE ARE NOT AWARE. I abide by the evidentiary record. The Works Manager, according to Clause 1.1 of the General Conditions of Tender Documents No. LPI-01-2017, is the person appointed by the Bidder's Representative in the manner provided for in Sub-clause 17.2.7. It is unknown whether the plaintiff Consortium’s representative did not conduct official communications as established by the contractual instructions. As this fact corresponds to a matter of the plaintiff's own internal organization and operation, we are not aware of it. Furthermore, the plaintiff does not specify which communications in particular it refers to, nor what the impact thereof would have been on the performance of its contractual obligations. THIRTY-SECOND.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. Part of the official communications mentioned by the plaintiff in this fact do not appear in the evidentiary record. On the other hand, what is indicated in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-450 (Annex 68 of the complaint) refers to the Trust's representative, who, according to Clause 1.1 of the General Conditions of Tender Documents No. LPI-01-2017, is called the Project Manager. Now, there is an error in the drafting of the Tender Documents, which was communicated to the Consortium through official communication CG-2018-1995 AD-2018-0166 of November eleven, two thousand eighteen (Annex 72 of the complaint), as the correct substitution is the concept of "Project Director" with "Works Manager" and vice versa. Having clarified this, it can be observed that, according to Clause 1 of the Special Conditions of Tender Documents No. LPI-01-2017, the Works Manager is Ms. Maria Lourdes Fernández Quesada. However, this Clause indicated: Said official shall delegate certain functions related to the works management to an engineering professional appointed for the purposes of this contract. The professionals delegated for this function were the Consortium CALVI+FSA as the Executing Unit and the Consortium CSI Ingenieros-CACISA as the Supervision Unit, who, acting jointly, represented the interests of the Trust. In any case, the Supervision Unit was left in charge of appointing a Works Manager, in the sense of having a professional who would have functions related to the works management, but, above all, the primary function of director of the Supervision team. However, this professional did not individually hold the role of maintaining sole and exclusive communications with the plaintiff Consortium, as, given the magnitude of the project, a Supervision Unit was precisely consolidated in which there was a Supervision Manager, a Works Manager, and an Assistant Manager, who maintained constant communication between the Consortium and the Executing Unit. Consequently, what is indicated by the plaintiff is unfounded, as the Works Manager was appointed from the Tender Documents. Likewise, the engineering professionals who would be in charge of representing the Trust as employer were designated long before the start order was issued, because the Executing Unit and the Supervision Unit were the same for all projects administered by the Trust, and according to the "Initial Planning Reports" (File EA Ampo C, folios 1191 to 1219; File LRSR Ampo C, folios 1994 to 1322; and File ELAH Ampo C, folios 1299 to 1327), it is confirmed that these units were always in charge of maintaining communications with the plaintiff Consortium. Furthermore, the Works Manager designated by the Supervision Unit did not sign all communications addressed to the plaintiff. As indicated, within the Supervision Unit, those designated to communicate with the Consortium were always three people: Supervision Manager (Adran Ruilova Reacia), Works Managers (varied according to the project), and the Assistant Manager (Fabiana Rege González). Not all official communications required the Works Manager's signature, because what was essential was that communications always went through the Supervision Unit. What the Works Manager always had to sign were the monthly supervision reports, as he was in charge of directing the supervisory team. But there were technical communications or some other notifications that, by their nature, did not require the signature of the Works Manager. In any case, in contractual terms, it does not represent any breach that the Works Manager did not sign all communications addressed to the plaintiff, and even less could it have meant any inconvenience for the plaintiff Consortium. THIRTY-THIRD.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. Admitted with variations. It is true that as of said date, the signature of the Works Manager began to be included in most communications addressed to the Plaintiff. However, this does not mean that communications in which said professional's signature was not included were not equally valid for all contractual purposes, as they were signed by the Supervision Manager or by a professional attached to Management, and in any case, the representation designated by the Project Director falls upon the Supervision as a unit and not a particular professional. THIRTY-FOURTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. It is noted that the plaintiff is confused between the Works Manager and the Project Manager. In the case of the plaintiff, the Works Manager is the one appointed by the plaintiff from the beginning of the setup of the Works on site until their completion; the Bidder's Representative designates a suitable person as Works Manager, who shall supervise all work performed by the Bidder on site and shall be present on site during normal working hours (Clause 1 and Sub-clause 17.2.7 of the General Conditions). In the case of the Employer, the Project Manager represents the Employer and acts on its behalf at all times during the term of the Contract. All notifications, instructions, orders, certificates, approvals, and other communications within the framework of the Contract shall be issued, in principle, by the Project Manager (Clause 1 and Sub-clause 17.1.1 of the General Conditions). The Project Manager was Ms. María Lourdes Fernández Quesada, who was authorized to hire an engineering consultant to perform this function (Clause 1 of the Special Conditions). Said consultants were the Consortium CALVI+FSA as the Executing Unit and the Consortium CSI Ingenieros-CACISA as the Supervision Unit. Now, the Supervision Unit has, within its job positions, a Works Manager, whose primary function is to be the director of the Supervision team and who also has the task of maintaining communication with the plaintiff. However, the Works Manager is not the representation of the Project Manager. The Project Manager is the Supervision Unit and the Executing Unit, and these two entities are the only ones authorized to act on behalf of the Trust, which they performed to full satisfaction.

THIRTY-FIFTH.- IT IS TRUE. Admitted. THIRTY-SIXTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. The plaintiff Consortium did not comply with the delivery of any of the three projects mentioned in the complaint. Contrarily, it incurred serious delays, culminating irresponsibly in a total abandonment of the execution of the works and their safety. The administrative procedures carried out were due to the plaintiff's breaches; these were conducted in accordance with the law and respecting the due process and right of defense of the plaintiff Consortium. The result of said procedures resulted in the applicability of the penalty clause to the plaintiff (Fine collection files). The Final Acts (visible in the fine collection files for each project) were challenged by the plaintiff Consortium. However, it can be confirmed by studying the appeals for revocation that the plaintiff Consortium did not truly intend to challenge the Trust's decisions, as its challenge briefs were limited to a literally identical transcription in relation to the closing arguments briefs it had submitted during the notice-of-charges phase. In any case, the Trust addressed said challenges in accordance with the law, all of which can be corroborated by the analysis of each fine collection file.

REGARDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL BREACHES BY THE TRUST. THIRTY-SEVENTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. No changes were requested to the approved final designs. The changes implemented at the employer's request were made under the modification order procedure, as provided for in the contract and the Tender Documents. Likewise, each approved modification order increased the original contract amount in favor of the plaintiff, which contemplated all direct and indirect costs that the plaintiff Consortium would incur for its respective execution (See the modification orders appearing in the execution files). THIRTY-EIGHTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. According to the terms established in the Tender Documents and the contract, payment milestones become effective only upon 100% compliance (Clause 12 of the General Conditions of Tender Documents LPI-01-2017). Likewise, according to Section C, Appendix 1, Payment Conditions and Procedures of Tender Documents LPI-01-2017, if the Bidder failed or fails to comply with any work or obligation under the Contract and has been notified by the Works Manager, the value of this work or obligation may be withheld until such work or obligation is fulfilled. In this regard, in its own complaint, the plaintiff acknowledges that it abandoned and, therefore, did not finish the works whose costs it recklessly seeks to collect. THIRTY-NINTH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. There is no correlation between the dates on which the start orders were issued for each project. Note that, according to Sub-clause 2.1, item 3), fourth paragraph of the Special Conditions of the Tender Documents, the management of each educational center must be carried out individually. All procedures, reception deadlines, and guarantees must be adapted to the particularities of each project. That is, there cannot be a delay between the issuance of the start orders because each project individually constitutes a design, construction, and equipping process, in which particularities arise that are unrelated to the other educational centers.

Likewise, it must be taken into account that the referenced start orders are those corresponding to the construction and equipping process, since start orders for the design process had been previously issued. Therefore, according to the characteristics of this prior process and what occurred within it, the orders for the construction and equipping of each project were subsequently issued. FORTIETH.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. It is observed that the plaintiff Consortium is not precise in this fact, as it does not indicate which of the three projects it refers to. It is recalled that these are completely independent works, even though they are part of the same contract. Now, according to the documents cited by the plaintiff, it is noted that it refers to the Escuela Azul educational center. In this sense, while it is true there was a wide margin of time to learn about and process the Modification Orders, this is normal given the complexity of this type of project. Furthermore, the count of days performed by the plaintiff Consortium in its complaint is not accurate. Likewise, it is false that the processing of the start orders caused delays for the plaintiff within the contractual term for project execution; this is verified for several reasons:

Regarding OM-02 (see fine collection file).

-The final version of OM-02 was submitted by the plaintiff on October 10, 2019, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-312 of October nine, 2019 (folio 10 of the EA fine collection file), and was resolved on November 25, 2019, through official communication CG-2019-2069-ARQ-2019-558 of November twenty-five, two thousand nineteen (folio 12 of the EA fine collection file). That is, 47 calendar days elapsed for the employer to provide the due response, and not 175 days as erroneously indicated by the plaintiff Consortium.

-During the period of time taken to process OM-02, the plaintiff was granted an extension of time through official communication CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 of June sixteen, two thousand nineteen (folio 08 of the EA fine collection file), so that it would not be affected by said administrative procedures. Therefore, given this extra extension period, the plaintiff could have taken advantage of it and continued executing the original works of the project, that is, those that were not part of a modification order, as these were experiencing considerable delays.

-However, it is recorded in the supervision reports for October 2019 and November 2019 (File EA Ampo C, folios 1017 and 1064) that the plaintiff Consortium was still experiencing serious delays in the execution of the project's original works. The report for November 2019 states: "Regarding the project, there is currently no new development, it shows almost no progress, the personnel working is minimal, however, it is worth mentioning the mismatch (sic) and considerable delay with respect to the initial schedule" (File EA Ampo C, 1062).

Likewise, it further notes: "In relation to the corrective measures to be applied by the plaintiff, regarding the execution tasks during the close of this report, as mentioned in previous reports, the worksite situation remains the same, with the existing delay increasing considerably. It is calculated, approximately, that the work is experiencing a delay of around 28 weeks (...) it should be mentioned that the progress situation of the work is practically nil and no type of immediate action is foreseen on the part of the contractor to counteract the increasing delay and the growing deterioration of the facilities in process at the Educational Center" (File EA Ampo C, folio 1055).

-Consequently, when the OM-02 matter was resolved, the plaintiff had accumulated a delay of 28 weeks, which is the same as saying 4 months or 120 calendar days of mismatch in the execution of the project's original works. Furthermore, OM-02 was rejected; therefore, the plaintiff did not have to perform new works due to a modification. Consequently, it is impossible that this caused a delay within the contractual term for the execution of the Escuela Azul project.

The request that the plaintiff submitted through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LP-01-2017-397 of January nine, two thousand twenty (Annex 90 of the complaint) was inadmissible, as the plaintiff sought to collect an amount for the non-execution of a modification order originated by the employer, when in reality OM-02 was at the request of the plaintiff Consortium, meaning it was a modification order requested by the plaintiff. In this sense, Sub-clause 39.3.2 of the General Conditions of the Tender Documents is clear when it states: "If the Employer decides not to make the modifications, the Bidder shall not have the right to recover the costs of preparing the modification proposal request." Regarding OM-04. On January 22, 2020, the plaintiff, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-413 of January twenty, two thousand twenty (folio 15 of the EA fine collection file), submitted the final version of OM-04 to the employer. On March 25, 2020, through official communication SUP-RD-0417-2020, OM-04 was sent to the plaintiff for its respective signature and acceptance. That is, the employer took 3 days to process said OM and not 165 days, as the plaintiff inaccurately stated in its complaint.

-Now, on March 31, 2020, the plaintiff informed the employer, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-494 (folio 17 of the EA fine collection file), that they would not sign OM-04. Consequently, the employer, through official communication DVM-A-USP-0292-2020 of May twenty-two, two thousand twenty, stated that due to the refusal of the plaintiff Consortium to sign and accept OM-04, it was agreed to dismiss and render without effect said modification order. Therefore, the plaintiff Consortium was notified, through official communication SUP-RD-0629-2020 of May twenty-six, two thousand twenty (folio 19 of the EA fine collection file), that the works contemplated in the OM would not be carried out. Consequently, as with what happened regarding OM-02, it is impossible that the processing of OM-04 caused a delay for the plaintiff within the contractual term for the execution of the Escuela Azul project.

ON THE CONTRACTUAL TERMINATION REQUEST MADE BY THE CONSORTIUM.

FORTY-FIRST.- IT IS INACCURATE. Rejected as inaccurate. As explained in fact number twenty-three, the plaintiff Consortium did not comply with the due process for contractual termination as stipulated in Sub-clause 42.3.1 of the General Conditions of the Tender Documents. At no time did a ground arise that would warrant a termination by the plaintiff. For the plaintiff Consortium to have been entitled to terminate the contract, the employer would have had to omit payment of sums due for the execution of the contract or refused to approve invoices or supporting documents without valid reason, and these scenarios never occurred within the contracting process.

The Trust always adhered to the legal regime and procedures set forth in the contract, and by complying with these provisions, the contracting party always safeguarded the maintenance of the economic equilibrium of the contract at all times. In accordance with those parameters and regardless of the substantive impropriety of the rescission, the purported attempt at rescission invoked by the plaintiff Consortium was not carried out in accordance with the formal procedure stipulated for such purposes. FORTY-SECOND.- IT IS INACCURATE. It is rejected as inaccurate. Likewise, as mentioned in fact twenty-three, it is false that on May 22, 2020, the plaintiff Consortium first notified the Trust of its intention to rescind the contract. What the plaintiff Consortium submitted on May 22, 2020, was an administrative claim in which it sought recognition of certain economic amounts, and it did so through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 of May twenty-second, two thousand twenty. Annex 77 of the complaint, which corresponds to official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539 of May twenty-second, two thousand twenty, was submitted by the plaintiff on May 25, 2020, and did not constitute a notice of contract rescission, but rather a warning to the Trust, in which it stated that, if the claim filed through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 of May twenty-second, two thousand twenty, was not recognized, it would proceed to unilaterally rescind the contract. FORTY-THIRD.- IT IS INACCURATE. It is rejected as inaccurate. The plaintiff Consortium did not send any notification to the contracting party on June 8, 2020. Annex 78 of the complaint corresponds to official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 of June twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty, and it is a notice of contract rescission submitted by the plaintiff on June 24, 2020, which is based on an alleged contractual breach by the contracting party, which had initially been communicated to the Trust on May 22, 2020. However, on May 22, 2020, what was communicated to the contracting party was an administrative claim, which was rejected with a reasoned and reasoned basis by the Trust for not adhering to the pertinent procedure for filing claims according to the Bid Documents. This occurred on June 4, 2020, through official communication FID-2100-2020. Now, the warning that the plaintiff Consortium submitted to the Trust on May 25, 2020, does not constitute a notice of contract rescission, as it is not reliably based on a cause for breach by the contracting party and is erroneously grounded on clauses that only the contracting party can invoke. FORTY-FOURTH.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. Given the existence of evident grounds for breach by the plaintiff Consortium, the Trust had already initiated a due process for contract rescission. It is for this reason that on June 29, 2020, the request for no-objection was made to the IDB through official communication FID-2495-2020. The no-objection was granted through official communication CID/CCRI736/2020 of July eighth, two thousand twenty; consequently, the Trust communicated the contract rescission to the plaintiff Consortium through official communication FID-2692-2020 of July thirteenth, two thousand twenty. As has been indicated, the request for no-objection is a prior requirement, since it is a procurement excluded from the ordinary procedures of the Public Procurement Law, authorization must be obtained from the lending agency providing the resources, as established in the "Policies for the Acquisition of Goods and Works financed by the Inter-American Development Bank GN-2349-9." REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF RESCISSION BY THE TRUST.

FORTY-FIFTH.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. FORTY-SIXTH.- IT IS TRUE. It is partially admitted. It is clarified that these official communications, both from the plaintiff Consortium and from the Trust, are part of the procedure for applying the penalty clause for late delivery of the projects and not of the contract rescission.

REGARDING THE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE.

FORTY-SEVENTH.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. It is admitted with rectifications. Resolution No. 29-2020/official communication FID-3278-2020 of one ten in the afternoon of August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty, does not correspond to the Final Act of the Summary Proceeding for the application of the penalty clause for the Escuela La Hermosa Project, but rather to the Act responding to the Motion for Revocation filed by the plaintiff through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 of August third, two thousand twenty. The Final Act corresponds to Resolution No. 24/official communication FID-2879-2020 of July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty. FORTY-EIGHTH.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. FORTY-NINTH.- IT IS PARTIALLY TRUE. It is admitted with rectifications. Resolution No. 31-2020/official communication FID-3331-2020 of August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, does not correspond to the resolution of the motion for revocation, but rather to the Final Act for the Escuela Azul project.

REGARDING THE ADVANCE PAYMENT GUARANTEES.

FIFTIETH.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. FIFTY-FIRST.- IT IS INACCURATE. It is rejected as inaccurate. It is not true that there are works that have not been paid to the plaintiff Consortium. The progress of works that the plaintiff left in process when it abandoned the execution of the projects do not constitute 100% milestones. For that reason, according to "Section IX. CONTRACT FORMS," subsection "C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures" of the Bid Documents, these must not be paid to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the abandonment of the works by the plaintiff Consortium caused deterioration of the works, as well as rework processes, whereby the costs of any potential new awards that might need to be made for the completion of the projects would increase significantly. The magnitude of these costs and rework processes can be verified in the "Special Reports on Unfinished Works" prepared by the Supervision Unit for each project (Case File ELAH, Volume F, folios 2446 to 2478). FIFTY-SECOND.- IT IS INACCURATE. It is rejected as inaccurate. There is no balance in favor of the plaintiff Consortium; the progress of works that the plaintiff seeks to have recognized are not included within the provisions of the Bid Documents for Public Tender LPI-01-2017. On the other hand, regarding the return of advance payment guarantees, this is not appropriate because the plaintiff Consortium does not meet the essential requirement for them to be returned, which is having fulfilled its contractual obligations, as well as having effectively repaid the entire advance payment. Likewise, according to the stipulations in articles 2.34 and 2.35 of Policies GN-3249-9, as well as in "SECTION IX. CONTRACT FORMS," subsection "C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures" of the referenced Bid Documents. These guarantees must continue to be retained by the Trust and enforced in its favor, since outstanding balances on the advance payments prevail for the three projects mentioned here. These balances, according to official communication CG-2020-1139 AD-2020-0221 INF of October twenty-third, two thousand twenty, amount to USD $535,604.15, which have not been effectively repaid by the plaintiff Consortium. FIFTY-THIRD.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. It was rejected through Resolution No. 38-2020 of one twenty in the afternoon of November twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty, official communication FID-4631-2020. FIFTY-FOURTH.- IT IS TRUE. It is admitted. It is true that the plaintiff Consortium, once it received the order to commence, proceeded to carry out the design work and preparation of construction plans (planos constructivos). It is also true that the work was carried out using approved preliminary designs (anteproyectos) as a reference base for each of the projects. The review and approval of the design and plans for each project was carried out by the Supervision Unit, through the Plan and Technical Specifications Review reports (Case File ELAH Volume C, folios 1234 to 1274 and 1277 to 1298; Case File EA Volume C folios 1153 to 1190 and Case File LRSR Volume C. folios 1236 to 1293). These reviews were approved, but all with comments, because such designs are considered finally approved only when they have received approval from the CFIA; it is at that moment that the approved Final Design is precisely generated. Now, regarding the plaintiff Consortium's argument, it was indicated to it on repeated occasions that the final designs, even when approved, are a guide for the constructive development process and may be subject to modifications through change orders or because the works under construction must comply with national building regulations. The referenced Bid Documents, in the "Second Part, Design, Work, and Equipment Requirements," state that the plans, preliminary designs, and preliminary and special studies are for reference, meaning the plaintiff Consortium had to conduct a thorough review and adjust them to current legislation; failing to do so would oblige it to make the changes necessary to adapt the project to safety and human accessibility requirements. Likewise, from the time of bid submission, bidders were informed that the plans were for reference and served as a guide. The designs of the Final Preliminary Design, even when approved by the Contracting Party, are not hierarchically superior to modifications made to them during the execution of the Contract, which are at the Contractor's expense, without prejudice to the maintenance of the economic equilibrium of the Contract by the Contracting Party when Change Orders or Claims that are favorably accepted by the Administration are involved. In this same sense, the approved construction plans do not relieve the Contractor of its responsibility to comply with the regulations, laws, and rules governing the construction Project, as well as the minimum technical specifications and the minimum requirements table for each area. If these requirements are not met, it is impossible for the works to be considered in satisfactory general condition. The Contractor bears the responsibility that the works meet the minimum requirements to be delivered to the Contracting Party within the period stipulated in the Contract. If, eventually, the minimum needs of the Project are not in the approved final plans, these must be modified, without this constituting an exemption from the Contractor's responsibility to comply with the bid document requirements. In summary, the changes in the designs resulted, for the most part, from change orders, which, according to articles 1.1 and 1.2 of Contract No. 88-2017, are considered the hierarchically superior document regarding the execution and interpretation of the contract. To a lesser extent, there were modifications that had to be implemented by the contractor because the works did not conform to the requirements and the minimum requirements table in relation to national building regulations (See case files for fine collection). Finally, it is false that payment of milestones was conditioned on the execution of additional works; there is no probative record that supports such an assertion. Furthermore, the monthly reports prepared by the Supervision Unit demonstrate that the plaintiff Consortium had delay problems in the execution of the works from the first weeks of execution in all projects and that this was mainly due to a cash flow problem experienced by the plaintiff, a situation that is entirely the responsibility of its business sphere.

ABOUT THE PROJECT: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA.

Regarding what was mentioned by the plaintiff Consortium, as admitted in fact nine, it is true that the project executed normally during the first weeks, but then an unforeseeable situation arose that warranted the plaintiff Consortium carrying out complementary studies, for which reason the term was temporarily suspended for four weeks. Now, as indicated in the response to fact ten, official communication SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, responded to official communication GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-088 of November first, two thousand eighteen, through which the plaintiff Consortium made an additional request for an extension of the term suspension for 15 calendar days to prepare an updated offer with technical and economic improvements for OM-1 (folio 29 of the fine collection case file for LRSR). It is true that official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen (annex 11 of the complaint) responds to the points indicated in official communication SUP-RD-670-2018. But it is not true that OM-1 was initiated in that manner, since it began with the presentation of the first version of the change order that the plaintiff submitted through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-01-2017-075 of October twelfth, two thousand eighteen. On the other hand, as responded in fact twelve, it is true that once the suspension of OS-01 was completed, the Consortium requested OS-02, because pockets of loose rocky material and a loose fill material appeared, which, in the contractor's opinion, necessitated additional studies. However, as responded in fact thirteen, it is not true that the term suspension was approved until July 23, 2018. This was requested by the Consortium on July 16, 2018, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 and was approved by OS-01 on July 20, 2018 (Case File LRSR Volume B, folios 338 to 340). It is true that on November 6, 2018, the Consortium, through official communication GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen (annex 11 of the complaint), made a new request for term suspension. But it is inaccurate to state that they required a pronouncement on OM-01 from the contracting party, since the Consortium was merely in the process of making technical and economic improvements to said OM. Precisely because it required additional time to submit an updated offer, it was that on November 1, 2018, it requested OS-04 through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (folio 29 of the fine collection case file for LRSR), to suspend the execution term.

ABOUT DELAYS BEYOND THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY IN THE REVIEW, APPROVAL, AND ORDER TO COMMENCE OF OM-01: SLOPE STABILIZATION WORK ON THE NORTHERN SECTOR OF THE TERRAIN FOR THE PROJECT CALLED LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA 1.1.1. It is true. 1.1.2. It is true. Version two of the OM-01 is submitted, and it is here that official communication SUP-RD-670-2018 is answered. 1.1.3. It is true. 1.1.4. It is true. 1.1.5. It is true.

1.1.6. It is true. 1.1.7. It is inaccurate. It involves official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127. 1.1.8. It is true. 1.1.9. It is true. 1.1.10. It is inaccurate. Official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 is dated January 28, 2019. 1.1.11 It is true. 1.1.12. It is true. 1.1.13. It is true. 1.1.14. It is true. 1.1.15. It is inaccurate. The OM-01 was not well broken down from the outset; the Supervision Unit repeatedly found it necessary to request additional information or corrections (annexes 2526.29.33 and 43 of the complaint). The OM-01 was always a priority for the contracting party; however, it is true that due to its complexity, it required a reasonable amount of time for its proper implementation. However, a large part of the delays occurred because the Consortium did not submit pertinent change orders. 1.1.16. It is true. 1.1.17. It is inaccurate. Every claim that was rejected for the Consortium was done in accordance with the law, in harmony with and respect for the principles of public procurement. The rejections were made because they were improper, untimely, or did not adhere to the stipulated procedure for such claims. 1.1.18. It is true. The order to commence could not be issued until the addendum was signed and the contractor fulfilled a series of requirements, such as updating the performance guarantee, all-risk policy, among others. 1.1.19. It is true. A large part of the delay between the approval of the OM-01 and the issuance of the OM-01 was because the Consortium was in the process of fulfilling the requirements. Likewise, the time limit the Consortium had to execute the works was 200 calendar days, that is, almost seven months, which corresponded to 150 days of extension and 50 days remaining from the original contract. 1.1.20. It is inaccurate. As mentioned in the response to fact sixteen, the reason why the plans were not effectively approved within 30 calendar days following the resumption of the project's execution falls exclusively on the plaintiff's responsibility, per the stipulations in "Section VI. Design, Work, and Equipment Requirements," subsection "K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered." Observe that the plaintiff Consortium entered the plans into the APC, which is the Construction Project Administrator platform of the CFIA, through which project plans are reviewed for their respective approval (Volume D, folio 1637) on September 17, 2019, and informed the Executing Unit of the Trust of this procedure on September 24, 2019, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-305 (Case File LRSR Volume D, folio 1638). However, said procedure was rejected by the CFIA through the APC platform due to formal issues in the submission, whereby the plaintiff had to proceed on September 27, 2019, with a new submission of the plans into the APC platform. This was reported by the plaintiff Consortium itself to the Executing Unit through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-308 (Case File LRSR Volume D, folios 1639 to 1645), and since carrying out such a procedure is part of the plaintiff's obligations as stipulated in "Section VI. Design, Work, and Equipment Requirements," subsection "K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered." As well as what is indicated in sub-clauses 7.120.1 of the General Conditions and Clause 40 of the Special Conditions of the Bid Documents. It is for the foregoing that the plaintiff Consortium is incorrect in stating that the works could not begin on the scheduled date for reasons beyond its responsibility. Therefore, it was not appropriate to grant the term suspension requested through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 of October third, two thousand nineteen (annex 46 of the complaint). 1.1.21. It is true. 1.1.22. It is true. These objections were a product of the non-compliance with the construction permit procedure that the contractor had not correctly processed and finalized. Likewise, the problems that arose were a product of poor coordination and effective communication between the Consortium and the local government. The fact that these objections hindered the normal execution of the works to some extent is the exclusive responsibility of the Consortium, for not having finalized the construction permit process and thereby avoiding any objection from the Municipality. 1.1.23. It is inaccurate. As noted in the response to fact eighteen, the Trust was not responsible for carrying out such negotiations with the municipal entity; however, it intervened because the Consortium failed to fulfill its obligations. The problem with the construction permit for the restart of the work was the exclusive responsibility of the plaintiff. Note that the plaintiff Consortium carried this problem since the beginning of the execution of the works, for on June 5, 2018, the Municipality of Oreamuno had shut down the project execution because the Consortium had not correctly carried out the construction permit process before said local government, as was its contractual responsibility (LRSR Volume D folios 1375 to 1377). In that same sense, in October 2019 when the plaintiff notified the Municipality of Oreamuno of the restart of the works through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, the same problem occurred, since the plaintiff Consortium did not correctly carry out the respective procedure, and that was reflected in the response given by the Urban Control Department of the Municipality of Oreamuno, through official communication MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 of October tenth, two thousand nineteen (annex 49 of the complaint). 1.1.24. It is true. But the delay was derived from the sphere of responsibility of the Consortium; what the Trust did was intervene to seek a prompt solution. 1.1.25. It is inaccurate. At no time was there bad faith on the part of the Trust; the delays derived from the problem with the Municipality of Oreamuno were because the Consortium submitted the License for the construction permit on June 20, 2018, but never appeared to sign and collect the certificate of the construction permit and the respective plans (annex 49 of the complaint). Likewise, the inconsistency and essence of the problem was that the plaintiff Consortium exempted itself from the request for the construction permit by having registered the project as a National Building (Edificación Nacional). However, when the Supervision Unit of the Trust requested the permit for National Buildings from the plaintiff through official communication SUP-RD-0375-2020, what it provided was municipal permit N°24046. Subsequently, it was verified that the plaintiff had also not provided the Municipality with the supposed permit for National Buildings. In summary, the problem that arose was due to the fact that, although the plaintiff initiated the municipal permit procedure, it did not complete it either before National Buildings or before the municipal entity (annex 51 of the complaint). For this reason, there was an inconsistency between what was stated by the plaintiff and what was indicated by the Municipality, and since said problem was exclusively caused by poor management on the part of the plaintiff Consortium, the approval of OS-14 was not appropriate, especially since what the plaintiff sought was an extension of the deadline for project delivery by 75 days, and this was unjustifiable, as it had the entire project suspension time, which was over a calendar year, to proceed to finalize the construction permit procedure before the Municipality of Oreamuno, a procedure that was a contractual responsibility of the plaintiff.

In another vein, the project was only suspended for reasons beyond the Consortium's control for 338 days. The rest of the time the project was suspended was a product of the Consortium's responsibility. On the other hand, the Consortium could have greatly reduced its financial burden and used it in other of the projects for which it had been awarded and that were under execution at that time. Regarding direct costs, these were contemplated in the OM-01 and the reasons for the claim were justified, as the Consortium did not file the claim in accordance with the established procedure.

PRESENTATION AND REJECTION OF THE CONTRACTUAL INDEMNIFICATION REQUEST AND FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FOR DELAYS BEYOND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM.

It is not true that there was a period of 478 days in which, due to the Trust's responsibility, the works could not begin. As indicated, for 338 calendar days, the project was suspended due to an unforeseeable situation that was not the responsibility of either party. During this time, soil and geological studies, OM proposals, economic study and analysis, a request for approval of the OM from the IDB, among other procedures, were carried out, all stemming from the unforeseeable situation and which, it is true, are not the responsibility of either party. However, the fact that the OM-01 was not ready quickly was partly because the Consortium did not submit a sufficiently acceptable proposal. As has been reiterated, the claims that were rejected by the Trust were done in accordance with the law. At all times, the bid document and contractual stipulations were respected, as well as the principles of public procurement. The Consortium alleges a series of cost overruns it incurred, but it did not use the contractually stipulated procedure to request these cost overruns. Likewise, a large part of the economic and human resources that the Consortium possessed could have been used in other projects it was executing at that time and leave only essential personnel at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa educational center. Let us remember that the project was suspended, which means the Consortium did not have to maintain its entire structure of direct and indirect costs as if the project were being executed. Likewise, note that the contract was increased by over 70%, and in that variation the cost overruns that the Consortium had incurred were considered. 1.1.26. It is true. What was ordered were basic maintenance works, and this can be corroborated in the same official communication SUP-RD-973-2019 of May 13, 2019 (annex 53 of the complaint). 1.1.27. It is true. 1.1.28. It is inaccurate. The Administrative Claim submitted through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, despite being dated July 1, 2019, was signed on August 1, 2019, and sent to the Trust on August 2, 2019. 1.1.29. I have no direct knowledge. I rely on the probative record. 1.1.30. It is true. The claim was rejected in accordance with the law. The Consortium did not adhere to what was indicated in Sub-clauses 44.1 and 44.2 of the General Conditions of the Bid Documents, and therefore the claim was not admissible. The rejection response did not take 93 days, but rather 60 days. At the time the claim was submitted, the change order had already been approved since May 9, 2019 (annex 44 of the complaint), and the order to commence had not been issued because the Consortium still needed to comply with the prior requirements and procedures: updating the performance guarantee, insurance policies, among others. That is, the project was at that time under suspension, caused by the Consortium.

SERIOUS DAMAGES DUE TO REJECTION OF SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM.

The project was suspended until September 3, 2019; subsequently, it was suspended by the Municipality due to the Consortium's responsibility. It is again stated that every claim that was rejected for the contractor was done in accordance with the normative postulates that govern procurement. At no time could the aim of the Trust be to obstruct the public purposes of building educational infrastructure. The Trust had dozens of projects of this nature under its charge, and in no case did the problems that arose with the Consortium occur. The Supervision Unit and the Executing Unit remained present in all the executions of projects carried out with other contractors, which were completed to the satisfaction of the parties. The situation faced by the projects awarded to the Consortium stems from poor business management by the consortium members, which fall outside the responsibility of the Trust.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE PROCESS DERIVED FROM THE "SPECIAL REPORT- UNFINISHED WORKS, PROJECT No. 023-5969 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA" THAT DEMONSTRATES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM REGARDING ITS CONTRACTUAL BREACHES a. This project is part of Contract No. 88-2017, between the Trust Banco Nacional - Ministerio de Educación Pública Law No. 9124 and the plaintiff Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI, signed on October 26, 2017. It is located in the province of Cartago, canton of Oreamuno, district of Santa Rosa.

b. The Order to Commence was issued on May 18, 2018, to take effect on May 21, 2018, for an original term of 154 calendar days. The original delivery date was scheduled for October 21, 2018. However, due to suspensions, extensions, enlargements, and compensations, the date was moved to April 13, 2020.

c. During the constructive process, 338 days of term suspension (non-continuous) were generated for the study process, formulation of the proposal for stabilization of the northern slope, and its subsequent review and approval by the Administration. Likewise, extensions to the execution term were granted, 23 days of term compensation, and 91 days for delays attributable to the plaintiff. When the contract was rescinded against the plaintiff on July 13, 2020, the project had accumulated 694 days since its start of execution.

d. During the initial stages of project execution, personnel from the Municipality of Oreamuno temporarily shut down the project due to a lack of documentation regarding the construction permit; this was resolved quickly, and the day after the suspension, the closure orders were lifted.

e. The work was halted due to the potential risk of landslides from the slopes that make up the northern sector. The plaintiff carried out geotechnical and geological analyses to define the implementation of corrective mitigation measures.

f. The works remained suspended for several days while the strategy to correct the slope problem was technically and economically analyzed.

For several weeks, only the security guard remained at the project, but starting in February 2019, the works were completely abandoned, without any surveillance whatsoever. The project was left enclosed with shade cloth and safety and caution signage.

g. During the suspension of the project, the claimant largely abandoned the maintenance work on the works. Starting on September 3, 2019, the execution of the works resumed with the approval of OS-13 and implementation of OM-01, which contemplated slope stabilization.

h. The works continued normally, and minor problems arose that were brought to the claimant's attention, who, on most occasions, implemented corrective measures. However, during environmental supervision (Regencia Ambiental) visit number 25, it was verified that the claimant Consortium had dismantled all temporary works, including the Collection Center (Centro de Acopio) for ordinary and special solid waste. Likewise, trenches were detected without the placement of safety tape. These two situations were classified as Non-Conformities.

i. These non-conformities persisted, compounded by the excessive growth of vegetation on the adjoining property used for temporary works. Throughout the entire execution of the project, the claimant had to be closely monitored to ensure compliance with waste management and control, order, safety, and cleanliness parameters, as well as worker training.

j. The claimant suffered a critical financial situation, especially due to a lack of cash flow. This was verified by the Supervisory Unit (Unidad Supervisora) during its field visits, which reported that very few personnel were maintained at the worksite, along with a lack of materials and machinery for executing the works. This resulted in evident delays, as the claimant was not investing the resources the project required, which led to a suspension of all field activity by the claimant Consortium, until its subsequent definitive abandonment.

k. A significant delay was detected from the initial stage of the work, which could not be remedied by the claimant. As the work execution period elapsed, the project situation became even more complex, especially due to slope instability.

l. When the geological issue was resolved, the claimant's lack of resources created several inconveniences for managing the project. These triggered a slowdown in the execution dynamic and alarming setbacks in work progress, culminating in the absolute paralysis of activities.

m. The claimant's lack of cash flow constituted one of the most important and risky facts detected, which, despite constant interventions, could not be remedied by the claimant. This led the contracting party to face the difficult decision to terminate the contract, a drastic measure chosen to protect the public interest while simultaneously fulfilling contractual obligations.

n. This lack of cash flow from the claimant was evident from the first month of work execution, given that, during the first four weeks, a delay of 20 calendar days was reported in activities such as mobilization, layout, demolitions, and earthworks (movimientos de tierra), which belonged to the project's critical path. A remedial plan was always requested from the claimant to address these delays; however, it was never effective in correcting its non-compliances.

o. By the second month of execution, the impact of the delay persisted at 30 calendar days. The construction process was not developing as expected and planned by the claimant. Regarding these delays, the claimant alleged they were due to heavy rains. However, the supervisory group verified that the amount of rain during the first two months was quite light.

p. Subsequent to this period, it was determined that conducting technical studies on slope stability was essential. The Supervisory Unit warned all project stakeholders that the previous conditions were insufficient, as the soil condition differed from what those studies reflected. After a meeting of all project parties, it was decided to suspend the works for a three-week period to conduct the appropriate studies.

q. The new studies showed that soil stability was not consistent with the initial studies. It was determined by all parties that, based on the technical studies, the claimant had to present a solution regarding this stability issue, and works were suspended until the claimant provided said solution and its respective cost. Furthermore, complementary geotechnical studies were conducted that also warranted a suspension of the deadline.

r. By October 12, 2018, the claimant presented a proposed technical solution to resolve the existing situation, which represented a very high increase over the original contract, making it largely unviable. The claimant committed to seeking an alternative solution to reduce costs, and for that reason, OS-04 for the suspension of the deadline was processed.

s. It was verified that, during the project suspension period, the claimant executed some works consisting of ditch construction, retaining walls, and block fill. These activities were not authorized by the contracting party, nor supervised by the Supervisory Unit, nor were they entered into the logbook (bitácora). For this reason, the claimant was questioned as to why it had requested suspension of the works if it continued executing part of them. This was considered a serious fault committed by the claimant.

t. In the seventh month of the construction process, a fourth suspension was authorized, and after a series of adjustments and revisions, the claimant managed to provide a solution with a 5% reduction from the original proposal presented. In this way, OM-01 was signed and sent to the Trust (Fideicomiso) for review. However, during the OM review process, the IDB requested the opinion of an external consultant, who issued observations, generating design changes and, therefore, additional work, which increased the original amount of the OM.

u. By the end of the fifteenth month of the construction process, the ADDENDUM to the Contract had been signed by the claimant, and having met the additional requirements resulting from said contract extension, the works were resumed through OS-13 starting on September 3, 2019. However, the construction process was once again cut short, as, regarding the original contract works, the claimant had not correctly processed the construction permit (permiso de construcción) before the Municipality of Oreamuno.

v. The works were supposed to resume starting November 13, 2019, but the Supervisory Unit conducted a visit on November 14, 2019, and there were no personnel or signs of labor in the field. On November 20, 2019, the Supervisory Unit made another visit to the project, verifying that work had resumed, but the personnel were minimal (four people). It was evident at a glance that, given the scale of the tasks to be executed, the resources for that purpose were insufficient.

w. During the months of November and December 2019, rains occurred, hindering the development of the works; for this reason, OS-15 was approved, granting a compensation deadline to the claimant. In the period covering the twenty-second month of the project, overall progress of the OM-01 works was verified at 85%. However, the problem was that the original contract works remained practically the same; there was no progress in their execution. This highlighted the claimant's limited capacity to complete the project within the established timeframe.

x. Starting Tuesday, May 12, 2020, an absence of personnel at the project was confirmed; only the security guard was found on site. By June 5, 2020, the work was in total abandonment by the claimant's unilateral decision, including the absence of security personnel, a situation that persisted in this manner until the contract termination on July 13, 2020.

ABOUT THE PROJECT: ESCUELA LA HERMOSA.

It is true that the claimant Consortium, in the conclusions presented via official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 of June twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty, appealed to the Defense of non-performance of contract. However, said allegations and claims were elucidated through the Summary Proceeding for the application of the Penalty Clause, in which, through the Final Act, it was corroborated that no exemptions from liability existed and where it was effectively demonstrated that the delay in delivering the works was effectively attributable to it. Contrary to what was indicated by the claimant Consortium, the facts and documentary evidence presented in the execution and penalty collection records clearly verify that the claimant Consortium incurring in a concatenated manner in contractual breaches and that, for its part, the Trust, through its departments, did everything possible so that the claimant Consortium, even though it was out of time, could deliver the works satisfactorily. However, it was practically unrealistic for the Consortium to complete said projects responsibly. On the other hand, the rejections of administrative claims were always made in accordance with the law, given that they were well-founded, untimely, or did not comply with the bid procedure for their acceptance. Likewise, the Trust, contrary to what was indicated by the claimant Consortium, always maintained the economic balance of the contract through the generation of modification orders, which increased the contract price by up to more than 70%, as occurred in the case of Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DERIVED FROM THE "SPECIAL REPORT-UNFINISHED WORKS, PROJECT NO. 058-0870 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA" THAT DEMONSTRATES THE CONSORTIUM'S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING ITS CONTRACTUAL NON-COMPLIANCES a. This project forms part of Contract No. 88-2017, between the Trust Banco Nacional - Ministry of Public Education Law No. 9124 and the claimant Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI, signed on October 26, 2017. It is located in the province of San José, canton of Pérez Zeledón, district of General in La Hermosa.

b. The Start Order (Orden de Inicio) was issued on July 31, 2018, to become effective on August 6, 2018, for an original term of 154 calendar days. The original delivery date was scheduled for January 6, 2019. However, due to extensions, the final delivery was moved to January 23, 2019.

c. During the construction process, 523 calendar days of delays attributable to the claimant were generated. In the initial stage of the work, a delay stood out that could not be remedied by the claimant and increased as time elapsed. There was a breach of the execution schedule and an absence of a remedial plan to try to resolve the existing situation at the worksite.

d. The Supervisory Unit verified that the claimant's financial situation was affecting the execution of the project, as there was little availability of resources to invest in the work, an absence of materials in the field, and a lack of suitable personnel for the execution of the works. A significant delay was detected from the initial stage of the work, which could not be remedied by the claimant.

e. As the work execution period elapsed, the project situation became even more complex, due to the absence of accurate work planning, as well as the claimant Consortium's lack of cash flow. This constituted one of the most important detected risk facts, and despite the intervening parties making efforts to remedy the situation, this was not possible, leading to the termination of the contract and the non-completion of the work.

f. In the first two months of execution, the works were carried out in perfect harmony with the schedule. However, the Supervisory Unit warned the claimant that the start of activities (such as the metal structure) could experience delays due to a lack of materials and labor to execute them. Subsequently, a significant lag in execution indeed occurred because the prefabricated materials and suitable labor had not entered the project. The claimant ignored the Supervisory Unit's warnings and did not implement corrective measures to recover the lost time.

g. The claimant was granted a deadline extension through OS-01 and OS-02 due to the rains in August, September, October, and November 2018, leaving the project delivery date for January 23, 2019. During the fifth month of the work process, a significant delay was detected in activities related to the electrical area, and worrisome cracks were observed in the prefabricated columns. The claimant had not managed to implement sufficient measures, nor concentrate efforts that would have direct effects on reducing the delay verified on site.

h. By the sixth month, instead of the delay being reduced, it increased, and the claimant continued without implementing an adequate remedial plan. By the ninth month of execution, OM-01 was approved, which reduced the contract amount by $800.00, due to the deduction of costs for permits and procedures not paid by the claimant. The milestone table continued to show considerable delay, and the pace of the construction process was very low compared to expectations.

i. By the tenth month, although some milestones were already 100% complete, the fact that the presence of personnel working on site had decreased drew attention; this worried the contracting party. For this reason, a series of meetings were convened among all parties, in which it was verified that the claimant's proposal was not serious, because no application of any corrective measure to reactivate the project was discernible in the field. Contrarily, the measures used by the claimant increased the initial delay.

j. During the Supervisory Unit's visits on July 12, 2019, it was verified that few personnel were working on the project. But the situation became critical starting August 12, 2019, to such an extent that, by October 4, 2019, only the security guard was at the project. Likewise, by that date, deterioration in gutters, paint, and pipes began to be noticeable. For this reason, the claimant Consortium was once again asked for remedial plans, but it never presented the requested information.

k. On November 20, 2019, the claimant submitted a new schedule indicating that the works would be completed by February 7, 2020. For this reason, on November 22, 2019, movement at the worksite began to be noticed; personnel returned, albeit in reduced numbers, but slight progress was verified. However, this dynamic remained low during the subsequent months of execution; personnel were minimal, and on many occasions, the resident engineer was not present at the worksite. Thus, on January 14, 2020, the claimant presented a new schedule indicating that the project would be ready by March 13, 2020. However, given everything that had been evidenced, this proposal was unrealistic and lacked absolute credibility.

l. On March 12, 2020, the claimant again submitted a new schedule, indicating that the works completion date would be April 24, 2020. Faced with this scenario, the Supervisory Unit assessed that the claimant lacked constructive clarity, was inattentive to the project's reality, and did not demonstrate genuine commitment to achieving a correct resumption of the unfinished works.

m. On March 31, 2020, the Supervisory Unit visited the site and only the security guard was present. With this outlook, the claimant evidently did not meet the delivery it had indicated for April 24, 2020. By the twenty-third month of execution, the claimant had dismissed the security guard, leaving the project in complete abandonment by the claimant's unilateral decision, a situation that persisted in this manner until the contract termination on July 13, 2020.

ABOUT THE ESCUELA AZUL PROJECT As mentioned in the response to the twenty-sixth fact, it is true that archaeological remains were found during the project execution. However, this situation was practically imperceptible. The Supervisory Unit coordinated an appointment on September 10, 2019, the same day the claimant Consortium reported the situation, and this was carried out seven days later, not ten days as the Consortium erroneously states. Now, it was not until September 13, 2019, that the claimant Consortium reported that they were going to stop the project, because supposedly the works being executed at that time corresponded to that area of the project. Therefore, from the suspension of work execution until the visit from the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica, five days elapsed. However, it was not until September 23, 2019, that the Museum informed us that the archaeological remains lacked value; thus, on September 24, the resumption of work was ordered, meaning that twelve days of supposed suspension elapsed due to this situation, since there certainly existed a series of other milestones whose construction process could continue or advance during those days without affecting the location where the archaeological remains were found.

Regarding the boundary situation, it is true that there was an encroachment on the north side, but this only affected the construction of the wall, as the encroachment had a maximum measurement of 1 meter and what it prevented was precisely the enclosure in its correct position (folio 115 of the EA penalty collection record). For this reason, it was decided to instruct the Consortium to build the wall 1.5 meters away, and this was processed through Modification Order OM-04. However, the Consortium refused to sign said OM; therefore, the contracting party was forced to decide to dismiss and render said changes void (folio 93 of the EA penalty collection record).

Regarding the wastewater affecting the project site, this also came from the north boundary, and therefore did not impact the entire project. That is, the claimant Consortium cannot justify its delays based on two minor situations that arose on one side of the site. In this same vein, it is completely false that Resolution number 2020008458 of nine hours twenty minutes on May eighth, two thousand twenty, from the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice, made it impossible for the Consortium to continue executing the works (annex 67 of the lawsuit). First, because said Resolution is directed to Guiselle Solano Fernández in her capacity as Director of the Turrialba Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba). The ruling granting the Amparo Appeal is aimed at guaranteeing the fundamental right to prompt and fulfilled justice for the petitioner (Director of Escuela Azul de Turrialba). It obligates the Directorate of the Turrialba Health Governing Area to verify compliance with the sanitary order issued to the legal representative of the Administrative Association of the Torrealba Urbanization Aqueduct. The instruction is directed to the Turrialba Health Governing Area, so that it enforces compliance with the sanitary order and thus prevents the discharge of wastewater from the neighboring property onto the Project construction site. No instruction or order was ever issued to the Consortium by the Constitutional Chamber or by the Turrialba Health Governing Area to suspend the works. Furthermore, the Amparo Appeal was resolved in May 2020, and according to the visit made by the Supervisory Unit on April 30, 2020, by that month there was already no type of construction activity at the site. For this reason, under no circumstances can this be considered a cause of force majeure or attribute a contract suspension to this situation. The situation regarding the boundary and the wastewater discharge could have been countered and resolved through OM-04, but the Consortium did not accept said OM. Therefore, the non-resolution of said problems was a product of its responsibility. The supposed economic imbalance with which the Consortium faced the project is not a product of the Trust's responsibility, but rather of its poor business management and internal problems among the consortium members.

It has already been reiterated on several occasions that the Consortium did not meet the requirements to request a contract termination and, furthermore, did not comply with the pertinent procedure. The Consortium's substantial non-compliance, as derived from an adequate assessment of the facts and evidence presented herein, is entirely a product of the Consortium's responsibility.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DERIVED FROM THE "SPECIAL REPORT-UNFINISHED WORKS, PROJECT NO. 024-1942 ESCUELA AZUL" THAT DEMONSTRATES THE CONSORTIUM'S RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING ITS CONTRACTUAL NON-COMPLIANCES a. This project forms part of Contract No. 88-2017, between the Trust Banco Nacional - Ministry of Public Education Law No. 9124 and the claimant Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI, signed on October 26, 2017. It is located in the province of Cartago, canton of Turrialba, district of La Isabel, Azul sector.

b. The Start Order was issued on December 13, 2018, to become effective on December 17, 2018, for an original term of 183 calendar days. The original delivery date was scheduled for June 17, 2019. However, due to extensions, enlargements, and deadline compensations granted, the date was moved to May 28, 2020.

c. For this project, a situation arose regarding a problem with the quantity of trenches with accumulated runoff water. This situation persisted for a long time, as the permanent solution was not in the claimant's hands. However, it was requested on multiple occasions to implement palliative measures, such as maintaining continuous pumping of the water, executing works, and closing trenches. But the claimant did not have a hydraulic pump, so it delayed implementing the corrective measures.

d. At the start of the work, a delay stood out that could not be remedied by the claimant and increased as time elapsed. The breach of the execution schedule and the absence of a remedial plan to try to resolve the situation to remedy the resulting delay. As the work execution period elapsed, the project situation became even more complex, due to the absence of accurate planning by the claimant, which constituted one of the most important and detected risk facts.

e. From the first month of work execution, relevant events were detected by the Supervisory Unit that could negatively impact the proper development of the work: These were the location on site of petroglyphs and the encroachment of neighbors onto the project site, along with neighbors' wastewater. However, these did not affect execution during the first two months of execution, and the work developed as planned.

f. OS-03 and OS-05 were approved for the claimant due to delays derived from rains, and once the fourth month of work had begun, a significant delay was verified regarding work related to the electrical area, a foreseeable situation given the slow execution pace that had already been detected. In the fifth month, the claimant increased its personnel at the worksite, and OM-01 was approved, which involved an $800.00 reduction from the contract amount due to the deduction of costs for permits and procedures not paid by the claimant.

g. On February 20, 2019, archaeologist Tatiana Hidalgo Orozco visited the project and produced a report with recommendations to be followed, which were communicated to the claimant for implementation. By the sixth month of work, the delay existing since the initial stage continued to grow, estimated at 9 weeks compared to the original schedule. During the ninth month, new archaeological remains were found; a visit was planned for September 17, 2019, by the Department of Anthropology and History of the National Museum of Costa Rica, concluding that these findings had no archaeological value warranting special treatment.

h. During the execution of the subsequent months, the process suffered the same inconveniences as at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and Escuela La Hermosa centers. The claimant advanced slowly in the execution of the works, personnel at the project were minimal, as time passed the delays increased, the claimant did not implement corrective measures, and it was foreseeable that the work would not be finished by any date the claimant proposed.

i. In the seventeenth month of work, the work personnel had been withdrawn from the site, so the scenario looked even more critical. On April 30, 2020, the supervisory team went to the site and verified that there was no type of activity at the project. During the eighteenth month, the security personnel were withdrawn, leaving the project in complete abandonment by the claimant's unilateral decision, a situation that persisted in this manner until the contract termination on July 13, 2020.

"COMMUNICATION OF THE PROJECT THROUGH PERSONS NOT CONTRACTUALLY AUTHORIZED FOR CONTRACT COMMUNICATION".

As already referenced in the response to the thirty-fourth fact, the Works Manager (Gerente de Obra) appointed by the Contracting Party corresponds to the Supervisory Unit and the Executing Unit (Unidad Ejecutora) (both units with distinct functions). These departments were responsible for maintaining project communication with the contractor. For its part, the Works Manager appointed by the Supervisory Unit, while holding the function of staying in communication with the contractor, is not the only professional possessing this authority. Throughout the entire contracting process, the Supervisory Unit maintained contact with the claimant Consortium through three professionals: Supervision Manager (Adrian Ruilova Resca), Works Managers (For the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project: First it was Mr. Víctor Azofeifa Alvarado, later it was Juan Carlos Rodríguez Arce, then Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado held the position, and finally, Adrián Ruilova Reacia culminated as Works Manager. In the case of the Escuela Azul and Escuela La Hermosa projects, first it was Álvaro Quirós Rossi, then he was replaced by Gonzalo Muñoz Zeledón), and the Assistant to Management (Fabiana Rego González).

Now, the claimant Consortium was instructed to always direct all communication to the Works Manager designated by the Supervisory Unit, in order to maintain clarity regarding communications. So, the claimant Consortium attempts to portray this before the Tribunal as a serious breach by the contracting party, but the truth of the matter is that clarity and precision regarding who maintained communications with the contractor were always maintained. In any case, the professionals with whom the Consortium maintained communication were always part of the Supervisory Unit, and all notifications maintained the same line of action, meaning there were never contradictions or conflicts generated by the fact that a communication was not signed by the Works Manager.

"AMOUNTS OWED FOR WORK PROGRESS" As mentioned in the response to the twenty-fourth, thirtieth, and fifty-first facts, the claimant Consortium abandoned the execution of the projects with milestone progress that did not meet 100%. In this sense, there is no non-compliance on the part of the Trust, because, as established in "SECTION IX. CONTRACT FORMS," section "C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures" of the referenced Bid Documents, payments are made only for milestones completed to the contracting party's satisfaction.

While it is true that the claimant Consortium left works at some state of progress, the application of Subclause 42.2.5 of the General Conditions must be analyzed in light of the Consortium's non-compliances, as well as in contrast with the real quantification of the works' progress. Firstly, it is false that the work progress left by the claimant Consortium is around progress percentages of more than 90%. Consequently, it is also not true that the amount of progress totals $1,008,633.88. Note that, according to the Special Reports on Unfinished Works conducted by the Supervisory Unit, the work actually executed by the Consortium is summarized as follows:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

B.

Escuela La Hermosa:

| --- | --- | --- | --- | | 10.3 Window and door finishes | 80% | $66,425.35 | $53,140.28 | | 11 Painting | 65% | $33,212.68 | $21,588.24 | | 12.2 Electrical Systems (Wiring and service connections) | 75% | $66,425.35 | $49,819.01 | | 12.3 Electrical Systems (Devices and Accessories) | 83% | $33,212.68 | $27,566.52 | | 13 Mechanical Systems (Modules) | 50% | $33,212.68 | $16,606.34 | | 14.1 Mechanical Systems (Exteriors) | 62% | $33,212.68 | $20,591.86 | | 14.2 Equipment and Furniture | 10% | $99,638.03 | $9,963.80 | | 15 Complementary and exterior works | 71% | $132,850.68 | $94,323.98 | TOTAL: $293,600.03 C. Escuela Azul:

| --- | --- | --- | --- | | 6 Structural concretes for ramp | 89% | $189,961.00 | $169,065.29 | | 7.2 Underlayments (100% progress-poured) | 25% | $63,320.00 | $15,830.00 | | 12.1 Electrical Systems (Conduit) | 6% | $94,981.00 | $5,698.86 | | 13 Mechanical Systems (Modules) | 20% | $63,320.00 | $12,664.00 | | 14.1 Mechanical Systems (Exteriors) | 35% | $63,320.00 | $22,162.00 | | 15 Complementary and exterior works | 40% | $253,282.00 | $101,312.80 | TOTAL: $326,732.95 Sum of project progress:

1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa $243,683.06 2. Escuela La Hermosa $293,600.03 3. Escuela Azul $326,732.95 TOTAL: $864,016.04 Now, regarding the Escuela La Hermosa project, it was verified in an assessment conducted after the rescission that Milestone 10.2 Lightweight ceiling and wall finishes, despite having payment validation for supposedly being at 100%, had a shortfall of 60%. Therefore, the amount corresponding to the false progress percentage must be corrected and deducted as follows:

REMAINDER: $29,891.41 The unexecuted amount must be subtracted from the progress amounts of the three projects:

Consequently, the correct amount for the sum of the work progress left by the Consortium at the time of abandonment of the works of the three projects totals $834,124.63 (eight hundred thirty-four thousand one hundred twenty-four dollars and 63/100). Now, this amount corresponds to gross progress, from which the reprocessing and deterioration suffered by the works and materials as a result of the abrupt abandonment carried out by the Consortium have not been subtracted. In addition to the need to carry out the exercise of deterioration and reprocessing of the projects, it is important to mention that, just as the Consortium alleges that payment for said items must be made, it is failing to mention that there is a pending balance in favor of the Trust resulting from advances, in the amount of $535,604.15, which are summarized as follows:

TOTAL: $535,604.15 For that reason, the amount that would actually correspond to the plaintiff Consortium as a result of the work progress is $298,520.48. However, as indicated, everything related to the reprocessing and deterioration, as well as cost overruns, suffered by the projects due to the contractor's abandonment must be subtracted from this amount. Likewise, it must not be omitted to mention that there are three fines pending payment by the Consortium, which are final and have not been executed due to being subject to a precautionary measure, but which are determined in the amount of $393,470.26. Therefore, when the corresponding calculations are made, it is observed that the plaintiff Consortium is actually in negative figures and that in any scenario, it would end up owing the Trust a favorable balance, which without the sum of the cost overruns, reprocessing, and deterioration, gives an approximate amount of $94,949.78. But said amount is not a realistic approximation of what the Trust has actually had to face due to the non-compliance of the plaintiff Consortium. Merits of the case. The Trust Agreement for the Financing of the Construction and Equipping Project 1099 for Educational Infrastructure of the Ministry of Public Education at the National Level was signed on April 10, 2013, and was approved by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) on July 14 of the same year. In accordance with the provisions of clause four of the Trust, the parties are as follows: 1- Settlor: Ministry of Public Education (Ministerio de Educación Pública, MEP), 2- Trustee: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, 3- Beneficiaries: Ministry of Public Education and the international Banks or organizations that grant credit to the Trust and the investors holding securities issued by the Trust (...), the Trust Agreement for the Financing of the Construction and Equipping Project for Educational Infrastructure of the Ministry of Public Education at the National Level is signed and valid, that the Trustee signed the Loan Agreement on behalf of the debtor Trust, and that said credit constitutes a valid obligation, having express authorization from the aforementioned Law 9124, as well as from the Trust Agreement itself, which is duly approved by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. For said credit agreement, there is the guarantee or endorsement of the State, by express provision of that same Law 9124. Transcribes several clauses of the Trust: Obligations assumed by the Trustee regarding the contracting of companies to fulfill the infrastructure works that form part of the purpose of the trust assignment, for which several contractual clauses of special interest are transcribed: "CLAUSE FOUR. (...), CLAUSE FIVE (...), CLAUSE SIX (...). Indicates: From the foregoing contractual provisions, it is clear that the Trustee has several bodies pertaining to the Trust, among which the Executing Unit (Unidad Ejecutora) takes on special importance, as it is the technical arm of the Trustee and is properly in charge of the operational tasks of the Trust, such as, but not limited to, carrying out the contracting processes for the different construction companies for the projects indicated by the MEP, following the instructions and approvals of the Project Supervisory Unit of the MEP. The contracting of said Executing Unit was carried out by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica in its capacity as Trustee, conducting a contracting procedure that respected the principles of administrative contracting. Although the Executing Unit of the Trust is primarily responsible for carrying out said contracting processes, the truth of the matter is that the Trustee does not discharge responsibility for the actions of said Unit, so it must, in any case, supervise said action and carry out coordination tasks, in order to avoid situations that are likely to compromise its responsibility in the trust assignment. In the case of contracts that suffered delays or were abandoned by the contractors, the Trustee is responsible for applying fines, as well as taking the necessary measures for the completion of said projects, with its responsibility limited to carrying out these functions, all of which has been diligently performed by Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, in its capacity as Trustee of this contract.

IV.- PROVEN FACTS. From the evidentiary record examined and admitted in the proceedings, as well as from the testimonial statements given in the Supplementary Hearing, the following facts of pertinent determination for the issuance of this resolution are deemed accredited.

1.- Through Law number 9124, called "AUTHORIZATION TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO SIGN A PUBLIC CREDIT OPERATION AND CONSTITUTE A TRUST WITH LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE FINANCING OF THE PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE MEP AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL," the Ministry of Public Education was authorized to constitute a Trust with financial lease agreements to finance the Project for Construction and Equipping of Educational Infrastructure of the MEP at the National Level, which consists of the construction and equipping of physical infrastructure, such as high schools, elementary schools, and multipurpose courts for the fulfillment of its entrusted purposes. (fact not disputed by the parties) 2.- The referred Trust promoted, in what is relevant to this lawsuit, International Public Tender LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction, and Equipping of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers - hereinafter LPI-01-2017. (fact not disputed by the parties) 3.- The companies IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A. (hereinafter "IDECO"), GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A., CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A., and RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., formed the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium, authorizing the first for the signing of Contract 88-2017, responding to the award in International Public Tender LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction, and Equipping of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers - hereinafter LPI-01-2017. (see CD evidence/folder4/Annex 1/img.1-7) 4.- The Consortium participated in the referred Tender, resulting as awardee for three projects that were part of lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Project code number 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Project code 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); for a total contractual amount of USD $6,146,149.50.2. (fact not disputed by the parties and CD evidence/folder4/Annex 1/img.1-6) 5.- Upon the award becoming final, the contract was signed on October 26, 2017, by the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium. (fact not disputed by the parties) 6.- The effective start orders for the construction and equipping works in each Project of awarded lot number 2 were given on different dates to be delivered likewise on different dates and with differentiated delivery deadlines:

• a)Official letter of May 18, 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipping of the Educational Center: Educational Center 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: On-site works must have an effective start on Monday, May 21, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipping deadline detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on October 21 of the current year.
• b)Official letter of July 31, 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipping of Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: On-site works must have an effective start on Monday, August 6, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipping deadline detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on January 6, 2019.
• c)Official letter of December 13, 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipping of Multipurpose Court Educational Center 024-1942 Escuela Azul: On-site works must have an effective start on Monday, December 17, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipping deadline detailed in the contract (6 months), the works must be delivered on June 17, 2019. (see CD evidence/folder4/Annex 2/img.1-3) REGARDING THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS.

7.- The trust delivered to the Consortium the technical preliminary designs (anteproyectos), soil studies, and information provided to the bidders, including the Consortium, as well as the topographic plans, basic-general soil studies, cadastre, preliminary design plans, Setena documents, copies of modification and service orders, and some notes on project particularities, which are for mere reference, for the preparation of the corresponding plans, and who was responsible for preparing and establishing the technical specifications, which had to be equal to or greater than those established in the tender documents, including the preliminary design of a referential nature, with the design being the contractor's obligation, which also had to include final construction plans, sealed and approved by the CFIA, the corresponding municipality, and generally by all competent institutions, to facilitate the execution of the works by the Contractor and their inspection by the Contracting Party. The design stage was concluded for: a. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: on April 24, 2018, b. Escuela Azul: on July 12, 2018, and c. Escuela La Hermosa: on May 11, 2018. (see CD evidence/folder4/Annex 74/img.1-10 official letter CG-2018-0506 ARQ-2018-0193-CON of March 15, 2018, see CD evidence/folder1/Execution File Escuela Azul/Escuela Hermosa/Santa Rosa/Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO LPI-01-2017-024 of April 24, 2018/File LRSR, Volume D. folios 1372 and 1373, File LRSR, Volume C, folios 1237 to 1293 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports) and Volume D, folios 1668, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1674 and 1675 (Communications on APC), Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-034 of July 12, 2018/File EA Volume D. folios 1300 and 1301), File EA Volume C, folios 1153 to 1190 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports, Letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-025 of May 2, 2018/File EH Volume D. folios 1377 and 1376, File EH Volume C. folios 1277 to 1298 and 1274 to 1234 (Plan and Technical Specifications Review Reports) and File EH Volume D, folios 1364 to 1375 (Communications on APC), Loan Agreement 2824/OC-CR, Law 9124/International Public Tender LPI-01-2017/Design, Construction and Equipping of 6 Lots of (15) Educational Centers and (10) Multipurpose Courts/SECOND PART. DESIGN, WORK AND EQUIPPING REQUIREMENTS/SECTION VI. DESIGN, WORK AND EQUIPPING REQUIREMENTS/K. Definitions, concepts and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered. General technical specifications.1.19 Final Design and "As Built" 1.20 Construction Plans and deposition of the witness in Supplementary Hearing Guillermo Rojas Chaves 1:16:00 to 1:20:25, 1:11:17 to 1:29:00).

8.- The preliminary design (anteproyecto) is a document with a digital or printed graphic medium, where the professional prepares a general planimetry specifying where each of the rooms are located, the architect must comply with the content established by the CFIA. They are preliminary design plans; this is not a document that defines the structural, electrical, civil, or other engineering, it is architectural. The architects had to use the standard plans established by the MEP, and the bidders were allowed or given the freedom to make their own preliminary design and soil studies, provided the offer was submitted on the established day and time. The milestone lists were delivered to the plaintiff Consortium along with the tender documents, with one of the first milestones being the delivery of the construction plans, based on the preliminary design. Thus, the contractors had to generate the technical specifications together with the construction plans and also. (deposition of the witness in Supplementary Hearing Guillermo Rojas Chaves: 1:24:00 – 1:25:15, Loan Agreement 2824/OC-CR, Law 9124/International Public Tender LPI-01-2017/Design, Construction and Equipping of 6 Lots of (15) Educational Centers and (10) Multipurpose Courts/SECOND PART. DESIGN, WORK AND EQUIPPING REQUIREMENTS/SECTION VI. DESIGN, WORK AND EQUIPPING REQUIREMENTS/K. Definitions, concepts and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered. General technical specifications.1.19 Final Design and "As Built" 1.20 Construction Plans).

9.- The modifications approved and accepted by the Trust to the final definitive plans and designs, which directly bound the Consortium and impacted contract 88-2017 in terms of delivery deadline, scope, and cost of work —contemplating the direct and indirect costs that the Consortium would incur for its respective execution— were produced through the procedure for issuing and approving Modification Orders, precisely for the one corresponding to the Resumption of works in project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa as of September 3, 2019, granting a deadline extension of 200 calendar days (150 days from OM-01 and 50 days remaining from the original contract) in the execution of the project, with it being approved for an amount of $1,015,346.08 with cumulative variation corresponding to an increase of 76.95% of the original amount, for a total cost of $2,334,837.78, and with 465 calendar days having elapsed from the original works start date to the acceptance date of OS-13 -08/28/2019- August 28, 2019, which was signed with Service Order No. 13 that formalized Modification Order OM-01 and established the conditions for the restart of the work. (see CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 45/img.1-4) CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT EXECUTION PHASE. REGARDING THE PROJECT: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA.

10.- The project began construction on time and in proper form, and the Consortium, on July 16, 2018, addressed to the Supervision Manager of the CSI-CACISA Consortium letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044, through which a request was made for a temporary suspension of the works deadline of four weeks to be able to carry out complementary soil and stability studies, in order to propose the required modifications to the current design and coordinate the execution of soil studies, preparation of reports, analysis of information, and redesign of earthworks (movimiento de tierras) plans, due to finding during the start of earthworks activities for the project that when making the slope cut, "pockets" of loose rocky material and a fill of loose material contaminated with garbage appeared, revealing fills of unconsolidated materials that were found below other soil layers, which were not detected by the punctual tests nor were easily detectable in a qualitative manner through direct observation given the existing vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), for which reason it is considered an unforeseeable situation in the soil condition during the earthworks activity. Said request was resolved, accepted, and approved on July 20, 2018, as seen in the official letter: Heredia, July 26, 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018, where the Consortium was informed: "Subject: OS-01 SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION DEADLINE - Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Dear engineer. In relation to the suspension of the execution deadline for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, we attach Service Order OS-01 duly signed by the Supervisory Firm, the legal representative of the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium, and by Ing. Marco Antonio González Echeverría, General Coordinator of the Executing Unit, suspension that is in effect from July 21 to August 11, 2018. We also attach for your knowledge official letter CG-2018-1403 / ARQ-2018-0536, of July 23, 2018, in which the Executing Unit notifies the Director of the Trust, for her knowledge, of the Suspension Order of the execution deadline. " (...) Given that the effective start date of the construction and equipping stage of the educational center in reference was May 21, 2018, and the original delivery date was October 21 (...) this Service Order 1 (...) establishes the start of the 22 calendar days of suspension on Saturday, July 21, 2018, ending on August 11, 2018, which moves the works delivery date to November 12, 2018." (fact not disputed by the parties, and see also CD evidence/folder4/Annex 8/img.1-8, CD evidence/folder4/Annex 15/img.1-8 and 9-52, CD evidence/folder4/Annex 18/img.1-2 and file in CD evidence/folder1/Execution File Santa Rosa/Volume B, folios 338 to 340) 11.- The Consortium, through letter GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 of November first, two thousand eighteen, made an additional request for an extension of the deadline suspension for 15 calendar days to prepare an updated offer with technical and economic improvements to OM-1. Said request was rejected by the Supervision Unit through letter SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, for not being economically viable, as well as because the proposal with technical and economic improvements it had committed to present had not been submitted, and due to the circumstance that even though at that time the works were under a suspension order at the request of the Consortium itself, works were being executed that were not supervised and endorsed by the contracting party, therefore the works had to be restarted as of November 3, 2018, requesting an indication of the date on which the slope stabilization proposal with technical and economic improvements would be delivered, granting three business days from this notification to present an updated work schedule for the execution of the works. (see CD evidence/folder4/Annex 21/img.1 and (...) folder4/Annex 10/img.1) 12.- The Consortium, by letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen, responded to the points indicated in letter SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, and it is through the request of that same Consortium in the preceding letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 of October twelfth, two thousand eighteen (Stabilization work for the slopes of the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project land) that OS-1 was initiated. (see CD evidence/folder4/Annex 11 and 12/img.1-14 in both) 13.- The factual situation of the land's instability for the stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project land turned out to be a notorious fact in situ of the project, where the Consortium, based on the referential information of the preliminary design (anteproyecto) and the informative soil studies, had to carry out further studies from the start and even from the presentation of its bid if it was in its interest, since bidders were invited to go to the site to review the physical topographic conditions of the land, and they were also enabled to make any inquiries they wished, to use or not the general preliminary design, this to decide whether to participate or not or to make the necessary inquiries. The contractor could go to the site and verify the terrain conditions. The professional is responsible for making the construction plans, having the obligation to carry out all the necessary studies and make a structural design that supported the slope. It was foreseeable that an additional study had to be done to meet the requirements from the start, which generated, due to that omission by the Contractor —who could have foreseen it even before the presentation of its bid— the subsequent need for a modification order that included major soil stabilization works, and due to the amount, it even had to be submitted for IDB approval. (deposition of the witness in Supplementary Hearing Guillermo Rojas Chaves: recording min 1:53:14 to 2:02:30, 1:32:35 to 1:32:45) 14.- After the deadline corresponding to Service Order OS-1 expired, as informed by the official letter of July 26, 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018, upon the Consortium's request, it sought an additional deadline suspension through letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 of August twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, for the approval of Service Order OS-2, because during the constructive process of earthworks (movimiento de tierras), "pockets" of loose rocky material and a fill of loose material contaminated with garbage appeared, which was duly approved on September 13, 2018, suspending an additional 35 calendar days, for which the works delivery date was moved to December 15, 2018. (see CD evidence/folder1/Execution File Santa Rosa file/img.206-210, physical folder, folios 17 to 23 of the LRSR fine collection file (2) and CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 16/img.1) 15.- The Consortium, by letter dated November 6, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086, requested a new deadline suspension starting November 3, 2018, and until a solution to the slope instability problem was defined, with OS-3 being accepted by the contracting party on October 17, 2018, by letter sent by the Consortium GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-078 of October seventeenth, two thousand eighteen, increasing the deadline by 15 calendar days to an authorized deadline of January 1, 2019. And similarly, by letter of November 1, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, it requested OS-04 for the presentation of an updated offer with technical and economic improvements to the one submitted for OM-1, with OS-04 being accepted by the contracting party on December 14, 2018, increasing the deadline by 22 calendar days to an authorized deadline of January 23, 2019. (see CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 11/img.1-4, physical folder, folio 29-33 of the LRSR fine collection file (2)) 16.- Successively and subsequently, extensions were required for the purposes requested in the letter of November 1, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, with Execution Deadline Suspension Orders OS-5, OS-6, OS-7, OS-8, OS-9, OS-10, OS-11, OS-12 being accepted, in consideration that the corresponding Addendum with OM-1 had not been signed, with the last OS-12 stating "that the suspension of the execution deadline for the works will be in effect until the Administration notifies the contractor of the Works Resumption Order, once the Addendum to OM-1 has been signed by the parties and the contractor has delivered the respective Performance Bond and paid the corresponding fiscal stamps," with the result that an additional 239 calendar days had been authorized to increase the deadline further, to a last authorized deadline of August 28, 2019. (see physical folder, folios 35-65 of the LRSR fine collection file -2-) 17.- Through Service Order No. 13, accepted by all parties by September 2, 2019 (Site Manager and Contractor on 08/28/19, General Coordinator of the Executing Unit on 09/02/19), Service Order No. 13 was signed with Modification Order No. 1 (OM-1), corresponding to the Resumption of works in project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa as of September 3, 2019, granting a deadline extension of 200 calendar days (150 days from OM-01 and 50 days remaining from the original contract) in the execution of the project, with it being approved for an amount of $1,015,346.08 with cumulative variation corresponding to an increase of 76.95% of the original amount, for a total cost of $2,334,837.78, and with 465 calendar days having elapsed from the original works start date to the acceptance date of OS-13 -08/28/2019-. (see CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 45/img.1-4) 18.- The plans related to the instruction of OM-1 were not effectively approved by the CFIA within the 30 calendar day period following the resumption of project execution, hence the Consortium, by letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 of October 3, 2019, requested a temporary suspension of the deadline established in OM-01 until the construction plans submitted through the CFIA's APC platform were approved, due to formal problems in their prior presentation before that institution, which warranted their resubmission on more than one occasion. Said suspension request was denied by the Trust, as it was the responsibility of the Consortium. (see CD evidence/folder1/Execution File Santa Rosa/Volume D, folios 1637, 1638, 1639 to 1645, see CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 46/img.1-2) 19.- By official letter cited Oreamuno, October 10, 2019, MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, the Municipality of Oreamuno de Cartago indicated that the Consortium breached the construction permit procedure, which had not been processed and completed correctly, stating that: "As indicated by Articles 74 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and 6 and 7 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), it is derived that public entities are not obligated to request a construction permit, but must communicate in advance to the Municipality the works they intend or require to be built," given that the Consortium had previously submitted the application to be reviewed by National Buildings and had not processed the construction permit before the Municipality, making the timely and normal execution of the works impossible, causing the Municipality of Oreamuno to shut down the execution of the project. Subsequently, upon clarifications from the Trust and the Contractor before that local government, it sent an email indicating: "From: María de la Cruz Calderón Moya <[email protected]> Date: November 7, 2019 at 16:01:05 CST. To: Luis Granados Figueroa <[email protected]>Cc: Luis Gómez Artavia <[email protected]>, Catalina Coghi Ulloa <[email protected]> Subject: ABOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT LICEO DE SANTA ROSA-MUNICIPALITY OF OREAMUNO.

Good afternoon, Regarding the construction permit procedure initiated at the Municipality of Oreamuno for the construction of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, filed on June 20, 2018, for cadastral plan C-1213011-2008, whose owner is the Banco Nacional de C.R., permit No. 24046, said permit is now APPROVED by this department. It is necessary for the contractor company to come to the municipality to sign and collect the certificate corresponding to the municipal construction license. Likewise, due to what was stated by you this morning, this department authorizes the start of construction works (obras constructivas) for the project's development, with the understanding that the company undertakes to collect the corresponding certificate as well as the plans. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 48/imág.1-3, (...) Anexo 51/imág.1-4, Anexo 49/imág.1-3, see CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 to 1377).

20.- By official letter from Heredia, March 30, 2020, SUP-RD-0440-2020 from the Works Manager G03, Supervision Manager -Consorcio CSI-CACISA- sent to CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, it is informed: "On October 28, the Contractor sent official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333, with request OS-14, for delays in starting the works, due to the requirements requested by the Municipality of Oreamuno in official letter MUOR-DCU-0358-2019. 4- Through official letters SUP-RD-0151-2020 and SUP-RD-0375-2020, the Contractor was requested to document the steps taken by its represented party, after official letter MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, dated October 10, 2019, was received from the Municipality of Oreamuno. 5- On February 11, 2020, the Contractor sent official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 which provides a chronology of official letters, but none refer to procedures carried out before the Municipality of Oreamuno in relation to what was indicated in official letter MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, so the request is not fulfilled. 6- On March 25, 2020, the Contractor sent official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-484, again referring to the chronology in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 and provides Construction Permit # 24 046 from the Municipality of Oreamuno, dated November 22, 2019. 7- Upon reviewing the permit granted by the Municipality of Oreamuno, it is found that it refers to a 1332m2 work, which corresponds to the work of the original contract and is unrelated to the stabilization works for the project's north slope. Therefore, the Municipality's issue for restarting the works on the project was related to pending procedures of the Original Contract's Contractor and not due to the new works. 8- While the Contractor indicated in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, that the Municipal Construction Permit procedure was not carried out because this project was submitted for review by Edificaciones Nacionales and not by Municipalities, according to the Ley de Construcciones, article number 75, it never provided the permit issued by Edificaciones Nacionales nor its notification to the Municipality of Oreamuno as was requested in official letter SUP-RD-0375-2020. 9- As established in SECTION VI. DESIGN, WORK AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS, K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered. "The design must include construction plans, sealed and approved by the CFIA, the corresponding municipality, and in general by all competent institutions for this type of project". 10- Based on the above, it is established that the refusal by the Municipality of Oreamuno for the restart of works was due to the fact that no permit procedure existed before the Municipality for the original contract, nor had the permit issued by Edificaciones Nacionales been presented to them for their knowledge, despite the fact that works began on May 21, 2018, and were temporarily suspended through service orders (órdenes de servicio), intermittently through OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, and OS-04 from July 20, 2018, and continuously from December 11, 2019, up to September 2, 2019, through OS-05 up to OS-12. As of September 3, 2019, through OS-13, the Resumption of works was notified. 11- Official letter MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, dated October 10, 2019, is the result of the communication made by the Contractor through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 regarding the restart of works; however, it is due to the fact that the Contractor apparently did not complete the construction permit for the original contract works, either before Edificaciones Nacionales as indicated, or before the Municipality of Oreamuno. 12- Due to the foregoing, there is no justification for processing OS-14 for time extension compensation (compensación de plazo) for the reasons given by the Contractor, since the reasons are not related to the works that are part of OM-01, but to works of the Original Contract, for which the Contractor had sufficient time to complete the construction permits, whether before Edificaciones Nacionales or the Municipality of Oreamuno, without completing either of the procedures." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 51/imág.1-4, see CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 to 1377, 1703).

21.- By official letter from Heredia, May 10, 2019 SUP-RD-973-2019 sent to CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, it is informed that: "During visit No. 10 carried out on Tuesday, March 20, 2019, the Environmental Regent (Regente Ambiental) Ing. Andrés Zúñiga Garita made the following observations on the project, requesting that they be addressed as soon as possible: 1- Significant vegetation growth is observed mainly around the temporary works (obras temporales) area (offices, warehouses, and workshops). It is suggested to clean (weed) as soon as possible. 2- Partial protection of the exposed slopes (taludes) with plastic is still observed. The wind is removing part of this, generating potential erosion. 3- Due to vandalism, the main entrance gate to the project was knocked down, therefore, there is no longer restricted access to the project for outsiders, exposing the remaining works and materials. It is suggested to restore this gate as soon as possible. 4- It is imperative that, even though works remain suspended, the project developer, through the contractor, executes maintenance works (obras de mantenimiento) primarily for green areas and slope protection. After visit No. 11 conducted by the Environmental Regency (Regencia Ambiental) on Monday, April 22, 2019, the regency again made the same observations; the same ones repeated from the previous visit: 1- Currently, no one resides inside the AP, not even the security officer. 2- Significant vegetation growth is observed mainly around the temporary works area (offices, warehouses, and workshops). It is suggested to clean (weed) as soon as possible. 3- Partial protection of the exposed slopes with plastic (approximately 60% of the slope surface) is still observed. The wind is removing part of this, generating potential erosion. No landslides (desprendimientos) are yet observed; however, the arrival of winter is imminent and this situation could worsen. 4- The main entrance gate to the AP remains down, therefore, there is no longer restricted access to the project for outsiders, exposing the remaining works and materials. It is suggested to restore this gate as soon as possible. 5- It is imperative that, even though works remain suspended, the project developer, through the contractor, executes maintenance works primarily for green areas and slope protection." For its part, the Consorcio indicates through official letter from San José, May 20, 2019, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204 to the Works Manager/Consorcio CALVI + FSA, that: "1. Through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-173, the removal of materials and equipment was indicated to your represented party. Therefore, for the consortium (consorcio) it is not necessary to have a security officer in the AP. 2. The vegetation has already been cut. (See attached photographs) 3. The slope protection has already been reestablished. (See attached photographs) 4. The gate has already been repaired. (See attached photographs) (...) Given that the suspension period exceeds 180 days and with the objective of reestablishing the principle of economic balance of the contract, since the work and costs during the suspension period represent a detriment to my represented party, and the investment of resources without an associated profit generates lost profits and an investment without projected profitability, we invoke subclause 25.5.3 'Should the period of suspension pursuant to the preceding Sub-Clause 25.5.1 exceed one hundred and eighty (180) days in practice, the Employer and the Contractor shall agree on an additional indemnity payable to the Contractor.' We understand that this clause calls for a negotiation between the employer and the contractor, for which purpose, through this means, we request a meeting with the Supervision to define the amount of said indemnity. Which we suggest starting at 25% of the administrative claim (cobro administrativo) costs that will be presented in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 53 and 54/imágs.1-2 y 1-6) 22.- The official letter from Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 referring to an administrative claim (reclamo de administrativo) filed for the payment of indirect costs was presented untimely to the Fideicomiso (Trust), resulting in its denial by resolution official letter FID-3566-2019 from the Employer for not having formally and timely complied with the agreed procedure stipulated in Clause 44 of the General Conditions of the referenced Bidding Documents (Cartel de Licitación), which the Consorcio had accepted, considering: "We refer to Sub-clauses 44.1 and 44.2 of the General Conditions of the Contract, Section VII. General Conditions (CG), which for this purpose stipulate: '...44.1 If the Contractor considers that he is entitled to any extension of the Time for Completion or any additional payment under any Clause of these Conditions or for other consideration connected with the Contract, the Contractor shall send a notice to the Project Manager describing the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than twenty-eight (28) days after the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of such event or circumstance. 44.2 If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of twenty-eight (28) days, the Time for Completion shall not be extended, the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim. Otherwise, the following provisions of this Sub-Clause shall apply.' This administration considers that said stipulations are applicable to the Contractor's claim, including that related to higher costs or expenses derived from contractual suspensions, especially by provision of Sub-clause 44.9 of the same General Conditions, which states: '...44.9 The requirements of this Sub-Clause are in addition to those set forth in any other Sub-Clause which may apply to a claim. If, with respect to any claim, the Contractor fails to comply with the provisions of this or any other Sub-Clause, any extension of time or additional payment shall take account of the extent (if any) to which the failure has prevented or prejudiced proper investigation of the claim, unless the claim is excluded under the second paragraph of this Sub-Clause.' Under such understanding, and in view of the documentation contained in the file, the first conclusion is reached that the Contractor breached its duty to notify its claims to the Project Manager within the period stipulated in the Contract. Considering that the first period of contractual suspension began on 07/21/2018, the Contractor had a period of 28 days to notify the claim, especially knowing that such prerogative (Suspension Order) would cause it higher costs. Likewise, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days after 07/21/2018, the full and detailed claim, and given that the event originating the claim has a continuous effect, as stated, for the 1st suspension period which ended on 08/11/2018, it had 28 days after the end of such period to send its final claim, obligations it evidently breached. The same occurs with the second period of contractual suspension, as seen. According to what was stated by the contractor itself, this period began on 09/14/2018 and ended on 11/02/2018, therefore the Contractor had a period of 28 days from its start to notify the claim. Then, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days after 09/14/2018, the full and detailed claim, and since the event originating the claim has a continuous effect, as stated, for the 2nd suspension period which ended on 11/02/2018, it had 28 days after the end of such period to send its final claim, obligations it again breached. And a similar situation occurs with the third period of contractual suspension, which runs from 12/11/2018 to 06/07/2019, whereby the Contractor had a period of 28 days from its start to notify the claim. Then, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days after 12/11/2018, the full and detailed claim, which would be considered interim, being obligated according to that provision to submit additional interim monthly claims, which it evidently did not do, limiting itself to sending a final claim after the end of the third period of contractual execution. Based on the foregoing, it is clear to this Administration that the Contractor DID NOT COMPLY with the duties imposed by the Sub-clauses cited in this response, and consequently, the effects provided for in Sub-clause 44.2 of the General Conditions are applicable, according to which '...If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of twenty-eight (28) days, the Time for Completion shall not be extended, the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim.'" (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 75/imágs.1-9) ABOUT THE ESCUELA LA HERMOSA PROJECT.

23.- The project began its construction process on time and in proper form on August 6, 2018, in accordance with the project's notice to proceed, as notified by the Consorcio to the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-051. (uncontested fact, also see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 76/imágs.1-3) 24.- The Consorcio interrupted the continuation of works on June 24, 2020, and notified the FIDEICOMISO through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 of June 24, 2020, requesting from the Fideicomiso the payment of milestones (hitos) related to that educational center as the contract had been terminated, indicating Pending milestones for payment for the completion of project 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Windows and doors for an amount of $63,104.08 ? Painting for an amount of $31,552.05 ? Electrical systems -structured cabling and service connection- for an amount of $63,104.08 ? Electrical systems -devices and accessories- for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Mechanical systems -modules- for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Mechanical systems -exteriors- for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Complementary and exterior works (obras complementarias y exteriores) for an amount of $119,565.63, as well as the return of the performance bonds (garantías de cumplimiento), justified based on the principle of maintaining the economic balance of contracts associated with Public Tenders LPI 01, LPI 02, and LPI 04, which constitutes a substantial breach of those contracts. The Consorcio, through official letter of April 8, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-508, reported the progress with a monthly report for March 2020: 8.1. Metal Structure 100%, 8.2. Roof 100%, 8.3. Sheet metal and flashing 100%, 9 Floors and tiling 100%, 10.1 Finishes - plasters 100%, 10.2 Finishes -Ceilings - and light walls 100%, 10.3 Windows and doors 85%, 11 Painting 95%, 12 Electrical systems (conduit) 91%, 13 Mechanical systems (Modules) 96%, 15 Complementary and exterior works 92%. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 and 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5) 25.- According to the Fideicomiso, the "Technical Report on Physical-Financial Progress Status and Cost Projection of Remaining Work for Project No. 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa," prepared on May 12, 2020, by the Supervision Unit, the actual work progress at the time of abandonment of the work by the plaintiff Consorcio was 73.40%. This progress was calculated based on the outstanding works that the plaintiff left in process, complements, and the reprocesses that occurred during the period in which the project had no progress, spanning from June 6, 2019, to December 6, 2019 (CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192).

ABOUT THE ESCUELA AZUL PROJECT.

26.- The Escuela Azul project began its construction process on December 17, 2018, approximately four months after the start of the other projects awarded to the Consorcio, for an original term of 183 calendar days. The original delivery date was scheduled for June 17, 2019; however, due to extensions, expansions (ampliaciones), and time compensations (compensaciones de plazo) granted, the date was moved to May 28, 2020. (fact not contested by the parties) 27.- During the course of this project's works, there were archaeological findings of an existing petroglyph. The Consorcio informed the Fideicomiso about this through official letters GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293, after which the Administration scheduled an appointment with the Department of Anthropology and History of the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica 10 days after that first communication. Said petroglyph was located in a partial and minimal area of the project, mainly in the area designated for parking, without affecting the execution of the rest of the project area. The Museo Nacional, in accordance with the results of its on-site visit on September 17, 2019, ordered the fencing off of only the physical location of the stone, thereby causing that in a minimal sector of the Escuela Azul project, work could not be carried out for twelve calendar days, resulting in a partial suspension, which did not prevent or make it impossible for the Consorcio to execute the work in the remaining area. (CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 81-122 monthly inspection report January 17, 2020, Archaeological Evaluation Report folios 672, 551-552, 798-501, deposition of Guillermo Rojas Chaves, Recording min 1:34:30 to 1:35:14, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 64-65-66, /imágs.1-5, 1 and 1-2 respectively, official letter SUP-RD-2098-2019 in CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo D, folios 1781, official letter SUP-RD-2149-2019 in CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo D. folio 1790, official letter SUPRD-2208-2019 in CD prueba/carpeta1 folio 1852, official letter CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 of June 16, 2019, on the occasion of processing OM-02 in folio 08 of the EA fines collection file and Exp. EA Ampo D. folios 1851 and 2179, official letter CG-2019-2069-ARQ-2019-558 folio 12 of the EA fines collection file) 28.- Along the north boundary of the property for developing the project, there were problems with water discharged by neighbors. The contractor was required to carry out works to divert the water. Due to the distance between this area and the project area, it did not interfere with the execution of the main works. The Employer chose to instruct the Consorcio to build the wall at a distance of 1.5 meters, processing Modification Order OM-04; however, it was not signed by the Consorcio, and these changes were rendered void (Witness Deposition Recording/ Guillermo Rojas Chaves recording min 1:38:00 to 1:39:30, EA fines collection file folio 115 and 118).

29.- The Consorcio reports for the Azul project a progress exceeding 60% at the time of the suspension of work, according to the last work progress report through official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-466 dated March 17, 2020. In this regard, the Employer indicated lower progress according to the "Special Report- Unfinished Works Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul," conducted in March 2021 by the Supervising Unit, which verifies that the works at the time of the suspension of work had a nominal progress of 56%. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95, /imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth "Special Report-Unfinished Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul" in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Final Report status Escuela Azul folios 1-36) ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE BONDS (GARANTÍAS DE CUMPLIMIENTO).

30.- The Consorcio provided several performance bonds (bank guarantees) for up to ten (10) percent of the amount of the three awarded Projects: Project code 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, 2. Project code 024-1942 Escuela Azul, 3. Project code 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa:

These correspond by project to the following breakdown: Liceo Santa Rosa: $233,483.77, Escuela Hermosa: $316,602.40, Escuela Azul $166,063.37, Total: USD $716,149.56. (fact not contested by the parties and see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 1, images 29-38 precautionary measure file) ON THE DECLARATION OF TERMINATION (RESCISIÓN) FIRST REQUESTED BY THE CONSORCIO AND THEN DECLARED BY THE FIDEICOMISO.

31.- The Consorcio, by official letter of May 22, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539, informs the Fideicomiso of "Termination (Rescisión) for substantial breach of contract by the Fideicomiso for having failed to safeguard the principle of maintaining the economic balance of the contracts associated with Public Tenders LPI 01, LPI 02, and LPI 04, which constitutes a substantial breach, and its unilateral and arbitrary decision not to resort to the establishment of the Dispute Resolution Board, this regarding the amounts owed for the execution of works in the construction contracts of Tenders LPI01, LPI02, and LP04, by not reestablishing the contractual economic balance of all our contracts. We request to proceed with the payment of the total sum of $5,404,235.98 (five million four hundred four thousand two hundred thirty-five dollars and ninety-eight cents), representing twenty-six point seventy-five (26.75) percent of the total sum of the contracted amounts with your represented entity, in order to continue executing our obligations. Otherwise, the contracts of Tenders LPI 01, LPI 02, and LPI 04 will be automatically terminated (rescindirán)." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 77/imágs.1) 32.- The Consorcio, by official letter of June 24, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548, communicates to the Fideicomiso the application, on its part and unilaterally, of numeral 42.3 Termination by Contractor. 42.3.1 If: (...) indicating that: "Therefore, as more than twenty-eight (28) days have passed after the notification made to the Fideicomiso on May 22, 2020, without the Fideicomiso having remedied the alleged breach, the Consorcio cannot continue with the obligations of this Contract, due to reasons directly attributable to the Employer, for which reason this Contract is hereby unilaterally terminated (rescindido), and the works become the exclusive responsibility of the Fideicomiso. Likewise, as the Contract is terminated, I request the payment of the following milestones or items for a total amount of $2,225,335.11: 1. Pending milestones for the completion of project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: ? COMPLEMENTARY AND EXTERIOR WORKS for an amount of $31,667.80, ? Slope improvement -reinforced earth walls- for an amount of $274,142.53, 2. Pending milestones for the completion of project 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Windows and doors for an amount of $63,104.08, ? Painting for an amount of $31,552.05, ? Electrical systems -structured cabling and service connection- for an amount of $63,104.08, ? Electrical systems -devices and accessories- for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Mechanical systems -modules- for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Mechanical systems -exteriors- for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Complementary and exterior works for an amount of $119,565.63, 3. Pending milestones for the completion of project 024-1942 Escuela Azul: ? Structural concretes for ramp: for an amount of $189,961 ? Electrical systems -conduit-: for an amount of $47,490.50, ? Mechanical systems -modules-: for an amount of $31,660.00, ? Underlayments -100% poured progress-: for an amount of $31,660.00, 4. Additionally, the return of the performance bonds must be processed immediately (Performance 21655 Promerica $88,849.28, Performance 21666 Promerica $288,849.26, Performance 24515 Promerica $251,534.61, Performance 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN $50,000.00, Performance 4245422 BAC $36,916.41, Advance Payment 23828 Promerica $246,949.87, Advance Payment 23835 Promerica $168,235.19, Advance Payment 23829 Promerica $74,728.52, Advance Payment 25107 Promerica $45,690.57. Total $1,251,753.71 (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4) 33.- The Fideicomiso, by official letter of June 11, 2020, FID-2213-2020, submits to the IDB a No Objection Request to terminate contract No. 88-2017, with the Consorcio IDECO-RUCOGCI, regarding Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa. "The foregoing, due to the delay of 503 days recorded as of June 10, 2020, in the delivery of the Educational Center Escuela La Hermosa, awarded to the Consorcio. This Center was due to be delivered on January 23, 2019, as was indicated to the contractor per the attached note '19.01.24_SUP.RD.124_VENCIMIENTO DEL PLAZO DE EJECUCIÓN - ESCUELA LA HERMOSA'. The no objection request to terminate the contract is made upon fulfillment of what is indicated in subclause 26.2 of the bidding documents." (see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción La Hermosa/imágs.1-2) 34.- The Fideicomiso, by official letter of June 29, 2020, FID-2495-2020, submits to the IDB a No Objection Request to terminate contract No. 88-2017, with the consortium RUCO-IDECO-GCI, regarding centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul. The foregoing due to: "the fact that they applied unilateral termination as of June 8, 2020, on the works still under construction that were awarded to them in processes LPI-02-2016, LPI-04-2016, and LPI-01-2017. The unilateral termination carried out by the consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI included the withdrawal of the guards from the construction works. We consider that this action by the contractor lacks the procedural formality and correct application of the contractual conditions. The abandonment of the works prompted the immediate action of the Fideicomiso to procure security and take possession of the centers under construction. Given the above, we consider that clause 42.2.2 of the bidding documents LPI-04-2016 applies to the contractor as grounds to terminate the contract indicated in the reference regarding centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "the Liceo de Santa Rosa was due to be delivered on April 15, 2020, therefore the fines indicated in subclause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the bidding documents apply to it", "In the specific case of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, additionally, the serious breach indicated in subclause 26.2 applies, given that the budget containing subsection h) is reached after 40 days of delay in the delivery of the center, and given that as of today it accounts for 72 days of recorded delay, this exceeds the maximum established to give rise to the termination of the contract." (see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción Santa Rosa y Azul/imágs.1-2) 35.- The IDB, through official letter CID/CCR/736/2020 of July 8, 2020, authorized the termination request.

(see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción Santa Rosa y Azul/imágs.1-2 and see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción La Hermosa/imágs.1-2) 36.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication FID-2692-2020 dated July 13, 2020, responding to the communications of the Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548; GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-591; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-917, rejects the rescission (rescisión) pursued by the latter and in turn notifies it of the Rescission of Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, charging that "because it is based on clauses that do not provide for such a possibility, and furthermore because the procedure that the tender documents (cartel), as an integral part of the contract, was not followed," "the Consorcio, having abandoned the works, thereby clearly 'withdrew' from the contract and constitutes an additional cause for the Employer to rescind the contract, under the provisions of sub-clauses 42.2.2 and 40.2.2, sub-paragraphs a), c) and d).(...)," "the Liceo de Santa Rosa should have been delivered on April 15, 2020, and therefore the penalties set forth in sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the bidding documents (cartel de licitación), which forms part of the contractual conditions, apply (...) In the specific case of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, moreover, the serious non-compliance set forth in sub-clause 26.2 applies, given that the budget contained in sub-paragraph h) is reached at 40 days of delay in the delivery of the center, and therefore, as of today, 72 days of recorded delay are counted, thereby exceeding the maximum established to give rise to the rescission of the contract" (...) "as of June 8, 2020, they had withdrawn from the projects, alleging contractual rescission. We consider that the unilateral rescission carried out by the consortium IDECORUCO-GCI, which included the removal of the security guards from the works under construction, lacks the procedural formality and correct application of the contractual conditions. The abandonment of the works prompted the immediate action of the Fideicomiso for the due safeguarding of the investments; with the assignment of the corresponding security and taking possession of the centers under construction. Given the foregoing, we consider that sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-clause 42.2.2 of the bidding documents LPI-01-2016 apply to the contractor, as an additional cause to rescind Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "and given the situation of unilateral and voluntary withdrawal that the Contractor made from the project and instead declaring the rescission on its part," and therefore "IT IS ORDERED: The unilateral Rescission by the Employer of Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, which takes effect from the communication of this decision." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 79/imágs.1-8) 37.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication FID-2493-2020 June 29, 2020, responding to the communications of the Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; rejects the rescission pursued by the latter and in turn notifies it of the Rescission of Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela Hermosa, charging that "because it is based on clauses that do not provide for such a possibility, and furthermore because the procedure that the tender documents, as an integral part of the contract, was not followed," "Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa should have been delivered on January 23, 2019. As of June 8, 2020, the date on which the Consorcio withdrew from the project, a delay of 502 days was recorded, relative to the date on which the project should have been delivered. In a meeting held with the consortium on June 10, 2020, you informed us that as of June 8, 2020, they had withdrawn from the projects, including the security services. Due to the foregoing and for the purpose of safeguarding the investments made, the Fideicomiso was forced to take the necessary actions to assign security as soon as possible at the Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" (...) "Therefore, since the delay time necessary to reach the maximum 10% charge allowed for this concept has already been amply exceeded, this constitutes an additional reason to proceed with the rescission of the contract for the serious non-compliance of the contractor, since it triggers the provisions of sub-clause 42.2.2, in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d).", and "given the situation of unilateral and voluntary withdrawal that the Contractor made from the project, and instead declaring the rescission on its part," and therefore "IT IS ORDERED: the unilateral Rescission by the Employer of Contract No. 88-2017 with respect to Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, which takes effect from the communication of this decision." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 80/imágs.1-8) 38.- The unilateral rescission declared by the Fideicomiso of Contract No. 88-2017, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, took effect as of July 15, 2020, the date on which the Consorcio was notified through official communication FID-2692-2020. The unilateral rescission of the contract for project 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa Contract No. 88-2017 takes effect from the communication of this decision on June 26, 2020, through FID-2493-2020. (fact not disputed by the parties) 39.- As of the date of the Contractor's withdrawal from the projects contained in Contract No. 88-2017 regarding Liceo Rural Santa Rosa 23-5969, Escuela Azul 24-1942, and Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870, and the effective date of the rescissions ordered by the Fideicomiso in resolutions issued via official communications FID-2692-2020 dated July 13, 2020, and FID-2493-2020 June 29, 2020, the Contractor left unfinished works that are not payable because they did not meet the deliverable to qualify as payment milestones (hitos de pago) according to the agreement of the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, which become effective only upon 100% completion, resulting in the Consorcio settling them as follows: ESCUELA LA AZUL: $395,752.05, ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: $338,769.30, LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA: $274,142.53, TOTAL PENDING PAYMENT: $1,008,663.88, itemized as:

• 1)ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

• 2)LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

• 3)ESCUELA LA AZUL PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

(see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 and 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5, CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth "Special Report-Unfinished Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4) 40.- According to the Fideicomiso, based on the Special Reports on Unfinished Works prepared by the Supervisory Unit of the Fideicomiso, the work effectively executed by the Consorcio but which did not meet the criterion of 100% completion and deliverable to be paid in accordance with Clause 12 of the General Conditions of the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, is:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa:

B. Escuela La Hermosa:

• C)Escuela Azul

Sum of progress of the projects: $864,016.04 *Regarding the Escuela La Hermosa project, it was corroborated in an assessment carried out after the rescission, that Milestone 10.2 Finishes, lightweight ceilings and walls (Acabados cielos y paredes livianas), even though it had payment validation for supposedly being at 100%, had a shortfall of 60%. 10.2 Finishes, lightweight ceilings and walls 40%. Total Price: $49,819.01, Effective real price: $19,927.60 SUBTRACTION: $864,016.04 - $29,891.41 = $834,124.63 - Advances (Anticipos) ($535,604.15) = BALANCE $298,520.48. (see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth "Special Report-Unfinished Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 to 4 and 5 to 31, see CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2) ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY THE CONSORCIO AND DENIED BY THE FIDEICOMISO.

41.- The Consorcio submitted various administrative claims for the recognition and payment of direct and indirect costs related to the projects contained in Contract 88-2017, such that through official communication July 1, 2019 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222/SUBJECT: Administrative Claim for Suspension of the Execution Period Project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: "suspension of 251 calendar days with 12 Service Orders (Órdenes de Servicio, OS) closing as of June 7, 2019...has meant incurring expenses that were not previously tendered because it was impossible for my Represented Party or for any other offeror to know the ground conditions, which were not identifiable at first sight until said area was intervened with earthworks (movimiento de tierras) ... such expenses are, for my Represented Party, patrimonial damages caused by situations not attributable to us, for this reason, we raise before the Executing Unit that you Represent an administrative claim for the damages caused based on the strict liability with which the State operates and the principles of contractual civil liability, contract integration, balance of interests, intangibilidad patrimonial (intangibilidad patrimonial), legality, reasonableness and proportionality, all of constitutional standing, expressed in the following articles of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica –COPOL-... we request that you proceed as lawfully corresponds with the recognition of this administrative claim as compensation for $162,449.89 (one hundred sixty-two thousand four hundred forty-nine dollars and eighty-nine cents), a direct consequence of the suspension of the execution period for 251 calendar days from July 21, 2018 to June 7, 2019 (excluding the two periods in which it was restarted) in Project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Contract No. 88-2017." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 52,56/imágs.1-20, 1-9) 42.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication October 2, 2019/FID-3566-2019, responds by rejecting the administrative claim pursued through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, stating "the contracts entered into included the rights and obligations assumed by both the Employer and the Contractor, as well as the legal effects derived from their actions and/or omissions, contractual conditions that cannot be disapplied in the specific case, among others, those stipulations that were expressly provided for and/or consented to, regarding the submission of claims. We refer to Sub-clauses 44.1 and 44.2 of the General Conditions of Contract, Section VII. General Conditions (CG),... Under such understanding, and having reviewed the documentation in the file, the first conclusion is that the Contractor failed to comply with its duty to notify, within the period stipulated in the Contract, its claims to the Project Manager... Under the foregoing, it is clear to this Administration that the Contractor FAILED TO COMPLY with the duties imposed by the Sub-clauses cited in this response, and therefore the effects provided for in Sub-clause 44.2 of the General Conditions apply, according to which "...If the Contractor has not notified a claim within said period of twenty-eight (28) days, the time for completion shall not be extended, and the Contractor shall not be entitled to receive additional payments and the Employer shall be released from all liability in connection with the claim." As set forth, the claim is considered to be rejected, for not having met the submission requirements on time." (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 56/imágs.1-9) 43.- The Consorcio submitted various administrative claims for the recognition and payment of direct and indirect costs related to the projects contained in Contract 88-2017, such that through official communication March 24, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483 it is stated: "This is the principal fact motivating this claim, as we claim the existence of patrimonial damage caused by an omitted, abnormal, and unlawful administrative liability, which, according to the provisions of article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), corresponds to “... the alleged damage must be effective, assessable, and individualizable in relation to a person or group... Below, a summary table briefly explains all the amounts of this claim. Table No. 1 Description of claims by LPI number and Project. 1 ESCUELA LA AZUL ¢171,008,746.80 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (1) ¢100,577,484.63 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (2) ¢120,322,757.00 COLONES, 1 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA ¢194,517,549.37 COLONES, TOTAL: ¢586,426,537.80 COLONES. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 57/imágs.1-11) 44.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication April 27, 2020/FID-1604-2020, responds by rejecting the administrative claim pursued through the official communication of March 24, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, stating: "We respond to notes GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-563, and GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2016-874, all dated March 24, 2020, in which you raise various Administrative Claims relating to several Projects related to the bidding processes LPI-01-2017, LPI-02-2016, and LPI-04-2016... In the contracts themselves entered into with the various Contractors for the process of design, construction, and equipping of the Works, they were warned that the Employer – Fideicomiso BANCO NACIONAL – MEP, could delegate certain functions relating to the management of the Work to professional engineers, as well as retain a consulting firm and independent advisors, who would perform the process of technical supervision of the works, as is stated with absolute clarity in Sub-clauses 1 and 23.2 of the Special Conditions... the execution of a contract with a Consulting Firm for the Supervision of Works in Educational Centers and Multipurpose Courts for Fideicomiso No. 1099 MEP-BNCR ensures that the Fideicomiso BNCR-MEP has professional and technical services that support the oversight of the contracting, by engaging companies and professionals to support it in the “supervision” of the contracts for the design and construction of the required Works... In the case of the Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, the contract established the obligation to have, among others, the figure of the Works Manager, who under the terms of said contract, assumes a coordination role with the Employer, or with whomever the Employer designated for its tasks, as noted in Sub-clauses 8.1 and 8.2, clause 8. RESOURCES TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE CONSULTANT, of the Terms of Reference. According to these stipulations, it is not indicated anywhere that the recommendations, with their respective justifications, must be made only through the Works Manager of the Supervisory Consortium, so they could well be made also by another figure that is part of the Supervision structure, or even made by the Employer itself - Fideicomiso Banco Nacional – MEP – or whomever it designates, to exercise its authority to apply the contractual terms so that the Contractors correct any deviation from the exact fulfillment of the agreed obligations, or those instructions, criteria, or actions issued to the contractors on the occasion of the activities contracted to the Supervisory Consortium. Thus, neither does the Contract provide for it, nor has the Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa put it forward, nor have Banco Nacional, nor Consorcio CALVI+FSA, nor the Contractors who have executed and are executing Works understood it so... the contractor is obliged to present a substantiated account of each “omission, non-compliance, or violation of the contract” it alleges; the impact of each such omission, non-compliance, or violation of the contract on the Work Schedule, the effect on activities on the critical path, the displacement they caused to such activities, the relationship of this to the “additional costs” relative to those estimated in the Offer, their quantification, origin and nature, and their contrast with the financial-economic balance of the offer, and finally the substantiation of the quantum sought... the Contractor has also failed to comply with its duty to indicate and prove the alleged damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) claimed, their estimation, their origin and nature, specifically what is stipulated in Sub-clauses 44.4, and 44.5, as well as the provisions of article 193 of the LFAP, because a claim such as the one intended, which concerns some alleged higher costs incurred, necessarily requires providing all the supplementary information relating to the basis of the claim, having to prove by means of relevant, conducive, and suitable evidence, both the quantum and the corresponding expense claimed, all of which is lacking in the claims presented, since such higher costs can in no way be “supposed or assumed,” from a sum of simple photocopies without any substantiation, relationship, or proof of their link to the contracts and works, nor proof that they originate from the alleged event and not from the negligence of the contractor or from the risks assumed upon entering into the contract...". (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 58/imágs.1-15) 45.- The Consorcio submitted an administrative claim through official communication May 22, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538, on the occasion of documenting damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) following the rejection of the compensation request, and based on sub-paragraph b) of sub-clause 44.5 of the General Conditions, it requested financial recognition for an additional period, as well as indirect costs. The Fideicomiso, through official communication June 4, 2020 FID-2100-2020, ordered the outright rejection of the proceeding for not meeting the minimum requirements demanded by the legal regime for its admission and assessment. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 59/imágs.1-44) 46.- The Consorcio submitted an administrative claim through official communication May 27, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 on the occasion of documenting damages and losses following the rejection of the compensation request, and based on sub-paragraph b) of sub-clause 44.5 of the General Conditions, it requested financial recognition for an additional period, as well as indirect costs. The Fideicomiso ordered the outright rejection of the proceeding for not meeting the minimum requirements demanded by the legal regime for its admission and assessment. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 60/imágs.1-4, ) SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE (CLÁUSULA PENAL).

47.- Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Project. The Fideicomiso initiated, through the Act of Opening of Summary Proceeding for the Application of the Penalty Clause (Acto de Apertura de Procedimiento Sumario para la Aplicación de la Cláusula Penal) dated July 9, 2020-FID 2665-2020, against the Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, conveying and informing it of 25 alleged facts, and charging it with Delay in the Completion of Works for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Project, implying a penalty of $131,949.18 under the penalty clause contained in the Tender Conditions Section VIII Special Conditions, Clause 26 and 26.2 Completion Time Guarantee, and granting it three business days for the corresponding defense, providing it with the respective administrative file. (see folios 76 to 84 physical file Penalty Clause) 48.- The Consorcio responded to the hearing granted through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 of July 15, 2020, justifying the inappropriateness of the proceeding and the application of the penalty clause based on: I. Absence of one of the basic prerequisites for the imposition of the penalty clause: There is non-compliance by the Employer with the Contract, II.- Defense of non-performance of contract (excepción de contrato no cumplido) based on article 692 of the Civil Code, applicable supplementarily according to article 9.2 of the LGAP, III.- Regarding the approval of the Construction Drawings of the Project, IV.- Findings of an unforeseeable situation regarding the condition of the existing soils that generated a change order (orden de modificación) that took 10 months in the process of request, review, and approval by the Fideicomiso, V.- Non-compliance by the Employer: Fideicomiso rejected compensation for more than 180 days of suspension in the period due to a cause beyond the Contractor's control, VI.- Regarding the basis to consider for calculating the amount of the penalty clause. (see folios 85 to 98 physical file Penalty Clause) 49.- The Fideicomiso, through Final Act (Acto Final) of August 11, 2020 FID-3076-2020, Resolution No. 26-2020, ordered the rejection in all its aspects of the claim put forward by the Consorcio in its defense arguments and conclusions submitted through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 of July 15, 2020. (see folios 158 to 195 physical file Penalty Clause) 50.- The Consorcio filed an Appeal for Reversal (Recurso de Revocatoria) through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 of August 18, 2020, justifying it basically on the same grounds as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see folios 196 to 209 physical file Penalty Clause) 51.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication of September 8, 2020 FID-3468-2020, resolves to reject in all its aspects the appeal for reversal filed through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 of August 18, 2020, confirming the Final Act of August 11, 2020 FID-3076-2020 No. 26-2020 and warning the Contractor within three business days to pay the amount of USD $131,949.18 under warning of execution of the performance guarantee (garantía de cumplimiento). (see final unnumbered folios of the physical file Penalty Clause) 52.- Escuela La Hermosa Project. The Fideicomiso, after a hearing and objection procedure granted to the Contractor, issued a proceeding for the application of the Penalty Clause, issuing Final Act FID-2879-2020 No. 24-2020 of July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, through which the Summary Proceeding for the application of the penalty clause of the Escuela La Hermosa Project was concluded, imposing the amount of USD $166,063.38. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 98 /imágs.1-31) 53.- The Consorcio filed an Appeal for Reversal through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 of August third, two thousand twenty, justifying it basically on the same grounds as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 84 /imágs.1-12) 54.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication of August 25, 2020 FID-3278-2020 RESOLUTION No. 29-2020 of the Steering Committee of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR Project, at one ten o'clock p.m. on August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty, resolves to reject in all its aspects the appeal for reversal filed through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 of August third, two thousand twenty, confirming Final Act FID-2879-2020 No. 24-2020 of July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, and warning the Contractor within three business days to pay the amount of USD $166,063.38 under warning of execution of the performance guarantee. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88 /imágs.1-12) 55.- Multipurpose Court Escuela Azul Project. The Fideicomiso, after a hearing and objection procedure granted to the Contractor, issued a proceeding for the application of the Penalty Clause, issuing Final Act of August 28, 2020 FID-3331-2020 No. 31-2020 of the Steering Committee of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR Project, at eleven forty a.m. on August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, through which the Summary Proceeding for the application of the penalty clause for the Multipurpose Court Escuela Azul Project, Code 24-1942, was concluded, imposing the amount of USD $95,457.70. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88 /imágs.1-33) 56.- The Consorcio filed an Appeal for Reversal through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 of September third, two thousand twenty, justifying it basically on the same grounds as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 83/imágs.1-8) 57.- The Fideicomiso, through official communication of September 10, 2020 FID-3522-2020 RESOLUTION No. 36-2020 of the Steering Committee of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR Project, at twelve thirty p.m. on September tenth, two thousand twenty, resolves to reject in all its aspects the appeal for reversal filed through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 of September third, two thousand twenty, confirming Final Act number of August 28, 2020 FID-3331-2020 No. 31-2020 of the Steering Committee of the Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR Project, at eleven forty a.m. on August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, and warning the Contractor within three business days to pay the amount of USD $95,457.70, under warning of execution of the performance guarantee. (see images 865 to 874 of court file) ADVANCE PAYMENT GUARANTEES (GARANTÍAS DE ANTICIPO).

58.- On November 11, 2020, the Consorcio made a request for the return of advance payment guarantees associated with the projects of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) LPI-01-2017. The total of advance payment guarantees is for a sum of USD $535,604.15, itemized as follows: 1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: $168,235.19, 2. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Addendum - Adenda): $45,690.57, 3. Escuela La Hermosa: $74,728.52, 4. Escuela Azul: $246,949.87. (fact not disputed by the parties) 59.- Through official communication FID-4631-2020 Resolution No. 38-2020 of one twenty p.m. on November twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty, the Fideicomiso rejected the request for the return of advance payment guarantees associated with the projects of Public Tender LPI-01-2017. (fact not disputed by the parties) 60.- Through official communication of November 26, 2020, the Consorcio filed an appeal for reversal against the resolution of one twenty p.m. on November twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty, in relation to the request for the return of advance payment guarantees for the projects of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Design, Construction and Equipping of 6 Lots of (15) Educational Centers and (10) multipurpose courts, stating: "1. The total advance payment guarantees that the FIDEICOMISO seeks to execute amount to $535,604.15 USD. However, the FIDEICOMISO ignores that the CONSORCIO executed a series of construction works that have not been paid for. 2.

In that regard, according to the attached documentary evidence, there is a series of amounts pending payment for work progress in favor of the CONSORTIUM, which amount to the sum of $1,008,663.88 USD, monies that must be deducted from the alleged balances of the advance guarantees (...) Currently, there is a balance of $473,059.73 USD in favor of the CONSORTIUM, which is demonstrated by the attached project work progress reports." (see CD/evidence/folder4/Appendix 96 /imgs.1 to 4 and 5 to 31) 61.- By official communication dated October 23, 2020/CG-2020-1139/AD-2020-0221/Reference: Trust 1099 MEP-BNCR/Response FID-4141-2020, the Directorate of Trusts and Structurings of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is informed that: "according to the accounting records in the possession of the UEP, the advance balances per educational center for this tender are as follows: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: USD $168,235.19, Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Addendum): USD $45,690.57, Escuela La Hermosa: USD $74,728.52, Escuela Azul: USD $246,949.87." for a total of USD $535,604.15. (see CD/evidence/folder2/CG-2020-1139 /imgs.1-2) V.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. From the body of evidence examined and admitted in the case file, the following facts of pertinent determination for the issuance of this resolution are deemed not accredited. Thus, there is no useful and pertinent proof that so accredits it.

1.- That the Trust caused the delays in the final and definitive approval of the construction plans for the awarded works contained in Contract 88-2017 of Public Tender LPI-01-2017, not only before the CFIA but also for obtaining municipal permits.

2.- That the Trust caused the delays in the final and definitive approval of the construction plans and/or municipal permits for the approved Change Order, after the award, not only before the CFIA but also in obtaining the corresponding municipal permits in relation to the works contained in Contract 88-2017 of Public Tender LPI-01-2017.

3.- That the suspension periods exceeding 338 calendar days in the works of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project were the exclusive responsibility of the Trust and to the economic detriment of the Consortium.

4.- That the cause for the suspension of works at Liceo Rural Santa Rosa due to the existence of non-solid terrain after the award of Contract 88-2017, was due to a situation of unforeseeability or impossible assessment prior to the submission of the Consortium's bid in relation to Public Tender LPI-01-2017, and that it was not reasonably foreseeable from the informational references in the preliminary project documents pertinent to that work and consequently from the on-site visit by the Consortium, to diligently and previously delve into additional geological and soil studies corresponding to the topographic inclination and material content shown by the land where the project works were to be executed.

5.- That the supervening causes of greater severity found after the award of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project and the new soil and corresponding studies to determine the treatment for the topographic inclination shown by the heterogeneous material composition contained in the land where the project works were to be executed, were a reason for delays attributable to the Trust.

6.- That the delays in the effective instrumentation of the Suspension Orders, Service Orders, and Change Order OM-1 for the treatment of slopes due to the topographic inclination shown by the land where the works of the Liceo Santa Rosa project were to be executed were responsibility attributable to the Trust.

7.- That during that suspended time period of the works exceeding 338 days, the Consortium bore, due to the responsibility of the Trust, the actual existence of the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administrative expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diem, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public services, insurance policies, financial expenses for guarantee extensions, financial expenses for credit line extensions, bank commissions, default interest on working capital line, office rentals, equipment and tool rentals, administrative salaries, social charges), not only for the attention of the Liceo Santa Rosa project, but also Escuela Hermosa and Escuela Azul.

8.- That the archaeological findings of an existing petroglyph in a minimal area of the execution of works in the Escuela Azul project, mainly in the area designated for parking, and during the time that the Department of Anthropology and History of the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica determined it as such, and the work suspension for that specific area ordered by the Trust, justifiably halted or prevented execution for the rest of the project area.

7.- That the situation of wastewater discharge caused by neighbors, along the northern boundary of the land area for the execution of the Escuela Azul Project, and the distance of this discharge and the construction area, caused significant distortions that prevented carrying out the execution of the main works thereof.

9.- That the Trust incurred liability for economic detriment against the Consortium, due to indefinitions relating to the resolution of service orders for expansion and that, for this reason, caused and aggravated delays in the development of the works of Contract 88-2017.

10.- Existence, consistency, and level of impact on the occasion of communications such as contractual instructions regarding the issuance of notifications, instructions, orders, certificates, and approvals, which impacted and caused lack of execution, delay thereof, or irregular execution or economic detriment in the projects of Contract 88-2017, which were issued by the Trust or third parties during the term of the contract and until before the Rescission ordered by it.

11.- That the Trust formally validated Service Orders, Suspension Orders, or Change Orders from third parties outside the Supervision Unit - Supervision Manager, Work Manager (formerly Project Director) and the Assistant to Management, or the General Coordinator of the Executing Unit and authorized by the Tender Documents of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 for the issuance thereof, and thereby enabled and justified the Consortium to modify, alter, restructure the approved and authorized final designs or, requested additional or substitute designs outside the previously accepted and authorized Service Orders or Change Orders, during the construction process, which affected or differed substantially from the design approved in construction plans, altering the term and cost subject to liquidation and pertinent payment in favor of the Consortium.

12.- That the Consortium, in order to collect for the Milestones, was forced to invest time and money in works that were not described in the approved Final Designs to maintain the cash flow necessary to carry out the projects, with unjust enrichment existing by the Trust by demanding the execution of additional works that were not in the Approved Final Designs, a situation that caused a series of material damages (to the equity) of the Consortium.

13.- That the payments to the Consortium for the milestones throughout the entire execution process of the works were conditioned on the execution of additional works that were not indicated in the Approved Final Design.

14.- That the Tender Documents of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 or that the Trust established or imposed on the Consortium the joint and simultaneous execution of the projects of Contract 88-2017 Liceo Santa Rosa, Escuela Hermosa, and Escuela Azul with commencement orders on the same date, or that the construction execution of the projects was subject to and determined by the compliance results of each of the works, as well as the economic effects due to the suspension of work ordered and given in these projects and the refusal to receive other projects awarded in other tenders by the Trust, which justified and validated for the Consortium the suspension of works in the works contained in Contract 88-2017.

15.- That the failure to deliver the works in the works contained in Contract 88-2017 on time due to financial situations of the Consortium was on the occasion of conduct by the Trust that attributed liability to it for this.

16.- Existence, consistency, and precision of situations generated by the Trust that affected the efficiency in the delivery of the works contained in Contract 88-2017, causing damage to the equity inviolability of the Consortium and its financial imbalance.

17.- Solvent and proper construction and financial management by the Consortium in the execution of the works contained in Contract 88-2017, for the effective management of each educational center regarding all procedures, receipt deadlines, and guarantees, for the regular attention in the adaptation, planning, execution, construction, and equipping with the singular particularities of each project for their delivery deadline.

VI. PREAMBLE. 1.- OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING REGIME AND LIABILITY

By virtue of the claims and the object of this proceeding, it is timely to allude to the following considerations for approaching the environment of the litigated conflict: The administrative contracting process is essential in the work of public administrations; there cannot be effective and efficient provision of public services, or faithful fulfillment of the State's objectives, without resorting to public contracting. The procedures, then, are required to timely satisfy public or institutional interests. It is thus that the State, through all its institutions, uses a series of instruments or means to carry out the tasks entrusted to it by the collective, tending to achieve ends of a public nature, and therefore, often beyond the Administration's own actions, operated from the administrative apparatus, it becomes necessary to resort to other means that allow it to efficiently achieve the public ends entrusted to it. In this sense, contracting with third parties, under the rules of the administrative legal regime, allows the administration a better realization of public works or the provision of public services. When the Administration resorts to a private third party for the realization of a public work, or the granting of a public service, it does so with the intention of agreeing on the fulfillment of an object with a contractor, as a collaborating subject in achieving the public interest sought. For this reason, the contracting is based on the principles that pursue that object, that is, the public purpose sought by the Administration, and does not deal solely with an agreement of wills, for which reason its development and content must be oriented under this logic. On this, the doctrine points out: "... we have present in administrative contracting the free and sovereign act of will of the contractor, as a vital element of the contract figure in its broad legal and practical configuration. The obligatory burden of the latter, and its shield of protection, is filtered by the regulatory set, with the incorporation of the tender documents or specifications, which is the regulation between the contracting parties. To what has been said, we must insist on a truism: there is freedom of the offeror to participate in some modality of administrative contracting and aspire, without deceit or bad faith, to the singularization of the awarding act in their favor within the regulatory context. But there also exists another no less patent truth: the administrative contract is conditioned in its origin, evolution, and termination to the general or public demands or needs, which is an element extrinsic to the free determination of the parties, as is the legal system itself and the tender document conditions subordinated to both..." (Manrique Jiménez Meza. Derecho Público. Editorial Jurídica Continental. 2001.)

Following the principle that administrative contracting must be governed by administrative law, the law itself guides and defines the conditions under which the conduct of both the Administration and the contractor must develop regarding the fulfillment of the contract's object. It is thus that, under the rule of the Administrative Contracting Law No. 7494, in force at the time of the conclusion of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 and its effects (this norm was repealed by article 135 subsection a) of the General Public Procurement Law, No. 9986 of May 27, 2021), the former article 15 of the Administrative Contracting Law defined the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies, and it expressed in what is of interest: "The Administration is obligated to fulfill all commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor executes the agreed object in a suitable manner". And article 20 establishes the obligation of the contractors, this regulatory body states: "Contractors are obligated to fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any documented formal manifestation that they have additionally contributed in the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract". These obligations find their definition in the tender documents of the competition, insofar as they establish the bases thereof, according to the needs of the respective Public Administration. On this, the doctrine defines: "The specifications document is the most important public document at the time of establishing the rights and duties of the negotiating parties. In the phases of the pre-contract as in the life of the agreement, the specifications play a capital role. One can speak of a referral that is made, in matters of administrative contracts, regarding the specifications document; since the tender documents act as an interpretive norm for such agreements." (Romero Pérez Jorge Enrique. El Cartel de Licitación. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas N. 55 January-April. 1986.) It is from these that the offeror prepares their offer, which has the characteristic of being integral in all its components, that is, both in the content of the main written document, and in the designs, plans, samples, catalogs that accompany it. In matters of administrative contracting, the determination of the effective fulfillment of the obligation must be made by referring both to the tender documents and to the offer considered in an integral manner, and always oriented towards the fulfillment of the principle of good faith between the subscribing parties and in attention and emphasis to the public interest that guided the Administration's decision to carry out the respective contracting. In the specific case of educational infrastructure, the Regulation of Administrative Contracting establishes that the general provisions will be adopted in which the internal control measures necessary to guarantee the most effective and efficient administration of the public funds involved in these contracts are established. These general appreciations do not escape the imprint, as a peculiar and distinctive sign or characteristic, that resides in Public Tender LPI-01-2017, instrumented in its opportunity by means of and through its "Specifications for the International Public Tender Process / Trust Contract for the Financing of the Construction and Equipping Project 1099 of Educational Infrastructure of the Ministry of Public Education at the National Level", signed on April 10, 2013, countersigned by the Comptroller General of the Republic on July 14 of the same year, and which established the specific rules thereof, as also defined the rights and obligations of the contracting parties.

Of contractual compliance: The contractual liability claimed by the contractor is based on the non-compliance with a contractual obligation agreed to in the cited Trust, which, unlike extracontractual civil liability, which arises from the generic duty not to harm others, in the case of contractual liability, it stems from a prior obligatory bond. Therefore, in the face of contractual liability, or obligational liability as some recent doctrine refers to it, the injured party does not have the burden of proving that the non-compliance has occurred as a consequence of culpable conduct, mainly regarding obligations of result. The mere verification of non-compliance, the damages produced as a direct consequence thereof, and the causal link between the two, gives rise to the duty to repair. If the debtor wishes to invalidate the causal link due to an act of the victim, a third party, fortuitous event, or force majeure, they must necessarily prove it. Only in the case of obligations of means, as a specific concrete result cannot be demanded, it is not viable to invoke it before the judge as an objective parameter of non-compliance, which is why it is necessary to demonstrate fault in the required conduct, proving that the debtor did not do everything possible to achieve the result. Ergo, more than a result, a duty of behavior is demanded. Regarding contractual liability, it has been stated: "Article 702 of the Civil Code requires the presence of a 'will deliberately rebellious to the execution of what was agreed', that is, it establishes the principle that the mere fact that the stipulated obligation is not fulfilled gives rise to the debtor's liability, unless the act of the creditor, force majeure, or fortuitous event concur as exonerating factors of liability. Consequently, for purposes of recognizing damages, in the case of contractual civil liability, the proof of two fundamental elements is necessarily and solely required, namely, the existence of the damage and the causal link between it and the contractual non-compliance, and in this manner, it has been addressed in vote 000904-F-2006 of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which indicated in this regard the following: "the plaintiff party had to prove that the actions of the defendant entity caused it to incur additional direct or indirect efforts or costs, which altered the financial equation of the contract. In other words, it was imperative to demonstrate that the Bank's delay in promoting the tenders in some projects, and in the design phase in others, caused damages to its counterparty, which was not done here. In the absence of a specific regulation in the Administrative Contracting Law, a supplementary application of articles 702 and 704 of the Civil Code corresponds, which establish in order: 'The debtor who fails to fulfill their obligation, whether in substance or in manner, shall be responsible by that very fact for the damages that they occasion to their creditor, unless the failure proceeds from an act of the latter, force majeure, or fortuitous event', and 'In the compensation for damages, only those that, as an immediate and direct consequence of the failure to fulfill the obligation, have been caused or must necessarily be caused shall be included'. Therefore, as the existence of damages was not proven, Banco de Costa Rica cannot be considered obligated to pay additional fees, meaning that articles 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the articles of its Regulation that develop these precepts, nor ordinals 36, Section A, subsection a) of the Regulation for the Contracting of Consulting in Engineering and Architecture or number 5 subsection A) of the Tariff of Professional Consulting Services for Buildings are not violated for lack of application". In this sense and by way of a colophon, in matters of contractual liability, the effective existence thereof and its immediate and direct connection with the contractual non-compliance must be proven.

Of the effects of contractual non-compliance: "The Cassation Chamber has repeatedly considered that not just any non-compliance authorizes the termination (resolución) of the contract, since this can only take place in the presence of serious non-compliance (among others, resolution No. 53 of 3:15 p.m. on May 31, 1972). Termination (resolución) is not appropriate, even if non-compliance were demonstrated, if it is not of such importance that it truly merits the most serious sanction that exists in the civil legal system against a contractual relationship born valid and effective, which is its definitive annihilation with retroactive effects and its logical restitutory and compensatory consequences. There are occasions when, because the non-compliance operated by one of the parties in a contract is not sufficiently serious, the proper course is to request the fulfillment of the contracted obligations and demand the payment of damages, as authorized by civil law (...) So that, for the declaration of termination (resolución) of a contract to be appropriate, it is not enough to prove in court the non-compliance by one of the contracting parties, but rather its seriousness must also be demonstrated, which must be such that it determines the definitive extinction of the contract, as has been said". By reason of these considerations, the non-compliance generating the contractual termination (resolución) will be that which is sufficiently serious, in order to thus be able to terminate a contract unilaterally and automatically suspend the fulfillment of its contractual obligations. In fact, in accordance with article 11 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the only one that would have powers of unilateral contractual termination is the Administration, insofar as it states the following: "Right of rescission and unilateral termination (resolución). Unilaterally, the Administration may rescind or terminate (resolver), as appropriate, its contractual relationships, on grounds of non-compliance, due to force majeure, fortuitous event, or when it is convenient to the public interest, all in adherence to due process. When the contract is terminated for causes not attributable to the contractor, the Administration must settle the part that has been effectively executed and compensate the contractor for the damages caused. In the cases of fortuitous event or force majeure, only the part effectively executed and the expenses reasonably incurred by the contractor in anticipation of the total execution of the contract shall be settled. The Administration may recognize, in administrative venue, the ends indicated in the preceding paragraphs. To make the termination effective, it must have the approval of the Comptroller General of the Republic".

Put another way, on the occasion of that non-compliance, according to Alberto Brenes Córdoba (Tratado de los Contratos. Editorial Juricentro, Fourth Edition, revised and updated by Gerardo Trejos and Marina Ramírez. San José, Costa Rica. 1992. pp. 107 and 108), the foundation of this obligation is based on the rules of contractual liability, which has as conditions the contractual fault; which he explains as follows: "The contractual fault presupposes unlawful conduct attributable to the debtor. This unlawful conduct consists precisely in the absence of voluntary execution of the contractual obligations. The contractual non-compliance must be serious, that is, it must consist of a will deliberately rebellious to the execution of what was agreed"; and the causal relationship of that fault with the claimed damage, that is, that the damage caused originates from that non-compliance".

Of the criteria for imputation in matters of contractual liability: On the subject of contractual liability, the Administrative Court, through the Seventh Section, criterion in vote No. 12-2009 at 3:20 p.m. on January 23, 2009, with which this Section II fully agrees, states: "(...) The obligation of the plaintiff party to demonstrate the causal link and the damages whose compensation is sought, has been recently developed widely by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Article 15 of the Administrative Contracting Law, as the general regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies, states as an obligation of every contracting Administration, that: 'The Administration is obligated to fulfill all commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor executes the agreed object in a suitable manner'. Likewise, in correlation with such obligation, article 20 of the same law also establishes the following: 'Contractors are obligated to fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any documented formal manifestation that they have additionally contributed in the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract'. The preceding citations reflect a duty of compliance with what was agreed for each party, as well as highlighting that of mutual collaboration; both arise from the principle of good faith in contracting, however, in Administrative Contracting, in addition to these, various other obligations are contemplated for the parties. Thus, in the case of contractors with the administration, article 23 of Executive Decree No. 25038-H, General Regulation of Administrative Contracting, provides: '23.1 The contractor is obligated to verify the legality and correctness of the administrative contracting procedure followed for the award of the contract in their favor, as well as in its execution (...)'. Therefore, the plaintiff party must not only consider the regulatory criteria for the imputation of contractual liability in matters of administrative contracting, which derive from the application of the Principles of Legality, Good Faith, and Reciprocity of Benefits, but also substantiate them.

On the subjection to legality in administrative contracting procedures. The activity of administrative contracting, like any manifestation of public powers, is subject to the legality block in a broad sense, having to subject its functioning to the content and scope of the legal norms that regulate a specific procedure. This subjection is concretized in the so-called principle of legality (whether in its positive version, or the classic negative version), whose normative support is rooted in precepts 11 of the Magna Carta, 11, 12, 13, 59, and 66 of the General Law of Public Administration. Hence, public contractual activity can only be understood as valid when it is substantially in conformity with the legal system (numeral 128 ibidem), ergo, insofar as it departs from those regulatory criteria that delimit and specify the procedure within the procedure, in principle, nullities are produced that can lead to suppressing the contracting, as inferred from ordinal 3 of the Administrative Contracting Law (...)". In the same sense, article 10 of the Administrative Contracting Law establishes: "Article 10.- Submission to administrative regulations. In any administrative contracting procedure, the offeror is fully subject to the Costa Rican legal system, especially to the postulates of this Law, its Executive Regulation, the corresponding institutional regulation, the tender documents of the respective procedure, and, in general, to any other administrative regulation related to the contracting procedure in question". It is highlighted that the tender documents of the tendering process have a preponderant value in matters of contracting that binds both contracting parties, as indicated by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in vote No. 448-F-S1-2009 at 11:12 a.m. on April 30, 2009: "(...) Regarding the matter of administrative contracting, precept 51 of the Regulation to the Law provides: 'The tender documents constitute the specific regulation of the contracting that is promoted, and all applicable legal norms and constitutional principles are understood to be incorporated into its clauses (sic) to the respective procedure…'. And, in canon 4 ibidem, when enumerating the hierarchy of norms, in subsections h) and i), respectively, it points to the tender documents or specifications and the administrative contract (...)".

Regarding the Principle of Good Faith, this has been rescued by the Constitutional Chamber in vote No. 998-98 at 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, considering it a fundamental postulate of administrative contracting that is rooted in article 39 of the Political Constitution and that stems from the "presumption of fulfillment of the offer", pointing out that "in the procedures of tenders and in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the administration and offerors act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical norms, where the public interest prevails over any other".

It is emphasized that the elementary principle of Good Faith (Buena Fe) obligates the contracting parties to submit to the rules of the bidding documents (cartel) when presenting their offer in the tender, as a derivation of the obligations established in Article 21 of the Law of Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), when it states that it is a “responsibility of the contractor to verify the correctness of the administrative procurement procedure (...)”.

Finally, the issue of reciprocity of obligations and the economic equivalence of the contract has been developed by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in vote 6432-98, which should be understood as the equivalence of the obligations each party involved in the contract must fulfill. Along these lines, the aforementioned vote indicates: "(...) from the very concept of a contract derives the idea of a balance of opposing interests, so it is natural to think that the bond uniting the parties is nourished by the principle of commutative justice to the extent that some obligation is received that must be compensated with a certain equality, or what is the same, there must be reciprocity of interests; therefore, and as a general rule, the administrative contract corresponds to the type of contracts that are onerous (concept of financing through public spending), but at the same time commutative (equivalent counterpart obligations)." Thus, the violation of the principles of legality, good faith, or reciprocity would entail the existence of contractual liability. Having clarified these indicated aspects, we continue with the analysis of the arguments outlined in the present proceedings.

2.- CONTINUATION. On the Administrative Contract. Legal effects of non-compliance. The accusation of non-conformity with the legal system regarding the act of termination (rescisión) ordered by the Trust (Fideicomiso) is present in the record. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has established in votes 6432-98 at 10:30 a.m. on September 4, 1998, and number 998-98 at 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, that from the administrative contract itself, characteristics of interest arise that can support the effect of the termination. Thus, it indicates that the contract is characterized by being commutative, onerous, and bilateral, having as its object the provision of a service or the execution of a public work, and that it differs from private contracts in that the Administration exercises prerogatives, powers, or exorbitant clauses based on the purpose and public interest it must protect and achieve, such as direction, modification, resolution, and execution, a principle called the mutability of the contract. Its foundation is found at the constitutional level in Article 182, which establishes the bidding procedure for the conclusion of agreements with the Public Administration, which are defined as "the meeting of wills, generating obligations and therefore synallagmatic, concluded between a state body, in the exercise of the administrative functions that correspond to it, with another administrative body or with a private individual or administered party, to satisfy public purposes." (Constitutional Chamber Vote 1205-96). Thus, given its commutative nature, in the administrative contract there are reciprocal rights and obligations, "which are synthesized as follows: a) the contractor has the right to the realization of the object that was contracted and to the recognition of the agreed prices; likewise, it is owed not only fair and adequate treatment, but also respect for the execution period agreed upon in the contract; and b) the contracting Administration may, within the framework of the procurement, supervise, issue instructions, make certain modifications, administratively execute the guarantees, or resolve or terminate the contract." (Constitutional Chamber Vote 1205-96). In this regard, Law of Administrative Procurement 7494 of May 2, 1995 (in force at the time of signing Contract 88-2017), in its third and fourth chapters, provides that the Administration has the rights of termination and unilateral resolution on grounds of non-compliance, force majeure, fortuitous event, or when it suits the public interest, in compliance with due process (Article 11). In that sense, if contractual termination is chosen, the Administration must adhere to the procedure and process stipulated in Articles 206 to 208 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procurement (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), number 33411 of September 27, 2006, which came into effect on January 4, 2007. Regarding contractual resolution, Article 204 establishes that "The Administration may unilaterally resolve contracts on grounds of non-compliance attributable to the contractor. Once the contractual resolution is final, the performance guarantee and any other fines shall be executed, if pertinent, without any additional procedure. In the event that the Administration has provided for retention clauses in the bidding documents, those amounts may be applied to the payment of recognized damages. Should the guarantees and retentions be insufficient, the necessary administrative and judicial measures shall be adopted to obtain full compensation." Regarding this particular point, it must be noted that this same Law of Administrative Procurement, in its Articles 11 and 14, ratifies the power of the contracting Administration to unilaterally resolve the administrative contract on grounds of non-compliance or causes attributable to the contractor, but in compliance with due process, with a reasoned decision and prior hearing of the interested party. In that sense, as the Constitutional Chamber stated in vote number 2011-4431 at 10:32 a.m. on April 1, 2011, when annulling Article 205 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procurement which stipulated a special procedure, as long as the Law of Administrative Procurement is not amended to include an administrative procedure that avoids arbitrariness in the exercise of the unilateral resolution power of contracting public administrations, these must observe and adhere to the ordinary administrative procedure established in Articles 308 and following of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). However, in a subsequent decision issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), in vote number 18-F-TC-2011 at nine o'clock on August 4, 2011, it was ordered that "in the case of bilateral contracts and upon their non-compliance, the possibility exists to demand their forced execution or their resolution. The foregoing arises as a consequence, provided by the legal system, when the obligatory bond with normative force for the parties is violated. That is, it concerns actions granted to the party who did not breach the agreement, by reason of the counterparty's non-compliance, precisely because contracts have the force of law between the parties, pursuant to Article 1022 of the Civil Code. But it should be noted, in any case, that the indicated actions are granted to the party who has performed the contract, because the non-compliant party cannot demand forced execution or contractual resolution. However, two aspects must be kept in mind. First, the performing party is not obligated to perform if the other party breaches. That is, if in the reciprocal execution of obligations one of the parties breaches, the other has no reason to fulfill the correlative obligation and can plead an objection through the well-known exception non adimpleti contractus. In such a case, the party who can be excused from performance based on the exception of an unperformed contract is the party who, in turn, can exercise the actions aimed at a possible contractual resolution with damages, since such conduct is deemed justified in the face of the counterparty's prior breach. (...) In the judgment of this Adjudicating Body, and derived from the foregoing, it is worth proceeding in accordance with the invoked exception non adimpleti contractus, if the Consortium did not execute the corresponding obligation under the contractual terms, that is, to deliver on a fixed date and in a single act, the physical plant and equipment, as the object determined by Law number 9124 called 'AUTHORIZATION TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO SIGN A PUBLIC CREDIT OPERATION AND CONSTITUTE A TRUST WITH LEASE CONTRACTS, FOR THE FINANCING OF THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE MEP AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL' (AUTORIZACIÓN AL PODER EJECUTIVO PARA SUSCRIBIR UNA OPERACIÓN DE CRÉDITO PÚBLICO Y CONSTITUIR UN FIDEICOMISO CON CONTRATOS DE ARRENDAMIENTO, PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DEL PROYECTO CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EQUIPAMIENTO DE INFRAESTRUCTURA EDUCATIVA DEL MEP A NIVEL NACIONAL), which authorized the Ministry of Public Education (Ministerio de Educación Pública) to constitute a Trust with financial lease contracts, and thus finance the Project Construction and Equipment of Educational Infrastructure of the MEP at the National Level, consisting of the construction and equipment of physical infrastructure, such as high schools, elementary schools, and multi-use sports courts for the fulfillment of its entrusted purposes, for which the Trust promoted, in what is relevant to this lawsuit, International Public Bid LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction and Equipment of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers – hereinafter LPI-01-2017, and where, in what is relevant to this file, the companies IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A., CEMEX S.A., and RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., formed the Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI, which participated in the referred Bid, being awarded three projects that were part of Lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Project code number 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Project code number 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); for a total contractual amount of USD $6,146,149.50 and on which initially the effective work start orders for the construction and equipment works in each Project of awarded Lot number 2 were given on different dates to be delivered likewise on different dates due to the singularity of each project, making it a single-act (tracto único) per project, as the delivery period was already stated under differentiated terms, as can be deduced from: a) official letter of May 18, 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. 'START ORDER – International Public Bid LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment of the Educational Center: Educational Center 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Site works shall have an effective start next Monday, May 21, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on October 21 of the current year; b) official letter of July 31, 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. START ORDER – International Public Bid LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment of Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: Site works shall have an effective start next Monday, August 6, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on January 6, 2019; and c) official letter of December 13, 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. START ORDER – International Public Bid LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment of Multi-Use Sports Court Educational Center 024-1942 Escuela Azul: Site works shall have an effective start next Monday, December 17, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (6 months), the works must be delivered on June 17, 2019, and regarding which none was delivered in the agreed form and period, that is, completely finished, it does not have the right to claim lack of due process, expressed under the opposed Latin term. For it is a matter of non-compliance by the Consortium, given the non-execution of the agreed contractual object, since clearly, from the evidence in the record, no project was duly delivered. In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber has indicated that 'In that sense, when the Administration signs a contract with a 'public purpose', precisely the one of interest in this matter, in the event it rationally desists from pursuing that purpose for which it was intended, be it public works, it may rescind (rescindir) the contract, thereby ceasing the legal reason for the persistence of the contract for its continuation, a termination that would be unilateral, constituting a kind of final act, due to the terminal effects it produces. The Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procurement, number 33411 of September 17, 2006, which came into effect on January 4, 2007 (in force at the time of the termination), provided regarding the rights and duties of the contracting parties that they may readjust or review the agreed price (ibid. 31), with the Administration holding the power to set in the bidding documents the maximum payment period, which may not exceed 30 business days or 45 business days for the Central Administration (Article 34), with interest being recognized to the contractor only if claimed (cited 34). Additionally, it adds that the contractor must monitor the procurement, executing the corresponding actions in order to guarantee correct execution of what was agreed (Art. 35), provide for the payment of fines for defects in contract execution (Art. 47) or execute the performance guarantee in case of total non-compliance (Art. 48), suspend the contract period due to force majeure or fortuitous event (Art. 199), modify the agreement unilaterally (Art. 200), enter into additional contracts for new requirements (Art. 201), suspend its execution for six months (Art. 202), resolve it for non-compliance (Art. 204), rescind the agreement (Art. 206), and it is obligated to process actions seeking the continuation of contractual execution. For its part, regarding the contractor, it indicates that it will have the right to obtain payment once the good or service has been received to satisfaction (Art. 35), the power to assign payment rights (Art. 36), and the right to subcontract up to 50% of the awarded amount (Art. 69). Consequently, it must be stated, following the Argentine treatise writer José Roberto Dromi, that "it is a primary and basic right of the Public Administration to demand the due obligation and timely execution. It also has other prerogatives and rights which are the competencies of direction, control, termination, and contractual sanction. These arise in contracts with greater or lesser intensity, without prejudice to specific contractual peculiarities, and are based on the need to ensure the public interest. However, by virtue of the fact that the administrative contract also obligates the Public Administration, the latter must fulfill a series of duties and requirements that become, in turn, rights of the contractor." (cited by Méndez Alvarado, Ana Beatriz. Elementos fundamentales de la contratación administrativa. San José, Costa Rica, Department of Publications and Printing of the Judicial Branch, 1999, page 41). The foregoing serves to deem it necessary to establish decisive guidelines derived from the facts proven by this Tribunal and thus determine the outcome of the litigation; aspects that will be set forth subsequently.

VII.- PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS AND MANDATORY APPLICATION ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. Based on the parties' arguments, the evidence admitted in these proceedings and the listed facts – both proven and unproven –, as well as the presentation of the conclusions, but particularly the normative stipulations derived from the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017 and their normative genesis, and the preamble stated ut supra in the preceding points, the Tribunal decides, as a binding criterion to apply for the resolution of this matter, to proceed to determine and establish the following criteria which, under the analysis of the object of the conflict and derived from the legal-contractual relationship between the parties, are deemed binding, related, or connected to provide the solution unanimously agreed upon by this Chamber regarding the declaration of inadmissibility or dismissal of the present lawsuit in the following scopes, when so declared.

• A)First Premise/Applicable Criterion to the sub lite. 1.- Specific and exceptional normative binding on the contracting parties. 1.1.- Public Nature of the Bid. Its basis for thus accrediting it. Resources coming from credits of multilateral organisms – such as the IDB – enter the National Budget and consequently are subject to the Public Budget and its administrative regulations; therefore, it does not hinder that the BNCR was set up as Trustee to address the commitment arising from the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017. Consequently, these resources must be the object of the respective budgetary appropriation, based on which public entities will address the commitments acquired with the purpose of providing certainty regarding the resources available to the Administration to duly meet its obligations, thus rendering the expression of the principle of legality of public spending imposed. That is, the realization in the fiscal field of the principle of legality of public action and the foundation of the Rule of Law, which finds its constitutional bases, among others, in Articles 121.15, 176 and following, and 182 of the Political Constitution. Additionally, and based on the concept of budgetary availability – due to the income of those resources – it constitutes a protective instrument of the constitutional principle of the legality of public spending, which is framed within the constitutional mandate of legality of public acts (Art. 11 CP and Art. 11 LGAP). The application of the genesis of the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017 grants it an exceptional and restrictive nature, and thus, public works contracts financed with resources from multilateral credit organizations may be subject to the regulations and even the model contracts of such organizations, as implemented in Law 9124, which establishes in its Article 2 the following: "ARTICLE 2.- Authorization to the Ministry of Public Education to constitute a trust with financial lease contracts. For the financing of these works, the trust may obtain financial resources through contracting credit with the national banking system or international banking, the issuance of securities, or the use of any other financial mechanism that is legal and technically viable. For this purpose, state banks are exempted from the credit limit established in the provision contained in numeral 5, Article 61, of Law No. 1644, Organic Law of the National Banking System. Likewise, considering the public purpose of this law, the trustee and the subsidiaries of its financial conglomerate are authorized to grant credits, endorsements, or guarantees to the trust, as well as to acquire financial instruments issued by the trust (...)". If so, Public Procurement will not be applicable to the selection processes, the conclusion, and the execution of these contracts, unless the regulations of such organizations refer to national public procurement rules, or remain silent regarding certain aspects of the contractual process or its execution. In this last case, ordinary Public Procurement will be applicable in a supplementary manner. It is important to highlight that the possibility of not applying national public procurement rules to contracts financed with resources from multilateral credit organizations is of an exceptional nature and, therefore, of restrictive application. This regime is different from that established for state contracts regulated by Law 7494 (in force at the time) or by the regulations of multilateral credit organizations, even if they are related and even in a condition of complementarity. Therefore, although contracts financed with resources from multilateral credit organizations may be subject to the regulations of such entities, they remain subject to the principles and rules of the national budget regime and obviously to those of administrative procurement. In accordance with the foregoing, the contractual administrative procedure and the respective contract financed with resources from multilateral credit organizations, and subject to the regulations of such organizations, are, as a general rule, not subject to Public Procurement. In this manner, contracts concluded by state entities with cooperation, aid, or assistance organizations, including public international law organizations, are governed by public law and, with it, the judge of disputes arising from these exceptional contracts, unless otherwise agreed incorporating an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, is the administrative litigation jurisdiction.

The Tribunal considers applicable, and in its entirety, for what will be resolved below, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (which essentially means that contracts are binding and have the force of law between the parties), the subjection and submission of the parties to the proceedings for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, according to and in accordance with the normative stipulation derived from the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, implemented in due course by means of and through its "Tender Documents for the International Public Bidding Process / Trust Agreement for the Financing of the Construction and Equipment Project 1099 of Educational Infrastructure of the Ministry of Public Education at the National Level" (Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional / Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento 1099 de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional), signed on April 10, 2013, which, endorsed by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) on July 14 of the same year, established the specific rules thereof, just as the rights and obligations of the contracting parties were defined. Said contractual practice obeys the rules of exception as a consequence of a procurement procedure exempted from the procedures stipulated in the Law of Administrative Procurement, No. 7494, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, subsection g), which states (in force at the time the exception was implemented): “Article 2.- Exceptions. The following activities are excluded from the tender procedures established in this Law: (...) g) Activities that are excluded, in accordance with the law or international instruments in force in Costa Rica.” It concerns, therefore, a contract signed as a consequence of an acquisition mechanism expressly regulated in the norms issued by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and thus, a special regulation provided by the body lending the resources (IDB), which is complemented in national legislation by the provisions of Articles 2, subsection g), of the LCA and 143 of the RLCA (in force at the time), which refer to cases of procurement excluded from ordinary tender procedures by special law, respectively stating: “Article 143.- Exclusion by international instruments. Procurements excluded from ordinary procurement procedures by special law or by an international instrument in force in Costa Rica shall be governed by said norms and respective regulations. Ordinary administrative procurement procedures shall not be applied when in the loan instruments approved by the Legislative Assembly, the use of special procurement procedures is established, or when reference is made to normative bodies prepared by the international credit organism providing the resources. In these cases, the constitutional principles of administrative procurement shall be fully applicable and in force, and the respective remedies shall apply.” Thus, it concerns a procurement process exempted from the ordinary regime, by provision of Law No. 9124, which authorized the Executive Branch to sign a Public Credit operation and constitute a Trust with Lease Contracts, for the financing of the project Construction and Equipment of Educational Infrastructure of the MEP at the national level, the which in Article 8 reiterated the obligation to subject the procurements derived from such operations and Trust to the general principles of procurement, stating: “ARTICLE 8.- Obligation to utilize the principles of administrative procurement. All bidding processes promoted by the Administration in the constitution of the trust object of this law, must apply and comply with the principles of administrative procurement, namely: effectiveness and efficiency, equality and free competition, publicity, free concurrence, equality of treatment among all potential offerors, legality and transparency of the procedures, legal certainty, formalism in bidding procedures, balance of interests, good faith, mutability of the contract, patrimonial intangibility, and control of the procedures.” By virtue of this, the contract through which the referenced Trust is constituted was endorsed by the Comptroller Body, according to official letter No. 07609 (DCA-1735) of July 24, 2013, through which it highlights the indication that, in relation to the contractual activity carried out by the trustee, “they are not subject to the ordinary procedures of the Law of Administrative Procurement, but must observe, in the procurements promoted from the trust assets, the general principles governing administrative procurement”, principles derived from Article 182 of the Political Constitution and defined by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgment number 998-98 at 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998.

• B)Second Premise/Applicable Criterion to the sub lite. 1.- "Lump Sum Type Contract" (Contrato tipo Suma Global). Its basis for thus accrediting it. Based on the preceding premise, the Tribunal considers applicable, and in its entirety, for what will be resolved below, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (as thus defined), which results in subjection and submission of the parties to the proceedings for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, to the normative stipulation derived from the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, which refers, with binding effect for the parties, the economic nature of the offers, under the so-called "Lump Sum Type Contract" (Contrato de Tipo Suma Global). Thus it was tendered, offered, and awarded, according to the constitutive guidelines contained in the bidding document reference, set forth in: Part One: Bidding Procedures, Section II. Bidding Data / H. Preparation of Offers, Subsections IAO 15.1 / Table No.3 / Lot 2, IAO 16.2, 16.3, and IAO 16.5, and which provided, under the accepted knowledge of the Consortium, the following scopes of interest: "IAO 16.2, 16.3: / The Offeror shall indicate the total prices for all design, construction, and equipment activities for each of the works defined in these bidding documents. The Offeror may submit an offer for one or more complete lots. The total prices must be indicated as a 'Lump Sum Alzada', but disaggregating the amount for each Educational Center within the lot for contractual monitoring purposes. The Contractor shall assume the costs of temporary and permanent installations for the development of the works and the payment of water and electricity services necessary for the development of the work. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to comply with all the requirements that Public Institutions request for the complete connection of Public Services (...) As this is a Design, Construction, and Equipment project, the Offeror shall make its best technical proposal in strict adherence and compliance with the available technical documents such as: soil studies, requirements and indications of plans, and in compliance with the sanitary technical specifications included in SECTION_VI._B._MINIMUM_TECHNICAL_SPECS, as well as current national regulations and good construction practices that ensure the adequate functioning of the entire system (...) Offerors are reminded of what is stated in 'Part Two. Design, Work and Equipment Requirements': '...Any additional work, extension, and/or preparation of studies that the Offeror deems necessary for the correct execution of the contract shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Contractor and shall not give rise to any additional payment or claim beyond the quoted price. The contract will be of a lump sum global type, therefore all construction risks shall be on the Contractor's account. In this sense, it must be clear that the Contractor must guarantee that each work has all the components and characteristics necessary for integrally effective operation, according to the best quality standards governing construction and as dictated by the best engineering practices and applicable laws. It shall be understood that the costs associated with all the activities and tasks that must be executed for the Design, Construction, and Equipment must be included and detailed in the price of each offer.' The estimated costs, including the deposit of the environmental guarantee, the execution and costing of the studies necessary for design and construction, registration and approval of plans before the CFIA and any other institution such as the Fire Department, Municipality, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Health, and any other entity, must be included and detailed in the price of each bid. The Contractor must include in its bid a breakdown of all amounts corresponding to fees and charges necessary to carry out the procedures and obtain approval and permits of all kinds to carry out the construction. Due to the nature of the Program, it may be the case that the Employer is exempt from payment of some of these, in which case those amounts that are successfully exempted shall be deducted from the payments to the Awardee. Those charges that do not appear in the breakdown shall not be recognized to the Contractor, as they shall be presumed included in some of the other price items. It is the Contractor's responsibility to assume the associated costs arising from the implementation of the environmental and social management plan, Supervision, Mobilization, Construction of the Works and Equipment, in accordance with the scopes defined in this bidding document, and they are included in the total bid prices (Lump Sum). The Employer shall not pay additional sums beyond those bid for any task related to the execution of the contract that is eventually signed (...) The prices of each of the Educational Centers are fixed and invariable and shall not be subject to price adjustments. Bidders must make a projection of the increases that all elements and components of the works may undergo throughout the entire construction process and consider this in the sum quoted for each School and, consequently, in the total amount of their bid. In this sense, it must be perfectly clear that the Employer expects each work to possess all the components and characteristics necessary for integrally effective operation, according to the best quality standards governing construction and according to the dictates of best engineering practices and applicable laws (...). IAO 16.5 The Employer shall make payment for the Works based on a global, fixed amount (Lump Sum, not subject to adjustments), and it is the Bidder's duty to consider in its Bid all components and inputs that could be susceptible to market variation until the completion of the contract; such that at the time of bidding the Total Price for Design, Construction and Equipment, the Bidder must consider within its bid price the provision for future price escalation throughout the entire construction and equipment period (including installation and commissioning), defined based on the behavior of those inputs in the market, as these increases may not be claimed separately." C) Third Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- "Lump Sum type contract (price) and term may vary by Modification Orders (Órdenes de Modificación, OM)". Its basis for so accrediting it. The Tribunal considers applicable, and in its entirety, for what will be resolved forthwith, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (as defined), that the subjection and submission of the parties to the process for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, to the normative stipulation derived from the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, which bindingly refers for the parties to the modifying nature of the essential scopes of the contract by means of Modification Orders, which may vary the term and the bid price as appropriate, it being understood that the request for these may be on behalf of the employer or the contractor, as is regulated in "SECTION VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS (GC)"/C. Payments and H. Modification of the Contract Elements" which in that regard stipulates: 11. Contract Price. 11.1 The Contract Price shall be that indicated in Article 2 (Contract Price and Payment Conditions) of the Agreement. 11.2 Unless an adjustment Clause is incorporated in the SC, the Contract Price shall be a fixed lump sum, which may not be modified, except in the case of a modification of the Works or if otherwise provided in the Contract (...). H. Modification of the Contract Elements" 39. Modification of the Works. 39.1 Introduction of a Modification. 39.1.1 Subject to Subclauses 39.2.5 and 39.2.7 of the GC, the Employer shall have the right to propose and subsequently to require that the Project Manager occasionally order the Contractor to make, during the performance of the Contract, any modification, change, addition, or deletion in the Works (hereinafter referred to as a “modification”), provided that such modification falls within the general scope of the Works and does not constitute unrelated work, and is technically feasible, taking into account the state of progress of the Works and the technical compatibility of the planned modification with the nature of the Works as specified in the Contract. 39.1.2 The Contractor may occasionally, during the execution of the Contract, propose to the Employer (with a copy to the Project Manager) any modification that the Contractor considers necessary or convenient to improve the quality, efficiency, or safety of the Works. The Employer may, at its discretion, approve or reject any modification proposed by the Contractor, but shall approve any modification proposed by the Contractor that is intended to ensure the safety of the Works. 39.1.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Subclauses 39.1.1 and 39.1.2 of the GC, no change resulting from a default by the Contractor of its contractual obligations shall be considered a modification, and such change shall not give rise to any adjustment of the Contract Price or the time for completion of the Works (...) 39.2 Modifications Originating from the Employer. 39.2.1 If the Employer proposes a modification in accordance with Subclause 39.1.1 of the GC, it shall send the Contractor a “Request for Modification Proposal”, requesting the Contractor to prepare and provide to the Project Manager within the shortest reasonably feasible time a “Modification Proposal” which shall include the following: (a) a brief description of the modification; (b) the effect of the modification on the time for completion; (c) the estimated cost of the modification; (d) the effect on the defined performance in the Specifications (if any); (e) the effect of the modification on the Works; (f) the effect of the modification on any other provision of the Contract. 39.2.2 Before preparing and delivering the modification proposal, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager an “Estimate of the Modification Proposal”, estimating the cost of preparing and submitting the modification proposal (...) 39.2.5 If before or during the preparation of the modification proposal it becomes apparent that the aggregate effect of executing it and any other modification orders that have become binding on the Contractor pursuant to this Clause 39 of the GC would increase or decrease the originally established Contract Price in Article 2 (Contract Price) of the Contract by more than fifteen percent (15%), the Contractor may notify its objections in writing before submitting the modification proposal in the manner indicated above. If the Employer accepts the Contractor's objections, it shall withdraw the modification proposal and notify the Contractor in writing. The failure to present objections shall not impair the Contractor's right to object to any subsequent modification requests or modification orders, nor its right to take into account, when presenting such subsequent objections, the percentage increase or decrease in the Contract Price represented by any modification not objected to by the Contractor (...) 39.3 Modifications Originating from the Contractor. 39.3.1 If the Contractor proposes a modification in accordance with Subclause 39.1.2 of the GC, the Contractor shall submit in writing to the Project Manager a “Request for Modification Proposal”, indicating the reasons for making the proposed modification and including the information specified in Subclause 39.2.1 of the GC. 39.3.2 Upon receipt of the request for modification proposal, the Parties shall follow the procedures indicated in Subclauses 39.2.6 and 39.2.7 of the GC. However, if the Employer decides not to make the modifications, the Contractor shall not be entitled to recover the costs of preparing the request for modification proposal. 40. Extension of the Time for Completion of the Works. 40.1 The time or times for completion specified in the SC in accordance with Subclause 8.2 of the GC shall be extended if the Contractor is delayed or impeded in the performance of any of its obligations under the Contract due to: (a) a modification of the Works as provided in Clause 39 of the GC; (b) a force majeure event as provided in Clause 37 of the GC, unforeseen conditions as provided in Clause 35 of the GC, or any other circumstance specified or mentioned in items (a), (b), and (c) of Subclause 32.2 of the GC; (c) a suspension order issued by the Employer pursuant to Clause 41 of the GC or a reduction in the rate of progress in accordance with Subclause 41.2 of the GC, or (d) a change in laws and regulations as provided in Clause 36 of the GC, or (e) any default or breach of the Contract by the Employer, specifically including the supply of the items listed in the corresponding appendix to the Contract Agreement, titled Scope of Works and Supply by the Employer, or any activity, act, or omission of the Employer, or the Project Manager, or any other Contractor employed by the Employer, or (f) any delay on the part of a Subcontractor, provided that such delay is due to a cause for which the Contractor itself would have been entitled to an extension of the time for completion under this Subclause, or (g) delays attributable to the Employer or caused by customs procedures, or (h) any other matter specifically mentioned in the Contract, for a period that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances and that fully reflects the delay or impediment suffered by the Contractor." D) Fourth Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The premises for rescission (rescisión) are assessed, and the binding rules defined in the bidding process subject the contracting parties for this type of early termination of the contract. Its basis for so accrediting it. The administrative contract may end through ordinary or early means. In the general or ordinary regulations on the matter, the regulation of the subject is carried out through Executive Decree No. 33411-H (RLCA – in force at the time), which uses the denomination of normal and abnormal forms of termination of contracts. In the first category, it specifies that contracts expire by the occurrence of the agreed term or by the execution of the contractual object. Regarding the abnormal (early) modalities, it indicates three premises: resolution (resolución), rescission (rescisión), or declaration of nullity. Each of these alternatives has specific factual or legal presumptions that give them place and pertinence, such that the improper use of a figure may invalidate the final act issued in that exercise. In this line, precept 11 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) regulates the power of imperium of the tendering Public Administrations (exorbitant clause) to unilaterally resolve or rescind the contract. In that sense, that norm expresses in its literal rigor: "Article 11.- Right of rescission (rescisión) and resolution (resolución) unilateral. Unilaterally, the Administration may rescind or resolve, as applicable, its contractual relationships, due to default, force majeure, act of God, or when it suits the public interest, all with adherence to due process. / When the contract is terminated for causes not attributable to the contractor, the Administration must pay for the part that has been effectively executed and compensate for the damages caused. / In cases of act of God or force majeure, only the effectively executed part and the expenses reasonably incurred by the contractor in anticipation of the total execution of the contract shall be paid. / The Administration may recognize, in the administrative venue, the extremes indicated in the preceding sections. To make the resolution effective, it must have the approval of the General Comptroller of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República)." The norm does not distinguish between the factual presumptions that give rise to each of the figures; however, the RLCA specifies the conceptual content and premises of each of the figures. In that sense, ordinal 204 of that infra-legal source indicates that the Administration "...may unilaterally resolve the contracts due to default attributable to the contractor." In the case of a default by the contractor, once the contractual resolution has been ordered, it is feasible for the Administration to execute the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento) and any other fines, if pertinent, in the event that damages have occurred as a result of the substantial default that gave rise to that modality. Thus, it is clear that resolution (resolución) involves an early form that has as its legitimizing premise the demonstration of a serious or substantial default by the contractor. By contrast, and for what is relevant to this litigious question, the contractual rescission (rescisión) constitutes a modality applicable not for the neglect of obligations assumed by the contractor, but for causes that aim to react to modifications of the contractual balance that make maintaining the contract inadvisable. That is, Article 206 of the RLCA on this particular point clearly establishes the causes that permit this figure. That norm states: "206.—Rescission (Rescisión). The Administration may unilaterally rescind its contracts, not yet started or in the course of execution, for reasons of public interest, act of God, or force majeure, duly accredited. To this end, it must issue a reasoned resolution stating the existing cause and the evidence supporting it, which shall be communicated to the contractor within a period of fifteen business days. / The entity must pay the contractor the part of the contract effectively executed, in the event it has not already done so, and the expenses that the contractor has incurred for complete execution, provided they are duly proven. / When the rescission originates from reasons of public interest, the contractor may also be recognized for any damage or harm that the termination of the contract causes, upon prior invocation and verification. / The lost profits (lucro cesante) corresponding to the unexecuted part may always be recognized within criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, evaluating aspects such as the outstanding execution period, the degree of progress of the contract execution, and the complexity of the object. When the profit has not been declared, it will be considered to be 10% of the total quoted amount." It involves the exercise of a power of imperium that enables it, under these exhaustively established causes (and only these), to unilaterally extinguish the bond. However, the norm then imposes that in such cases, as legal compensation, the Administration must indemnify the contractor for the duly proven damages. When the cause is a public interest, it must also recognize other damages and harm caused by the rescission, an indemnity that is subject to a request principle and to the effectiveness of the patrimonial injuries, which implies that they must be proven by whoever claims them, the burden of proof falling exclusively on whoever asserts the damage, its amount, and its relationship with the work ceased due to rescission. Finally, the norm imposes rules or guidelines for analyzing the issue of lost profits. All told, rescission may occur by mutual agreement; however, this modality will be admissible only in the event of the existence of reasons of public interest, and provided that a cause for resolution attributable to the contractor does not concur in the relationship. This modality is regulated in mandate 207 of the RLCA.

Beyond the foregoing, and by the exceptional route, in accordance with the First Premise/Applicable Premise. 1.- Particular and exceptional regulations binding on the contracting parties, the causes for rescission in the case of the Bidding Documents LPI-01-2017, are instrumented particularly for the parties, establishing the following:

42. Rescission (Rescisión) 42.1 Rescission for the Employer's Convenience.

42.1.1 The Employer may rescind the Contract at any time and for any reason by sending a rescission notice to the Contractor with reference to this Subclause 42.1 of the GC.

42.1.2 Upon receiving the rescission notice in accordance with Subclause 42.1.1 of the GC, the Contractor, immediately or on the date specified in the rescission notice, (a) shall suspend all work, except for that which the Employer may specify in the rescission notice for the sole purpose of protecting the already executed part of the Works, or any work required to leave the site of the Works in good conditions of cleanliness and safety; (b) shall rescind all subcontracts, except those that must be assigned to the Employer in accordance with paragraph (d)(ii) of this Subclause; (c) shall remove all of the Contractor's equipment from the site, repatriate the Contractor's and its Subcontractors' personnel, remove debris, waste, and residues of any kind from the site, and leave the site and the Works in good conditions of cleanliness and safety, and (d) subject to the payment specified in Subclause 42.1.3 of the GC, (i) shall deliver to the Employer the parts of the Works executed by the Contractor up to the date of rescission; (ii) to the extent legally possible, shall assign to the Employer all rights, titles, and benefits of the Contractor regarding the Works and the plant as of the date of rescission and, at the Employer's request, regarding any subcontracts formalized between the Contractor and its Subcontractors, and (iii) shall deliver to the Employer all drawings, specifications, and other unregistered documents prepared by the Contractor or its Subcontractors up to the date of rescission in connection with the Works.

42.1.3 In the event of rescission of the Contract in accordance with Subclause 42.1.1 of the GC, the Employer shall pay the Contractor the following sums:

(a) the Contract Price effectively attributable to the parts of the Works executed by the Contractor up to the date of rescission; (b) the costs reasonably paid by the Contractor for removing the Contractor's equipment from the Works site and for repatriating the Contractor's and its Subcontractors' personnel; (c) all sums payable by the Contractor to its Subcontractors in connection with the rescission of subcontracts, including cancellation charges; (d) the costs paid by the Contractor to protect the Works and leave the area of the Works in good conditions of cleanliness and safety in accordance with paragraph (a) of Subclause 42.1.2 of the GC; (e) the cost of satisfying all other obligations, commitments, and claims that the Contractor has in good faith assumed with third parties in relation to the Contract and that are not covered by the preceding paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d).

42.2 Rescission for Default by the Contractor 42.2.1 The Employer, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies it may have, may immediately rescind the Contract in the following circumstances by notifying the Contractor of the rescission and its reasons, with reference to this Subclause 42.2 of the GC:

(a) if the Contractor is declared bankrupt or insolvent, its assets are placed under judicial administration, it reaches a compromise with its creditors, or, when the Contractor is a legal entity, if a resolution or order has been approved ordering its liquidation (other than a voluntary liquidation for merger or reorganization purposes), a receiver has been appointed for any part of its enterprises or assets, or if the Contractor performs or is the subject of any other analogous action as a result of its debts; (b) if the Contractor assigns or transfers the Contract or any right or interest under the Contract in violation of the provisions of Clause 43 of the GC; (c) if the Contractor, in the Employer's opinion, has engaged in corrupt, collusive, coercive, fraudulent, or obstructive practices, as defined in Clause 6 of the GC, in competing for the Contract or during its execution.

42.2.2 If the Contractor:

(a) has repudiated the Contract or desisted from it, (b) without valid reason, has not promptly started work on the Works, or has suspended, for reasons other than those provided in Subclause 41.2 of the GC, the progress of performance of the Contract for more than twenty-eight (28) days after receiving a written order from the Employer to proceed, (c) persistently fails to execute the Contract in accordance with the contractual terms or persistently and without just cause neglects the fulfillment of its obligations under the Contract, (d) refuses or is unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the manner specified in the program submitted in accordance with Subclause 18.2 of the GC at a pace that gives the Employer reasonable assurance that the Contractor can complete the Works within the extended time for completion, the Employer may, without prejudice to any other right it may have under the Contract, send a notice to the Contractor indicating the nature of the default and requesting the Contractor to remedy it. If the Contractor does not remedy it or take steps to remedy it within fourteen (14) days of receiving that notice, the Employer may immediately rescind the Contract by notifying the Contractor of the rescission with reference to this Subclause 42.2 of the GC.

42.2.3 Upon receiving the rescission notice in accordance with Subclauses 42.2.1 or 42.2.2 of the GC, the Contractor, immediately or on the date specified in the rescission notice:

(a) shall suspend all work, except for that which the Employer may specify in the rescission notice for the sole purpose of protecting the already executed part of the Works, or any work required to leave the site of the Works in good conditions of cleanliness and safety; (b) shall rescind all subcontracts, except those that must be assigned to the Employer in accordance with the provisions set forth below in paragraph (d); (c) shall deliver to the Employer the parts of the Works executed by the Contractor up to the date of rescission; (d) to the extent legally possible, shall assign to the Employer all rights, titles, and benefits of the Contractor regarding the Works and the plant as of the date of rescission and, at the Employer's request, regarding all subcontracts formalized between the Contractor and its Subcontractors; (e) shall deliver to the Employer all drawings, specifications, and other documents prepared by the Contractor or its Subcontractors up to the date of rescission in connection with the Works.

42.2.4 The Employer may enter the site of the Works, expel the Contractor, and complete the Works itself or through the use of a third party. The Employer may, regardless of the Contractor's rights in this regard, take and use, upon payment of a fair rental to the Contractor, the equipment owned by the Contractor that is on the site in connection with the Works for a reasonable period that the Employer considers appropriate for the supply and assembly of the Works; in such a case, the Employer shall bear all maintenance expenses for said equipment and shall pay due compensation for any liability involving damage or harm to persons as a consequence of the use of said equipment by the Employer. Upon completion of the Works or at an earlier date that the Employer considers appropriate, the Employer shall notify the Contractor that the Contractor's equipment will be returned to the latter at or near the site of the Works and shall return that equipment to the Contractor in accordance with that notice. The Contractor shall then remove or cause to be removed without delay and at its cost that equipment from the site.

42.2.5 Subject to Subclause 42.2.6 of the GC, the Contractor shall be entitled to be paid the Contract Price corresponding to the Works executed up to the date of rescission, the value of the plant not used or partially used on the site of the Works, and the expenses (if any) incurred by the Contractor to protect the Works and to leave the site in good conditions of cleanliness and safety in accordance with paragraph (a) of Subclause 42.2.3 of the GC. All sums owed to the Employer by the Contractor that have accrued prior to the date of termination shall be deducted from the amount payable to the Contractor under this Contract.

42.2.6 If the Employer completes the Works, the cost of completing the Works by the Employer shall be determined. If the sum to which the Contractor is entitled under Subclause 42.2.5 of the GC, plus the reasonable costs that the Employer had to cover to complete the Works, exceeds the Contract Price, the Contractor shall be responsible for that excess. If that excess amount is greater than the sums owed to the Contractor under Subclause 42.2.5 of the GC, the Contractor shall pay the balance to the Employer, and if the excess is less than the sums owed to the Contractor under Subclause 42.2.5 of the GC, the Employer shall pay the balance to the Contractor. The Employer and the Contractor shall agree in writing on the calculation described above and on the payment modalities for any balance.

42.3 Rescission by the Contractor 42.3.1 If: (a) the Employer has failed to pay the Contractor the sums owed under the Contract within the specified period, has refused to approve invoices or supporting documents without valid reason in accordance with the appendix to the Agreement titled "Payment Conditions and Procedures", or has incurred a substantial breach of the Contract, the Contractor may send a notice to the Employer demanding payment of such sums with interest as stipulated in Subclause 12.3 of the GC, requesting the approval of those invoices or supporting documents, or specifying the breach and demanding that the Employer remedy it, as the case may be.

If the Employer does not pay those sums with the corresponding interest, does not approve those invoices or supporting documents nor give its reasons for denying such approval, or does not remedy the breach nor take measures to remedy it within fourteen (14) days following receipt of the Contractor's notification, or (b) the Contractor is unable to perform any of its obligations under the Contract for reasons attributable to the Employer, including, among other things, the fact that the Employer has not given possession of or access to the Site of the Works or to other places, or has not obtained a government permit necessary for the execution and/or completion of the Works, the Contractor may send a notification to the Employer, and if the Employer has not paid the outstanding sums, approved the invoices or supporting documents, given its reasons for denying such approval, or remedied the breach within twenty-eight (28) days following the notification, or if the Contractor is still unable to fulfill any of its obligations under the Contract for any reason attributable to the Employer within twenty-eight (28) days after the notification, the Contractor may, by further notice to the Employer with reference to this Sub-Clause 42.3.1 of the GC, terminate the Contract immediately.

42.3.2 The Contractor may terminate the Contract immediately by notice to that effect to the Employer, with reference to this Sub-Clause 42.3.2 of the GC, if the Employer is declared bankrupt or insolvent, its assets are placed under judicial administration, it enters into a compromise with its creditors, or, where the Employer is a legal entity, if a resolution or order has been approved providing for its winding-up (other than a voluntary winding-up for the purposes of merger or reorganization), a receiver has been appointed for any part of its undertakings or assets, or if the Employer takes or is subject to any other analogous action as a consequence of its debts.

42.3.3 If the Contract is terminated pursuant to Sub-Clauses 42.3.1 or 42.3.2 of the GC, the Contractor shall immediately (a) suspend all work, except for such work as may be necessary for the purpose of protecting that part of the Works already executed, or intended to leave the Site of the Works in a clean and safe condition; (b) terminate all subcontracts, except those to be assigned to the Employer in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (d) (ii) below; (c) remove all Contractor's Equipment from the Site of the Works and repatriate the Contractor's and its Subcontractors' personnel; and (d) subject to the payment specified in Sub-Clause 42.3.4 of the GC, (i) deliver to the Employer the parts of the Works executed by the Contractor as of the date of termination; (ii) to the extent legally possible, assign to the Employer all of the Contractor's rights, title, and benefits in respect of the Works and the Plant as of the date of termination and, at the Employer's request, in respect of any subcontracts entered into between the Contractor and its Subcontractors; and (iii) deliver to the Employer all drawings, specifications, and other documents prepared by the Contractor or its Subcontractors as of the date of termination in connection with the Works.

42.3.4 If the Contract is terminated pursuant to Sub-Clauses 42.3.1 or 42.3.2 of the GC, the Employer shall pay the Contractor all sums specified in Sub-Clause 42.1.3 of the GC, together with reasonable compensation for all losses (except loss of profit) or damages suffered by the Contractor as a result of or arising out of or in connection with such termination.

42.3.5 Termination by the Contractor pursuant to this Sub-Clause 42.3 of the GC shall be without prejudice to any other right or remedy that the Contractor may exercise in lieu of or in addition to the rights conferred under Sub-Clause 42.3 of the GC.

42.4 In this Clause 42 of the GC, the expression "Works executed" shall include all work executed, installation services provided, and all items of Plant acquired (or subject to a legally binding obligation to purchase) by the Contractor and used or intended to be used for the purposes of the Works, up to and including the date of termination.

42.5 In this Clause 42 of the GC, in calculating the sums owed by the Employer to the Contractor, account shall be taken of all sums previously paid by the Employer to the Contractor under the Contract, including advance payments made in accordance with the appendix to the Agreement entitled "Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago." E) Fifth Consideration/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The works are of independent execution. Of its basis for so accrediting it. The Tribunal considers applicable and in its entirety, for what will be resolved below, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (as thus defined), that the parties to the proceeding for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, are subject and bound to the normative stipulation derived from the Tender Document LPI-01-2017, which implicitly but bindingly for the parties refers that the mode of execution and construction of the awarded works - in three projects that formed part of lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 called Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Project code number 024-1942 called Escuela Azul. 3. Project code 058-0870 called Escuela La Hermosa, correspond to completely independent executions from one another, and the contractor has full discretion in its management, planning, and execution, even though they are part of the same contract or awarded lot, as indicated in: "18. Work Program. 18.1 Contractor's Organization. The Contractor shall provide to the Employer and the Project Manager, within twenty-one (21) days from the effective date, the organization chart it proposes to carry out the activities on the Works. The identity of the key personnel proposed to be employed, along with the professional background of such personnel, shall be attached to the organization chart. The Contractor shall promptly inform the Employer and the Project Manager in writing of any rectification or modification of said organization chart. 18.2 Execution Program. Within twenty-eight (28) days following the effective date, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager a detailed program for the execution of the Contract, which shall be prepared in a form acceptable to the Project Manager and shall indicate the sequence proposed for designing, and constructing the Works, as well as the date by which the Contractor reasonably requires that the Employer has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in order to enable the Contractor to execute the Contract in accordance with the program and achieve the completion, commissioning, and acceptance of the Works in accordance with the Contract. The program submitted by the Contractor must conform to the Implementation Plan included in the appendix to the Agreement entitled "Plan de Ejecución" and to any other time periods and dates specified in the Contract. The Contractor shall update and rectify the program as appropriate and when so requested by the Project Manager, but without modifying the times for completion of the Works established in the SC pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.2 or the extensions granted pursuant to Clause 40 of the GC, and shall submit all such rectifications to the Project Manager. 18.3 Progress Report. The Contractor shall monitor the progress of all activities specified in the program referred to in Sub-Clause 18.2 above and shall submit to the Project Manager a monthly progress report on the work. The progress report on the work shall be submitted in a form acceptable to the Project Manager. Said report shall (a) indicate the percentage of completion achieved compared with the percentage of completion planned for each activity, and (b) where an activity is behind schedule relative to the program, include observations, explain the likely consequences, and indicate the corrective measures being taken. 18.4 Progress in Compliance with the Program. If at any time the Contractor's actual progress falls behind the program mentioned in Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC, or if it becomes evident that such delay will occur, the Contractor shall, at the request of the Employer or the Project Manager, prepare and submit to the Project Manager a modified program, taking into account the prevailing circumstances, and shall inform the Project Manager of the measures taken to accelerate the activities in order to complete the Works within the time for completion stipulated in accordance with Sub-Clause 8.2 of the GC, any extensions of said time granted in accordance with Sub-Clause 40.1 of the GC, or any extension that the Employer and the Contractor may agree upon. 18.5 Procedures. The Contract shall be executed in accordance with the Contract documents and the procedures established in the section of the Design and Works Requirements entitled Formularios y Procedimientos. The Contractor may execute the Contract in accordance with its own standard project execution plans and procedures, provided they do not conflict with the provisions contained in the Contract ...". Likewise, it must be considered accredited in Tender Document LPI-01-2017, which governs the rules of the contract and therefore the projects to be carried out, that the existence of correspondence and linkage for the joint execution of the works cannot be interpreted, but on the contrary, the commencement orders for each project are determined singularly; this is verified in accordance with Sub-Clause 2.1 subsection 3), fourth paragraph of the Special Conditions of the Tender Document, wherein the management of each educational center must be carried out individually. All procedures, acceptance deadlines, and guarantees must be adapted to the particularities of each project. That is, the issuance of the commencement orders was agreed upon individually, thus constituting a design, construction, and equipping process, in which particularities unrelated to the other educational centers among themselves arise, leading to the logical conclusion that the execution of each and every one of the stages of the works was defined according to the business strategy and management responsibility of the same by the awarded Consortium.

• F)Sixth Consideration/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- Payment by completed milestone (100%). Of its basis for so accrediting it. The Tribunal considers applicable and in its entirety, for what will be resolved below, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (as thus defined), that the parties to the proceeding for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, are subject and bound, in accordance with the terms established in the Tender Document and the contract, and in accordance with the very nature of the "Lump Sum Type Contract, the agreed payment milestones become effective only upon 100% of their completion (Clause 12 of the General Conditions of Tender Document LPI-01-2017 - "12. Payment Conditions. 12.1 The Contract Price shall be paid as specified in Article 2 (Contract Price and Payment Conditions) of the Form of Agreement and in the appendix to the Agreement entitled "Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago", which also describes the procedures to be followed for requesting and processing payments" -, /C. Appendix 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago - "Payment request for a completed milestone Once each milestone is completed, the Contractor shall deliver to the Works Manager an invoice accompanied by a statement with six copies in a format previously approved by the Works Manager, including in detail the amounts to which the Contractor considers itself entitled, together with supporting documents, which shall include the progress report for the milestone in question in accordance with Clause 18.3 of the GC. This payment request for a completed milestone shall correspond to the breakdown explained below...".
• G)Seventh Consideration/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The advance of funds must be guaranteed and constitutes an advance on the global price once the work is delivered and is offsettable against the resulting value of unfinished works. Of its basis for so accrediting it. The Tribunal considers applicable and in its entirety, for what will be resolved below, and by virtue of the principle "Pacta sunt servanda" (as thus defined), that the parties to the proceeding for the contracted public work, and the present controversy raised, are subject and bound, in accordance with the terms established in the Tender Document and the contract, that the contractor may request a limited but guaranteed advance (C. Appendix 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago of Tender Document LPI-01-2017 / Art. 13. of the General Conditions of Tender Document LPI-01-2017 / "Advance Payment. 1. The Contractor may request an advance payment of up to 15% of the total awarded contract amount, as an interest-free loan and for the purpose of mobilization and cash flow, provided that it delivers in exchange an advance payment guarantee for the same amount in accordance with Sub-Clause 11.2 of the GC. 2. The Advance Payment shall be amortized through deductions of the same percentage requested, from all contract payments until its complete reimbursement (excluding those corresponding to the Advance Payment itself). If the advance payment has not been amortized before the Certificate of Completion of the Works or before termination pursuant to Clause 42 of the GC, then the entire balance outstanding at that time shall be paid immediately by the Contractor to the Employer. Said payment may be made in accordance with the following detail: a. It shall be deducted from the outstanding balances for work yet to be invoiced or from any payment owed by the Employer; or b. By bank deposit in favor of the Employer. In the event that the Contractor does not return the outstanding balance of the advance payment, the Employer shall proceed with the execution of the advance payment guarantee." / 13. Guarantees 13.1 Provision of Guarantees. The Contractor shall provide the Employer with the guarantees specified below within the time, for the amount, and in the form specified below. 13.2 Advance Payment Guarantee 13.2.1 The Contractor shall provide, within twenty-eight (28) days after notification of the Contract award, a guarantee for an amount equal to the advance payment calculated in accordance with the appendix to the Agreement entitled "Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago" and in the same currency or currencies. 13.2.2 The guarantee shall be provided in the form provided for in the bidding documents or in another form acceptable to the Employer. The amount of the guarantee shall be reduced in proportion to the value of the Works executed by the Contractor and paid periodically to it, and shall be automatically cancelled when the Employer has recovered the full amount of the advance payment. The guarantee shall be returned to the Contractor immediately after its expiry." VIII.- DULY SUPPORTED ALLEGATIONS.

It must be established at once that, in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, claims must meet minimum, basic, and necessary formalities to challenge the formal activity of the Administration. In the specific case of administrative acts, whether final, definitive, or procedural acts with their own effect (Article 36 subsection c of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), when their nullity is sought before this jurisdiction, the plaintiff is required, at a minimum, to take care to explain what the defect or defects are that concur in the questioned formal administrative conduct and the element or elements of that conduct that are affected by the defects alleged, as well as the magnitude of the incidence to determine the potency of the defect, whether relative or absolute, and its impact within the structure of the administrative act. That is, one must indicate and develop either the error or the omission contained in the challenged conduct and then establish to what degree or extent those apparent defects affect the formal elements (form of expression, motivation, and procedure) or the material elements thereof (competence, investiture, standing, will, grounds, content, and purpose) in accordance with the rules of the theory of the administrative act, sufficiently developed in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, case law, and doctrine. All these formalities, which are very basic and do not imply great complexity, are necessary for the Judge to be able to review the questioned formal conduct from the viewpoint of that which is reproached as the limit of the required legality review. It must be remembered that this review of the legality of administrative activity is not carried out ex officio, given that in this jurisdiction the dispositive principle and the principle of congruence apply fully, procedural principles that must be respected by the parties and that constitute the limit of the Judges' action, given the burden of proof lies with the challenger to rebut the presumption of validity of those formal conducts of the administration. Thus, it is incumbent upon the moving party to explain technically, in the pleading of the claim, what the grounds of illegality are that the challenged act or acts suffer from and that are alleged to be non-conforming with the legal system, as can be seen from the petition in the claims of the lawsuit, and consequently, to duly demonstrate them, it not being the Judges' duty to guess or speculate within the universality of non-conformities reproached and the universality of remedies invoked, what the litigant's reasoning is, much less must the Judge force their judgment in that attempt, under penalty of incurring in arbitrariness or excesses not permitted by the legal system, such as procedural imbalance. In this case, an attempt will be made, based on the plaintiff's statements, to summarize the main reproaches in order to unravel the matter in dispute.

IX.- OF THE REPROACH REGARDING CONTRACT TERMINATION AND RELATED SITUATIONS.- 1.- ALLEGATION OF NON-CONFORMITY AND NULLITY.

Thus, specifically, and from what is set forth in facts 45 and 46 of the claim and its opposition by the Trust, the non-conformity and nullity of the unilateral termination by the Employer of contract No. 88-2017 are alleged, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, which took effect as of July 15, 2020, the date on which the Consortium was notified through official communication FID-2692-2020, and the unilateral termination of contract No. 88-2017 regarding project 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, which took effect as of June 26, 2020, the date on which the Consortium was notified through official communication FID-2493-2020, on the occasion of the appeals for revocation sent in official communications: GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-557, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-558, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-560, regarding the responses issued by the Trust to said official communications that were received on August 27, 2020, through FID-3278-2020 for Escuela La Hermosa, on September 9, 2020, for Liceo Rural Santa Rosa in official communication FID-3468-2020, and on September 11, 2020, for Escuela Azul through FID-3522-2020.

2.- OBJECT OF NON-CONFORMITY. In this regard, the discussion of the termination concerns the object of the award given in Lot 2 to the Consortium and corresponding to Contract No. 88-2017, regarding the following educational centers:

? No. 058-0870 Escuela Hermosa, to be built on property with cadastral plan 1-1527823-2011, with an Estimated construction period (months) = 5, Construction area according to preliminary designs = 2031.88, and Estimated cost $ = 1,193,934.96.

? No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul, to be built on property with cadastral plan C-1747232-2012, with an Estimated construction period (months) = 6, Construction area according to preliminary designs = 5289.88, and Estimated cost $ = 3,142,305.16.

? No. 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, to be built on property with cadastral plan C-1213011-2008, with an Estimated construction period (months) = 5, Construction area according to preliminary designs = 1385.22, and Estimated cost $ = 1,116,204.09, 3.- OBSERVATIONS ON THE TERMINATION. Given the preceding normative framework, and in consideration of the criteria set forth in previous Considering VII, Sections A through G, the Tribunal finds it proven that the Trust ordered the termination resolutions on the contracts corresponding to Educational Center 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa, Educational Center No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, and Educational Center 24-1942 Escuela Azul as follows:

• 1)Official communication FID-2493-2020 of June 29, 2020, by which the request for termination for the contractor's convenience raised by the Consortium is rejected, and in turn, the unilateral termination by the Employer of contract No. 88-2017 is declared regarding Educational Center 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa. Said communication, in what is relevant, bases the grounds for termination on the following reason: "Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa should have been delivered on January 23, 2019. As of June 8, 2020, the date on which the Consortium withdrew from the project, a delay of 502 days was recorded, with respect to the date on which the project should have been delivered. In a meeting held with the consortium on June 10, 2020, you informed us that as of June 8, 2020, you had withdrawn from the projects, including the security services, having already far exceeded the delay time necessary to reach the 10% maximum charge allowed for this concept, this constitutes an additional reason to proceed with the termination of the contract due to the contractor's serious breach, since it triggers what is stipulated in sub-clause 42.2.2, in paragraphs (c) and (d) which state respectively: '…persistently omits to execute the Contract in accordance with the contractual terms or persistently neglects without just cause the fulfillment of its obligations under the Contract…', '…refuses or is unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the manner specified in the program submitted in accordance with Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC at a rate that gives the Employer reasonable assurance that the Contractor can complete the Works within the extended time for completion…'. Having seen and verified the mentioned breaches, we proceed to issue this contractual termination decision, and the Consortium is warned to comply with the provisions of sub-clause 42.2.3 of the General Conditions of the tender document that forms part of the contract. In relation to what is indicated in the foregoing sub-clause, and given the situation of unilateral and voluntary withdrawal that the Contractor made from the project, the following is clarified: - In relation to subsection (a), it is not appropriate for any work to continue for the purpose of protecting the part of the Works already executed, or any other work to leave the Site of the Works in clean and safe conditions; - In relation to subsection (b), the Contractor is not required to assign any subcontract to the Employer; - As for subsection (c), due to the unilateral and voluntary withdrawal that the Contractor made from the site of the works, it has already been taken over by the Employer, therefore this subsection is inapplicable. - As for subsections (d) and (e), the delivery of red line drawings, manuals, latest invoices for payment of basic services, due diligence, etc., is required, therefore you are warned to proceed in accordance with what is indicated therein, within a maximum period of 5 business days. 3.- For all the foregoing and having proven the flagrant violations by the Contractor Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO, of the provisions stipulated in the contract to proceed with the termination, and also proven the breach regarding the delivery deadline of the works, besides having desisted from the contract, IT IS ORDERED: the unilateral Termination by the Employer of contract No. 88-2017 regarding Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, which takes effect upon communication of this decision." 2) Official communication FID-2692-2020 of July 13, 2020, by which the request for termination for the contractor's convenience raised by the Consortium is rejected, and in turn, the unilateral termination by the Employer of projects No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul is declared. Said communication, in what is relevant, bases the grounds for termination on the following reason: "was disrespected by the Consortium by having abandoned the works, with which it clearly 'desisted' from the contract and constitutes an additional cause for the Employer to terminate the contract, under the cover of the provisions of numbers 42.2.2 and 40.2.2, subsections a), c), and d). 2.- On the other hand, the Liceo de Santa Rosa should have been delivered on April 15, 2020, therefore the penalties indicated in sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the tender document, which forms part of the contractual conditions, apply to it, which states the following: 'The compensation shall be 2.5 per thousand, per day of delay, of the total contract amount... (h) If the sum of penalties reaches 10% of the MCA, which shall be understood as the maximum deduction, it shall be considered a serious breach and the Employer shall be empowered to unilaterally resolve the contract. In any case, the sum of penalties applied shall not exceed 10% of the MCA…' In the specific case of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, in addition, the serious breach indicated in sub-clause 26.2 applies, given that the budget contained in subsection h) is reached at 40 days of delay in the delivery of the center, therefore, given that as of today it accounts for 72 days of recorded delay, this exceeds the maximum established to give rise to the termination of the contract. Regarding the 'Guarantee of the Time for Completion,' sub-clause 26.2 of the General Conditions of the tender document states: '26.2 If the Contractor does not complete the Works or any part thereof within the time for completion or the extension of that time in accordance with Clause 40 of the GC, the Contractor shall pay to the Employer damages in the amount specified in the SC, equivalent to a percentage of the Contract price, or the pertinent part thereof. The total amount of such damages shall in no case exceed the amount specified in the SC as the "maximum deduction." Once the maximum deduction is reached, the Employer may consider the possibility of terminating the Contract in accordance with Sub-Clause 42.2.2 of the GC.' For its part, Sub-Clause 26.2 of the special conditions of the tender document states: '... (h) If the sum of penalties reaches 10% of the MCA, which shall be understood as the maximum deduction, it shall be considered a serious breach and the Employer shall be empowered to unilaterally resolve the contract…' Therefore, having already far exceeded the delay time necessary to reach the 10% maximum charge allowed for this concept, this constitutes an additional reason to proceed with the termination of the contract due to the contractor's serious breach, since what is stipulated in sub-clause 42.2.2 is triggered. 3.- In a meeting held with the consortium you represent on June 10, 2020, you informed us that as of June 8, 2020, you had withdrawn from the projects, alleging contractual termination. We consider that the unilateral termination carried out by the consortium IDECORUCO-GCI, which included the withdrawal of the security guards from the works under construction, lacks procedural formality and correct application of the contractual conditions. The abandonment of the works caused the Trust's immediate action for the due safeguarding of the investments; by assigning the corresponding security and taking possession of the centers under construction." In view of the foregoing, we consider that the contractor is subject to sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-clause 42.2.2 of the bidding documents for LPI-01-2016 (sic) as an additional ground for terminating Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul: “…persistently fails to perform the Contract in accordance with the contractual terms or persistently and without just cause neglects the performance of its obligations under the Contract,…”, “…refuses or is unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the manner specified in the program submitted pursuant to Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC at a rate that gives the Contracting Authority reasonable assurance that the Contractor can complete the Works within the extended time for completion…” Having observed and verified the aforementioned breaches, we hereby issue this decision of contract termination and warn the Consortium to comply with the provisions of sub-clause 42.2.3 of the General Conditions of the bidding documents that form part of the contract, which reads as follows: “Upon receipt of the notice of termination pursuant to Sub-Clauses 42.2.1 or 42.2.2 of the GC, the Contractor shall, immediately or on the date specified in the notice of termination: (a) cease all work, except for such work as the Contracting Authority may specify in the notice of termination for the sole purpose of protecting that part of the Works already executed, or any work required to leave the Site in a clean and safe condition; (b) terminate all subcontracts, except those to be assigned to the Contracting Authority in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) below; (c) deliver to the Contracting Authority the parts of the Works executed by the Contractor up to the date of termination; (d) to the extent legally possible, assign to the Contracting Authority all of the Contractor’s rights, title, and benefits in respect of the Works and the plant as of the date of termination and, at the request of the Contracting Authority, in respect of all subcontracts entered into between the Contractor and its Subcontractors; (e) deliver to the Contracting Authority all drawings, specifications, and other documents prepared by the Contractor or its Subcontractors up to the date of termination in connection with the Works.” In relation to the provisions of the preceding sub-clause, and given the situation of the Contractor’s unilateral and voluntary withdrawal from the project, the following is clarified: - Regarding subsection (a), it is not appropriate to continue with any work intended to protect the part of the Works already executed, or any other work to leave the Site in a clean and safe condition; - Regarding subsection (b), the Contractor is not required to assign any subcontract to the Contracting Authority; - Regarding subsection (c), due to the Contractor’s unilateral and voluntary withdrawal from the Site, it has already been taken over by the Contracting Authority, and therefore this subsection is inapplicable. - Regarding subsections (d) and (e), the delivery of red-line drawings, manuals, latest utility payment invoices, due diligence, etc., is required, and therefore the Contractor is warned to proceed in accordance with the provisions therein, within a maximum period of 5 business days. 3.- For all of the foregoing reasons, and the flagrant violations by the Contractor Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO of the provisions stipulated in the contract having been verified as grounds for termination, and the breach regarding the delivery deadline for the works having also been verified, in addition to having withdrawn from the contract, IT IS ORDERED: the unilateral termination by the Contracting Authority of Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, which shall take effect upon notification of this decision." 4.- COMMON GROUNDS FOR THE ORDERED TERMINATION: The following situations of interest, for which the general termination was ordered for the works contained in Contract 88-2017, are extracted from those communications:
• a)Failure to timely deliver the contract: There was no delivery by the agreed date: of the Educational Center Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870 (it was due for delivery on January 23, 2019, and as of June 8, 2020, a delay of 502 days was recorded, relative to the date on which the project should have been delivered). Educational Center Liceo de Santa Rosa 23-5969 (it was due for delivery on April 15, 2020, accounting for 72 days of recorded delay relative to the date on which the project should have been delivered). Educational Center Escuela Azul 24-1942 (it was due for delivery on May 28, 2020, but as of June 8, 2020, it had withdrawn from the work (paragraphs 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the bidding documents) b) Abandonment of the contract: the Consortium withdrew from the projects on June 8, 2020, including security services, without completing the works - paragraph 42.2.2 and 40.2.2, subsections a), c) and d) -, for which reason, given that circumstance, the termination was justified.
• c)Refusing to or being unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the specified manner: because the delay time necessary to reach the maximum 10% allowed charge for this concept was exceeded, a situation which triggers the provisions of sub-clause 42.2.2, in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d), which respectively state: “…persistently fails to perform the Contract in accordance with the contractual terms or persistently and without just cause neglects the performance of its obligations under the Contract…”, “…refuses or is unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the manner specified in the program submitted pursuant to Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC at a rate that gives the Contracting Authority reasonable assurance that the Contractor can complete the Works within the extended time for completion…” 5.- THE TERMINATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ACCREDITED REASONS THAT IMPLY A CRITERION OF ATTRIBUTION, THE BASIS FOR THE LIABILITY SOUGHT AND ITS DECLARATION OF NON-CONFORMITY. CONSEQUENT INADMISSIBILITY OF THE TERMINATION ACTION BY THE CONSORTIUM. INADMISSIBILITY OF DECLARING THE PLAINTIFF'S SUBJECTIVE RIGHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT NO. 88-2017 FOR CONVENIENCE WITH RESPECT TO EDUCATIONAL CENTER N° 058-070 ESCUELA HERMOSA, N° 23-5969 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA AND N° 24-1942 ESCUELA AZUL.

In the present case, as proven, the regulations of the bidding documents established, with binding force for the parties, application criteria, among others:

• A)First Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- Particular and exceptional binding regulations for the contracting parties. 1.1.- Public Nature of the Tender.
• B)Second Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- "Lump Sum Type Contract".
• C)Third Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- "Lump Sum Type Contract (price) and term may vary by Modification Orders MO".
• D)Fourth Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The grounds for termination are assessed, and the binding rules defined in the tender bind the contracting parties for this type of early contract termination.
• E)Fifth Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The works are of independent execution.
• F)Sixth Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- Payment per completed milestone (100%). G) Seventh Premise/Criterion applicable to the sub lite. 1.- The advance of funds must be guaranteed and constitutes an advance against the lump sum price once the work is delivered and is offsettable against the resulting value of unfinished works.

Thus, the administrative contract clearly contained a defined object, a certain and determined duration period, a fixed lump sum price, and single-performance obligations, which are identified with the deliveries of each of the projects, which, in turn, were being fulfilled with the progress of each deliverable milestone at 100% of its execution. It is on record that the plaintiff not only accepted, at the time of submitting the bid to participate in Public Tender 01-2017, but also knew, the terms under which the validity period, the constitution of milestones for partial payments would be regulated (the delivery of work by milestones is a way of managing delivery and payments, but does not change the nature of the work contract as a single-performance contract; thus, milestones are key points in the project schedule that indicate significant progress or the completion of a phase, which may be used for managing partial payments, but do not modify the nature of the single-performance contract, which focuses on final delivery. The completed work is the single performance carried out over time, and the milestones are reference points for project management), the possible extensions through Service Orders, Suspension Orders, and Modification Orders. Now, if we look at the termination act that produces direct legal effects, suspends procedures and/or puts an end to the contract itself, then what we have, it can be affirmed, is a final ablative act, and that is precisely what occurred in this case; therefore, to invoke its invalidity, the reason for its issuance had to be challenged.

As is evident from what this Tribunal deems proven in proven facts 31 to 38, it happened that the Consortium, by communication dated May 22, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539, informed the Trust of "Termination due to substantial breach of contract by the Trust for having failed to safeguard the principle of maintaining the economic equilibrium of the contracts associated with Public Tenders LPI 01, LPI 02 and LPI 04, which constitutes a substantial breach and its unilateral and arbitrary decision not to resort to the establishment of the Dispute Resolution Board, this with respect to the amounts owed for execution of works in the construction contracts of Tenders LPI01, LPI02 and LP04, by not restoring the contractual economic equilibrium of all our contracts. We request to proceed with the payment of the total sum of $5,404,235.98 (five million four hundred four thousand two hundred thirty-five dollars and ninety-eight cents), which represents twenty-six point seventy-five (26.75) percent of the total sum of the amounts of the contracts signed with your represented entity, in order to continue executing our obligations. Otherwise, the contracts of Tenders LPI 01, LPI 02 and LPI 04 will be automatically terminated." That was the reason for its warning to unilaterally impose termination. Subsequently, given the previous notice, the same Consortium, by communication dated June 24, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548, notified the Trust of its unilateral application of paragraph 42.3 Termination by the Contractor. 42.3.1 If: (...) stating that: "Therefore, given that more than twenty-eight (28) days have passed since the notification made to the Trust on May 22, 2020, without the Trust having remedied the alleged breach, the Consortium can no longer continue with the obligations of this Contract, due to reasons that are directly attributable to the Contracting Authority, therefore this Contract is hereby unilaterally terminated and the works become the exclusive responsibility of the Trust. Likewise, since the Contract is terminated, I request payment of the following milestones or items for a total amount of $2,225,335.11: 1. Pending payment milestones for settlement of project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: ? COMPLEMENTARY AND EXTERNAL WORKS for an amount of $31,667.80, ? Slope improvement - reinforced earth walls - for an amount of $274,142.53, 2. Pending payment milestones for settlement of project 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Windows and doors for an amount of $63,104.08, ? Painting for an amount of $31,552.05, ? Electrical systems - wiring and service connection - for an amount of $63,104.08, ? Electrical systems - devices and accessories - for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Mechanical systems - modules - for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Mechanical systems - exteriors - for an amount of $29,891.41, ? Complementary and external works for an amount of $119,565.63, 3. Pending payment milestones for settlement of project 024-1942 Escuela Azul: ? Structural ramp concrete: for an amount of $189,961 ? Electrical systems - ductwork -: for an amount of $47,490.50, ? Mechanical systems - modules -: for an amount of $31,660.00, ? Underlayments - 100% poured progress -: for an amount of $31,660.00, 4. Furthermore, the immediate return of the performance guarantees must proceed (Performance 21655 Promerica $88,849.28, Performance 21666 Promerica $288,849.26, Performance 24515 Promerica $251,534.61, Performance 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN $50,000.00, Performance 4245422 BAC $36,916.41, Advance 23828 Promerica $246,949.87, Advance 23835 Promerica $168,235.19, Advance 23829 Promerica $74,728.52, Advance 25107 Promerica $45,690.57. Total $1,251,753.71.

Faced with that described situation, and in the interim of the Consortium's communications, the Trust, by communication dated June 11, 2020, FID-2213-2020, sent the IDB a "No Objection Request" to terminate Contract No. 88-2017, with the Consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI, with respect to Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, justifying it as follows: "The foregoing, due to the delay of 503 days recorded as of June 10, 2020, in the delivery of the Educational Center Escuela La Hermosa, awarded to the Consortium. This Center was due for delivery on January 23, 2019, and the contractor was so advised according to the attached note “19.01.24_SUP.RD.124_VENCIMIENTO DEL PLAZO DE EJECUCIÓN - ESCUELA LA HERMOSA”. The no objection request to terminate the contract is made upon compliance with the provisions of sub-clause 26.2 of the bidding documents." Similarly, by communication dated June 29, 2020, FID-2495-2020, with the same intention, it sent the IDB a No Objection Request to terminate Contract No. 88-2017, with the consortium Ruco-Ideco-GCI, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, but on this occasion, due to the effects of communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548, notifying them "that they applied unilateral termination as of June 8, 2020, in the works still under construction that were awarded to them in processes LPI-02-2016, LPI-04-2016 and LPI-01-2017. The unilateral termination carried out by the consortium IDECO-RUCO-GCI included the withdrawal of security guards from the works under construction. We consider that this action by the contractor lacks procedural formality and correct application of the contractual conditions. The abandonment of the works caused the immediate action of the Trust to procure security and take possession of the centers under construction. In view of the foregoing, we consider that clause 42.2.2 of the bidding documents for LPI-04-2016 applies to the contractor, as a ground for terminating the contract indicated in the reference with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul. (...) "the Liceo de Santa Rosa was due for delivery on April 15, 2020, therefore the penalties set forth in sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the bidding documents apply (...) "In the specific case of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, furthermore, the serious breach indicated in sub-clause 26.2 applies, given that the budget containing subsection h) is reached at 40 days of delay in the delivery of the center, therefore, given that as of today it accounts for 72 days of recorded delay, this exceeds the maximum established for giving rise to the termination of the contract." Continuing with the procedure set forth in the Bidding Documents, the IDB, by communication CID/CCR/736/2020 of July eighth, two thousand twenty, authorized the termination request. Therefore, the Trust, by communication FID-2692-2020 dated July 13, 2020, responding to the communications of the Consortium GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548; GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-591; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-917, rejected the termination processed by the latter and, in turn, notified it of the Termination of contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, and by communication FID-2493-2020 of June 29, 2020, responding to the communications of the Consortium GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; rejected the termination processed by the latter and, in turn, notified it of the Termination of contract No. 88-2017, with respect to Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela Hermosa. In those communications, the justifying reason for the termination was provided. That is, and in relation to the first two educational centers (Santa Rosa and Azul), the termination was justified to the Consortium by indicating the reasons as follows: "because it is based on clauses that do not provide for such a possibility, but also because the procedure that the bidding documents, as an integral part of the contract, was not followed", "the Consortium having abandoned the works, which clearly meant it 'withdrew' from the contract and constitutes an additional ground for the Contracting Authority to terminate the contract, under the provisions of paragraphs 42.2.2 and 40.2.2, subsections a), c) and d).(...)", "the Liceo de Santa Rosa was due for delivery on April 15, 2020, therefore the penalties set forth in sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the bidding documents, which form part of the contractual conditions, apply (...) In the specific case of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, furthermore, the serious breach indicated in sub-clause 26.2 applies, given that the budget containing subsection h) is reached at 40 days of delay in the delivery of the center, therefore, given that as of today it accounts for 72 days of recorded delay, this exceeds the maximum established for giving rise to the termination of the contract" (...) "as of June 8, 2020, they had withdrawn from the projects, alleging contractual termination. We consider that the unilateral termination carried out by the consortium IDECORUCO-GCI, which included the withdrawal of security guards from the works under construction, lacks procedural formality and correct application of the contractual conditions. The abandonment of the works caused the immediate action of the Trust for the due protection of the investments; with the assignment of the corresponding security and taking possession of the centers under construction. Given the foregoing, we consider that the contractor is subject to sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-clause 42.2.2 of the bidding documents for LPI-01-2016, as an additional ground for terminating Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "and given the situation of the Contractor's unilateral and voluntary withdrawal from the project and instead declaring termination on its part", therefore "IT IS ORDERED: The unilateral termination by the Contracting Authority of Contract No. 88-2017, with respect to centers 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, which shall take effect upon notification of this decision." And in relation to the third educational center (Hermosa), it justifies what was ordered by attributing to it that "because it is based on clauses that do not provide for such a possibility, but also because the procedure that the bidding documents, as an integral part of the contract, was not followed (...) Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, was due for delivery on January 23, 2019. As of June 8, 2020, the date on which the Consortium withdrew from the project, a delay of 502 days was recorded, relative to the date on which the project should have been delivered. In a meeting held with the consortium on June 10, 2020, you informed us that as of June 8, 2020, you had withdrawn from the projects, including security services. Therefore, and for the purpose of protecting the investments made, the trust was forced to take the necessary actions to assign security as soon as possible at Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" (...) "Therefore, given that the delay time necessary to reach the maximum 10% allowed charge for this concept has already been greatly exceeded, it constitutes an additional reason to proceed with the termination of the contract for the contractor's serious breach, as it triggers the provisions of sub-clause 42.2.2, in sub-paragraphs (c) and (d).", and "given the situation of the Contractor's unilateral and voluntary withdrawal from the project, and instead declaring termination on its part", therefore "IT IS ORDERED: the unilateral termination by the Contracting Authority of Contract No. 88-2017 with respect to Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, which shall take effect upon notification of this decision." From this detailed account, it is observed that the unilateral termination declared by the Trust of Contract No. 88-2017, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, took effect as of July 15, 2020, and regarding Escuela La Hermosa it takes effect upon notification of that decision on June 26, 2020, through FID-2493-2020. There is no proven fact on record showing that the Consortium challenged the final Termination act at the original venue.

Based on those facts, the Tribunal dismisses non-conformity with the legal order or the challenged act based on the following:

5.1.- NON-EXISTENCE OF ECONOMIC IMBALANCE CAUSED BY THE TRUST ACCORDING TO THE AGREED SCOPE AND EFFECTS ARISING FROM THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS. 1.- LUMP SUM TYPE CONTRACT". The bidding documents for LPI-01-2017 bindingly refer, for the parties, that the economic nature of the bids is under the so-called "Lump Sum Type Contract" concept. It was thus tendered, offered, and awarded, in accordance with the constitutive guidelines contained in the bidding reference, set forth in: First Part: Tender Procedures, Section II. Tender Data/H.Bid Preparation, Subclauses IAO 15.1/Table No.3/Lot 2, IAO 16.2, 16.3 and IAO 16.5, and which provided, under the accepted knowledge of the Consortium, the following relevant scopes: "IAO 16.2, 16.3:/ The Bidder shall indicate the total prices for all the design, construction, and equipping activities for each of the works defined in these bidding documents. The Bidder may submit a bid for one or more complete lots. The total prices shall be indicated as a “Lump Sum (Suma Alzada)” for each lot, but disaggregating the amount for each Educational Center within the lot for contractual monitoring purposes. The Contractor shall assume the costs of temporary and permanent installations for the development of the works and the payment of water and electricity services necessary for the development of the work. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to comply with all the requirements that Public Institutions request for the complete connection of Public Services (...) As this is a Design, Construction, and Equipping project, the Bidder shall make its best technical proposal in strict adherence to and compliance with the available technical documents such as: soil studies, plan requirements and indications, and in compliance with the sanitary technical specifications included in SECTION_VI._B._ESP_TECNICAS_MINIMAS, as well as the current national regulations and good construction practices that ensure the adequate functioning of the entire system (...) Bidders are reminded of what is indicated in “Second Part. Design, Work, and Equipping Requirements”: “…Any additional work, extension, and/or preparation of studies that the Bidder considers necessary for the correct execution of the contract shall be the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Contractor and shall not give rise to any additional payment or claim to the quoted price. The contract shall be a lump sum type, therefore all construction risks shall be the responsibility of the contractor. In this sense, it must be clear that the Contractor must guarantee that each work possesses all the components and characteristics necessary for integrally effective functioning, according to the best quality standards governing construction and according to the best engineering practices and applicable laws. It is understood that the costs associated with all activities and tasks that must be executed for the Design, Construction, and Equipping must be included and detailed in the price of each bid. The estimated costs, including the deposit of the environmental guarantee, execution and costing of the studies necessary for the design and construction, registration and approval of plans before the CFIA and any other institution such as Bomberos, Municipalidad, Aviación Civil, Ministerio de Salud and any other entity, must be included and detailed in the price of each bid. The Contractor must include in its bid the breakdown of all amounts corresponding to fees and charges necessary to carry out the procedures and obtain approval and permits of all kinds to carry out the construction. Due to the nature of the Program, it may be the case that the Contracting Authority is exempt from paying some of them, in which case those amounts that are successfully exempted will be deducted from the payments to the Awardee.” Those charges that do not appear in the breakdown will not be recognized to the Contractor, as they will be presumed included in one of the other price items. The Contractor is responsible for assuming the associated costs derived from the implementation of the environmental and social management plan, Supervision, Mobilization, Construction of the Works and Equipping, in accordance with the scopes defined in these bidding documents, are included in the total prices offered (Lump Sum). The Contracting Authority will not pay additional sums to those offered for any task related to the execution of the contract that may be signed (...) The prices for each of the Educational Centers are fixed and invariable and will not be subject to price adjustments. Bidders must make a projection of the increases that all the elements and components of the works may suffer, throughout the entire construction process, and consider it in the sum quoted for each School and, consequently, in the total amount of their bid. In this sense, it must be perfectly clear that the Contracting Authority expects each work to possess all the components and characteristics necessary for integrally effective functioning, according to the best quality standards governing construction and according to the best engineering practices and applicable laws (...). IAO 16.5 The Contracting Authority shall make payment of the Works on a global, fixed amount (Lump Sum, not subject to adjustments), it being the Bidder's duty to consider in its Bid all the components and inputs that could be susceptible to variation in the market, until the completion of the contract; so that when offering the Total Price for the Design, Construction, and Equipping, the Bidder must consider within its offered price the provision for future price escalation, throughout the entire construction and equipping period (including installation and commissioning), defined based on the behavior of those inputs in the market, as these increases may not be claimed separately." 5.2.- IN THE SAME AGREED MANNER, THE BIDDING DOCUMENTS FOR LPI-01-2017, DETERMINED THAT THE LUMP SUM TYPE CONTRACT (PRICE) AND TERM COULD VARY BY MODIFICATION ORDERS MO". This commitment arises from the principle of "Pacta sunt servanda", whereby the binding and submission of the parties to the construction and equipping process for the contracted public work derives from the regulatory stipulation of the Bidding Documents for LPI-01-2017, which bindingly refer, for the parties, to the modification nature of the essential scopes of the contract through Modification Orders, which may vary the term and the offered price as appropriate, it being understood that the request for these may be on behalf of the contracting authority or the contractor, as occurred in the records and as regulated in "SECTION VII. GENERAL CONDITIONS (GC)"/C. Payments and H. Modification of Contract Elements" which in this regard stipulates: 11. Contract Price. 11.1 The Contract Price shall be that indicated in article 2 (Contract Price and Payment Conditions) of the Agreement. 11.2 Unless an adjustment Clause is incorporated in the SC, the Contract Price shall be a fixed lump sum, which may not be modified, except in the case of a modification of the Works or if otherwise provided in the Contract (...). H. Modification of Contract Elements" 39. Modification of the Works. 39.1 Introduction of a Modification.

39.1.1 Subject to Sub-Clauses 39.2.5 and 39.2.7 of the GC, the Employer shall be entitled to propose and subsequently to require that the Project Manager occasionally order the Contractor, during the performance of the Contract, to make any modification, change, addition, or deletion to the Works (hereinafter referred to as a “modification”), provided that such modification falls within the general scope of the Works and does not constitute unrelated work, and is technically feasible, taking into account the progress of the Works and the technical compatibility of the intended modification with the nature of the Works as specified in the Contract. 39.1.2 The Contractor may occasionally, during the execution of the Contract, propose to the Employer (with a copy to the Project Manager) any modification that the Contractor deems necessary or convenient to improve the quality, efficiency, or safety of the Works. The Employer may, at its discretion, approve or reject any modification proposed by the Contractor, but shall approve any modification proposed by the Contractor that is intended to ensure the safety of the Works. 39.1.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Clauses 39.1.1 and 39.1.2 of the GC, no change that becomes necessary due to a breach by the Contractor of its contractual obligations shall be considered a modification, and such change shall not give rise to any adjustment of the Contract price or the time for completion of the Works (...) (intentional emphasis); 39.2 Modifications Originated by the Employer. 39.2.1 If the Employer proposes a modification in accordance with Sub-Clause 39.1.1 of the GC, it shall send the Contractor a “Request for Modification Proposal,” requesting the Contractor to prepare and provide to the Project Manager, within the shortest reasonably feasible time, a “Modification Proposal” that shall include the following: (a) a brief description of the modification; (b) the effect of the modification on the time for completion; (c) the estimated cost of the modification; (d) the effect of the performance defined in the Specifications (if any); (e) the effect of the modification on the Works; (f) the effect of the modification on any other provision of the Contract. 39.2.2 Before preparing and submitting the modification proposal, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager an “Estimate for the Modification Proposal,” estimating the cost of preparing and presenting the modification proposal (...) 39.2.5 If, before or during the preparation of the modification proposal, it becomes apparent that the aggregate effect of executing it and any other modification orders that have become binding on the Contractor under this Clause 39 of the GC would increase or decrease the Contract price originally established in Article 2 (Contract Price) of the Contract by more than fifteen percent (15%), the Contractor may give written notice of its objections in this regard before presenting the modification proposal in the manner indicated above. If the Employer accepts the Contractor’s objections, it shall withdraw the modification proposal and notify the Contractor in writing. The failure to present objections shall not impair the Contractor’s right to object to any subsequent modification requests or modification orders, nor its right to take into account, when presenting such subsequent objections, the percentage increase or decrease in the Contract price represented by any modification not objected to by the Contractor (...) 39.3 Modifications Originated by the Contractor. 39.3.1 If the Contractor proposes a modification in accordance with Sub-Clause 39.1.2 of the GC, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager in writing a “Request for Modification Proposal,” indicating the reasons for making the proposed modification and including the information specified in Sub-Clause 39.2.1 of the GC. 39.3.2 Upon receipt of the request for a modification proposal, the Parties shall follow the procedures set out in Sub-Clauses 39.2.6 and 39.2.7 of the GC. However, if the Employer decides not to make the modifications, the Contractor shall not be entitled to recover the costs of preparing the request for the modification proposal. 40. Extension of the Time for Completion of the Works. 40.1 The time or times for completion specified in the SC in accordance with Sub-Clause 8.2 of the GC shall be extended if the Contractor is delayed or impeded in the performance of any of its obligations under the Contract due to: (a) a modification of the Works as provided in Clause 39 of the GC; (b) a force majeure (fuerza mayor) event as provided in Clause 37 of the GC, unforeseen conditions (condiciones imprevistas) as provided in Clause 35 of the GC, or any other circumstance specified or mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Sub-Clause 32.2 of the GC; (intentional emphasis) (c) a suspension order issued by the Employer in accordance with Clause 41 of the GC or a reduction in the rate of progress in accordance with Sub-Clause 41.2 of the GC, or (d) a change in laws and regulations as provided in Clause 36 of the GC, or (e) any breach or violation of the Contract by the Employer, specifically including the supply of the items listed in the corresponding appendix to the Contract Agreement, titled Scope of Works and Supply by the Employer, or any activity, act, or omission of the Employer, or the Project Manager, or any other Contractor employed by the Employer, or (f) any delay on the part of a Subcontractor, provided that such delay is due to a cause for which the Contractor itself would have been entitled to an extension of the time for completion under this Sub-Clause, or (g) delays attributable to the Employer or caused by customs procedures, or (h) any other matter specifically mentioned in the Contract, for a period that is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and that fully reflects the delay or impediment suffered by the Contractor." Now, having examined the matter from the perspective of the regulation, the option of Modification Orders, when they have been accepted and approved and the object is varied, even partially in terms of time and price, implicitly signifies the implementation of the well-known rebus sic stantibus clause, which, as a safeguard for an extraordinary situation, allows, during the course of contract execution, the review or modification of the essential elements of the agreement if the circumstances under which it was made have changed substantially and unforeseeably, that is, creating an imbalance in the parties' obligations, it being necessary that those conditions or circumstances present at the time of its creation have changed fundamentally. Therefore, it must be understood that for rebus sic stantibus to be applicable, it is necessary to establish that the alteration is extraordinary compared to the agreed circumstances, that is, the change must be significant and not contemplated at the time of the contract's conclusion, as could indeed be indicated in relation to OM-1, which arose after the award and which, with that modification, sought to address, at the Liceo Santa Rosa, the detail of the slopes, increasing the price of the work to address the same additional construction activities required for this purpose. Furthermore, a performance imbalance must exist, meaning that the modification of circumstances must generate an imbalance in the parties' obligations, causing one of them to find itself in a situation of excessive onerousness, impossibility, or excessive difficulty of performance; thus, the affected party must demonstrate that performance of the contract under the new conditions is impossible or extremely difficult, hence the modification order.

For this reason, in lump-sum contracts, such as the one at hand, the contractor not only commits to completing a project for a predetermined total price, regardless of the actual costs it may incur, and is therefore responsible for completing the project according to the contract terms, even if the actual costs exceed the agreed price, assuming the majority of the financial risk, but in exchange for the performance it commits to, it receives a fixed-sum remuneration that therefore includes all direct and indirect costs it will incur for the execution of the work. For this reason, and in principle, no recognition is made for additional works or higher quantities of unforeseen work, since the contractor assumes the duty to complete the work, based on its own efficiency or lack thereof, without prejudice to demonstrating the occurrence of an economic imbalance. The reality of the execution of Contract 88-2017 cannot be ignored or sidestepped, namely that while the lots awarded for the three educational centers were valued on a lump-sum basis at the following prices: 1. Project code number 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Project code number 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Project code 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); for a total contractual amount of USD $6,146,149.50, the Liceo Santa Rosa project encountered difficulties from its inception due to the issue of the slopes. From Facts 10 through 17, which this Tribunal has deemed proven, although the project began construction on time and in proper form, by July 16, 2018, the Consorcio submitted to the Supervision Manager Consorcio CSI-CACISA communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044, by which a request was made for a temporary suspension of the works deadline of four weeks to be able to carry out complementary soil and stability studies, in order to propose the required modifications to the current design and coordinate the execution of the soil studies, preparation of reports, analysis of information, and redesign of earthworks (movimiento de tierras) plans, because during the start of the project's earthworks (movimiento de tierras) activities, and upon cutting the slopes, "pockets" of loose rocky material and a fill of loose material contaminated with garbage appeared, revealing fills of unconsolidated materials found beneath other soil layers that were not detected by the specific tests and were not easily detectable qualitatively through direct observation given the existing vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal), which was why it was considered an unforeseeable condition regarding the state of the soils during the earthworks (movimiento de tierras) activity. This request was resolved, accepted, and approved on July 20, 2018, as seen in communication "Heredia, July 26, 2018 / SUP-RD-370-2018," and from it, it is clear that the Fideicomiso was aware of the Subject: OS-01, the SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION DEADLINE - Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, noting that it is effective from July 21 to August 11, 2018, and therefore, given that the effective date of commencement of the construction and equipping stage of the educational center in question was May 21, 2018, and the original delivery date was October 21, "(...) this Service Order 1 (...) establishes the start of the 22 calendar days of suspension on Saturday, July 21, 2018, ending on August 11, 2018, which moves the delivery date of the works to November 12, 2018." Subsequently, the Consorcio, by communication GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 of November first, two thousand eighteen, made another additional request for an extension of the suspension of deadline for 15 calendar days to prepare an updated offer with technical and economic improvements for OM-1; however, said request was rejected by the Supervision Unit through communication SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, because it was not economically viable, and also because the proposal with technical and economic improvements that it had committed to present had not been provided, and due to the circumstance that, although the works were at that time under a suspension order at the Consorcio's own request, works were being executed that were not supervised or endorsed by the Employer, so the works were to be restarted as of November 3, 2018, and it was requested that the Consorcio indicate the date on which it would deliver the slope stabilization proposal with technical and economic improvements, granting three business days from this notification to present an updated work schedule for the execution of the works. In response, the Consorcio, by communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 of November sixth, two thousand eighteen, replied to the points noted in communication SUP-RD-670-2018 of November second, two thousand eighteen, and it was through the Consorcio's own action in the preceding communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 of October twelfth, two thousand eighteen (Stabilization works for the slopes in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site) that the initiation of OS-1 was triggered. Now, the factual situation of the ground instability for the slope stabilization work in the North sector of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project site was a notorious fact in situ of the project, precisely due to the topographic inclination of the land, as recounted by the witnesses testifying at the Supplementary Hearing, and therefore the Consorcio, based on the reference information from the preliminary design and the informative soil studies, should have carried out more extensive studies from the beginning and even from the submission of its bid if it was in its interest, since bidders had been invited to visit the site to review the physical topographic conditions of the land and were also enabled to make any inquiries they wished, to use or not the general preliminary design, in order to decide whether or not to participate, or to make the necessary inquiries. The contractor could go to the site and verify the conditions of the land. Thus, if the contractor is responsible for producing the construction drawings, it has the obligation to carry out all necessary studies and make a structural design that would support the slope. It was foreseeable that an additional study had to be done to meet the requirements from the beginning, which generated, due to that omission by the Contractor, a reasonable possibility to foresee it before the submission of its bid and to have decided whether or not to bid; and despite this, the Consorcio, once awarded, found itself in the need to subsequently process a modification order that contemplated major soil stabilization works, and because of the high amount of the proposal, it even had to be submitted for consultation and approval by the IDB, as confirmed by the testimony of the witness at the Supplementary Hearing, Guillermo Rojas Chaves: recording min 1:53:14 to 2:02:30, 1:32:35 to 1:32:45, to which the Tribunal gives credibility as this person is a representative of the Supervision Unit, therefore of the Fideicomiso, and consequently, the person in charge at the project site with knowledge of this issue. Once the deadline corresponding to Service Order OS-1, communicated by the letter of July 26, 2018 / SUP-RD-370-2018, had expired, at the Consorcio's request, an additional suspension of deadline was again requested by communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 of August twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, for the approval of Service Order OS-2, because during the construction process of earthworks (movimiento de tierras), other "pockets" of loose rocky material and a fill of loose material contaminated with garbage appeared; this was duly approved on September 13, 2018, suspending an additional 35 calendar days, which moved the delivery date of the works to December 15, 2018. Again, the Consorcio, by communication dated November 6, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086, requested a new suspension of deadline starting from November 3, 2018, and until a solution to the slope instability problem was defined, with OS-3 being accepted by the contracting party on October 17, 2018, through communication sent by the Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-078 of October seventeenth, two thousand eighteen, increasing the deadline by 15 calendar days for an authorized deadline of January 1, 2019. And similarly to the above, by communication of November 1, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, it requested OS-04 for the presentation of an updated offer with technical and economic improvements to the one delivered by OM-1, and OS-04 was accepted by the contracting party on December 14, 2018, increasing the deadline by 22 calendar days for an authorized deadline of January 23, 2019. Successively and subsequently, due to the same given situation, extensions were required for the purposes requested in the communication of November 1, 2018, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, and the Execution Deadline Suspension Orders OS-5, OS-6, OS-7, OS-8, OS-9, OS-10, OS-11, OS-12 were accepted, considering that the corresponding Addendum with Modification Order OM-1 had not been signed, and the last OS-12 stated "that the suspension of the works execution deadline will be in effect until the Administration notifies the contractor of the Order to Resume Works, once the Addendum for OM-1 has been signed by the parties and the contractor has delivered the respective Performance Bond (Garantía de Cumplimiento) and paid the corresponding fiscal stamps." resulting in the authorization to further increase the deadline by 239 calendar days for a final authorized deadline of August 28, 2019. In that order, through Service Order No. 13, accepted by all parties by September 2, 2019 (Works Manager and Contractor on 08/28/19, General Coordinator of the Executing Unit on 09/02/19), Service Order No. 13 was signed with Modification Order No. 1 (OM-1), corresponding to the Resumption of works in project 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa as of September 3, 2019, granting a deadline extension of 200 calendar days (150 days from OM-01 and 50 days remaining from the original contract) in the execution of the project, thereby causing the approval of that modification for an amount of $1,015,346.08, which implied a cumulative variation corresponding to an increase of 76.95% of the originally agreed amount, for a total final cost of $2,334,837.78, and by that time, 465 calendar days had elapsed from the original start date of works to the acceptance date of OS-13 - 08/28/2019. Thus, OM-I and that modification price and delivery deadline had to contain the ordinary, direct, and even indirect expenses of the additional cost caused by the slope issue. Or, what is the same, covering with the authorized price the Contractor's proposal with OM-1, not only the cost of the educational center project and its equipment, but also the additional works for the treatment of the slope, at the revised lump sum of $2,334,837.78, a particular situation that is not expressed or accredited in this litigation, that is, the existence of an economic imbalance under the principle of rebus sic standibus, with its characteristic connotations listed above, to warn and justify the Consorcio's withdrawal from the project, as it actually did, which is how the Tribunal considers it.

To that effect, the importance of the bidding documents (cartel de licitación) must be considered in a more reinforced manner for the specific case at hand, if one takes into account that particularly for contracts whose object is the construction of public works – pursuant to Article 60 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de la Contratación Administrativa), in force at the time of the contract – as a norm that supplements, through its principles, the content of public tender (licitación pública) 01-2017, which states that "The execution of the works contract shall be carried out at the cost and risk of the contractor and the Administration shall not assume any responsibilities towards it other than those provided for in the procurement"; (in addition, Article 150 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), in force at the time the events occurred, may be observed). See that what is stated in the bidding documents (cartel) should serve as an instrument of communication or common language, and for that reason, it should be the result of a drafting process that is objective, clear, transparent, and correctly designed in applicable science and technique, all with the purpose of providing security to the participants in the procedure and to the Administration itself, with an effective and efficient tool for achieving the public interest. That is why, for the preparation of a bidding documents (cartel) whose object is the construction of public works, the prior technical studies required by an art or science must, as an unavoidable condition, have been carried out, providing a foundation and viability for the project oriented towards satisfying that public need. The Administrative Procurement Law, in the first paragraph of Article 4, reads: "Principles of effectiveness and efficiency. All acts related to administrative procurement activity must be oriented towards the fulfillment of the administration's purposes, goals, and objectives, with the purpose of guaranteeing the effective satisfaction of the general interest, based on efficient use of institutional resources." This was not achieved with the Consorcio's withdrawal from the project works. Thus, if it concerns the design of a public work, it would be expected in all cases that, with a minimum of rigor, at least the detail of the terms of reference, the technical information, and all necessary data for the success of the construction process would emerge from it. An aspect that, in accordance with proven Facts 7 and 8, was verified that the Fideicomiso provided to the Consorcio the technical preliminary designs, soil studies, and information provided to bidders, including the Consorcio, as well as the topographic plans, basic-general soil studies, cadastre, preliminary design plans, SETENA documents, copies of modification and service orders, and some notes on project particularities, which are for mere reference, for the production of the corresponding plans, and it was the Consorcio's responsibility to produce and establish the technical specifications, which had to be equal to or greater than those established in the bidding documents, including the preliminary design of a referential nature, with the design being an obligation of the contractor, who also had to include final construction plans, sealed and approved by the CFIA, the corresponding municipality, and in general by all those competent institutions, to facilitate the execution of the works by the Contractor and their inspection by the Employer. A preliminary design (anteproyecto) should be understood as the document in a digital or printed graphic medium, where the professional prepares a general planimetry specifying where each of the rooms is located; the architect must comply with the content established by the CFIA; hence, preliminary design plans are not a document that defines structural, electrical, civil, or other engineering; they are merely architectural and referential, and therefore the architects had to use the typical plans established by the MEP, and bidders were allowed or given the freedom to prepare their own preliminary design and soil studies, provided the bid was submitted on the established day and time. Likewise, the milestone lists were provided along with the bidding documents, and one of the first milestones is the delivery of the construction plans, based on the preliminary design; therefore, the contractors had to generate the technical specifications along with the construction plans, and furthermore, this is evident from the testimony itself of the witness at the Supplementary Hearing, Guillermo Rojas Chaves: 1:24:00 – 1:25:15, as well as from the Loan Agreement 2824/OC-CR, Law 9124 / International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 / Design, Construction, and Equipping of 6 Lots of (15) Educational Centers and (10) Multi-Purpose Courts / PART TWO. DESIGN, WORKS, AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS / SECTION VI. DESIGN, WORKS, AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS / K. Definitions, concepts, and general technical specifications applicable to each of the lots to be tendered. General technical specifications. 1.19 Final design and "as built" ("As Built") 1.20 Construction plans. It is not in vain that the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law, in its Article 8, b), provides that for the adoption of the initial decision to promote an administrative procurement process, there must be: "The description of the object, the technical specifications and characteristics of the goods, works, or services required; in case there may be different technical options to satisfy the need, to demonstrate the reasons why a certain solution is chosen." The foregoing speaks of the necessary and clear knowledge of what is wanted, which beforehand imposes on the Administration the duty to study and inform itself about the good or service it requires, as any consumer would do in this case, by virtue of managing public resources that belong to no one other than the State in the name of the population to which it must answer. That is, at least the technical specifications that guarantee quality in the work by defining minimum patterns and standards must be clear. The referential technical specifications then comprise the description of the nature, attributes, and technical characteristics of the goods and services to be acquired, and in the bidding documents (cartel), these specifications must be consistent with the intended purpose, so that the function of the object, its quality characteristics, the procedure to verify that quality of the good, and the applicable measurement indicators must be clearly described. In this way, the contractor's north star in this sense will always be to provide a product that satisfies the need previously detected by the administration, which is or could be its client; otherwise, in more cases than less, a new purchase will need to be processed to achieve the failed attempt, which generally causes significant losses affecting public interests, both in terms of money and time. The abandonment of the works by the Consorcio only speaks of a construction and financial management that was neither solvent nor proper, nor did it practice effectiveness and efficiency, ruining the execution of the works contained in Contract 88-2017, since setbacks that cannot be attributed to the Fideicomiso have been evidenced that would merit proven liability before and during the effective management of each educational center regarding all procedures, reception deadlines, and guarantees, for the regular attention in the adaptation, planning, execution, construction, and equipping with the unique particularities presented by each project for their delivery deadline, and with greater reason for the case of the Liceo Santa Rosa.

Under this premise, and with the implementation of OM-1, the contract would be economically restored, so one could not speak of the appropriateness of an economic imbalance, because as has been said, to be able to speak of that institute, one would have to ignore the very basis of the entire agreement between the parties (LP-01-2017), which arises from the contractors' knowledge of the general conditions that determined the agreement, as well as from the acceptance of a series of more or less foreseeable factors of the scenarios that could occur in the fulfillment of the obligation. If the problem of delays arose until the execution of OM-1, and a relevant economic impact (direct or indirect) was generated as a result, the triggering circumstance had to be unforeseeable from the standpoint of what is reasonable, especially since in the processing of OM-1, the Consorcio should have been given back by the Fideicomiso for its due justification. Thus, to establish an imbalance as alleged, the existence of an extraordinary event is imperative, or what is the same, "one that is not normal to occur and that the parties could not have thought of because it is beyond their imagination." To say that the event must be unforeseeable means that even when the parties act with the due "care and foresight," they could not have anticipated it to be taken into account in relation to the role each one possesses within the framework of their legal situation arising from the contractual relationship in question, because it is unusual, not meaning that it must be unheard of. The event supervening upon the contract formation, qualified as extraordinary and unforeseeable, must also render the performance excessively onerous, unlike what occurs with fortuitous events and force majeure (fuerza mayor), which make the obligation impossible to perform.

From the foregoing, it is evident that a proven causal link must exist between the extraordinary event and the imbalance, an aspect which, in the Tribunal's opinion, the Consortium has not demonstrated. Note that it is not proven in the record that the cause of the suspension of works at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa due to the existence of unstable ground after the award of Contract 88-2017 was due to an unforeseeable situation or one impossible to assess prior to the Consortium's submission of its bid for Public Tender LPI-01-2017, and that it was not reasonably foreseeable based on the informative references in the preliminary design documents relevant to that work and, consequently, on the site visit by the Consortium. Therefore, diligently and previously delving into additional geological and soil studies corresponding to the topographic inclination and material content shown by the land where the project works were to be executed constituted due diligence. However, and despite the very considerable increase in the cost of the Liceo Santa Rosa work, which even suggests the unsuitability of the land use due to the slope problem, the Trust accepted and authorized OM-1 with the adjustment of the final price of the work.

Nor was it proven that the subsequently arising, more serious causes found after the award of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project—which could point to unforeseeability within what was foreseeable *a priori*—and the new soil and corresponding studies to determine the treatment of the topographic inclination shown by the heterogeneous material composition of the land where the project works were to be executed, were a reason for delays attributable to the Trust. Even less was it demonstrated that the delays in the effective implementation of the Suspension Orders, Service Orders, and Modification Order OM-1 for the slope treatment due to the topographic inclination shown by the land where the project works were to be executed for Liceo Santa Rosa were the sole, exclusive responsibility attributable to the Trust. Note that, furthermore, the Tribunal found it unproven that the Trust caused the delays in the final and definitive approval of the construction plans for the awarded works contained in Contract 88-2017 of Public Tender LPI-01-2017, not only before the CFIA but also for obtaining municipal permits, nor that the Trust caused the delays in the final and definitive approval of the construction plans and/or municipal permits for the Modification Order approved after the award, not only before the CFIA but also in obtaining the corresponding municipal permits in relation to the works contained in Contract 88-2017 of Public Tender LPI-01-2017, and that, therefore, the suspension periods exceeding 338 calendar days in the works at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, due to the processing of OS-1 through OS-12, were the sole responsibility of the Trust and to the economic detriment of the Consortium—a vital aspect that determines that the contractual breaches invoked by the Consortium were devoid of sufficient and indubitable verification.

This Tribunal is not unaware of what is stated in Constitutional Chamber ruling number 6432-1998, when it indicates that every administrative contract implicitly contains the guarantee of receiving the expected benefit or projected profit, especially since, when a variation introduced in an administrative contract arises, the equilibrium of the contract's financial equation must always be respected. However, for this purpose, although the interested party has the right to challenge a contractual provision introduced to the contrary, whether in the bidding terms or in the contract itself, such actions are absent in the present matter, requiring respect for the said lump-sum contract and its scope, as well as the effects contained in OM-1, which, at least it is understood, estimated and contemplated the direct and indirect costs of the project and/or the contract addendum, upon including the issue of the slope treatment, and to the contrary, the Consortium did not demonstrate that this was not the case. Hence the evident difference, sometimes overlooked, between the exercise of this right to the restoration of the financial equilibrium of a contract via price adjustment in a variable-price or unit-cost contract, and a claim in a lump-sum contract. The latter is built on the premise that during contract execution, because its object required it, the contractor had to incur higher costs than those incorporated into the bid price structure (the discussion revolves around the recognition or non-recognition of those additional costs and not around a price adjustment, which would remain unaffected), or, where appropriate, the simple recognition of costs associated with a modification of the contractual object, for example, in the event of an increase thereof, when during contract execution the contractor must incur higher costs than those incorporated into the bid price as a derivation of the contractual change. Notwithstanding, and in any case including the above, the equilibrium of the contract's financial equation, as a development of a constitutional principle, permits neither the extreme unjustified detriment to the contractor's expense nor illicit enrichment for either party if the necessary prerequisites for it concur according to the legal system. In the Tribunal's opinion, the existence of the legal basis to declare that the termination is contrary to the legal system was not proven, much less that a subjective right arises for the Consortium not only to invalidate the Trust's termination but also for it to be considered regarding the termination requested by the Consortium itself, as requested in the claim. Therefore, furthermore, invoking the exception of non-performance (*exceptio non adimpleti contractus*) was inappropriate as a defense to vitiate the decided termination, since the Consortium was not positioned, under the prerequisites of the conceptual legal sphere of that defensive structure, to legitimately and validly raise it against the Trust and thus block the termination.

This Tribunal is also of the opinion that, whether or not a contract is under the fixed lump-sum modality, the rule or rules derived from this contractual modality—to the effect that the bidder and subsequent contractor must bear all associated risks in the contract at their own expense, including the possibility that, in order to fully comply with the contractual object, they may have had to execute, according to their claim, greater quantities, effort, time, and works, and therefore could not formulate any claim regarding greater work quantities—depends, of course, on whether those differences were foreseeable to them at the time of bidding, and to that extent, attributable only to the party offering a fixed lump-sum price. However, the crux is not in that thought, but in considering the termination as unlawful by attributing to the Trust the provocation of an economic imbalance, which would not even explain the reason or reasons why the Hermosa and Azul projects would be subjected to the problematic situation that Santa Rosa had, when it is a fact that they involve differentiated, singular, and independent construction schemes, each under the same price consideration, a lump sum, as a common denominator. In this sense, it is the opinion of this Chamber that, even though this contractual modality does not imply that the price is constituted on the basis of unit prices, if the additional work quantities on which a lump-sum price was built suffer variations in quantity due to reasons attributable to the Administration—because for the adequate execution of the work, these exceeded what was foreseen in the initial agreement, i.e., when additional works, which are those not foreseen in the contract, must be carried out—if the cause of that difference between what was bid and executed is attributable to the Administration, it must be held financially liable before its contractor for these, if the difference between the bid and executed quantities is substantially distinct in terms of increase. However, this implies that the execution of additional works through Service Orders must have been proven, and even more so, outside of Modification Order OM-1, which varied the scope, the term, and the price. Nevertheless, once again, this remained undemonstrated. It was not proven that the Trust formally validated Service Orders, Suspension Orders, or Modification Orders coming from third parties outside the Supervision Unit—Supervision Manager, Works Manager (formerly Project Director) and the Assistant to the Management, or the General Coordinator of the Executing Unit—who were authorized by the Bidding Terms of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 to issue them. Nor was it demonstrated that, by doing so, it enabled and justified the Consortium to modify, alter, or restructure the approved and authorized final designs, or to request additional or substitute designs outside the previously accepted and authorized Service Orders or Modification Orders during the construction process, which would affect or substantially differ from the design approved in the construction plans, altering the term and cost subject to settlement and pertinent payment in favor of the Consortium. Also lacking is equal proof determining that the milestone payments throughout the entire process were conditioned on the execution of additional works not indicated in the Approved Final Design, refusing to comply with what was contractually agreed in Article 1.1.2 of the contract regarding how to proceed in case of ambiguity or conflict, exposing the Consortium to a scenario of insecurity. Nor was it proven that the Consortium, in order to collect the Milestones, was forced to invest time and money in works not described in the approved Final Designs to maintain the necessary cash flow to carry out the projects, resulting in unjust enrichment by the Trust by demanding the execution of additional works not in the Approved Final Designs, a situation which, according to the mere assertion of the Consortium, caused a series of material damages to its assets.

Consequently, it is not feasible to assert that, if the need to execute a greater quantity of work arises due to the decisions of third parties, it is imperative to remunerate it as a component of the economic imbalance if this was not authorized or specified in the OS or the OM. Hence, a differentiated payment for the price of what was executed is not appropriate, because that would not conform to what was previously agreed without altering its object, that is, the integral payment of the price for the quantity of work that translates into the object agreed upon with the Administration. Therefore, in the Tribunal's opinion, there is no proven non-observance of the principle derived from the Constitution of asset intangibility, nor of unjust enrichment on the part of the State, regarding the complained-about situation. This is especially so when, in addition, its argument involves circumstances of contractual economic imbalance involving other awarded lines with similar identified problems, such as LPI 02 and LPI 04, which could not be weighed in this instance nor at this opportunity to incorporate that reality into the present discussion, as they are not part of the issue.

5.3.- Continuation. No less important is noting the vicissitudes of the Hermosa and Azul projects. Regarding the first, it is proven that the project began its construction process in a timely manner on August 6, 2018, in accordance with the project commencement order, as notified by the Consortium to the Municipality of Pérez Zeledón in official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-05. However, it interrupted the continuation of the works on June 24, 2020, and notified the TRUST via official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 of June 24, 2020, requesting the Trust pay the milestones related to that educational center because the contract had been terminated, indicating pending Milestones for project settlement 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Windows and doors for an amount of $63,104.08 ? Paint for an amount of $31,552.05 ? Electrical systems - wiring and connection - for an amount of $63,104.08 ? Electrical systems - devices and accessories - for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Mechanical systems - modules - for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Mechanical systems - exteriors - for an amount of $29,891.41 ? Complementary and exterior works for an amount of $119,565.63, as well as the return of performance guarantees, justifying it, in principle, on maintaining the economic equilibrium of the contracts associated with Public Tenders number LPI 01, LPI 02, and LPI 04, which constitutes a substantial breach of those contracts. The Consortium, via official letter of April 8, 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-508, reported on progress with the monthly report for March 2020: 8.1. Metal Structure 100%, 8.2. Roof 100%, 8.3. Sheet metal work and flashing 100%, 9 Floors and coverings 100%, 10.1 Finishes - plastering 100%, 10.2 Finishes - Ceilings - and Lightweight Walls 100%, 10.3 Windows and doors 85%, 11 Paint 95%, 12 Electrical systems (conduits) 91%, 13 Mechanical systems (Modules) 96%, 15 Complementary and exterior works 92%. However, according to the Trust, the "Technical Report on the State of Physical-Financial Progress and Projection of Cost of the Remaining Work Project No. 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa," prepared on May 12, 2020, by the Supervision Unit, establishes that the real progress of the work at the time of abandonment of the work by the plaintiff Consortium was 73.40%. This progress was calculated based on the outstanding works that the plaintiff left in process, complements, and the rework that occurred during the period in which the project had no progress, which spanned from June 6, 2019, to December 6, 2019. And regarding Escuela Azul, its construction process began on December 17, 2018, approximately four months after the start of the remaining projects awarded to the Consortium, with an original term of 183 calendar days. The original delivery date was scheduled for June 17, 2019; however, due to extensions, amplifications, and compensations of the term granted, the date was moved to May 28, 2020. It was also credibly reported that, during the course of the works on this project, there were archaeological findings of an existing petroglyph. The Consortium informed the Trust via official letters GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 about this. Consequently, the Administration scheduled an appointment with the Department of Anthropology and History of the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica 10 days after that first communication. Said petroglyph was located in a partial and minimal area of the project, mainly in the area designated for parking, without affecting the rest of the execution of the project area. The Museo Nacional, in accordance with the results of its in situ visit on September 17, 2019, ordered an enclosure only at the physical location of the stone, thereby causing work to be impossible in a minimal sector of the Escuela Azul project for twelve calendar days, resulting in a partial suspension. Therefore, it did not impede or make it impossible for the Consortium to execute the work in the remaining area. Furthermore, regarding the existence of the northern boundary of the property for the project development, there were problems with water discharged by neighbors, so the contractor was required to carry out works to divert the water. Due to the distance between this and the project area, there was no interference with the execution of the main works (at least there was no demonstration to the contrary). The Contracting Party opted to instruct the Consortium to build the wall at a distance of 1.5 meters, processing Modification Order OM-04; however, it was not signed by the Consortium, rendering said changes null and void, as recorded in the witness deposition Recording/ Guillermo Rojas Chaves recording min 1:38:00 to 1:39:30, and in the fine collection file for EA folio 115 and 118. Now, having resolved those issues, at the time the Consortium decided to terminate the contract, for the reasons stated above, it reports for the Azul project progress exceeding 60% at the time of the suspension of work according to the last work progress report via official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-466 dated March 17, 2020. However, the Contracting Party indicates less progress according to the "Special Report - Unfinished Works Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul," prepared in the month of March 2021 by the Supervising Unit, in which it is verified that the works at the moment of the suspension of work had a nominal progress of 56%. In both projects, the Consortium withdrew from them, leaving them without resources or execution for the successful completion of Contract 88-2107, despite having viable options for the delivery of the milestones, when from the beginning of the execution it enjoyed cash advances as down payments for the initial execution of the works, in order to thereby comply with the duly completed milestones and thus gradually get the business underway, and ultimately achieve the definitive delivery of those projects. Each project had its own payment budget with differentiated milestones. This is evidenced by official letter October 23, 2020/CG-2020-1139/AD-2020-0221/Reference: Trust 1099 MEP- BNCR/Response FID-4141-2020, in which the Dirección de Fideicomisos y Estructuraciones Banco Nacional de Costa Rica is informed that: "according to the accounting records held by the UEP, the outstanding balances of advances per educational center for this tender are as follows: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: USD $168,235.19, Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Addendum): USD $45,690.57, Escuela La Hermosa: USD $74,728.52, Escuela Azul: USD $246,949.87." for a total of USD $535,604.15, showing that if the goal was not achieved, it was not due to the vicissitudes encountered in the Liceo Santa Rosa work, but on the contrary, deducing that there was no solvent and proper constructive and financial management by the Consortium in the execution of the works contained in Contract 88-2017, for the effective management of each educational center regarding all procedures, reception terms, and guarantees, for the regular attention to the adaptation, planning, execution, construction, and equipping with the singular particularities of each project for the delivery term thereof, as it is even clear that the progress of the deliverables did not reach the 100% fulfillment qualification for the payment of what was left as unfinished works.

Despite this, the Tribunal is absolutely convinced that the delivery of these two projects became complicated for the Consortium because of the complained-about situations that occurred in the Liceo Santa Rosa project. However, and as was normatively proven according to what was agreed: 1.- The works were agreed upon with independent execution; it is a different matter that the Consortium managed them under the same interactive constructive strategy merged with the project's global resources. The normative stipulation derived from the Bidding Terms LPI-01-2017 implicitly but bindingly referred for the parties to the fact that the mode of execution and construction of the awarded works—in three projects that formed part of lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 called Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Project code number 024-1942 called Escuela Azul. 3. Project code 058-0870 called Escuela La Hermosa— corresponded to completely independent executions from each other, and the contractor had full discretion in their management, planning, and execution, even though they were part of the same contract or awarded lot, as indicated in: "18. Work Program. 18.1 Contractor's Organization. The Contractor shall provide to the Contracting Party and the Project Manager, within twenty-one (21) days from the effective date, the organizational chart it proposes to carry out the activities in the Works. The identity of the key personnel proposed for employment, along with the professional background of said personnel, shall be attached to the organizational chart. The Contractor shall promptly inform the Contracting Party and the Project Manager in writing of any rectification or modification of said organizational chart. 18.2 Execution Program. Within twenty-eight (28) days following the effective date, the Contractor shall submit to the Project Manager a detailed program for the execution of the Contract, which shall be prepared in a form acceptable to the Project Manager and shall indicate the sequence proposed for designing and constructing the Works, as well as the date by which the Contractor reasonably requires that the Contracting Party has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in order to allow the Contractor to execute the Contract in accordance with the program and achieve completion, commissioning, and acceptance of the Works in accordance with the Contract. The program submitted by the Contractor must conform to the Execution Plan included in the appendix to the Agreement titled “Execution Plan” and to any other deadlines and dates specified in the Contract. The Contractor shall update and rectify the program as appropriate and when so requested by the Project Manager, but without modifying the deadlines for the completion of the Works established in the SC pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.2 or the extensions granted pursuant to Clause 40 of the GC, and shall submit all such rectifications to the Project Manager. 18.3 Progress Report. The Contractor shall monitor the progress of all activities specified in the program referred to in preceding Sub-Clause 18.2 and shall submit to the Project Manager a monthly report on the progress of the works. The report on the progress of the works shall be submitted in a form that the Project Manager deems acceptable. Said report shall (a) indicate the percentage of completion achieved compared to the percentage of completion planned for each activity, and (b) when an activity is behind schedule relative to the program, include observations, explain the probable consequences, and indicate the corrective measures being adopted. 18.4 Progress in Program Compliance. If at any time the Contractor's actual progress lags behind the program mentioned in Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC, or if it becomes evident that such lag will occur, the Contractor, at the request of the Contracting Party or the Project Manager, shall prepare and submit to the Project Manager a modified program, taking into account the prevailing circumstances, and shall inform the Project Manager of the measures adopted to accelerate activities in order to complete the Works within the stipulated completion period pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.2 of the GC, the extensions of said period granted pursuant to Sub-Clause 40.1 of the GC, or any extension to which the Contracting Party and the Contractor may agree. 18.5 Procedures. The Contract shall be executed in accordance with the Contract documents and the procedures established in the section of the Design and Works Requirements titled Forms and Procedures. The Contractor may execute the Contract in accordance with its own standard project execution plans and procedures, provided these do not conflict with the provisions contained in the Contract ...". Likewise, it must be considered accredited in the Bidding Terms LPI-01-2017, which governs the rules of the contract and, therefore, of the projects to be carried out, that the existence of correspondence and linkage for the joint execution of the works cannot be interpreted. On the contrary, the commencement orders for each project are singularly determined, making it inappropriate to link the problems of Liceo Santa Rosa with the other two projects. This argument is unenforceable to determine a generalized criterion of imputation to hold the Trust responsible for the complained-of matters. We insist, invoking the exception of non-performance was inappropriate as a defense to vitiate the decided termination, since the Consortium was not positioned, under the prerequisites of the conceptual legal sphere of that defensive structure, to legitimately and validly raise it against the Trust and thus block the termination.

Note that this independence of execution is verified according to Sub-Clause 2.1, paragraph 3), fourth paragraph of the Special Conditions of the Bidding Terms, wherein the management of each educational center must be carried out individually. All procedures, reception deadlines, and guarantees must be adapted to the particularities of each project. That is, the issuance of the commencement orders was agreed upon individually, constituting a design, construction, and equipping process in which particularities arise that are unrelated to the other educational centers among themselves, leading to the logical conclusion that the execution of each and every one of the stages of the works was defined according to the business strategy and responsibility of their management by the awarded Consortium.

Similarly, under the criteria applicable to the *sub lite* of "Payment per completed milestone (100%)," it can be seen that the possibility existed for partial advances with a finalized and delivered milestone, in accordance with the terms established in the Bidding Terms and the contract. According to the very nature of the "Lump Sum Contract Type," the agreed payment milestones became effective only upon 100% completion (Clause 12 of the General Conditions of the Bidding Terms LPI-01-2017 - "12. Payment Conditions. 12.1 The Contract Price shall be paid as specified in Article 2 (Contract Price and Payment Conditions) of the Agreement Form and in the appendix to the Agreement titled “Payment Conditions and Procedures,” which also describes the procedures to be followed for requesting and processing payments" -, /C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures - "Payment request for completed milestone. Once each milestone is completed, the Contractor must deliver to the Works Manager an invoice accompanied by a statement with six copies in a format previously approved by the Works Manager, including in detail the amounts to which the Contractor considers itself entitled, together with supporting documents, which shall include the progress report for the milestone in question in accordance with Clause 18.3 of the GC. This payment request for a completed milestone shall correspond to the breakdown explained below..."). Thus, the projects became self-sufficient according to the suitability and financial capacity with which the Consortium bid for Public Tender 01-2017. Therefore, furthermore, it was not proven that the failure to deliver the works on time in the works contained in Contract 88-2017, due to the Consortium's financial situations, was occasioned by Trust conduct that would make it liable for it. Even less was there any demonstration regarding the existence, consistency, and precision of situations generated by the Trust that affected the efficiency in the delivery of the works and thereby, through its responsibility, caused damage to the asset intangibility of the Consortium and its financial imbalance leading to the withdrawal from the works. Nor was it proven by the Consortium that, during the period of time the works were suspended, the Consortium bore, due to the Trust's responsibility, the actual financial burden of indirect costs (security, administrative expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public services, insurance policies, financial expenses for guarantee extensions, financial expenses for credit line extensions, bank commissions, default interest on working capital lines, office rentals, equipment and tool rentals, administrative salaries, social charges), not only for attending to the Liceo Santa Rosa project, but also Escuela Hermosa and Escuela Azul. Nor was it proven that the archaeological findings of an existing petroglyph in a minimal execution area of the works in the Escuela Azul project, mainly in the area designated for parking, and during the time in which the Department of Anthropology and History of the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica so determined, and the work suspension for that specific confined area ordered by the Trust, justifiably stopped or prevented execution for the rest of the project area.

Nor, that the situation of wastewater discharge caused by the neighbors, along the northern boundary of the land area for the execution of the Escuela Azul Project and the distance between this discharge point and the construction area, would cause significant distortions that would prevent the execution of the main works thereof, or that, in this regard, the Trust would incur liability for economic loss against the Consortium, due to uncertainties relating to the resolution of service orders and that, for this reason, it caused and aggravated delays in the development of the works of Contract 88-2017. Hence, there is a lack of accreditation of the existence, consistency, and level of impact and effect on the occasion of communications, such as contractual instructions regarding the issuance of notifications, instructions, orders, certificates, and approvals, that impacted and caused a lack of execution, delay thereof, or irregular execution, or economic loss in the projects of Contract 88-2017, issued by the Trust or third parties during the term of the contract and until before the Rescission issued by the latter. Such causal links to establish liability and the damage claimed through the objection of non-conformity are not justified or proven in the case file. Even less, in that relationship, that the Trust formally validated Service Orders, Suspension Orders, or Modification Orders from third parties outside the Supervision Unit—Supervision Manager, Works Manager (formerly Project Director) and the Deputy to the Management, or the General Coordinator of the Executing Unit—and authorized by the Tender Document of Public Tender LPI-01-2017 for their issuance, and thereby enabled and justified the Consortium to modify, alter, restructure the approved and authorized final designs, or to request additional or substitute designs outside the previously accepted and authorized Service Orders or Modification Orders, during the construction process, which affected or substantially differed from the design approved in construction plans, altering the timeline and cost susceptible to settlement and pertinent payment in favor of the Consortium. Or, that to collect for the Milestones, it was forced to invest time and money in works that were not described in the approved Final Designs to maintain the cash flow necessary to carry out the projects, there being unjust enrichment by the Trust by demanding the execution of additional works that were not in the Approved Final Designs, a situation that caused a series of material damages (to the assets) of the Consortium.

In conclusion, the abandonment of the works by the Consortium, caused by the Consortium's own responsibility, was the trigger that justified the rescission of Contract 88-2017 in accordance with the terms agreed in the rules of the Tender Document, when in clause 42.2.2, it is provided that this occurs if the Contractor: "(a) has repudiated the Contract or abandoned it, (b) without valid reason, has not promptly commenced the Works, or has suspended, for reasons other than those provided for in Sub-Clause 41.2 of the GC, the progress of the performance of the Contract for more than twenty-eight (28) days after receiving a written order from the Employer to proceed, (c) persistently fails to perform the Contract in accordance with the contractual terms or persistently and without just cause neglects to fulfill its obligations under the Contract, (d) refuses or is unable to provide sufficient materials, services, or labor to execute and complete the Works in the manner specified in the program submitted in accordance with Sub-Clause 18.2 of the GC at a rate that gives the Employer reasonable assurance that the Contractor can complete the Works within the extended time for completion, the Employer may, without prejudice to any other right it may have under the Contract, send a notice to the Contractor indicating the nature of the default and requesting the Contractor to remedy it. If the Contractor does not remedy it or take steps to remedy it within fourteen (14) days following receipt of that notice, the Employer may immediately rescind the Contract by notice of rescission to the Contractor with reference to this Sub-Clause 42.2 of the GC." It is reiterated once again, the non-existence of non-conformity with the legal system and the consequent request for nullity of the challenged administrative acts (claim 1, 5, principal) with which what is sought under this section must be rejected and consequently the first, second, and sixth subsidiary claims, having no legal support in this regard, according to the terms and scope in which this topic was addressed, under penalty of incurring unreasonableness and incongruence, with the defense of lack of right raised by the defendant being accepted in conclusion.

X.- 1.- OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS. 2.- IMPROPRIETY OF VARYING THE RESULT OF THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM FOR DELAYS BEYOND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSORTIUM AND, CONSEQUENTLY, OF THE DAMAGES SOUGHT IN THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH CLAIMS. NON-EXISTENCE OF BREACH.

The basis of this first claim was the Consortium's indication that for the Liceo de Santa Rosa project there was a period of 478 days in which, for reasons beyond the responsibility of the consortium, it was suspended or it was not possible to start works due to the responsibility of the Trust. It was stated that for 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days, the Consortium bore the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administration expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public utilities, policies, financial expenses for extension of guarantees, financial expenses for extension of credit lines, bank commissions, default interest on working capital lines, office rentals, administrative salaries, social charges, among others), without payment. That because the suspension period exceeded at a certain moment more than 180 days of suspension, with the objective of restoring the economic balance of the contract and thus complying with the principle of asset intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), given that the works and costs during the suspension period represented a loss for the Consortium, and that the investment of resources without an associated remuneration and profit generates a loss. In this regard, this Tribunal in proven fact 22 indicated that, despite the fact that the Consortium had filed the claim, it became untimely and consequently extemporaneous. It is a different matter that the decision by the Trust was not to the Consortium's liking, because if one looks closely, from the related evidence, the claim for indirect costs was determined indiscriminately on general grouped items, not segmented by project, which under the premise of the burden of proof, had to demonstrate not only an exact link of the causal nexus between the amounts, resources, and each project, and the opportunity according to what was stipulated in the Tender Document had to be done, which is why the rejection of the administrative claims would be maintained. Furthermore, in unproven facts 3 and 7, with conviction in the evidence provided, there was no clarity or precision, much less certainty that beyond the suspension periods set forth in those suspension orders and greater than 338 calendar days in the works for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, it was the exclusive responsibility of the Trust and to the economic detriment of the Consortium. Note, even, that the cause of suspension of the works at the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa due to the existence of unstable land subsequent to the award of Contract 88-2017 resulted in the Consortium having to not only update the critical construction path and the project execution plans given the notorious situation to treat the land slopes, but also promptly dispatch the retention measures for it through the implementation of the corresponding modification order, in order to address that supervening situation, but as can be seen, even the plans and their corresponding due approval, like the modification order itself, posed challenges over time for the Consortium, which hindered the normal progress of the project. This aspect, in the Tribunal's opinion, and as has been indicated ut supra, should not in any way cloud, diminish, or delay the due execution of the Hermosa or Azul projects. Thus, the delays in the effective implementation of Suspension Orders OS-1 through OS-12 and the structuring and proposal of Modification Order OM-1 through OS-13, for the treatment of slopes due to the topographic inclination shown by the land where the Liceo Santa Rosa project works were to be executed would not be responsibility attributable to the Trust. Hence, beyond what was proven with the suspension of the works at 338 days, there is no accurate, useful, and pertinent proof that indicates to the Tribunal that the Consortium bore, due to the responsibility of the Trust, the real existence of the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administration expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public utilities, policies, financial expenses for extension of guarantees, financial expenses for extension of credit lines, bank commissions, default interest on working capital lines, office rentals, equipment and tool rental, administrative salaries, social charges), not only for the attention of the Liceo Santa Rosa project, but also Escuela Hermosa and Escuela Azul.

With the same basis as the previous claim, coupled with the Consortium's reproaches regarding the situations generated by the trust and which affected the efficiency in the delivery of the project and damage to the asset intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial) of the consortium due to financial imbalance, by attributing contractual breach, given a violation in all contracts, specifically in relation to communications generated by unauthorized third parties, and this with respect to the (non-existent) communications of the Works Managers (WM) in each project, who, being representatives of the Employer, omitted their obligation to maintain—in a strict sense—communications with the Consortium, it was accredited in the demonstrated facts that in relation to the subsequent administrative claims (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) of the Consortium for the recognition and payment of direct and indirect costs related to the projects contained in Contract 88-2017, all were denied. See that by official letter of March 24, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483 it is indicated: "This is the main fact that motivates this claim, as the existence of an asset damage caused by omitted, abnormal, and illicit administrative responsibility is claimed, which according to the provisions of Article 196 of the General Law of Public Administration, corresponds to '... the alleged damage must be effective, assessable, and individualizable in relation to a person or group...' Below is briefly explained, in a summary table all the amounts of this claim. Table No. 1 Description of the claims by LPI number and Project. 1 ESCUELA LA AZUL ¢171,008,746.80 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (1) ¢100,577,484.63 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (2) ¢120,322,757.00 COLONES, 1 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA ¢194,517,549.37 COLONES, TOTAL: ¢586,426,537.80 COLONES. The Trust, by official letter of April 27, 2020/FID-1604-2020, responds rejecting the administrative claim managed by official letter of March 24, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, indicating "We respond to notes GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-563, and GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2016-874, all dated March 24, 2020, in which you raise various Administrative Claims relating to several Projects related to the tender processes LPI-01-2017, LPI-02-2016, and LPI-04-2016... In the very contracts signed with the different Contractors for the design, construction, and equipping process of the Works, they were warned that the Employer – Trust BANCO NACIONAL – MEP, could delegate certain functions relating to the management of the Work to engineering professionals, as well as have a consulting firm and independent advisors, who would carry out the technical supervision process of the works, as is stated with absolute clarity in Sub-clauses 1 and 23.2 of the Special Conditions... the signing of a contract with a Consulting Firm for the Supervision of Works in Educational Centers and Multipurpose Courts for Trust No. 1099 MEP-BNCR, ensures the Trust BNCR-MEP has professional and technical services that support the oversight of the contracting, through the engagement of companies and professionals that support it in the 'supervision' of the contracts for the design and construction of the required Works... In the case of the Consortium CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, the contract established the obligation to have, among others, the figure of the Works Manager, who under the terms of said contracting, assumes a coordination role with the Employer, or with whomever it designates for its tasks, as is noted in Sub-clauses 8.1 and 8.2, clause 8. RESOURCES TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE CONSULTANT, of the Terms of Reference. In accordance with such stipulations, it is in no way indicated that the recommendations, with their respective justifications, must be made only through the Works Manager of the Supervising Consortium, so they could well be made also by another figure that forms part of the Supervision structure, or the Employer itself - Trust Banco Nacional – MEP – or whomever it designates, could even make them, to exercise its power to apply the contractual terms so that the Contractors correct any misalignment regarding the exact fulfillment of the agreed obligations, or those instructions, criteria, or actions issued to the contractors on the occasion of the activities contracted to the Supervising Consortium. Thus, we have that neither the Contract provides for it, nor has the Consortium CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa stated it, nor have the Banco Nacional, nor the Consortium CALVI+FSA, nor the Contractors who have executed and are executing Works understood it... the contractor is obliged to present a substantiated account of each 'omission, breach, or violation of the contract' it accuses; the impact of each of such omissions, breaches, or violations to the contract on the Work Program, the effect on activities in the critical path, the displacement they caused on such activities, the relationship of that with the 'increased costs' with respect to those estimated in the Offer, their quantification, origin, and nature, and their contrast with the financial economic balance of the offer, and finally the substantiation of the quantum sought... the Contractor has also breached its duty to indicate and prove the supposed damages and losses claimed, their estimation, their origin and nature, specifically what is stipulated in Sub-clauses 44.4, and 44.5, as well as the provisions of Article 193 of the LFAP, as a claim like the one intended, which deals with some supposed increased costs incurred, necessarily requires providing all the complementary information relating to the basis of the claim, having to prove by means of pertinent, suitable, and appropriate evidence, both the quantum and the corresponding disbursement claimed, all of which is lacking in the claims presented, as such increased costs can in no way be 'supposed or assumed' from a summation of simple photocopies without any substantiation, relationship, or proof of their link to the contracts and works, proof that they originate from the alleged event and not from the contractor's negligence or the risks assumed when entering into the contract...". Again, the Consortium presented an administrative claim by official letter of May 22, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538, on the occasion of documenting damages and losses following the rejection of the request for compensation and based on subparagraph b) of sub-clause 44.5 of the General Conditions, requesting financial recognition for an additional period, as well as indirect costs. The Trust, by official letter of June 4, 2020 FID-2100-2020, ordered the outright rejection of the request for not complying with the minimum requirements demanded by the legal regime for its admission and assessment. Once more, the Consortium presented an administrative claim by official letter of May 27, 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 on the occasion of documenting damages and losses following the rejection of the request for compensation and based on subparagraph b) of sub-clause 44.5 of the General Conditions, requesting financial recognition for an additional period, as well as indirect costs. And, again, the Trust ordered the outright rejection of the request for not complying with the minimum requirements demanded by the legal regime for its admission and assessment.

In relation to this, the Tribunal adopts the statements of the representative of the Banco Nacional when, in his conclusions, he states that: "It is not possible to recognize the payment of a sum if the claimant does not clearly substantiate and support the causal nexus regarding the alleged breach and its related injuries. General statements are made, even from other tenders, without specifying which amounts, resources, man-hours, or others should supposedly be recognized, without ignoring the duty to prove that their origin has been an act or omission of the tendering administration, an aspect that in none of the cases was proven either." In this way, it is not non-conforming with the regulations circumscribing Tender LPI-01-2017 when the Trust responds to the Consortium's official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, referring to the administrative claim, when by means of the resolution official letter FID-3566-2019 from the Employer, it indicates that for not having formally and timely completed the procedure in accordance with what was agreed in the procedure stipulated in Clause 44 of the General Conditions of the Tender Document of reference, which the Consortium had accepted, the request is improper, considering: "We refer to Sub-clauses 44.1 and 44.2 of the General Conditions of Contract, Section VII. General Conditions (GC), which to that effect stipulate: '...44.1 If the Contractor considers that it is entitled to any extension of the Time for Completion or any additional payment under any Clause of these Conditions or for other consideration connected with the Contract, the Contractor shall send a notice to the Project Manager describing the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than twenty-eight (28) days after the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of such event or circumstance. 44.2 If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of twenty-eight (28) days, the Time for Completion shall not be extended, the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim. Otherwise, the following provisions of this Sub-Clause shall apply.' This administration considers that such stipulations are applicable to the Contractor's claim, including those relating to increased costs or expenses derived from contractual suspensions, especially by provision of Sub-clause 44.9 of the same General Conditions, which states: '...44.9 The requirements of this Sub-Clause are in addition to those set out in any other Sub-Clause that may apply to a claim. If, with respect to any claim, the Contractor fails to comply with the provisions of this or another Sub-Clause, account shall be taken in any extension of time or additional payment of the extent (if any) to which the failure has prevented or prejudiced proper investigation of the claim, unless the claim is excluded under the second paragraph of this Sub-Clause.' Under such understanding, and in view of the documentation in the file, the first conclusion is that the Contractor breached its duty to notify, within the period stipulated in the Contract, its claims to the Project Manager. Considering that the first period of contractual suspension began on 07/21/2018, the Contractor had a period of 28 days to notify the claim, especially knowing that such prerogative (Suspension Order) would cause it increased costs. Likewise, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days following 07/21/2018, the complete and detailed claim, and given that the event giving rise to the claim has a continuous effect, according to its affirmation for the 1st suspension period that ended on 08/11/2018, it had 28 days after the end of such period to send its final claim, obligations that it evidently breached. The same occurs with the second period of contractual suspension, let us see. According to what was stated by the contractor itself, this period began on 09/14/2018 and ended on 11/02/2018, for which reason the Contractor had a period of 28 days from its start to notify the claim. Then, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days following 09/14/2018, the complete and detailed claim, and given that the event giving rise to the claim has a continuous effect, according to its affirmation, for the 2nd suspension period it ended on 11/02/2018, it had 28 days after the end of such period to send its final claim, obligations that it again breached. And a similar situation occurs with the third period of contractual suspension, which runs from 12/11/2018 to 06/07/2019, for which reason the Contractor had a period of 28 days from its start to notify the claim. Then, the Contractor was obliged to send, within the period of 42 days following 12/11/2018, the complete and detailed claim, which would be considered interim, being obliged according to that provision to send additional monthly interim claims, which it evidently did not comply with, limiting itself to sending a final claim after the end of the third period of contractual execution. Under the above, it is clear that the Contractor DID NOT COMPLY with the duties imposed by the Sub-clauses cited in this response, with the effects provided in Sub-clause 44.2 of the General Conditions being consequently applicable, according to which '...If the Contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of twenty-eight (28) days, the Time for Completion shall not be extended, and the Contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim.' (see CD/evidence/folder4/Annex 75/imgs.1-9). Such statements by the Trust were not contested by the Consortium in this litigation. It is no less true, therefore, what was stated by the representative of the Banco Nacional in his conclusions when affirming then: "There is no reason in fact or in law for any sum to be recognized to the plaintiff, they seek recognition of the unfounded suppositions and whose total delivery breaches lie in the poor planning of the execution of the works, and poor management of the funds or cash flows in the execution of each of the projects. The plaintiff insists throughout the process that the three works had to be executed in parallel and with the same resources, mixing the resources of the projects without any success. In this sense, note that the three projects are abandoned by the consortium and irrationally, they abandon a project that was at more than 80% of its execution, for no apparent reason, justifying said abandonment in the economic imbalance of the whole project, an aspect that, as previously indicated, corresponds to the evident, serious administrative error that places the plaintiff in a position of breach. This corresponds to a decision of absolute responsibility of the project administrator, that is IDECO, as is clear from the statements of its representative, since it was the latter who administered and directed the resources of each of the awarded contracts. In this line, it is not possible to attribute any responsibility to the TRUST, but it has been evidenced that it is the plaintiff's own." Corollary of the foregoing, it does not merit attention from the Tribunal to detract from what is indicated, either due to its little or no proof contrary to what is referenced, the official letter SUP-RD-973-2019, which, received by the Consortium on May 13, 2019, the Trust requests it to address a series of observations generated by the environmental regent (regente ambiental), official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204, of May 20, 2019, in which the Consortium responds to the observations of the environmental regent and that additionally, it notifies the administration that the administrative claim will be filed under the protection of the tender document to restore the economic balance of the contract, much less then, the lack of response that is alleged with respect to the meeting requested for the definition of the Compensation, where the Consortium followed up on the request, by means of the official letter GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-263, given that this does not reflect, even by inference, the truthfulness of the situation compromised on the occasion of the delays that occurred. Not even with the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, which were given during the Supplementary Hearing, was it possible to extract the opposite conclusion, that is, to affirm and reaffirm the situation of the accused delays as the basis for the administrative claims for the alleged imbalance. Note that Messrs. Álvaro E. Chavarría Chaves, Kristian Fallas, and Mr. Fernando Castro Ramírez himself (who claimed to be a partner of one of the claiming companies), were able to refer in detail and in a concrete and specific manner to the material elements by which the rejection of the claim came about. No other grounded reason is derived from their testimonies for which the resolutions rejecting the administrative claims must be annulled. The Tribunal recapitulates and adopts as part of this content under discussion what was already stated ut supra, in that the interpretation of the plaintiff Consortium, to justify this action and give some rhetorical content to its arguments and claims, must be appreciated from the indissoluble, joint, and joint-and-several execution of resources (capital and work) as if it were a single unit to be executed. This is not correct or appropriate, since the existence of correspondence and linkage for the execution of the works with joint effects cannot be interpreted, but on the contrary, the start orders for each project are determined singularly, and their details in the preliminary project, plans, etc., according to Sub-clause 2.1, paragraph 3), fourth paragraph of the Special Conditions of the Tender Document, in which the management of each educational center must be carried out individually. All procedures, reception periods, and guarantees must be adapted to the particularities of each project, without it being the case that, through the general project management and carried out in that way by the Consortium, material vicissitudes in the execution of one of the works are transferred in such a way as to cause damage to the others. That would be to apply a categorical syllogism on the basis of an incorrect initial premise, and from what is requested, it would result in an erroneous conclusion. That is, the issuance of the start orders was agreed individually, thus constituting a process of asset-related effects of design, construction, and equipping, in which particularities foreign to the other educational centers arise among themselves, yielding the logical conclusion that the execution of each and every one of the stages of the works was defined according to the strategy and business responsibility of their management by the awarded Consortium, assuming the responsibility for its own success or failure.

The Tribunal does not differentiate or contrast the possibility of carrying out the activities of Contract 88-2017 as if it were a single work, since that would be understandable based on an economy of scale planned for the highest yield of resources, but that does not mean—and this is what is not endorsed—that if the constructive, financial, and due management by the Consortium in the execution of the works contained in that Contract 88-2017, for the effective management of each educational center regarding all procedures, reception deadlines, and guarantees, for the regular attention to the adaptation, planning, execution, construction, and equipping with the unique particularities of each project for their delivery deadline, was not sufficiently solvent, resulting in delays and other issues, that this implies socializing the losses across the three projects due to the singular inconveniences of one of them, discretionarily transferring the losses and other matters across the generality of the work, without assuming its own responsibility. See how those rendered statements aim to indicate that the accused suspensions that occurred in the Santa Rosa project caused a domino effect on the other projects, setting aside the reality that the projects are patrimonially independent, with different costs and efficiencies, and with particular realities that must be executed individually because they correspond to a lump-sum contract, where full construction risks are borne by the contractor, as indicated by the representative of the Banco Nacional.

Furthermore, it must be taken into account that it has been credited in the record that the plans related to the instruction of OM-1 were not effectively approved by the CFIA within the 30 calendar days following the resumption of the project's execution, and that being the case, the Consortium, through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 dated October 3, 2019, requested a temporary suspension of the deadline established in OM-01 until the construction plans submitted on the CFIA APC platform were approved, due to formal problems in their previous submission to that institution that warranted their resubmission on more than one occasion, as well as the circumstance that occurred at the corresponding local government, when through official communication dated October 10, 2019/MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, the Municipality of Oreamuno de Cartago indicated that the Consortium failed to complete the construction permit procedure, which it had not processed and finalized correctly, stating that: "As rightly indicated by Articles 74 of the Construction Law, 6 and 7 of the Municipal Code, it follows that public entities are not obliged to request a construction permit, but must notify the Municipality in advance of the works they intend or require to construct," given that previously the Consortium had submitted the request to be reviewed by National Buildings (Edificaciones Nacionales) and that the construction permit procedure before the Municipality was not processed, making the timely and normal execution of the works impossible, causing the Municipality of Oreamuno to shut down the execution of the project. Therefore, subsequently, after clarifications from the Trust and the Contractor before that local government, the latter sent an email: "From: María de la Cruz Calderón Moya <[email protected]> Date: November 7, 2019 at 16:01:05 CST. To: Luis Granados Figueroa <[email protected]> Cc: Luis Gómez Artavia <[email protected]>, Catalina Coghi Ulloa <[email protected]> Subject: SOBRE PERMISO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN LICEO DE SANTA ROSA-MUNICIPALIDAD DE OREAMUNO; stating: "Good afternoon, Regarding the construction permit procedure initiated at the Municipality of Oreamuno, for the construction of the Liceo de Santa Rosa, filed on June 20, 2018, regarding cadastral map C-1213011-2008, whose owner is the Banco Nacional de C.R, permit No. 24046, said permit is already APPROVED by this department. The contracting company needs to come to the municipality to sign and withdraw the certificate corresponding to the municipal construction license. Likewise, due to what was stated this morning by you, this department authorizes the start of the constructive works for the development of the project, with the commitment that the company withdraws the corresponding certificate as well as the plans." A matter that was recalled by official communication Heredia, March 30, 2020, SUP-RD-0440-2020 from the Construction Manager G03, Supervision Manager -Consorcio CSI-CACISA- sent to CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, in which it is made known: "On October 28, the Contractor sent official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333, with a request for OS-14, due to delays in the start of works, due to the requirements requested by the Municipality of Oreamuno in official communication MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, resulting in that on March 25, 2020, the Contractor sent official communications GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-484, where it again refers to the chronology of official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 and provides Construction Permit # 24 046 from the Municipality of Oreamuno, dated November 22, 2019. And, upon reviewing the permit granted by the Municipality of Oreamuno, it is found that it refers to a 1332m2 work, which corresponds to the work of the original contract and has nothing to do with the stabilization works of the north slope of the project. Thus, the Municipality's problem for the restart of work on the project was related to pending procedures of the Contractor of the Original Contract and not due to the new works. And, although the Contractor indicated in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, that the Municipal Construction Permit procedure was not carried out because this project was submitted to be reviewed by National Buildings (Edificaciones Nacionales) and not by Municipalities, according to the Construction Law, article number 75, it never provided either the permit issued by National Buildings (Edificaciones Nacionales) or its notification to the Municipality of Oreamuno as was requested in official communication SUP-RD-0375-2020. Therefore, it is inferred, based on the foregoing, that the refusal by the Municipality of Oreamuno for the restart of works was due to the fact that no permit procedure existed before the Municipality for the original contract, nor had the permit issued by National Buildings (Edificaciones Nacionales) been presented to them for their knowledge, this despite the fact that the works began on May 21, 2018, and were temporarily suspended through service orders, in an interrupted manner via OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, and OS-04 from July 20, 2018, and continuously from December 11, 2019, until September 2, 2019, through OS-05 up to OS-12. And it is not until September 3, 2019, through OS-13 that the Resumption of works is notified, so official communication MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, of October 10, 2019, is the result of the communication made by the Contractor through official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, regarding the restart of works; however, it is due to the Contractor apparently not completing the construction permit for the original contract works, either before National Buildings (Edificaciones Nacionales) as it indicated, or before the Municipality of Oreamuno. It was even detected that during visit No. 11 by the Environmental Regent (Regencia Ambiental), on Monday, April 22, 2019, it revealed: 1- Currently, no one resides within the AP, not even the security officer. 2- Significant vegetation growth is observed mainly around the temporary works area (offices, warehouses, and workshops). It is suggested to clean (chop) as soon as possible. 3- Partial protection of the exposed slopes with plastic is still observed (approximately 60% of the slope surface). The wind is removing part of these, generating potential erosion. No landslides are yet observed; however, winter is imminent, and this situation could worsen. 4- The main gate to access the AP remains down; therefore, there is no longer restricted access for persons outside the Project, exposing the remaining works and materials. It is suggested to restore this gate as soon as possible. 5- It is imperative that, even though the works remain suspended, the project developer, through the contractor, carries out maintenance works, mainly for green areas and slope protection." Given the above, the Tribunal estimates and considers that the testimony of Mr. Álvaro E. Chavarría Chaves, which was based on the rules of the IDB's "Yellow Book" for his statement—a document that did not constitute the tender specifications (cartel) for the bid that awarded the contract—in no way contributes to proving the crux of the matter raised by the Consortium, much less to substantiating a serious breach of contract by the Trust. Ultimately, the "Yellow Book" and the "tender specifications (cartel)" are distinct documents with substantial differences in their regulations, especially regarding the concepts of "Service Order" (Orden de Servicio, OS) and "Modification Order" (Orden de Modificación, OM). Therefore, having managed the execution of the contract based on what was provided in the tender specifications (cartel) and not in the "Yellow Book" (as a model) does not constitute any fault but rather respect for the agreed-upon contractual conditions. By its logical sense, the statements made in the defendant's conclusions are upheld, which are concordant with what was appreciated by this Tribunal. It was established as an applicable prior criterion that would support this resolution that the subjection and submission of the parties to the process for the contracted public work, and to the present controversy raised, was according to the normative stipulation derived from the Tender Specifications for International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 (Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017), instrumented in its time by and through its Bid Documents for the International Public Tender Process / Trust Contract for the Financing of the Construction and Equipping Project 1099 for Educational Infrastructure of the Ministry of Public Education at the National Level (Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional / Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento 1099 de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional), signed on April 10, 2013, which, endorsed by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic on July 14 of the same year, established the specific rules thereof, as well as defined the rights and obligations of the contracting parties.

There were no seriously considered, useful, and pertinent testimonies to affirm and sustain the existence of the components of liability to substantiate the criterion of imputation against the Trust, and thereby, evaluate the nexus of causality and determine the corresponding existence of the reproached patrimonial injury, since the statement proceeded on the basis of "mere assumptions," which were otherwise foreign to the tender specifications' stipulations. The Tribunal can have no other consideration regarding what was stated by witness Mr. Kristian Fallas, by not establishing which injuries result in damages, as the expert report omits considering the facts specific to the contracting, especially the tender specifications' stipulations, the merit of the issuance of the OS and the OM and adjustment of the content and conditions of time, mode, and place to the tender specifications' provisions, as well as the obligation to execute the projects individually, as they were awarded and according to the circumstantial characteristics of each one. On the contrary, his analysis is conducted under the assumption of "parallel execution" of the three works but omits supporting such an assumption on the contractual conditions agreed between the parties and also omits considering the market reality that indicates that the execution of three different works would have their own execution flow. Nor was it evident to him, nor did he perform any real analysis of the payroll and resources assigned to the project within the actual execution intervals, with a certain and clear identification of the causal links of each alleged damage that should be recognized in favor of the plaintiff, as his statement was thus appreciated in the supplementary hearing. Consequently, the theory proposed by the witness, Mr. Fernando Castro Ramírez, is discarded. Faithful to his position as a partner of some of the Consortium's companies, he admitted that they put forward their offer under the assumption of "parallel execution" of the three works but omitted to support such an assumption on the contractual conditions agreed between the parties, making it a mere assertion unsupported by the tender specifications' conditions. In fact, he acknowledged that this was a business decision and therefore an assumed risk of his company, without it therefore being attributable to the Administration that such a unilateral decision of his was not realized. Thus, while recognizing himself as an expert in the field of construction, he omitted clarifying why, if unforeseen events in works are "the rule," the risk that the works would have delays due to unforeseen events, and even that their execution would not be parallel, was not considered as an execution risk. He also omitted to explain the reason why, being those responsible for the soil study, they failed to determine from the beginning the instability of the slope at Escuela Santa Rosa; nor did he manage to justify the suspension of the work to stabilize the slope, and how the work could have continued in parallel with the stabilization, such that the decision to suspend was unnecessary and disproportionate. He accepted that, in the case of Escuela Azul, the archaeological find, due to its location, did not affect the execution of the works; he omitted to inform that the sanitary order issued regarding the wastewater was issued to the Municipality of the place and the neighbors and not to the construction consortium, and that he did not order the suspension of the works, so they were not affected. Although he complained about the orders issued by the MEP for the execution of the work, he omitted to justify why such instructions were not disregarded, as he maintained that those officials were not competent to issue them; furthermore, he did not indicate to what person, time, and place, scope of the instruction, amount, damage caused, and other elements that would prove any causal link or relationship with any disputed fact, leaving an indeterminate and uncertain statement with the intention of supporting his interests. He omits to prove and explain what the impact was of the orders he received being signed by persons other than those they considered competent. All these omissions, which the defendant's representative replicates, are nothing other than the reality of what the witness reported in the supplementary hearing, which speaks of the scarcity of utility and pertinence to sustain, convince, and justify, not only a thesis of the litigation that is of his convenience but also one removed from the evidentiary reality in the record. Thus, it is more than reasonable, based on listening to the testimonies, to align with the appreciations of the Banco Nacional's conclusions and what was thus perceived by the Tribunal regarding the content of those depositions.

In that regard, the appreciations of the plaintiff to ground a contractual breach are not sustainable, not only regarding the delays but also to substantiate as a relevant legal situation the existence, consistency, and level of impact occasioned by communications such as contractual instructions regarding the issuance of notifications, instructions, orders, certificates, and approvals. These are accused of having impacted and caused a lack of execution, delay thereof, or irregular execution or economic harm in the Contract 88-2017 projects. This is noted because they were not issued by the Trust or third parties during the term of the contract and until before the Rescission ordered by it, and contrary to what was reproached, there is no material certainty that the Trust formally validated Service Orders (Órdenes de Servicio), Suspension Orders (Órdenes de Suspensión), or Modification Orders (Órdenes de Modificación) from third parties outside the Supervision Unit—Supervision Manager (Gerente de Supervisión), Construction Manager (Gerente de Obra) (formerly Project Director), and the Assistant to the Management (Adjunta a la Gerencia), or the General Coordinator of the Executing Unit (Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora)—who were authorized by the Tender Specifications for International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 (Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017) to issue them. With that, it enabled and justified the Consortium to modify, alter, restructure the approved and authorized final designs, or to request additional or substitute designs outside the previously accepted and authorized Service Orders (Órdenes de Servicio) or Modification Orders (Órdenes de Modificación), during the construction process, which affected or substantially differed from the approved design in construction plans, altering the deadline and cost susceptible to liquidation and pertinent payment in favor of the Consortium.

In accordance with the foregoing, the position of the representative of the Banco Nacional must be accepted when he infers in the answer to the complaint that the Construction Manager (Gerente de Obra) appointed by the Employer corresponds to the Supervision Unit and the Executing Unit (Unidad Ejecutora) (both units with distinct functions), and that it was these dependencies that were responsible for maintaining the project's communication with the contractor. Even though the Construction Manager (Gerente de Obra) appointed by the Supervision Unit held the function of maintaining communication with the contractor, he is not the only professional who holds this authority. Therefore, throughout the entire contracting process, the Supervision Unit maintained contact with the plaintiff Consortium through three professionals: Supervision Manager (Gerente de Supervisión) (Adrián Ruilova Resca), Construction Managers (Gerentes de Obras) (For the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project: First was Mr. Víctor Azofeifa Alvarado, later Juan Carlos Rodríguez Arce, later Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado held the position, and finally, Adrián Ruilova Reacia culminated as Construction Manager; and in the case of the Escuela Azul and Escuela La Hermosa projects, first was Álvaro Quirós Rossi and later he was replaced by Gonzalo Muñoz Zeledón), and the Assistant to the Management (Adjunta a la Gerencia) (Fabiana Rego González). The plaintiff Consortium was instructed to always direct all communication to the Construction Manager (Gerente de Obra) designated by the Supervision Unit, this to maintain clarity regarding communications. In any case, it equally remained unproven that there were contradictions or conflicts generated by the fact that a communication was not signed by the Construction Manager (Gerente de Obra), much less the substantive impact and effect on the execution of the work pertinent to Contract 88-2017. From the foregoing, it is extraneous to what has been credited to determine the absence of liability of the Consortium regarding the review, approval, and order to commence OM-01, with the statements and contents of official communications GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Request for OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-093 (Clarifications on OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-102 (In response to SUP-RD-789-2018 and SUP-RD-790-2018 (Observations on review OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, in which an extended response was given to the queries that the Supervision made regarding the proposal for OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, presented for the concept of slope stabilization in the project -version two); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-108 (provided version three of OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, in response to official communication SUP-RD-853-2018, where modifications to the proposal were requested); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-112 (provides a response to SUP-RD-865-2018 regarding the request for additional information requested by the administration for the OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, where the administration requested additional information); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-113 (updated the milestone table for the OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127 (Supplementally on January 3, 2019, the present official communication was provided with the updated milestone table for OM-01 - Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-129 (supplementally responded to official communication SUP-RD-005-2019 in which the update was provided with the breakdown of milestones corresponding to OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (knowledge of the Supervision that, as OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project had not been approved as of January 24, 2019, the indirect costs contained in the offer sent in December had varied, and for that reason it no longer had validity); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-157 (the extension of the suspension of the project deadline was requested, on the understanding that OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project had not been approved by that date); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-161 (following the meeting held in the Trusts section of the Banco Nacional, the delivery of technical information was made to proceed with an integral review of our proposal); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-174 (communicated that the "OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project" sent had lost validity, this due to delays in approval as of March 5, 2019. This situation was reported on January 28, 2019, official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145; therefore, guaranteeing the efficiency of the process, it was recommended that Supervision request an update of the costs of OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-178 (proceeded to provide the information requested by the supervision regarding the performance of tests and reports concerning the design of OM-01); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-186 (proceeded to provide the fifth update OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, and proceeded to detail that from OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, and the requests for suspension of deadline orders OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, OS-04, OS-05, and OS-06 for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project, 248 days had elapsed since the first suspension of the project was issued); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-189 (to review the latest version of OM-01 Stabilization work of the slopes of the North sector of the land of the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa project); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-190 (response to SUP-RD-658-2019 (the commercial conditions of the modification order were presented regarding deadline, validity, design and construction, processing of construction permits, as well as its cost); CG-2019-0931 (290 days after the suspension of the project, the Consortium is notified that Modification Order (Orden de Modificación) OM-01 is approved, it is requested to review the addendum to the contract, and it is indicated that the works will not begin until there is a start order for this additional work, which on August 28, 2019, Service Order No. 13 (Orden de Servicio N°13) was signed, providing the start order for Modification Order (Orden de Modificación) OM-01. It is perceptible then that with the evidence provided it is neither evident nor demonstrated that the project was suspended for 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days due to situations attributable to the Trust's responsibility. That is, in the opposite sense, that it was due to conduct unrelated to the Contractor's liability and, therefore, that throughout this entire period the Consortium found itself obligated to bear the financial burden of indirect costs (security, administrative expenses, technical direction, inspection, per diems, organization, surveillance, contingencies, maintenance of temporary facilities, public services, insurance policies, financial expenses for extension of guarantees, financial expenses for extension of credit lines, bank commissions, default interest on working capital lines, office rentals, administrative salaries, social charges, among others). Consequently, the plaintiff failed to prove any element of nullity, pertinent and useful, in the resolutions that rejected the administrative claims presented, much less the existence of breaches of contract or that the decision to decline the claims was made against the norms and principles applicable to the matter. In light of the foregoing, and as no nonconformity with the legal system is evident, the pretension of admissibility regarding the administrative claims for breach of contract in what was considered is impermissible. That is, the Consortium failed to prove the existence of the legal basis to declare breaches of the Trust and thereby establish the adequate causality to declare that the denied claims were nonconforming to the legal system, and much less that a declaration of a subjective right arises for the Consortium not only to invalidate what was resolved but also to be considered regarding what was pursued by the Consortium itself as the compliant party. Therefore, invoking the exception of non-performance of contract (excepción de contrato no cumplido) was additionally inappropriate as a defense to undermine what was resolved, since that contractual party was not positioned as enabled under the presuppositions of the legal conceptual sphere of that defensive structure to oppose it legitimately and validly against the Trust and thus block what was decided. It is reiterated once again, the inexistence of nonconformity with the legal system and the consequent request for nullity of the reproached administrative acts (principal claim 2 and 4), whereby what was sought under this heading must be rejected and consequently the first and second subsidiary claims, in relation to them having no legal support in this regard, according to the terms and scope in which this topic was addressed, under penalty of incurring unreasonableness and incongruence, accepting in closing the exception of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the defendant.

XI.- 1.- ON THE LEGITIMACY AND EFFECTS OF THE PENALTY CLAUSE. The Consortium, in relation to the definition of the penalty clauses (cláusulas penales), carries out, by way of objecting to what was resolved, descriptions of its actions within the summary procedure and in response to resolution FID-2317-2020 specifically (Proyecto Escuela Hermosa), informing that it proceeded to respond in official communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 indicating that in that memorial it appealed to the Defense of non-performance of contract (non adimpleti contractus) based on Article 692 of the Civil Code, which it claimed was applicable supplementarily pursuant to article number 9.2 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP), as it warned that no factual circumstances were evident for the application of the penalty clause (cláusula penal). It based that previous assertion on what was jurisprudentially provided in vote number 6639-2013 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), which considers that the Public Administration must always demonstrate that the contractor's breach is effectively imputable to it, since (as occurs in this case) there may be exonerating circumstances from that liability, and it made a partial transcription of the resolution: "…prior to the execution of a penalty clause (cláusula penal), it must be corroborated through due process whether the late or premature performance was effectively the responsibility of the contractor or, on the contrary, whether any exonerating circumstance from liability existed… Certainly, the contracting Administration is called upon to safeguard the public interest in each of the administrative contracts it agrees to with private parties, as well as to guarantee the regularity of the public services and, consequently, avoid any type of unjustified delays in the execution of the object of the administrative contract; however, these constitutional principles do not authorize the Administration to incur arbitrariness, such as automatically executing the agreed penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) without first ruling out exonerating circumstances from contractual liability." It warned, in this case, that given the circumstances, it is evident that what occurred is a direct responsibility of the Trust (Fideicomiso) and, consequently, it is neither fair nor consistent with the principles of the social and democratic state under the rule of law to apply the penalty clause against the Consortium, when the party in breach was the Trust, by failing to seek, guarantee, and maintain the economic equilibrium in the execution of this contract; therefore, it concludes that the Consortium was affected by the rejection of the first administrative payment request and subsequent ones made for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, as well as the lack of response to the indemnification request for more than 180 days in the same project, and that for this reason progress on this Project could not be achieved since January 2019. In fact 47 of the complaint, it also reports that the Trust issued Final Act number 29-2020/FID-3278-2020 of one ten p.m. on July twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty, by which the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause for the Escuela La Hermosa Project was concluded; it also issued a Final Act, which in Resolution number 26-2020/Communication FID-3076-2020 concluded the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause for the Liceo Santa Rosa Project, and Final Act - Resolution number 31-2020/Communication FID-3331-2020 which concluded the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause for Escuela Azul. In relation to the described fact, it once again states, for informational purposes, that a response was given in communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547, with the same considerations invoked above.

Regarding the statements made by the plaintiff Consortium, the Court deems it necessary to emphasize and reiterate what was warned in Considering VIII, to establish by a majority of reason that what was stated regarding the penalty clauses in relation to the definitions of the fines does not even come close to being considered or classified as legal/technical grievances, reproaches, or challenges duly supported by the categorical syllogism based on the subsumption of the rule and the determining fact of the debated issue. In the specific case of administrative acts with ablative effects, as occurs with resolutions FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020, FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020, and FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020, according to Article 36, subsection c of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, when their nullity and obviously their non-conformity with the legal order is sought before this jurisdiction—as is intended—it is unavoidably required, in order to urge the Chamber to rule in this regard, to address and explain what the defect or defects are that concur in the questioned formal administrative conduct and the element or elements of that conduct that are affected by the alleged defects, as well as the magnitude of the defect's incidence to determine the potency of the deviation, be it relative or absolute, and its effect within the structure of the administrative act, and to specify the certainty of the existence of the reason stated in the resolution. That is to say, it must be indicated and developed, whether it is the error or omission contained in the challenged conduct, and then established to what degree or measure those apparent defects affect its formal elements (form of expression, statement of reasons, and procedure) or material elements (competence, investiture, standing, will, motive, content, and purpose) in accordance with the rules of the theory of administrative acts, sufficiently developed in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, case law, and doctrine. It must be remembered that this review of the legality of administrative activity is not conducted ex officio, given that in this jurisdiction the principle of party disposition and the principle of congruence fully apply, procedural principles that must be respected by the parties and that constitute the limits of action for the Judges, given the burden of proof lies with the challenger to rebut the presumption of validity of those formal acts of the administration. Thus presented, the Court must, regarding what was indicated by the Consortium, state that it was proven in the record that in the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Project, the Trust initiated, with the Act Opening Summary Procedure for the Application of the Penalty Clause dated July 9, 2020-FID 2665-2020 against the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium, forwarding and informing it of 25 imputed facts, and charging it with Delay in the Completion of Works for the Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Project, implying a penalty of $131,949.18 according to the penalty clause contained in the Tender Conditions Document, Section VIII Special Conditions, Clause 26 and 26.2 Guarantee of Completion Deadline, and granting it three business days for the corresponding defense arguments, providing it with the respective administrative file. (see folios 76 to 84 physical file Penalty Clause). In response to that hearing, the Consortium answered the granted hearing via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 of July 15, 2020, justifying the impropriety of the procedure and application of the penalty clause based on: I. Absence of one of the basic prerequisites for imposing the penalty clause: There is a breach by the Contracting Party in the Contract, II.- Defense of unfulfilled contract based on Article 692 of the Civil Code, applicable supplementarily according to Article 9.2 of the LGAP, III.- Regarding the approval of the Project Construction Plans, IV.- Findings of an unforeseeable situation regarding the condition of the soils present that generated a change order that took 10 months in the process of request, review, and approval by the Trust, V.- Breach by the Contracting Party: Trust rejected indemnification for more than 180 days of suspension of the deadline due to a cause beyond the Contractor's control, VI.- Regarding the basis to consider for calculating the amount of the penalty clause. (see folios 85 to 98 physical file Penalty Clause). The Trust, by Final Act of August 11, 2020, FID-3076-2020, resolution N°26-2020, ordered the rejection in all its aspects of the claim presented by the Consortium in its defense arguments and conclusions submitted via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 of July 15, 2020. (see folios 158 to 195 physical file Penalty Clause). The Consortium filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Recurso de Revocatoria) via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 of August 18, 2020, justifying it basically on the same reasons as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see folios 196 to 209 physical file Penalty Clause) and finally, the Trust, by communication of September 8, 2020, FID-3468-2020, resolved to reject in all its aspects the Motion for Reconsideration filed via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 of August 18, 2020, confirming the Final Act of August 11, 2020, FID-3076-2020, and warning the Contractor of three business days for payment of the amount of USD $131,949.18 under warning of execution of the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento). (see final unnumbered folios in physical file Penalty Clause). In relation to the Escuela La Hermosa Project, the Trust, after the hearing and objection process granted to the Contractor, issued the Penalty Clause application procedure, issuing Final Act number 24-2020/FID-2879-2020 of July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, by which the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause for the Escuela La Hermosa Project was concluded, imposing the amount of USD $166,063.38. (see CD/testimony/folder4/Appendix 98 /imgs.1-31). The Consortium filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Recurso de Revocatoria) via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 of August third, two thousand twenty, justifying it basically on the same reasons as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see CD/testimony/folder4/Appendix 84/imgs.1-12). The Trust, by communication of August 25, 2020, FID-3278-2020 RESOLUTION N°29-2020 of the Project Steering Committee of the MEP-BNCR Trust, at one ten p.m. on August twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty, resolved to reject in all its aspects the Motion for Reconsideration filed via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 of August third, two thousand twenty, confirming Final Act number 24-2020/FID-2879-2020 of July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, and warning the Contractor of three business days for payment of the amount of USD $166,063.38 under warning of execution of the performance bond. (see CD/testimony/folder4/Appendix 88 /imgs.1-12). Regarding the Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul Project, the Trust, after the hearing and objection process granted to the Contractor, issued the Penalty Clause application procedure, issuing the Final Act of August 28, 2020, FID-3331-2020 FINAL ACT RESOLUTION N°31-2020 of the Project Steering Committee of the MEP-BNCR Trust, at eleven forty a.m. on August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, by which the Summary Procedure for the application of the penalty clause for the Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul Project, Code 24-1942, was concluded, imposing the amount of USD $95,457.70. (see CD/testimony/folder4/Appendix 88/imgs.1-33). The Consortium filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Recurso de Revocatoria) via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 of September third, two thousand twenty, justifying it basically on the same reasons as its defense arguments and conclusions. (see CD/testimony/folder4/Appendix83/imgs.1-8); and the Trust, by communication of September 10, 2020, FID-3522-2020 RESOLUTION N°36-2020 of the Project Steering Committee of the MEP-BNCR Trust, at twelve thirty p.m. on September tenth, two thousand twenty, resolved to reject in all its aspects the Motion for Reconsideration filed via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 of September third, two thousand twenty, confirming the Final Act number of August 28, 2020, FID-3331-2020 FINAL ACT RESOLUTION N°31-2020 of the Project Steering Committee of the MEP-BNCR Trust, at eleven forty a.m. on August twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty, and warning the Contractor of three business days for payment of the amount of USD $95,457.70, under warning of execution of the performance bond. (see images 865 to 874 of the judicial file). Thus, the resolutions: FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 ordered payment of the amount of USD $131,949.18 (Santa Rosa project), by FID-2879-2020 N° 24-2020 payment of the amount of USD $166,063.38, and by FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 payment of the amount of USD $95,457.70, for a total of USD $393,470.26, for which the Consortium was warned to settle its payment through the execution of the performance bonds. Moreover, it should be noted that the Consortium, in relation to what was decided for the Escuela Hermosa project in the cited penalty clause resolution, did not challenge in any way the facts accredited there, and with that, even less could it discredit the motive, which is shown below:

"Consequently, the following are considered proven and relevant for the issuance of this administrative resolution:

• a)At folios 01 to 06, on October 26, 2017, the MEP-BNCR Trust (Contracting Party) and the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium (Contractor) signed Contract No. 88-2017, which includes three Projects distributed in Lot 2, which is made up of: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); for a total contractual amount of USD $6,146,149.50.
• b)At folio 07, on July 31, 2018, the Contracting Party, via communication FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551 of July thirty-first, two thousand eighteen, issued to the Contractor the Start Order (Orden de Inicio) for construction for the Escuela La Hermosa Project, with the effective start date being August 6, 2018, and in compliance with the construction and equipment deadline, the works were to be delivered on January 6, 2019.
• c)At folio 08, on September 25, 2018, the Contractor, via communication GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-066 of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eighteen, submitted to the Supervisor the latest version of OS-1, in which, based on delays due to rain, it requested a deadline compensation (compensación de plazo) for the delivery of the works.
• d)At folios 09 and 10, on November 9, 2018, the Supervisor, via communication SUP-RD-714-2018 of November ninth, two thousand eighteen, notified the Contractor of the approval of OS-1, which granted a deadline compensation of ten calendar days, setting the Project completion date for January 16, 2019.
• e)At folios 12 and 13, on December 27, 2018, the Contractor, via communication GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-124 of December twenty-seventh, two thousand eighteen, submitted to the Supervisor OS-7, in which, based on an alleged force majeure (fuerza mayor) event, it requested a deadline compensation for the delivery of the works.
• f)At folio 09, on January 9, 2019, the Contractor, via communication GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-130 of January ninth, two thousand nineteen, submitted to the Supervisor the latest version of OS-2, in which, based on delays due to rain, it requested a deadline compensation of seven calendar days for the delivery of the works.
• g)At folio 14, on January 15, 2019, the Supervisor, via communication SUP-RD-043-2019 of January fifteenth, two thousand nineteen, notified the Contractor that according to the latest visits made by the supervision team, the Project was with evident delays in the schedule, and for this reason, a period of three business days was granted for it to submit a remedial plan.
• h)At folio 15, on January 24, 2019, the Contractor, via communication GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-147 of January twenty-fourth, two thousand nineteen, based on OS-5 (deadline extension (ampliación de plazo) due to rain) and OS-7 (force majeure), submitted to the Supervisor a request for deadline compensation of seventeen calendar days.
• i)At folios 16 and 17, on January 24, 2019, the Supervisor, via communication SUPRD-124-2019 of January twenty-fourth, two thousand nineteen, notified the Contractor that the contractual execution deadline, including the deadline compensations granted by the approval of OS-1 and OS-2, had expired on January 23, 2019. Furthermore, it clarified to the Contractor that the deadline requested in OS-5 was included in the compensation granted through the approval of OS-2 and that OS-7 was rejected as being improper.
• j)At folio 18, on November 8, 2019, the Supervisor, via communication SUPRD-2634-2019 of November eighth, two thousand nineteen, reiterated to the Contractor and placed on record that as of that date the works had accumulated 289 calendar days of delay with respect to the stipulated contractual deadline.
• k)It is recorded that in the administrative file, as of June 8, 2020, there is no request from the Contractor requesting the final acceptance (recepción definitiva) of the Escuela La Hermosa Project." (FID-2879-2020/FINAL ACT/RESOLUTION N°24-2020/Project Steering Committee of the MEP-BNCR Trust, San José at ten a.m. on July twenty-eighth, two thousand twenty) Consequently, taking into account the regulations in force at the time of the facts, i.e., the cited LCA and its Regulations (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33411) repealed upon the promulgation of the Ley General de Contratación Pública of May 27, 2021, effective as of December first, 2022, and those stipulated under the Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Tender Document, it is possible to point out that from Article 34 of the LCA it is clearly inferred that the performance bond must be provided: "...to ensure compensation for any eventual damage or harm caused by the awardee." This compensatory connotation is ratified in the final paragraph of that provision when it stated: "The execution of the performance bond does not exempt the contractor from indemnifying the Administration for the damages and losses not covered by that bond." Based on the foregoing, in this process it has also been accredited that the Consortium breached the terms agreed upon in contract 88-2017 derived from the cited scopes of the tender in question, all of which finds support in the extensive reasoning and considerations that the Court resolved in relation to the topic of Rescission (Rescisión) and Administrative Claims, as seen in Considering IX, sections 5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and Considering X, sections 1 and 2. It was also demonstrated that through administrative channels, sanctioning resolutions were issued based on the legal effect of the declared Rescission and the reasons for which it was issued, thus establishing the following visualization, corresponding and consistent with its contractual breach regarding the non-delivery of the projects contained in Contract 88-2017 within the agreed deadline and the non-existence, due to the Trust's responsibility, of harm from financial imbalance (desequilibrio financiero):

Penalty Clause (Per Project) | --- | --- | | Defined Fine | | | Liceo Santa Rosa. Res.FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 | $131,949.18 | | Escuela Hermosa. Res.FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 | $166,063.38 | | Escuela Azul. Res.FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 | $95,457.70 | | TOTAL PENALTY CLAUSES | $393,470.26 | Indeed, the dynamics inherent to State contracting and its institutions, and the necessary flexibility of the regulation, allow the possibility for the Administration to include in the tender document and later in the contract, a system of assessed sanctions that address specific breaches, such as the delayed or premature delivery of the contract's object, or defects in its execution. It is worth highlighting, as indicated by the Sala Constitucional in ruling No. 6639-2013, that the application of these figures requires prior procedures that guarantee due process and the contractor's right of defense, requiring at least the establishment of a summary procedure: "V. (...) one of the main obligations of the contractor is precisely the effective and efficient execution of the object of the procurement, under the terms and conditions that were offered, awarded, and later formalized in the respective administrative contract, which of course includes the set of modifications incorporated into that relationship as a derivation of the Administration's unilateral modification power, within the limits set forth in numeral 12 of Ley No. 7494. This duty of performance is established in the letter of Article 20 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa which establishes the obligation of contractors to '... fully comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any formal documented statement that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract.' This duty of performance is fundamental for the due satisfaction of the public interest which, in principle, constitutes the legitimizing basis and the very purpose of the public procurement regime, insofar as the object of the procurement will only be satisfied upon due fulfillment of the qualitative and quantitative aspects assigned to the contractor and which are necessary to obtain that good or service entrusted to them through this business mechanism. Now, although a principle of good faith and mutual collaboration governs the dynamics of administrative contracts, given the underlying public interest present in this regime (teleological element), it is necessary for the contractor to post a bond to ensure due performance of the contract, as well as for any eventual damages and losses that a total or partial breach of contractual obligations may cause. From this perspective, numeral 34 of Ley No. 7494 establishes the figure of the performance bond, as a mechanism that seeks to ensure that possible damages and/or losses caused by the contractor in the contractual execution phase (or its absence), can be indemnified to the Administration, through a backing that it maintains under its custody and which has been previously required in the procurement procedure and posted by the awardee. According to that norm, the amount of the bond must be previously defined in the tender document, and ranges between 5 and 10%, with the lower percentage applying when required and no percentage is indicated (...) It should be noted, the nature of this bond is not punitive, but compensatory. Ergo, proof of breach of obligations is not sufficient to execute it; it is imperative that the Administration proves the damages and losses caused by that non-performance." Therefore, when the contract ends through so-called "abnormal" means, i.e., rescission, resolution (resolución), or declaration of nullity, it is clear that in those cases one cannot speak of expiration of the deadline or execution of the contractual object, since these are precisely figures whose characteristic is to put an end to the business relationship prior to its culmination through those normal paths. Hence, what is usual and due is that at the moment of initiating the procedure to terminate the contract for any of those three stated causes, to the extent that there is any damage or harm that must be compensated to the Administration as a derivation of neglect of the obligations assumed by the contractor, it is imperative for the contracting entity to order the opening of the rigorous procedures to establish the occurrence of the breach and its economic projection, so as to allow the execution of the cited due performance bond.

2.- CONTINUATION. IMPROPRIETY OF INVALIDATING APPLICATION OF PENALTY CLAUSE. IMPROPRIETY OF DECLARING A SUBJECTIVE RIGHT IN FAVOR OF THE CONSORTIUM FOR ITS INAPPLICABILITY.

As an effect derived from the rescission and its intrinsic contractual result, the contractual stipulation in the tender document LPI-01-2017 stipulated and empowered the contracting Administration to liquidate in advance the damages and losses derived from premature, delayed, or no delivery of the work by the contractor. Therefore, the purpose of this clause is for the contracting administration to have an agile mechanism to obtain reparation for the damages and losses caused by premature advance or delay, considering that in certain cases the execution deadline is of vital importance and, given its specific purpose, must be executed upon breach of the execution deadline of the agreed obligations, with the result that through it any mismatch—due to prematurity or delay—in the contractual execution deadline is penalized. That is, the setting of the penalty clause in the tender document constitutes a sum that will cover the possible damages and losses attributable to the contractor for delay or mismatch in the execution deadline of the obligations, which is a pre-fixed amount in administrative proceedings for the reparation of the harms that would be caused by an eventual delay in the established deadline, or what is the same, the conceptualization of an "alternative administrative sanction system," which aims to establish in advance what the economic effects of the breach will be, so it is forceful to maintain that these types of pecuniary sanctions "constitute mechanisms that seek to ensure faithful observance of what was agreed, or failing that, to obtain compensation for the harm suffered. Hence, they have two basic functions, the compulsive and the compensatory. They appear in the administrative contract as eventual sanctions, which aim to better guarantee the Administration that the contractor will fulfill the obligation within the deadline and under the agreed conditions, pre-fixing in advance the reparation of the harms that would be caused by an eventual delay in the stated deadline or a breach." To that consideration, the Regulations to the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, numeral 50, establishes that the "penalty clause applies for late or premature execution of contractual obligations; the scenarios and amounts must be included in the respective tender document and the provisions indicated in the preceding articles shall be applicable to it." So, for the collection of the penalty clause, it will not be necessary to prove the existence of damage or harm, and collection may be made against the price withholdings that have been made and the outstanding balances pending payment (Article 48). However, its application is not automatic, nor simply based on mere unsubstantiated appraisals, conjectures, or suppositions of having incurred in premature or late execution of the obligation; that would be abusive, leonine, and would imply the exercise of sanctioning powers based on mere presumptions, indications, and not on clear and conclusive proof. Thus, for the application or execution of the penalty clause, there must be a clear and evident reason based on the verification that a delay in the delivery deadline has occurred, that is, the occurrence of the preconditions for which it was created. The Constitutional Judges, starting in 2018 and 2020, facing an undefined path regarding the procedure for establishing these penalty clauses, finally returned to the need to initiate a procedure, at least summary (without the need for an ordinary one), to ensure the guarantees of due process and the right of defense, procedural acts that were fulfilled in the procedures cited for the Liceo Santa Rosa, Escuela Hermosa, and Escuela Azul projects, not only by granting a hearing to the contractor, but also because the Consortium exercised its right to adversarial proceedings by presenting its objections, and the Trust issued a reasoned resolution on the grounds for its imposition, aspects which, from the procedural level, in this sub judice have not injured the rights of the contracting company, since it is recorded in the case file that the Trust, prior to applying the penalty clause provided for in the contract, as regulated in the LPI-01-2017 Tender Document and in accordance with Articles 320 and following of the LGAP and the Reglamento de la Contratación Administrativa, ordered the opening of a summary administrative procedure, granted a hearing—for three days—to the company so that it could exercise its right of defense, the Consortium presented conclusions and even; based on what was alleged by the contractor—in relation to the initiation of the procedure—the Trust issued a final resolution. It is worth emphasizing that, for that summary procedure and specifically its defining result to be upheld, the plaintiff Consortium should have claimed and proven in what sense it was caused defenselessness (indefensión), for what reason it argues that it was prevented from adequately presenting its theory of the case, what is the reason it considers its right of defense was weakened, what legal and constitutional guarantees of due process were violated, what proof or evidence it could not offer due to the procedure employed to execute the penalty clause, aspects regarding which the challenge is completely lacking.

Added to the above, it cannot be ignored, within a framework of reasonableness and logic for a useful challenge, that any penalty clause is harmful to the economic interests of the party upon whom it is imposed and executed, because its purpose is punitive, so it entails the payment of a sum of money by whoever does not fulfill the contract in the agreed terms, therefore, regarding the motive of the final acts set forth in resolutions: FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020, FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 and FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020, it was a mandatory duty to discredit the basis thereof in the aspects inherent to the given result, that is, regarding the delay in the execution of the work as well as the alleged financial imbalances, which, furthermore, as was shown, there was no sustained grievance for this issue, precisely and singularly specified for each act issued, being reduced to the mere description of what was done in those procedures, which is nothing more than a subjective disagreement useless for the purpose of undermining what was resolved therein and thereby its invalidity and ineffectiveness; especially when such topics were addressed ut supra and rejected in Considering IX, sections 5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 and Considering X, sections 1 and 2. Understanding it in this manner, the Court, the formulated censures must be dismissed, and it must be rejected that what was ordered and provided is non-conforming with the legal order and must be annulled, as well as the impropriety of restoring the subjective rights of the Consortium to its convenience according to the claims of the complaint.

Consequently, in the judgment of this Deciding Body, and arising from the foregoing, and in relation to the invoked exception of non adimpleti contractus, if the Consortium did not perform the obligation that fell to it under the contractual terms, that is, to deliver on a fixed date and as a single performance (tracto único), the physical plant and equipment, as the specific object determined by Law No. 9124 denominated "AUTORIZACIÓN AL PODER EJECUTIVO PARA SUSCRIBIR UNA OPERACIÓN DE CRÉDITO PÚBLICO Y CONSTITUIR UN FIDEICOMISO CON CONTRATOS DE ARRENDAMIENTO, PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DEL PROYECTO CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EQUIPAMIENTO DE INFRAESTRUCTURA EDUCATIVA DEL MEP A NIVEL NACIONAL," which authorized the Ministry of Public Education to constitute a Trust (Fideicomiso) with financial lease contracts, and thereby finance the Project Construction and Equipment of Educational Infrastructure of the MEP at the National Level, and which consisted of the construction and equipment of physical infrastructure, such as schools, high schools, and multi-use courts for the fulfillment of its entrusted purposes, for which purpose the Trust promoted, as relevant to this claim, International Public Tender LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction and Equipment of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers—hereinafter LPI-01-2017, and in which, as relevant to this case file, the companies IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A., CEMEX S.A., and RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., formed the IDECO-RUCO-GCI Consortium, which participated in the referenced Tender, being the awardee for three projects that formed part of lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Project code number 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Project code 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); for a total contractual amount of USD $6,146,149.50, and over which initially the effective start orders for the construction and equipment works in each Project of the awarded lot number 2 were issued on different dates, to be delivered likewise on different dates due to the singularity of each project, which makes it a single performance (tracto único) per project, as the delivery period was already stated under differentiated terms, as is evident from: a) official letter of May 18, 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. "START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment of the Educational Center: Educational Center 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: On-site works must have an effective start next Monday, May 21, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on October 21 of the current year; b) official letter of July 31, 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment Educational Center 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: On-site works must have an effective start next Monday, August 6, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (5 months), the works must be delivered on January 6, 2019; and c) official letter of December 13, 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. START ORDER - International Public Tender LPI-01-2017 Construction and Equipment Multi-use Court Educational Center 024-1942 Escuela Azul: On-site works must have an effective start next Monday, December 17, 2018, and in compliance with the Construction and Equipment period detailed in the contract (6 months), the works must be delivered on June 17, 2019, and none of which were ever delivered in the form and period agreed, that is, completely finished, the right to claim a lack of due process, expressed under the opposed legal maxim, does not assist it. For this is a breach by the Consortium, given the non-execution of the agreed contractual object, since clearly, from the evidence in the record, no project was duly delivered, and therefore, as relevant, the resolution regarding the penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) must remain unchanged. It is reiterated once more, the non-existence of non-conformity with the law and the consequent request for annulment of the challenged administrative acts (principal claims 2, 4, and 7), whereby what is sought under this section must be rejected, and consequently the first, third, and fifth subsidiary claims, in their relation, having no legal support in this regard, according to the terms and scope in which this topic was addressed, under penalty of incurring in unreasonableness and incongruity, the exception of lack of right raised by the defendant being accepted in conclusion.

XII.- REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S SUBJECTIVE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR WORK PROGRESS OR INCOMPLETE WORK.

In the general regime of obligations, and no less so in the Tender Documents (Cartel) of the Tender LPI-01-2017, as the immediate and applicable legal order, the creation and extinction of obligations, offered and bid within this modality, are governed; therefore, equally that regulated and binding body of rules for the contracting parties stipulates the remedies available to the creditor in the event of its breach, or determines, on occasion of the termination (rescisión) ordered in Contract 88-2017, the legal and economic effects on the works that could not be completed for previous payment. As a contract with a term obligation, performance was subject to the arrival of the date that had been established for this purpose. That is, in a public works contract, such as the one in this matter, and in the expected regularity, it is the term given for the construction and equipment of the work and for the payment of the corresponding consideration. Thus, the term has a suspensive and not extinctive character: only at the moment the term is fulfilled do the assumed commitments become enforceable, but, in the strict sense, all rights that arose from the contract are not extinguished, since the acceleration of the contractual term's expiration by means of the ordered termination, whose terminal effect is contractual cessation, not only affected the existence of the obligation, but also determined the moment at which the debtor is constituted in default (mora), for any compensatory legal situation derived from the same contract. The termination of the contractual relationship under that given concept is the first effect that occurs immediately, but economic effects also occur and other events are triggered. If the termination is attributable to the contractor, as was accredited in the record and widely considered in previous lines (so that further elaboration on this would fall into the absurdity of repetition), the contractor must deliver the part of the executed work, materials, and equipment already paid, as well as all the information that was provided at the beginning of the contract; subsequently, the final settlement (finiquito) of the contract will be made, in which the credits in favor and against the contractor and contracting party will be established; in case there are balances against the contractor, the contractor must make the immediate return of said resulting balance; if it refuses, the contracting party will make effective the guarantees it holds. This is what is usual or what occurs in the regularity of that situation. However, as relevant, the Consortium objected to the termination by not admitting it and, on the contrary, challenged it, hence if it is viewed from that hypothetical perspective (which was not accredited in the record), the effects of the termination, from its validity and effectiveness, would be subject to what was resolved in this judicial instance, but since that legal situation was previously substantiated, nothing else would need to be determined other than the resolution regarding the incomplete works, starting from the liquidated amount. It is obvious, and as a basic premise and in the considerations of the burden of proof, to accredit outstanding balances for incomplete work, to achieve this, all claims made must be perfectly documented and accredited (non-payment of estimates, interest for non-payment, requests for cost adjustments, indirect costs, expenses and damages, among others); moreover, as has been resolved, the physical work in the projects contained in Contract 88-2017 did not conclude, not one of them in its singularity and integrity reached the milestone with a 100% deliverable qualification, leaving the projects with incomplete, unpaid works.

For such indicated effects, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to cite again the termination criteria applied to Contract 88-2017, as set forth in preceding lines, together with the consideration that the works are of independent execution, each one as follows: in three projects that formed part of lot number 2: 1. Project code number 023-5969 denominated Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Project code number 024-1942 denominated Escuela Azul. 3. Project code 058-0870 denominated Escuela La Hermosa, therefore under the understanding that they correspond to completely independent executions from each other, especially for their payment effects. Likewise, it must be appreciated that, according to what is accredited in the Tender Documents of Tender LPI-01-2017, which govern the rules of the contract and, consequently, of the projects to be carried out, the existence of correspondence and linkage for the execution of the works jointly cannot be interpreted, but on the contrary, the start orders for each project are singularly determined; this is verified according to Sub-clause 2.1 paragraph 3), fourth paragraph of the Special Conditions of the Tender Documents, where the management of each educational center must be carried out individually. All procedures, reception periods, and guarantees must adapt to the particularities of each project. That is, the issuance of the start orders was agreed upon individually, thus constituting a process of design, construction, and equipment, in which particularities alien to the other educational centers arise among themselves, giving as a logical conclusion that the execution of each and every one of the stages of the works was defined according to the business strategy and managerial responsibility thereof by the awarded Consortium. Equally applicable in its application must be the sub litem criterion of Payment per completed milestone (100%). That is, according to the terms established in the Tender Documents and the contract, and in accordance with the nature of the "Lump Sum Type Contract, the agreed payment milestones become effective only with 100% of their fulfillment (Clause 12 of the General Conditions of the Tender Documents for Tender LPI-01-2017 - "12. Payment Conditions. 12.1 The Contract Price shall be paid as specified in article 2 (Contract Price and Payment Conditions) of the Agreement Form and in the appendix to the Agreement titled “Payment Conditions and Procedures”, which also describes the procedures to be followed to request and process payments"-, /C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures - "Payment Request for a Completed Milestone: Once each milestone is completed, the Contractor must deliver to the Works Manager an invoice accompanied by a statement with six copies in a format previously approved by the Works Manager, including in detail the amounts to which the Contractor considers it is entitled, together with supporting documents, which shall include the progress report for the milestone in question in accordance with Clause 18.3 of the GC. This payment request for a completed milestone shall correspond to the breakdown explained below..."). Under this scheme, the Consortium indicates that there are amounts owed for work progress, which is nothing more than the same reference to incomplete works unpaid upon contractual termination by termination. Thus, it understands that, in accordance with clause 42.4 of the general conditions of the tender documents, the expression "Executed Works" shall include all work executed, installation services provided, and all plant items acquired (or subject to a legally binding obligation to purchase) by the Contractor and used or intended to be used for the purposes of the Works, up to and including the date of termination.

Now then, under those regulations, which the Tribunal deems pertinent as binding for the parties and thus considers applicable, it was accredited that the Consortium liquidated, in the case of the Tender identified as LPI-01-2017 Design, Construction and Equipment of 6 lots of 15 Educational Centers and 10 Multi-use Courts, lot #2, that there are executed works pending payment, which together determine an amount that ascends to $1,008,663.88 —ONE MILLION EIGHT THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-EIGHT CENTS—, without disregarding that the unilateral termination declared by the Trust for contract No. 88-2017, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa and 24-1942 Escuela Azul, began to take effect as of July 15, 2020, the date on which the Consortium was notified through official letter FID-2692-2020; and the unilateral termination of the project 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa contract No. 88-2017 takes effect from the communication of this decision on June 26, 2020, through FID-2493-2020. Thus, as of the Contractor’s withdrawal date from the projects contained in contract No. 88-2017 concerning Liceo Rural Santa Rosa 23-5969, Escuela Azul 24-1942, and Educational Center Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870, and the effective date of the terminations ordered by the Trust in official letter resolutions FID-2692-2020 dated July 13, 2020, and FID-2493-2020 dated June 29, 2020, the Contractor left incomplete works not payable because they did not surpass the deliverable to qualify as payment milestones according to the agreement in the Tender Documents for Tender LPI-01-2017, which become effective only with 100% of their fulfillment, resulting in the Consortium liquidating them as follows: ESCUELA LA AZUL: $395,752.05, ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: $338,769.30, LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA: $274,142.53, TOTAL PENDING PAYMENT: $1,008,663.88, broken down:

• 1)ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

• 2)LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

• 3)ESCUELA LA AZUL PROGRESS PENDING PAYMENT

This is accounted for by the content visible in CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 y 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5, CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth “Special Report-Incomplete Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4).

However, the Trust as counterparty refutes that detailed amount, based on the Special Reports on Incomplete Works carried out by the Trust's Supervisory Unit, and indicates that the work actually executed by the Consortium but which did not meet the criterion of 100% completion and deliverable for payment in accordance with Clause 12 of the General Conditions of the Tender Documents for Tender LPI-01-2017, is:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa:

B. Escuela La Hermosa:

• C)Escuela Azul

Sum of progress for the projects: $864,016.04 Furthermore, it states that in relation to the Escuela La Hermosa project, it was corroborated in an assessment carried out after the termination, that Milestone 10.2 Lightweight Ceiling and Wall Finishes Escuela Hermosa, despite having payment validation for supposedly being at 100%, had a shortfall of 60%. 10.2 Lightweight Ceiling and Wall Finishes at 40%, that is $49,819.01, so $19,927.60 would have to be deducted, leaving an actual effective amount of $29,891.41. Thus, the Trust admits that there are incomplete works, but not for the liquidation amount, because the sum of progress for the projects $864,016.04 minus $29,891.41 = $834,124.63 - Advances ($535,604.15) = BALANCE $298,520.48 for unpaid incomplete works. (see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth “Special Report-Incomplete Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 to 4 and 5 to 31, see CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2) The Tribunal, based on those statements from the parties, manages to obtain regarding those differences between the parties, that is, from what was reported by the Consortium ($1,008,663.88) and what was indicated by the defendant's representative ($834,124.63), a net amount without subtracting other items, the sum of $174,539.25. Said difference, in order to become creditable within the requested liquidation, had to be demonstrated by the Consortium, not only for confrontation with the evidence supporting what was indicated by the Trust, ergo in the case file: see content CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, and monthly inspection reports, folios 919 to 1192, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, see CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 to 524.87, thirtieth “Special Report-Incomplete Works, Project No. 024-1942 Escuela Azul in CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, see CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 to 4 and 5 to 31, see CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2, but also because it was its procedural duty to carry out that fundamental diligence. The consequences of the evidentiary omission noted in this instance are governed by the provisions of article 41.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which the parties bear the burden of proving the factual basis of the norms that establish the legal effect they pursue; a norm that enshrines, in these terms, the principle of the burden of proof, which indicates to the Judging Chamber what its decision must be when the facts constituting the cause petendi of the claim or the defense are not accredited in the process, as the case may be, when partially antagonistic situations arise, since there would be a prohibition if the Tribunal discretionally opted for one or another position without further technical/expert verification. Hence, the established burden of proof, as this Section has specified, based on the principle of self-responsibility of the parties, constitutes a requirement of optional procedural conduct demandable from whoever is interested in succeeding with their claims and avoiding an unfavorable decision. Thus, in the specific case, it is evident that the burden of proof falls on whoever claims, so that it is the plaintiff who must bear the consequences of its non-observance or negligence, that is, an adverse ruling regarding its claims related to the incomplete works and its initial liquidation thereof, since that is the effect that arises from the fact that the evidence spectrum does not contain, even in an expert manner, the information necessary to complement or standardize the given liquidation regarding the noted difference and its due consistency. The deficiency of this impartial evidence means that the determination of the amount of the incomplete works is set based on the value accepted by the Trust, this because whoever requests compensation for damages as a consequence of non-payment in works within the context of a state contract must demonstrate the breach incurred by the counterparty and the damage that event caused it. In simpler words, whoever comes before the jurisdiction to request compensation or indemnification in their favor has the procedural duty to demonstrate, on the one hand, the materialization of the damages suffered and their amount, and, on the other, the occurrence of the events that caused them. In addition to the foregoing, the mere occurrence of the liquidation amount for non-payment does not give rise to compensation per se; consequently, the recognition of the amount separated from the $174,539.25 would constitute the difference that the Consortium had to accredit, a circumstance that was not justified or demonstrated to assume its complete liquidation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be emphasized that the Trust recognized the value in incomplete works in the project contained in Contract 88-2017 as the sum of $864,016.04 (full value of incomplete works) - $29,891.41 (reduction for a 60% shortfall in milestone 10.2 Lightweight Ceiling and Wall Finishes at 40% Escuela Hermosa) = $834,124.63, which the Tribunal estimates, considers, and determines to set as the basis of the unpaid amount and upon which the value of the incomplete work is declared for purposes of the net amount to be initially recognized. However, notwithstanding this precision, work advances were given ab initio, amounts for guaranteed advances, for an amount of $535,604.15, which in summary are:

For this reason, and in consideration of what is stipulated in Section IX. Contract Forms, section "C. Appendix 1. Payment Conditions and Procedures", specifically in the section on Advance 2.a., which states: 2. The Advance will be amortized by means of deductions of the same percentage requested, from all contract payments until its complete reimbursement (excluding those corresponding to the Advance itself); if the advance has not been amortized before the Works Completion Certificate or before the termination according to Clause 42 of the GC, then the entire balance outstanding at that time shall be paid immediately by the Contractor to the Contracting Party. Said payment may be made according to the following detail: a. It will be deducted from the pending work balances to be invoiced or from any payment owed by the Contracting Party; the amount that would accordingly correspond to the plaintiff Consortium to receive from the Trust as a result of the work progress, would be under the following arithmetic:

Value of incomplete works - Advances or unsatisfied advance payments = BALANCE TO BE RECOGNIZED TO THE CONSORTIUM ($864,016.04 - $29,891.41) = $834,124.63 (value of incomplete works) - ($535,604.15 Advances) = BALANCE $298,520.48 for incomplete works TO BE PAID.

** THE FOLLOWING IS DECLARED WITH MERIT ONLY: THE PLAINTIFF IS RECOGNIZED the right to receive payment of the following amounts corresponding to payment for work progress, sums that must be brought to present value under the terms of article 123 of the CPCA: the single sum of USD $298,520.48 for Value of Unpaid Incomplete Works according to the following detail: Liceo Santa Rosa/Addendum (slopes) the sum of $29,757.3, Escuela Hermosa $188,980.10, and Escuela Azul $79,783.08. Timing of indexation: it will be done according to the effective dates of the Termination resolutions declared by the Trust for contract No. 88-2017, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Resolution FID3076-2020 No. 26-2020, project 24-1942 Escuela Azul Resolution FID3331-2020 No. 31-2020, both as of July 15, 2020, and project 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa Resolution FID2879-2020 No. 24-2020 as of June 26, 2020, and until its effective payment.

*** The defendant is enabled to liquidate, upon the finality of this resolution and through the execution of the advance guarantees provided by the Consortium in the proportion of the disbursements made in relation to the value of the Incomplete Works determined for each project, for its due recovery. It must be noted, based on what appears in the record, that the precautionary measure ordered in the case did not encompass the suspension of execution of the advance guarantees.

Warning. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it must be clarified that other items remain to be considered and that could eventually compromise the previous balance determined with the finality effects of this resolution:

Penalty Clause (Per Project)

Amounts of the performance guarantees provided:

Performance Guarantees per Project that would cover the established penalty clauses:

Thus then, the amounts established in resolutions: FID-3076-2020 No. 26-2020, FID-2879-2020 No. 24-2020, and FID-3331-2020 No. 31-2020, if not voluntarily paid by the Consortium, would have to be settled and satisfied through liquidation by execution of the performance guarantees, from the finality of this resolution and in the corresponding and proportional part for each of the projects where the guarantee was provided; as well as, all those items that the creditor Trust may accredit, such as due interest, and this shall be done in the administrative venue, additionally regarding specific items derived from the reprocesses and deterioration that the works and materials suffered as a result of abandonment on each of the projects and any other items of its convenience, if such were legally appropriate, therefore it would eventually give rise to a compensation between credits and debits as estimated by the diligence of the parties at that time.

The Tribunal does clarify, that it is impeded or disabled due to the lack of a counter-action (counterclaim) or reply from the Bank before this instance and process, precisely aimed at elucidating precisely and concretely these aspects, which, in the order of what was discussed, are not merely tangential, but on the contrary, of special attention, especially since public resources are at stake, hence there will be no indication in the por tanto (therefore) section regarding what was noted in this regard.

That limitation must be understood insofar as those requests of an operational and instrumental nature, between credits and debits, should have been invoked by way of the claim; since they were not, a ruling on that particular circumstance—no less important—is precluded. The Tribunal understands that, were it to do so on its own motion, it could in some way be interpreted as a lack of congruence between what was considered and resolved, when, based on the main and subsidiary claims of the plaintiff Consortium, the Chamber’s jurisdictional sphere would be limited and, consequently, a resolutive overreach would be evident. One might theorize that the amounts of the penalty clauses are as compensable as the guaranteed advances on the definition of the unfinished works pending payment to the Consortium; however, from the resolutions recently cited, what is established is that the warnings to the Contractor for payment within three days were defined on the amounts established, which would be collected through the execution of the performance guarantee for the reimbursement of the penalty or fine imposed. Moreover, the representative of Banco Nacional itself so indicated in the interim measure: “The collection against the performance guarantee shall be made only in the event that the Consortium does not proceed to pay the amount of the respective penalty clause, as permitted by Article 48, paragraph 3, of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement, of supplementary application in these proceedings, given that there are no price withholdings.” To this must also be added what is indicated in Penalty Clause 26, Sub-clause 26.2 of the Special Conditions of the Specifications for International Public Tender No. LPI-01-2017: “The liquidated damages shall be 2.5 per thousand per day of delay of the total contract amount: (h) If the sum of penalties reaches 10% of the MCA, which shall be understood as the maximum deduction, it shall be considered a material breach and the Employer shall be entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract. In any case, the sum of applied fines shall not exceed 10% of the MCA. (i) The Employer shall deduct the corresponding amount under this heading from payments to the Contractor. Maximum deduction for damages and losses: 10%…,” on which it would not operate ipso facto and on its own motion, but rather at the request of a claiming party, which, it is repeated, would not be addressable through the route of the opposition to the claim as the avenue to establish it. It would suffice, upon the finality of this judgment, for the performance guarantees to be liquidated proportionally and partially against the amounts of the defined fines and the amounts of the guarantees for each project until they are covered, and to that end, the parties would have to abide by what was resolved and considered in the interim measure ordered in the proceedings and which must remain in effect until the finality of this resolution, and which in its literalness indicated:

No. 596-2020 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO at sixteen hours twenty minutes on the twenty-sixth day of November of the year two thousand twenty, which provides: “The application for an interim measure filed by the representative of CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA IS GRANTED. By reason of the foregoing and as ordered on an extremely provisional basis, it is ordered that the effects and scope of Resolution No. 29-2020 /FID-3278-2020 of thirteen hours ten minutes on the twenty-fifth of August two thousand twenty, issued by the FID MEP-BNCR Steering Committee, by which the Summary Proceeding for the application of the penalty clause for the Escuela La Hermosa Project was concluded, be kept suspended; consequently, the respondent is ordered to refrain from executing the cited resolution, that is, to refrain from executing the performance guarantee in light of the non-payment ordered in the resolution that is being suspended; also suspending the payment order for the penalty clauses and the forced execution of the performance guarantees. The foregoing provision shall remain in effect for the entire time necessary until a final judgment is rendered in the cognizance proceeding or another situation determines otherwise. Having indicated the foregoing, the representative of CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA AND RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA must take into consideration that, according to the rules of Article 26, second paragraph, of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in the event that it has not yet done so, it must file the cognizance claim within 15 days, counted from the day following notification of this resolution, and under this same number (20-004040-1027-CA), under the warning that in case of omission the interim measure decreed herein shall be lifted and it shall be ordered to pay the damages and losses caused, which shall be liquidated through the judgment execution procedure. AS COUNTER-SECURITY, THE representative of the moving party MUST keep the performance guarantees in force for ALL the time necessary for the issuance of the judgment on the merits; otherwise, the interim measure decreed herein shall be lifted, with the consequences previously set forth. This matter is resolved without a special award of costs. In due course, let the file be archived.” The foregoing was supplemented by Resolution No. 596-2020-BIS of the TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO at ten hours twenty minutes on the fifteenth day of December of the year two thousand twenty, which provided: “THEREFORE. As indicated, Resolution No. 596-2020 of sixteen hours twenty minutes on the twenty-sixth day of November of the year two thousand twenty is supplemented in the following sense: In addition to what has already been ordered, it is ordered that the payment order for the penalty clauses and the forced execution of the performance guarantees be suspended until such time as the corresponding resolution is rendered on the merits in the main proceeding, or another situation determines otherwise. In all other respects, let the cited resolution remain unaltered.” (see resolutions in the interim measure file) XIII. – ON THE DEFENSES RAISED. Corollary. As to the objection of lack of right raised by the respondent, it must be upheld in relation to the denied points and rejected to the extent that a specific point was granted in relation to the recognition of the value of the unfinished works. By reason of the foregoing, let the claims on which no express ruling has been made be understood as denied. Consequently, it must be ordered that the claim be declared partially granted, in accordance with the considerations set forth above.

XIV – COSTS. In accordance with Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed upon the losing party by that very fact. Waiver of this award is only viable when, in the Tribunal’s judgment, there was sufficient motive to litigate. In this case, for the Tribunal, reciprocal defeat applies. According to Hugo Alsina, citing Chiovenda, reciprocal defeat occurs: “When the plaintiff does not fully succeed in its claims, reciprocal defeat exists. In such a case, the costs must be borne in due order, or proportionally, according to the outcome of the litigation” (TRATADO TEORICO PRACTICO DE DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL Y COMERCIAL, Tomo II, Compañía Argentina de Editores, S. R. L., Buenos Aires, 1982, pages 751 and 752). Author Ricardo Reimundín states: “In a cost award, the declaration of the right is made against only one of the parties. In mutual defeat, the declaration of the right is made against both parties, from which it follows that both are defeated. And victorious, we say” (LA CONDENA EN COSTAS EN EL PROCESO CIVIL, 2nd Edition, Editor Víctor P. De Zavalía, Buenos Aires, 1966, page 118). Eduardo J. Couture indicates: “The process does not constitute a means of enrichment, but rather the only form the State recognizes as unquestionable so that each person may conserve what is theirs without the unjust sacrifice of others.” (ESTUDIOS DE DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL, Tomo III, 3rd Edition, Depalma, Buenos Aires, 1989, page 345). This author adds that the process is a precious instrument of justice but dangerous to handle; whoever resorts to it must do so assisted by reason; the cost of the process should not burden, directly or indirectly, the one who is in the right; in exceptional circumstances justice requires proportionally dividing the cost of the process between both litigants (Cited work, page 338). Thus, since in the case under study both parties had reason to litigate, and in order to avoid an injustice, it is appropriate that each bear its own costs, given the existence of reciprocal defeat. Judgment is rendered without a special award of costs.

THEREFORE

The evidence for better adjudication referred to: official letter JDG-1434-22/23 of Agreement No. 03 of the Board of Directors of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, in ordinary session No. 37-22/23 G.E. dated September 19, 2023, is rejected. The objection of lack of right is UPHELD as to what has been denied. IT IS ORDERED: THE CLAIM IS DECLARED PARTIALLY GRANTED IN WHAT WILL BE PUNCTUALLY STATED HEREIN, it being understood that any other points presented by Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, led by the company IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., also comprising the companies GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A, CEMENTOS PROGRESO COSTA RICA S.A. (formerly CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A.) and the company RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A. for the International Public Tender “LPI No: 01-2017. Design, Construction and Equipment of 4 lots of 10 Educational Centers,” against the FIDEICOMISO BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA – MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA LEY NÚMERO 9124, Fideicomiso ID MEP-BNCR 3-112-672283, represented by BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA, are denied. THUS: THE FOLLOWING IS DECLARED GRANTED ONLY: THE PLAINTIFF IS RECOGNIZED as entitled to receive payment of the following amounts corresponding to payment for work progress, sums that must be brought to present value in accordance with the terms of Article 123 of the CPCA: the sum of USD $298,520.48 for the Value of Unpaid Unfinished Works according to the following breakdown: Liceo Santa Rosa/Addendum (slopes) the sum of $29,757.3, Escuela Hermosa $188,980.10 and Escuela Azul $79,783.08. Timing of indexation: it shall be carried out in accordance with the effective dates of the resolutions issued by the Fideicomiso for Contract No. 88-2017, regarding projects 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Resolution FID3076-2020 No. 26-2020, project 24-1942 Escuela Azul Resolution FID3331-2020 No. 31-2020, both from July 15, 2020, and project 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa Resolution FID2879-2020 No. 24-2020 from June 26, 2020 and until their effective payment. COSTS: Judgment is rendered WITHOUT A SPECIAL AWARD of costs. Notify. Ronaldo Hernández Hernández. Eduardo González Segura. Marco Hernández Vargas.

???????????????

Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 meters west of the BNCR, across from Café Dorado. Telephone numbers: 2545-0107 or 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 or 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 or 2545-0006. E-mail: [email protected] Classification prepared by CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL of the Poder Judicial. Its reproduction and/or distribution for a fee is prohibited.

It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 12:21:41.

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Clase de asunto: Proceso de conocimiento Analizado por: CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL Sentencias en igual sentido Sentencias del mismo expediente Contenido de Interés:

Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: Derecho Administrativo Tema: Contratación administrativa Subtemas:

Consideraciones sobre la aplicación de la cláusula penal en la contratación administrativa.

Tema: Cláusula penal Subtemas:

Consideraciones sobre la aplicación de la cláusula penal en la contratación administrativa.

"XI.- 1.- SOBRE LA LEGITIMIDAD Y EFECTOS DE LA CLÁUSULA PENAL. [...] 2.- CONTINUACIÓN. IMPROCEDENCIA DE INVALIDAR APLICACIÓN DE CLAÚSULA PENAL. IMPROCEDENCIA PARA DECLARAR DERECHO SUBJETIVO A FAVOR DEL CONSORCIO PARA SU INAPLICABILIDAD.

Como efecto derivado de la rescisión y su resultado instrínseco contractual, la estipulación contractual cartelaria LPI-01-2017, estipuló y facultó a la Administración contratante a liquida anticipadamente los daños y perjuicios derivados de una ejecución prematura, tardía o ninguna entrega de la obra por el contratista. Por ello, el fin de esta cláusula es que la administración contratante cuente con mecanismo ágil para obtener la reparación de los daños y perjuicios causados por el adelanto prematuro o atraso, al considerar que en determinados casos el plazo de ejecución resulta de vital importancia y, que dada su finalidad específica, debe ejecutarse ante el incumplimiento del plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones pactadas, siendo que por su medio se castiga cualquier desajuste-por prematuridad o atraso- en el plazo de ejecución contractual. Esto es, la fijación de la cláusula penal en el cartel constituye una suma, que cubrirá los posibles daños y perjuicios que le sean imputables al contratista ante el atraso o desajuste en el plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones, la cual es prefijada de antemano en sede administrativa la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían con un eventual atraso en el plazo establecido, o que es lo mismo, la conceptualización de "sistema de sanción administrativa alternativo", que pretende establecer de previo, cuáles van a ser los efectos económicos del incumplimiento, por lo que es contundente sostener que este tipo de sanciones pecuniarias se "constituyen en mecanismos que buscan asegurar la fiel observancia de lo pactado, o en su defecto, lograr una indemnización por el perjuicio sufrido. De ahí, que tengan dos funciones básicas, la compulsiva y la resarcitoria. Figuran en el contrato administrativo, como eventuales sanciones, que persiguen garantizar de mejor manera a la Administración, que el contratante cumplirá con la prestación dentro del plazo y con las condiciones pactadas, prefijando de antemano la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían ante un eventual atraso en el plazo señalado o un incumplimiento. A esa consideración, el Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, numeral 50, establece que la "cláusula penal procede por ejecución tardía o prematura de las obligaciones contractuales, los supuestos y montos deberán incluirse en el respectivo cartel y le serán aplicables las disposiciones indicadas en los artículos anteriores.". De modo que, para el cobro de la cláusula penal no será necesario demostrar la existencia del daño o perjuicio y el cobro podrá hacerse con cargo a las retenciones del precio que se hubieren practicado y los saldos pendientes de pago (artículo 48). Sin embargo, su aplicación no es automática, o simplemente basada en meras apreciaciones, conjeturas o suposiciones no acreditadas fehacientemente de haberse incurrido en una ejecución prematura o tardía en la ejecución de la obligación, ello sería abusivo, leonino e implicaría el ejercicio de potestades sancionatorias basadas en meras presunciones, indicios y no en prueba clara y contundente [...]".

... Ver más Citas de Legislación y Doctrina EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj *200040401027CA* CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

CONSORCIO IDECO RUCO GCI DEMANDADO/A:

BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA N° 2025004631 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA,SECCIÓN SEGUNDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las dieciseis horas con dieciseis minutos del dieciseis de mayo del dos mil veinticinco.- PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO incoado por el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI (en adelante "CONSORCIO"), liderado por la empresa IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A. (en adelante "IDECO"), representada por el señor Jose Luis Brenes San Gil, cédula de identidad número 1-1043-0092, conformado además por las empresas GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A. representada por Carlos Luis Brenes Mena, cédula de identidad 1-0874-0191, CEMENTOS PROGRESO COSTA RICA S.A. (anteriormente CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A.) representada por el señor Rolando C. Laclé Zúñiga, cédula de identidad número 1-0714-0897 y la empresa RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A. representada por el señor Fernando Chavarría Bravo, cédula de identidad número 1-1183-0787, en su condición de Presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, para la Licitación Pública Internacional "LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos", contra el FIDEICOMISO BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA – MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA LEY NÚMERO 9124, cédula de Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR 3-112-672283 (en adelante EL FIDEICOMISO), representado por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica por el señor Arturo Gutiérrez Ballard y Randall Obando Araya, ambos en su condición de apoderados generales judiciales. Interviene el abogado Walter Brenes Soto como apoderado especial judicial de la parte actora. Se han observado las prescripciones legales en la substanciación del proceso y no se observan defectos u omisiones capaces de producir la nulidad de lo actuado y resuelto. A continuación, el Tribunal Colegiado Sección Segunda, al que por turno correspondió conocer de este asunto, procede a dictar dentro del plazo de ley, previa celebración de la Audiencia Complementaria y deliberación de ley, la resolución correspondiente con el voto unánime de sus integrantes.

Redacta el Juez Hernández Hernández.

CONSIDERANDO

I.- ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES. Como parte del íter procesal se tiene lo siguiente: 1) Mediante escrito de demanda la parte actora peticionó:

"PRETENSIÓN PRINCIPAL:

1.- Se declare la disconformidad con el Ordenamiento jurídico de las siguientes resoluciones del demandado y de todos los actos o actuaciones conexas, con su consecuente anulación:

? Oficio FID-2493-2020 (Anexo 80) de 29 de junio de 2020, mediante el cual se rechaza la solicitud de rescisión por conveniencia del contratista planteada por el Consorcio y se declara, a su vez, la rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato No. 88-2017 en lo que concierne al Centro Educativo 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa.

? Oficio FID-2692-2020 (Anexo 79) de 13 de julio de 2020, mediante el cual se rechaza la solicitud de rescisión por conveniencia del contratista planteada por parte del Consorcio y se declara, a su vez, la rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante de los proyectos No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul.

2.- Se declare la disconformidad con el Ordenamiento jurídico de las siguientes resoluciones del demandado y de todos los actos o actuaciones conexas, con su consecuente anulación:

? Resolución No. 24-2020 (Anexo 98) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las diez horas del veintiuno de julio de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actora, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, Código 058-0870 y que ordena el pago de USD $166,063.38 al demandado; ? Resolución No. 26-2020 (Anexo 87) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las doce horas del once de agosto de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actor, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Código 023-5969 y que ordena el pago de USD $131,949.18 al demandado; ? Resolución No. 31-2020 (Anexo 88) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actor, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Código 024-1942 y que ordena el pago de USD $95,457.70 al demandado; 4.- (sic) Se declare la disconformidad con el Ordenamiento jurídico de las siguientes resoluciones del demandado y de todos los actos o actuaciones conexas, con su consecuente anulación:

? Oficio FID-3278-2020 (Anexo 84), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 24-2020 antes referida.

? Oficio FID-3468-2020 (Anexo 85), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 26-2020 antes referida.

? Oficio FID-3331-2020 (Anexo 88), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 31-2020 antes referida.

5.- Se declare el derecho subjetivo de la actora de rescindir por conveniencia de los siguientes contratos:

? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

6.- Se declare el derecho subjetivo de la actora de percibir el pago de los siguientes montos correspondientes a pago por concepto de avance de obra, sumas que deberán ser traídas a valor presente en los términos del artículo 123 del CPCA:

Resumen de la obra ejecutada pendiente de pago por parte del Fideicomiso:

CENTRO EDUCATIVO PENDIENTE DE PAGO POR OBRA EJECUTADA ESCUELA LA AZUL (Tabla 2.) $395.752,05 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA (Tabla 3.) $338.769,30 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (Tabla 4.) $274.142,53 TOTAL PENDIENTE DE PAGO $1.008.663,88 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-0970 Escuela Hermosa la suma de $338.769,30 USD de obra ejecutada y no pagada.

ESCUELA LA HERMOSA AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 15 VENTANERIA Y PUERTAS $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 16 PINTURA $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 18 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CABLEADO Y ACOMETIDA) $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 19 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (DISPOSITIVOS Y ACCESORIOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 21 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (EXTERIORES) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $132.850,70 75,00% $99.638,03 TOTALES $1.660.633,80 $338.769,30 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº023-5969 del Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; $274.142,53 USD que corresponde a obra ejecutada y no pagada.

LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA PENDIENTE DE PAGO ITEM HITO MONTO AVANCE MONTO 25 Mejora de Taludes - MUROS DE TIERRA ARMADA $304.602,81 90,00% $274.142,53 TOTALES $2.334.834,38 $274.142,53 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 de la Escuela Azul monto de $395.752,05 USD que corresponde a obra ejecutada y no pagada.

ESCUELA LA AZUL AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 6 CONCRETOS ESTRUCTURALES DE RAMPAS $189.961,00 95,00% $180.462,95 8 CONTRAPISOS (100% DE AVANCE -COLADO) $63.320,00 95,00% $60.154,00 17 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CANALIZACIÓN) $94.981,00 50,00% $47.490,50 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $63.320,00 50,00% $31.660,00 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $253.282,00 30,00% $75.984,60 TOTALES $3.166.020,00 $395.752,05 7.- Se declare el derecho subjetivo de la actora de que le sean devueltas las siguientes garantías de cumplimiento:

N° Garantía Banco Emisor Monto de garantía 21655 Promerica RUCO $88.849,28 21666 Promerica IDECO $288.849,26 24515 Promerica IDECO $251.534,61 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN IDECO $50.000.00 4245422 BAC GCI $36.916.41 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº.

024-1942 Escuela Azul.

8.- La condena en abstracto al demandado al pago de ambas costas del proceso, las que serán estimadas en ejecución de sentencia.

PRETENSIÓN SUBSIDIARIA 1.- Se declare el incumplimiento contractual grave de parte del Fideicomiso de sus obligaciones y deberes legales y contractuales de colaboración, buena fe, de cumplimiento de lo pactado; de tramitación y de mantenimiento del equilibrio financiero del contrato.

2.- Se declare que el Consorcio actor, como parte no incumpliente, tiene el derecho subjetivo contractual de excepcionarse del cumplimiento de sus obligaciones de entrega de las obras detalladas en los siguientes contratos:

? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

3.- Se declare que como parte no incumpliente, no corresponde aplicar al Consorcio actor, por parte del Fideicomiso -parte incumpliente- las cláusulas penales convenidas en los referidos contratos, por lo que corresponde anular las siguientes resoluciones y todo acto conexo:

? Resolución No. 24-2020 (Anexo 98) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las diez horas del veintiuno de julio de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actora, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, Código 058-0870 y que ordena el pago de USD $166,063.38 al demandado; ? Resolución No. 26-2020 (Anexo 87) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las doce horas del once de agosto de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actor, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Código 023-5969 y que ordena el pago de USD $131,949.18 al demandado; ? Resolución No. 31-2020 (Anexo 88) del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de 2020, mediante la cual se decide “Aplicar la cláusula penal 26 “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional No. LPI-01-2017” al Consorcio actor, por concepto de indemnización de garantía de cumplimiento por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados en el atraso de entrega de las obras del Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Código 024-1942 y que ordena el pago de USD $95,457.70 al demandado; ? Oficio FID-3278-2020 (Anexo 84), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 24-2020 antes referida ? Oficio FID-3468-2020 (Anexo 85), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 26-2020 antes referida.

? Oficio FID-3331-2020 (Anexo 88), mediante el cual se rechazó el recurso de revocatoria planteado en contra de la resolución No. 31-2020 antes referida.

4.- Se declare el derecho subjetivo de la actora de percibir el pago de los siguientes montos correspondientes a pago por concepto de avance de obra, sumas que deberán ser traídas a valor presente en los términos del artículo 123 del CPCA:

Resumen de la obra ejecutada pendiente de pago por parte del Fideicomiso.

CENTRO EDUCATIVO PENDIENTE DE PAGO POR OBRA EJECUTADA ESCUELA LA AZUL (Tabla 2.) $395.752,05 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA (Tabla 3.) $338.769,30 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (Tabla 4.) $274.142,53 TOTAL PENDIENTE DE PAGO $1.008.663,88 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-0970 Escuela Hermosa la suma de $338.769,30 USD de obra ejecutada y no pagada.

? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 del Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; $274.142,53 USD que corresponde a obra ejecutada y no pagada.

ESCUELA LA HERMOSA AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 15 VENTANERIA Y PUERTAS $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 16 PINTURA $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 18 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CABLEADO Y ACOMETIDA) $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 19SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (DISPOSITIVOS Y ACCESORIOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 21 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (EXTERIORES) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $132.850,70 75,00% $99.638,03 TOTALES $1.660.633,80 $338.769,30 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 del Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, $274.142,53 USD que corresponde a obra ejecutada y no pagada.

LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO ITEM HITO MONTO AVANCE MONTO 25 Mejora de Taludes - MUROS DE TIERRA ARMADA $304.602,81 90,00% $274.142,53 TOTALES $2.334.834,38 $274.142,53 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 de la Escuela Azul monto de $395.752,05 USD que corresponde a obra ejecutada y no pagada.

ESCUELA LA AZUL AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 6 CONCRETOS ESTRUCTURALES DE RAMPAS $189.961,00 95,00% $180.462,95 8 CONTRAPISOS (100% DE AVANCE -COLADO) $63.320,00 95,00% $60.154,00 17 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CANALIZACIÓN) $94.981,00 50,00% $47.490,50 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $63.320,00 50,00% $31.660,00 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $253.282,00 30,00% $75.984,60 TOTALES $3.166.020,00 $395.752,05 5.- Se declare el derecho subjetivo de la actora de que le sean devueltas las siguientes garantías de cumplimiento:

N° Garantía Banco Emisor Monto de garantía 21655 Promerica RUCO $88.849,28 21666 Promerica IDECO $288.849,26 24515 Promerica IDECO $251.534,61 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN IDECO $50.000,00 4245422 BAC GCI $36.916,41 ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

6.- Se declare la resolución contractual de los siguientes contratos:

? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 058-070 Escuela Hermosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa; ? Contrato No. 88-2017 (Anexo 1) en lo que concierne al centro educativo Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul.

7.- La condena en abstracto al demandado al pago de ambas costas del proceso, las que se estimarán en ejecución de sentencia.

(imágenes 2-71 y pretensiones fijadas en Audiencia Preliminar del 25 de mayo de 2023, imagen 1351-1356 y soportes de audio en expediente judicial).

• 2)Por memorial presentado el 19 de diciembre de 2019 y dentro del emplazamiento conferido por el Despacho, el representante judicial del demandado contestó en forma negativa la demanda, solicitando se declare sin lugar la demanda y la condenatoria en costas para la parte actora. Opuso la excepción de falta de derecho (imágenes 1042, 1046 a 1120 expediente judicial).
• 3)Se dictó medida cautelar en este asunto por medio de resolución N°596-2020 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO de las dieciséis horas veinte minutos del día veintiséis de noviembre del año dos mil veinte que dispone: "Se ACOGE la solicitud de medida cautelar gestionada por la representación del CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. Por lo anterior y conforme se dispuso en carácter de provisionalísima se ordena el mantener suspendidos los efectos y alcances de la Resolución número 29-2020 /FID-3278-2020 de las trece horas con diez minutos del veinticinco de agosto dos mil veinte emitida por el Comité Director FID MEP-BNCR, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario de aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, en consecuencia, se ordena al demandado se abstenga de ejecutar la resolución de cita, es decir, se abstenga de ejecutar la garantía de cumplimiento ante el no pago ordenado en la resolución que se suspende; suspendiendo además la orden de pago de las cláusulas penales y de la ejecución forzosa de las garantías de cumplimiento. La anterior disposición se mantendrá por todo el plazo que sea necesario hasta que se dicte sentencia en firme en el proceso de conocimiento u otra situación determine lo contrario. Indicado lo anterior deberá tomar en consideración la representación del CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, que según las reglas del artículo 26 párrafo segundo Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en el caso de que aún no lo haya realizado, deberá presentar la demanda de conocimiento en el plazo de 15 días, contados a partir del día siguiente de la notificación de esta resolución, y bajo este mismo número (20-004040-1027-CA), bajo el apercibimiento de que en caso de omisión la medida cautelar aquí decretada será levantada y se le condenará al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados los cuales se liquidarán por el trámite de ejecución de sentencia. Como CONTRACAUTELA, DEBERÁ la representación de la parte accionante, mantener en vigencia las garantías de cumplimiento; por TODO el plazo necesario para el dictado de la sentencia de fondo; caso contrario se procederá a levantar la medida cautelar aquí decretada, con las consecuencias anteriormente establecidas. Se resuelve este asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas. En su oportunidad, archívese el expediente." Se adicionó lo anterior por resolución N°596-2020- BIS del TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO de las diez horas veinte minutos del día quince de diciembre del año dos mil veinte, que dispuso: "POR TANTO. Conforme se indicó, se adiciona la resolución número N°596-2020 las dieciséis horas veinte minutos del día veintiséis de Noviembre del año dos mil veinte, en el siguiente sentido: Se ordena suspender además de lo ya dispuesto, la orden de pago de las cláusulas penales y de la ejecución forzosa de las garantías de cumplimiento, hasta que en el fondo en el proceso principal se dicte la resolución que corresponda, u otra situación no determine lo contrario. En todo lo demás manténgase incólume la resolución citada." (ver resoluciones en legajo de medida cautelar) 4) En fecha 25 de mayo de 2023 se llevó a cabo la Audiencia Preliminar establecida en el artículo 90 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Se fijaron las pretensiones. Se determinaron los hechos controvertidos del proceso (hechos 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52 y 53 de la demanda) y se admitió la prueba de carácter documental de ambas partes y la testimonial así: de la parte actora fueron admitidos: como testigo perito al señor Fernando Castro Ramírez, cédula de identidad 1-1091-0948, quien se referirá sobre los hechos de la demanda, como también el testigo perito al señor Adrián Ruilova, cédula de identidad 1-0567-0565, quien se podrá referir a todos los hechos de la demanda, como testigo perito al señor Álvaro Chavarría Chaves, cédula de identidad 1-0532-0600, quien se podrá referir a su pericia, testigo perito al señor Kristian Fallas Fonseca, cédula de identidad 1-1062-0095, quien se podrá referir a su pericia. De la parte demandada fueron admitidos: como testigo al señor Álvaro Quirós Rossi, cédula de identidad 3-0249-0719, quien se podrá referir a los proyectos Escuela La Hermosa y Escuela Azul, como testigo al señor Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado, cédula de identidad 1-0892-0255, como testigo al señor Guillermo Rojas Chaves, cédula de identidad 1-0491-0249 y como testigo al señor Sergio Solano Ugalde, cédula de identidad 1-0568-0750. (así consta en imágenes 1351-1356 y soportes de audio en expediente judicial).
• 5)Por memorial visible a imagen 1368, la parte actora ofrece prueba para mejor resolver el oficio JDG-1434-22/23 del acuerdo N°03 de Junta Directiva del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, en sesión ordinaria N°37-22/23 G.E. de fecha 19 de setiembre de 2023, donde se procede a archivar la causa seguida en el expediente N°0220-2022 en contra de mi representada. Por resolución de las 13:27 horas del 4 de marzo de 2025 se otorgó la audiencia a la contraparte: "Por memorial visible a imagen 1368, la parte actora ofrece prueba para mejor resolver el oficio JDG-1434-22/23 del acuerdo N°03 de Junta Directiva del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, en sesión ordinaria N°37-22/23 G.E. de fecha 19 de setiembre de 2023, donde se procede a archivar la causa seguida en el expediente N°0220-2022 en su contra y anexos, todo visibles a imágenes 1368-1481 del expediente judicial. Al respecto, se otorga audiencia de 3 días para que el demandado se refiera a la pertinencia de la prueba ofrecida, situación que será resuelta en la celebración de la audiencia complementaria señalada en autos. Su consulta será directamente desde del expediente virtual, por lo que no se remitirán las copias de estilo." (así consta en imágenes 1368-1481, 1627 en expediente judicial) 6) Se celebró la Audiencia Complementaria en las fechas indicadas y convocadas. La primera se aperturó a las 09:19 horas, en la Sala 5, suspendiéndose a las 17:31 horas; la segunda se continuó a partir de las 08:41 horas, en la Sala 3, suspendiéndose a las 17:45 horas; y en ésta se dispuso continuar con una tercera continuación de la audiencia complementaria para el 2 de abril de 2025, iniciándose a las 10:07 horas, en la Sala 8 y terminándose a las 15:02 horas. Los representantes de la parte demandada participaron de las audiencias vía remota, bajo modalidad de la plataforma Teams. El representante de la parte actora se hizo presente en todas las fechas en la Salas de Juicio señaladas. La audiencia fue grabada en audio y video en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y corre agregada al expediente. Se constituyó presencialmente el TRIBUNAL COLEGIADO, SECCIÓN SEGUNDA (Equipo 2), conformado por los Jueces EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA, MARCO HERNÁNDEZ VARGAS y quien presidió RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ. Durante esta audiencia, no hubo aspectos de saneamiento. El Tribunal dispuso denegar la prueba para mejor resolver referida a: oficio JDG-1434-22/23 del acuerdo N°03 de Junta Directiva del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, en sesión ordinaria N°37-22/23 G.E. de fecha 19 de setiembre de 2023, por no ser útil ni pertinente con los hechos de la demanda y el objeto del litigio. La parte actora desistió del testigo perito señor Adrián Ruilova, cédula de identidad 1-0567-0565 y la parte demandada prescindió del testigo Álvaro Quirós Rossi, cédula de identidad 3-0249-0719 y el Tribunal resolvió aceptando los desistimientos. Se escucharon los alegatos de apertura de las partes y las deposiciones testimoniales. Con respecto a la declaración del señor Fernando Castro Ramírez, el Tribunal resolvió con la conformidad expresa de las partes, readecuar su deposición para que sea entendida como declaración de parte, por constituirse como socio directo de una de las sociedades actoras y así manifestado por su parte. Se otorgó a las partes el plazo de 10 días hábiles para que presentaran las conclusiones por escrito, venciendo el dictado de la sentencia el 16 de mayo de 2025. Todas las incidencias de la audiencia quedaron constando en la minuta de ésta y en grabación del expediente judicial.

II.ALEGACIONES DE LAS PARTES. 1.- OBJETO Y POSICIÓN DE LA DEMANDA.- La parte actora aduce en lo concreto, en lo conducente y literal en relación con el objeto del proceso lo siguiente: "CONSIDERACIONES DE DERECHO. En la presente demanda se alega que el FIDEICOMISO incurrió en múltiples incumplimientos graves de sus deberes contractuales a lo largo de la ejecución contractual, incumplimientos que incidieron en la imposibilidad de que el Consorcio pudiera cumplir con sus obligaciones contractuales, ocasionándole un daño patrimonial a las empresas que lo componen, especialmente a la empresa líder que asumió las tareas de planificación, programación y ejecución de las obras, con la consabida carga financiera que ello comporta. A lo largo de la relación de hechos, se han puntualizado los incumplimientos graves en que ha incurrido el Fideicomiso, así como la forma en que ello influyó para que no se lograra entregar las obras contratadas siendo entonces procedente la solicitud del Consorcio de declarar la rescisión de los contratos conforme a las reglas previstas en el cartel de la licitación y los respectivos acuerdos.

En este proceso de conocimiento se discutirá que el atraso en la entrega de las obras por parte del Consorcio, se debió a:

• i)una serie de diferencias entre los Diseños Finales aprobados por el FIDEICOMISO, lo que ocasionó una serie de solicitudes adicionales, debido a que lo solicitado por el FIDEICOMISO durante el proceso constructivo difería sustancialmente del diseño aprobado en planos constructivos, lo cual generó una serie de costos adicionales, los cuales se explican en los reclamos administrativos, ii) incumplimiento de pago de hitos importantes, iii) órdenes de inicio entre proyectos tardaron más de lo debido, iv) indefiniciones por el FIDEICOMISO generaron atrasos en el plazo contractual del proyecto, v) comunicaciones de terceros no autorizados e inexistencia de comunicaciones del Gerente del Proyecto.

Además, se demostrará que el rechazo del reclamo administrativo es ilegítimo y conlleva una lesión patrimonial para el CONSORCIO que no debe asumir.

ETAPA DE REVISIÓN DE PLANOS CONSTRUCTIVOS. DIFERENCIAS ENTRE PLANOS APROBADOS Y SOLICITUDES DEL CONTRATANTE.

Según lo establecido en las condiciones de contratación, una vez se recibió la orden de inicio, el Consorcio procedió a realizar las labores de diseño y elaboración de planos constructivos, tal como correspondía. Estas labores fueron realizadas tomando como base y referencia anteproyectos aprobados para cada uno de los proyectos, los cuales fueron dados como insumo, asimismo, se utilizaron planos prototipo del Fideicomiso. Una vez completadas las labores de diseño y elaboración de planos constructivos la Administración revisó y aprobó dicho diseño y planos para cada proyecto, constituyéndose estos documentos en el Diseño Final Aprobado. Como se observa en oficios CG-2018-0506/ARQ-2018-0193 CON (Anexo 4), CG-2018-0810/ARQ-2018-0303 CON (Anexo 5) y GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-022 (Anexo 6), la Supervisión de proyecto revisó los planos y dada la conformidad con los mismos nos indicó que se iniciaran las gestiones de permisos ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos CFIA, lo cual se realizó, con el fin de avanzar. En el cartel de Consultores para el gerenciamiento de PCEYE Final (Anexo 7), en la sección 7. Términos de referencia, numeral 4.1. SOBRE LA UNIDAD DE SUPERVISIÓN DEL PROYECTO (USP), se identifica lo que sigue: A la USP le corresponde definirlo al CDP ya sea los prototipos o los lineamientos y especificaciones técnicas que deben cumplir los contratistas seleccionados por la UEP para el diseño, construcción y equipamiento de la infraestructura educativa que se desarrolle con cargo al Programa. Los prototipos de las edificaciones, que serán parte del patrimonio del fideicomiso, se refieren a los elementos, las condiciones básicas y las especificaciones técnicas de los espacios que debe tener una institución educativa (metros cuadrados por aula, ventilación, servicios sanitarios por estudiante, prototipo de aula que debe ajustarse a las condiciones topográficas, entre otros) y constituyen los requerimientos del sistema educativo en materia de infraestructura. Los diseños, los planos constructivos, la construcción y el equipamiento de la infraestructura educativa, serán ejecutados de acuerdo con los prototipos o los lineamientos y especificaciones técnicas definidos por la USP, siempre y cuando no contravengan el Contrato de Préstamo, y conforme las condiciones de los terrenos que adquiridos por el Fiduciario con el apoyo de la UEP.

Era responsabilidad directa de la Unidad de Supervisión del Proyecto la revisión, verificación, validación y aprobación de los planos que presentó el Consorcio con ocasión del diseño de los proyectos de LPI-01-2017. Una vez recibida la aprobación del diseño y planos constructivos por parte de la Administración, y su aprobación en la plataforma APC por parte del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, se generó el Diseño Final aprobado, el cual corresponde a un entregable elaborado por el Consorcio que estaba contractualmente establecido, y el cual empezó a ejecutarse.

La finalización de la fase pre constructiva y la generación del Diseño Final aprobado fue adicionalmente formalizada por la Administración, mediante el pago del hito correspondiente, confirmando una vez más su aprobación del entregable y dando por concluida, finalizada y cerrada la fase pre constructiva de los proyectos.

A partir de este momento inició la etapa constructiva con el Diseño Final aprobado por la Administración, y si había errores y/u omisiones entre los diseños y planos presentados a revisión y las especificaciones mínimas, era deber de la Administración por medio de la Unidad Supervisora del proyecto USP durante el proceso de revisión de planos, solicitar la corrección de los diseños finales al Consorcio a través del informe de revisión de planos antes de dar por aprobados los Diseños Finales, lo cual no ocurrió.

Al aprobarse el diseño y planos por parte del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos por medio de la plataforma APC mencionada, luego de recibir la aprobación mencionada por parte de la Administración, se limita significativamente la posibilidad de realizar modificaciones a los proyectos por la misma normativa establecida por el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, lo cual refuerza la necesidad de que el FIDEICOMISO actuará diligentemente en la revisión y aprobación de los diseños y planos previo a la autorización, a sabiendas de que posteriormente no podrían ser objeto de modificaciones importantes, siendo la aprobación de los diseños una etapa precluida, los alcances que no estaban en los Diseños Finales aprobados debieron ser reconocidos y solicitados al CONSORCIO como Órdenes de Modificación (OM).

El contrato firmado entre las partes (Anexo 1), en referencia a la precedencia (Preeminencia de una cosa sobre otra), en este caso entre el diseño final y las especificaciones de los documentos, en la página 3 artículo 1 Documentos del Contrato, se indica lo siguiente:

“1.1 Documentos del Contrato (Referencia a la Cláusula 2 de las Condiciones Generales CG) Los siguientes documentos constituyen el Contrato entre el Contratante y el Contratista, y cada uno se considerará e interpretará como parte integral del Contrato:

(a) las órdenes de modificación al Contrato aprobadas (si las hubiere), (b) el Contrato, (c) la Carta de Aceptación, (d) el Diseño final aprobado, (c) la Oferta, (1) La Propuesta Técnica de la Oferta del Contratista, (g) las Condiciones Especiales-Parte A, (h) las Condiciones Generales-Parte B, (i) las Especificaciones, (j) los Formularios y cualquier otro documento incluido en el documento que forme parte del Contrato.

(k)el pliego de licitación y sus enmiendas 1.2 Orden de precedencia (Referencia a la Cláusula 2 de las CG) En caso de ambigüedad o de conflicto entre los documentos del Contrato arriba enumerados, el orden de precedencia será el orden en que dichos documentos se enumeran en el artículo 1.1 (Documentos del Contrato).” Durante todo el proceso constructivo hubo conflicto acerca de la jerarquía entre el Diseño final aprobado y las Especificaciones, el Fideicomiso de manera arbitraria, a su conveniencia y contrario a los principios de preclusión, seguridad jurídica e intangibilidad patrimonial, decidió omitir la instrucción contractual sobre el orden de precedencia indicado en el artículo 1.1.2 del contrato, donde se define claramente que los Diseños aprobados (d), rigen sobre las especificaciones (i). En algunos momentos, la Unidad Supervisora del Fideicomiso se negó a reconocer que los trabajos que no estaban en el Diseño Final Aprobado (pero que sí eran necesidades del Fideicomiso) debían ser reconocidas como Órdenes de Modificación, dado que el proceso de revisión de Diseños Finales era un proceso previamente precluido, por lo que el Consorcio procedió a ejecutar las obras de acuerdo al Diseño Final Aprobado .

No obstante, cabe resaltar que los pagos de los hitos durante todo el proceso fueron condicionados a la ejecución de los trabajos adicionales que no se encontraban indicados en el Diseño Finales Aprobado, negándose a acatar lo pactado contractualmente en el artículo 1.1.2 del contrato, referente a cómo proceder en caso de ambigüedad o conflicto, exponiendo al Consorcio a un escenario de inseguridad.

El Consorcio para realizar los cobros de los Hitos, fue obligado a invertir tiempo y dinero en trabajos que no estaban descritos en los Diseños Finales aprobados para mantener el flujo de dinero necesario para llevar los proyectos a cabo, habiendo un enriquecimiento indebido por el Fideicomiso al exigirse la ejecución de obras adicionales que no estaban en los Diseños Finales Aprobados, situación que causó una serie de daños materiales (al patrimonio) de nuestro CONSORCIO.

SITUACIONES GENERADAS POR EL FIDEICOMISO. AFECTARON LA EFICIENCIA EN LA ENTREGA DEL PROYECTO Y DAÑO A LA INTANGIBILIDAD PATRIMONIAL DEL CONSORCIO.

En el curso de la ejecución de las obras se dieron causas graves que llevaron a que el desequilibrio económico del contrato, en uno de los proyectos, específicamente el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, fuera tan severo que terminó por afectar el avance de los otros dos proyectos, esto sin sumarle los problemas de atraso en definiciones de la Escuela La Azul, en esta licitación.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA Hallazgos de situación no previsible de la condición de los suelos del terreno. El proyecto inició su construcción en tiempo y forma y todo transcurría con normalidad hasta el 16 de julio de 2018 cuando se aportó a la Supervisión el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8), mediante el cual se hizo de conocimiento la solicitud de suspensión temporal de plazo de obras por situación no previsible en la condición de los suelos, durante la actividad de movimiento de tierras. Como parte de la información de entrada para la cotización y diseño del proyecto en cuestión, el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI-CEMEX recibió el anteproyecto realizado por el arquitecto Bruno Stagno, con fecha de marzo de 2016 y el estudio de suelos con número de informe 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) realizado por Vieto Ingenieros Consultores con fecha de junio de 2016. En el anteproyecto se mostraron muros de retención en la parte posterior de las edificaciones con alturas variables de entre 1 y 7 metros, sin embargo, no se indicaba un tratamiento de las laderas o taludes naturales posteriores al muro ni una dimensión aproximada de las placas de cimentación asociadas al muro. El informe de suelos 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) suministrado por el FIDEICOMISO incluye en el anexo A.2 un análisis de estabilidad del terreno, el cual concluye que los taludes naturales son susceptibles a deformaciones o desprendimientos localizados de las capas superiores del terreno y que debían realizarse estudios complementarios. Ese estudio no incluye la realización de perforaciones SPT en la parte superior del talud, que permitieran determinar los estratos y sus espesores en dicho sector y por ende realizar una modelación más precisa de estabilidad. Tomando en cuenta que el informe 16-OTS-0087-7008 (Anexo 9) hace -además- una conclusión: “ Se considera que los taludes que presenta el terreno pueden ser vulnerables a deformaciones e inestabilidad.”.

El Consorcio realizó durante la etapa de diseño un estudio de suelos complementario que contempló un análisis de estabilidad de los taludes del sitio, basado en pruebas tanto en la base como en la parte superior del talud. Se contrató a Tecnocontrol que realizó los estudios respectivos de estabilidad taludes que se incluyen como anexo a) al oficio con número de informe 1538.18 y con fecha del día 6 de enero de 2018. (Anexo 14). El equipo de diseño del Consorcio realizó una propuesta de movimiento de tierras para el proyecto en la que los taludes a conformar tendrían una inclinación de 1.5H:1V, que es igual o menor a la inclinación natural de las laderas originales, con lo cual se mantendría su condición de estabilidad. Posterior al inicio de labores de movimiento de tierras del proyecto, y la realización del corte de los taludes, aparecieron “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura que pueden observarse en la Figura 1 y 2, lo cual agravó la situación no prevista en el sitio. Debido a la naturaleza puntual de las pruebas de suelo iniciales, era claro que la determinación de estabilidad definida originalmente en el estudio no se logró garantizar, y durante la construcción se detectaron condiciones que difirieron sustancialmente de los resultados puntuales obtenidos en el estudio hecho para diseño.

En condiciones normales los estudios de suelos podrían permitir inferir de forma adecuada con pruebas puntuales la condición global del terreno. Sin embargo, estos rellenos de materiales no consolidados que se encontraron por debajo de otras capas de suelo, no fueron detectados por las pruebas puntuales ni eran detectables (en estudios convencionales) de manera cualitativa mediante observación directa dada la cobertura vegetal que existía, razón por la cual se consideró una situación no previsible que requirió de estudios y análisis adicionales, lo cual complicó el inicio de este proyecto.

Debido a las condiciones detectadas en el sitio se realizaron dos visitas complementarias por parte del Ingeniero civil y geotecnista Róger Esquivel, en las que llegó a la conclusión de que la situación contaba con nuevas condiciones no consideradas en el estudio de estabilidad del talud. Dada la preocupación expresada por el Ing. Esquivel, compartida desde el punto de vista del diseñador, se determinó la necesidad de realizar estudios de estabilidad complementarios que tomaran en cuenta la situación de movimiento de tierras de ese momento, o sea una nueva revisión bajo condiciones reales y no estadísticas, así como las distintas condiciones de suelos variables detectados en sitio para generar una recomendación de posibles modificaciones al diseño original. Por lo que para plantear el diseño final de las soluciones se requirió contar con los estudios respectivos de la condición actual de los taludes, por lo tanto, se realizaron pruebas que consideraban variables adicionales. Es importante destacar que dada la incertidumbre relacionada con la estabilidad de los taludes y el posible requerimiento de movimientos de tierra adicionales con maquinaria pesada se solicitó una suspensión temporal del plazo de las obras de construcción por un plazo de cuatro semanas para realizar los estudios de suelo y estabilidad complementarios , con el fin de plantear las modificaciones al diseño actual.

El 2 de Noviembre del 2018, el Consorcio recibe el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 (Anexo 10), donde el FIDEICOMISO solicitó evidencia de los hallazgos e información con una propuesta de cómo solucionar, teniendo claro que este trabajo adicional representaría una modificación de los Elementos del Contrato. Ese Oficio fue respondido con el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 (Anexo 11), con la información solicitada. Dando de esta forma inicio a la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

En lo sucesivo se toma en consideración oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 (Anexo 12) para detallar la situación de la realización de trabajos para estabilización de los taludes y solicitud de OM-01 relacionada a la OS-1 Solicitud de orden de Suspensión de plazo del Liceo Santa Rosa comentada en GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8) y OS-2 Seguimiento a la revisión de estabilidad del talud en Santa Rosa comentada en GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-058 (Anexo 13). Esto debido a las nuevas condiciones encontradas en el sitio, las cuales requirieron de estudios adicionales entre ellos: estudio de suelos complementarios a los realizados durante la etapa de diseño, esto generó el informe número 1538.18 (anexo 14), realizado por Tecnocontrol, sirviendo como insumo para plantear la propuesta de conformación de taludes 1.5H:1V, que se incluyó en los planos originales aprobados del proyecto. Esta solución correspondía a una pendiente menor o igual a la inclinación natural de ese terreno.

Una vez terminado el plazo correspondiente a la Orden de servicio OS-1 (Anexo 15), mi representada solicitó una suspensión de plazo adicional mediante Orden de Servicio OS-2 (Anexo 16) debido a que durante el proceso constructivo de movimiento de tierras aparecieron “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura; difiriendo de lo que ya había sido identificado inicialmente en el estudio realizado por Tecnocontrol. A partir de este hallazgo la estabilidad determinada inicialmente dejó de ser aplicable por tanto se le solicitó al Ing. Róger Esquivel realizar una visita adicional al sitio, la cual fue registrada a través del informe de visita Geotécnica 1602.18 (Anexo 17), en el cual se indicó la necesidad de realizar estudios adicionales ante el surgimiento de estas condiciones no previsibles, lo cual coincide con el criterio de los diseñadores y lleva a la solicitud de nuevos estudios.

Para esto el Consorcio optó por realizar la contratación de nuevos estudios geotécnicos y así contar con mayor criterio de decisión, de las empresas Tecnocontrol y MyV.

La suspensión de plazo fue aprobada hasta el 23 de Julio del 2018, para el planteamiento de una nueva solución por medio del Oficio CG-2018-1403 (Anexo 18). El día 16 de agosto se recibió el informe número 1607.18 por parte de Tecnocontrol (Anexo 19) en el cual se mostraron los resultados de los análisis de estabilidad realizados tanto para la condición estática como para la condición pseudoestática. Posteriormente el día 23 de agosto se recibió el informe número 102-2018-001 de la empresa MyV, los resultados de este estudio igualmente demostraron que los factores de seguridad mínimos indicados en el Código de Cimentaciones de Costa Rica no cumplían tanto para la condición estática como para la condición dinámica de sismo y se recomendó realizar diseños de soluciones geotécnicas para garantizar la estabilidad de los taludes y asegurar el cumplimiento de los factores de seguridad mínimos.

En apego al punto anterior se realizó el diseño y planos constructivos derivados de los estudios realizados a través de Tecnocontrol y a cargo del Ing. Roger Esquivel B residente de la empresa. Los diseños se presentan como anexo al Informe 1607.18, la solución incluyó tres soluciones geotécnicas distintas según la zona de talud a reforzar.

El 6 de noviembre de 2018 a través de oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 (Anexo 11) se solicitó la suspensión de plazo en proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y se brindó la respuesta a CG-2018-2105/ARQ-2018-0795 CONCG-2018-2105/ARQ-2018-0795 (Anexo 20) en la que se hizo de conocimiento de la Supervisión que para presentar un programa de trabajo actualizado para la ejecución de las obras, se requería un pronunciamiento formal sobre la Orden de Modificación OM-1 entregada para la actualización del programa de obra puesto que la ejecución de la misma afectaba el cronograma de obra del proyecto. Adicionalmente se recordó a la Supervisión que existía un criterio técnico sobre la inestabilidad del talud, por lo tanto, el peligro en las áreas de trabajo vulnerables se mantiene y era un acto irresponsable decidir reiniciar labores teniendo conocimiento pleno de la situación.

Las peticiones realizadas fueron:

? Solicitud de aprobación de una nueva suspensión de plazo a partir del 3 de noviembre del 2018 y hasta que se definiera una solución al problema de la inestabilidad del talud, la cual respondía a la problemática en el sitio del proyecto.

? En caso de mantener la solicitud de reanudación de la ejecución de las obras sin una solución a la inestabilidad del talud, se solicitó liberar de responsabilidad al Consorcio en caso de darse cualquier situación (deslizamientos, fallas, entre otros.) relacionada la inestabilidad identificada en los estudios, debido a que existían estudios técnicos que evidenciaban la alta peligrosidad en el área de este trabajo.

Acerca de los retrasos ajenos a la responsabilidad del contratista en la revisión, aprobación y orden de inicio de OM-01: Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto llamado Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

En lo sucesivo, se describe la cronología de los hechos relevantes y sus respectivas explicaciones con respecto a los atrasos en cuestión, con el fin de evidenciar el atraso.

1.1.1. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (Anexo 21): Solicitud de OS-5 Ampliación de suspensión de plazo 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.2. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Anexo 22): Solicitud de OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.3. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-093 (Anexo 23): Aclaraciones sobre la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.4. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-102 : (Anexo 24) En respuesta a SUP-RD-789-2018 (Anexo 25) y SUP-RD-790-2018 (Anexo 26) Observaciones sobre revisión OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. (Versión 2), en los que se dio una respuesta extendida a las consultas que la Supervisión realizó en relación a la propuesta de OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, presentada por concepto de la estabilización de talud en proyecto.

1.1.5. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-108 (Anexo 27): el día 12 de diciembre de 2018 se brindó la versión tres de OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, como respuesta al oficio SUP-RD-853-2018, donde se solicitaron modificaciones a la propuesta.

1.1.6. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-112 (Anexo 28): el día 12 de diciembre de 2018 se aportó respuesta a SUP-RD-865-2018 (Anexo 29) respecto a la solicitud de información adicional solicitada por la administración para la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Donde la administración solicitó información adicional.

1.1.7. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-113 (Anexo 30): el día 14 de diciembre de 2018 se realizó la actualización de la tabla de hitos (Anexo 30) de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.8. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127 (Anexo 31): de manera complementaria el día 3 de enero 2019 se aportó el presente oficio con la tabla de hitos actualizada de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.9. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-129 (Anexo 32): de manera complementaria se respondió oficio SUP-RD-005-2019 (Anexo 33) en el que se realizó la actualización con el desglose de los hitos correspondiente a la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.10. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (Anexo 34): el día 29 de enero de 2018 mi representada hizo de conocimiento de la Supervisión que al no haberse aprobado la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, al día 24 de enero de 2019, los costos indirectos contenidos en la oferta enviada en el mes de diciembre habían variado, por dicha razón la misma ya no poseía vigencia.

1.1.11. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-157 (Anexo 35): el día 15 de febrero de 2019 se solicitó la ampliación de suspensión de plazo de proyecto en el entendido de la no aprobación a esa fecha de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.12. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-161 (Anexo 36): En atención a la reunión sostenida en la sección de Fideicomisos del Banco Nacional a las 11:00 am, se realizó la entrega de información técnica para proceder con la revisión de una manera integral de nuestra propuesta. La misma contenía el siguiente detalle:

Información 1 : documentos referentes al diseño de la solución.

Información 2: Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 (Anexo 8) en el cual se hace un repaso de las condiciones de diseño y las encontradas en sitio, además se indicó la necesidad de hacer estudios adicionales.

Información 3: Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-054 (Anexo 37) se hace referencia a los resultados obtenidos de los estudios, los cuales se adjuntan como anexo.

Información 4: Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Anexo 22) corresponde a la versión 2 de la orden de modificación.

1.1.13. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-174 (Anexo 38): se comunicó que la “ OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa ” enviada había perdido vigencia, esto debido a los atrasos en la aprobación el día 5 de marzo de 2019. Dicha situación fue reportada el día 28 de enero de 2019, oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (Anexo 34), por tanto, garantizando la eficiencia del proceso, se recomendó a Supervisión realizar la solicitud de actualización de costos de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

1.1.14. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-178 (Anexo 39): se procedió a aportar la información solicitada por parte de la supervisión en relación a realización de pruebas e informes referentes al diseño de la OM-01.

1.1.15. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-186 (Anexo 40): se procedió a aportar la quinta actualización OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa , y se procedió a detallar que a partir de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, y las solicitudes de orden de suspensión de plazo OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, OS-04, OS-05 y OS-06 de proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Se solicitó a la Supervisión se considerara que al 26 de marzo de 2019 se cumplían 248 días (folio 3 último párrafo) desde que se emitió la primera suspensión del proyecto y desde ese momento no se había podido avanzar, por lo que se solicitó priorizar la revisión y aprobación de esta OM-01 la cual de nuestra parte estaba lo suficientemente desglosada y detallada como para ser aprobada durante el periodo establecido de 8 días en el “Manual de procedimiento para la preparación, aprobación y comunicación de órdenes de servicio, órdenes de modificación y adendas a los contratos de obra financiados por el Banco” .

1.1.16. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-189 (Anexo 41): a partir de la reunión del 27 de marzo de 2019, para revisar la última versión de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa de la LPI-01-2017 se hizo llegar a la Supervisión el recuento y su estado actual.

1.1.17. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-190 (Anexo 42): En respuesta a SUP-RD-658-2019 (Anexo 43) se presentaron las condiciones comerciales de la orden de modificación en cuanto a plazo, vigencia, diseño y construcción, tramitación de los permisos de construcción así como el costo de la misma. En el punto 3 de este oficio la administración indicó al Consorcio: “3. Cualquier otro costo derivado de la suspensión temporal deberá tramitarse en otra instancia, no puede incluirse dentro del costo de la modificación requerida para estabilizar los taludes del Sector Norte del terreno.” Costos que posteriormente fueron presentados como reclamaciones administrativas y rechazadas sin justa razón como se dirá, los cuales son la causa principal del desequilibrio económico del contrato.

1.1.18. CG-2019-0931 (Anexo 44) el 09 de Mayo del 2019, 290 días después de la suspensión del proyecto (1,61 veces el plazo contractual en periodo de suspensión). Se le notifica al Consorcio que la Orden de Modificación OM-01 está aprobada, se le solicita la revisión de la adenda al contrato y se indica que las obra no iniciarán hasta que haya una orden de inicio para este trabajo adicional.

1.1.19. El día 28 de agosto del 2019 se firmó la Orden de Servicio Nº13 (Anexo 45), donde finalmente se da la orden de inicio de la Orden de Modificación OM-01, esto 403 días después de suspendido el proyecto. Dicha orden de modificación se aprobó por un valor de $1.015.342,70 (un 77% del monto del contrato original) y un plazo adicional de 5 meses (equivalente al 100% del plazo original del proyecto).

1.1.20. El proyecto debió iniciarse de inmediato, sin embargo, en el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 (Anexo 46) con fecha del 3 de octubre de 2017, el Consorcio comunicó que los permisos de construcción de los trabajos adicionales no habían sido aprobados aún por las autoridades correspondientes por parte de la Administración de manera que el inicio de las obras no se podía hacer efectivo, por razones ajenas a la responsabilidad del Consorcio.

1.1.21. Bajo los principios de eficacia y eficiencia el Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 (Anexo 47) El Consorcio comunicó al gobierno local (Municipalidad de Oreamuno) sobre el reinicio de las obras a partir del 10 de octubre del 2019.

1.1.22. Por medio del oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 (Anexo 48) del 10 de octubre del 2019 la Municipalidad de Oreamuno objetó el inicio de las obras, imposibilitando el inicio de las obras.

1.1.23. Después de casi un mes de negociaciones internas entre Fideicomiso del Banco Nacional y la Municipalidad de Oreamuno) el día 07 de Noviembre del 2019 el Consorcio recibió un Correo electrónico de parte de la administración (Anexo 49) donde de manera informal se confirma la orden de inicio para el 11 de noviembre, 478 días después de suspendido el proyecto.

1.1.24. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333 (Anexo 50), 28 de octubre del 2019, titulado “Solicitud de OS-14 por retrasos en el inicio de obras Liceo Rural Santa Rosa” , se comunicó a la administración de las trabas institucionales que impidieron el inicio de las Obras después de la orden de servicio OS-13, y se solicitó una Orden de Servicio adicional para compensar ese plazo en el que La Municipalidad de Oreamuno y el Fideicomiso del Banco Nacional resolvieron sus diferencias internas, o sea plazo en el que la Administración Pública resolvió de manera interna, dando una orden de inicio informal para el 11 de noviembre del 2019 por medio de Correo electrónico de parte del la administración (Anexo 49).

1.1.25. Aun conociendo la Administración que el atraso en el re-inicio de la obra, debió haber prorrogado el plazo de entrega en 75 días (desde el 28 de agosto del 2019 que se firmó la Orden de Servicio Nº13 (Anexo 45) hasta el 11 de noviembre del 2019 que el Fideicomiso solucionó diferencias con La Municipalidad de Oreamuno como se evidencia en Correo electrónico de parte de la administración (Anexo 49), la Administración rechazó la solicitud de una nueva orden de servicio que prorrogara el plazo del proyecto mediante el oficio SUP-RD-0440-2020 (Anexo 51), evidenciando un acto de mala fe, ya que el Consorcio NO pudo reiniciar los trabajos sino hasta el 11 de noviembre del 2019, esa situación debió ampliar el plazo de entrega a 200 días naturales, siendo la fecha de entrega contractual del proyecto el 29 de mayo del 2020.

Es importante resaltar a este Tribunal que con la prueba aportada resulta evidente que el proyecto estuvo suspendido durante 1 año, 3 meses y 18 días, por situaciones ajenas a la responsabilidad del Contratista y que durante todo este período el Consorcio se vio en obligación de soportar la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, entre otros ), los cuales fueron presentados por medio de reclamación y rechazados sin justa razón, generando graves daños al patrimonio financiero del Consorcio, deteriorando la capacidad de ejecución de obra en este y en nuestros demás proyectos de la Licitación.

Presentación y rechazo de solicitud de indemnización contractual y primer reclamo administrativo por retrasos ajenos a la responsabilidad del Consorcio En este proyecto existió un período de 478 días en los que por razones ajenas a la responsabilidad del consorcio el proyecto estuvo suspendido o no fue posible iniciar obras debido a la responsabilidad del Fideicomiso. Durante 1 año, 3 meses y 18 días, el Consorcio soportó la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, entre otros), sin pago.

Por esa razón, acudimos al pliego Cartelario de la licitación en el artículo denominado: Suspensión , indica en el punto 41.5. lo siguiente acerca de las indemnizaciones, sea: “Si el cumplimiento por el Contratista de sus obligaciones se suspende o el ritmo de avance se reduce de conformidad con la presente Cláusula 41 de las CG, el plazo de terminación se prorrogará conforme a la Subcláusula 40.1 de las CG, y todos los costos o gastos adicionales que deba asumir el Contratista como resultado de esa suspensión o reducción serán pagados por el Contratante al Contratista en adición al precio del Contrato .” No obviamos indicar el contenido de la subcláusula 25.5.3 punto d) que indica que “ los cargos adicionales relacionados con el cuidado de las Obras de conformidad con la Subcláusula 32.1 de las CG serán reembolsados al Contratista por el Contratante por el período transcurrido entre la notificación antes mencionada y la notificación que se menciona más adelante en la Subcláusula 25.5.4. La disposición de la Subcláusula 33.2 de las CG se aplicará a las Obras durante el mismo período” .

Debido a que el período de suspensión superó en determinado momento más 180 días de suspensión, con el objetivo de restablecer el balance económico del contrato y así cumplir el principio de intangibilidad patrimonial, siendo que los trabajos y costos durante el período de suspensión representaron un daño para el Consorcio, siendo que la inversión de los recursos sin una remuneración y utilidad asociada genera pérdida, el Consorcio acudió a las subcláusula 25.5.3 del pliego cartelario, que versa: “En caso de que el período de suspensión conforme a la Subcláusula 25.5.1 precedente supere en la práctica los ciento ochenta (180) días, el Contratante y el Contratista convendrán en una indemnización adicional pagadera al Contratista.”.

Amparado en las cláusulas citadas del artículo 25.5.3, el Consorcio procedió a iniciar un reclamo administrativo con el objetivo de restablecer el balance económico del contrato obedeciendo al principio de intangibilidad patrimonial y devolver el equilibrio financiero del contrato que ya para el momento de las reclamaciones, el balance económico del contrato había sido gravemente afectado y consecuentemente la capacidad del Consorcio de ejecución de obra, principal razón de este proceso judicial.

Aun conociendo el FIDEICOMISO de los retrasos ajenos a la responsabilidad del Consorcio (equivalentes 3,18 veces el plazo del contrato original), las gestiones de cobro referentes a reclamos administrativos fueron rechazados, a pesar de que desde el 23 de Julio del 2018, ver oficio CG-2018-1403 (Anexo 18) y oficialmente hasta el 28 de agosto del 2019 (Extraoficialmente hasta el 11 de noviembre), el proyecto se mantuvo suspendido por parte de la Supervisión, ya que en el momento de la solicitud de la reclamación -1 de julio de 2019 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52)- , el daño y el perjuicio se encontraba en pleno desarrollo. Dejando el contrato con un serio desbalance financiero y un estado de indefensión al Consorcio.

Aun suponiendo que hubiese habido aspectos relacionados con las fechas de presentación de la reclamación, que hubiesen podido interpretarse como “aspectos de extemporaneidad¨, la Administración pudo haberlos modificado unilateralmente o bajo mutuo acuerdo, bajo los principios de mutabilidad del contrato, eficacia, eficiencia y buena fe, en aras de procurar el principio de intangibilidad patrimonial y restablecer el balance financiero del contrato con el fin de cumplir el objeto contractual.

En esta decisión de rechazo existió una clara violación a los principios de buena fe, eficacia y eficiencia, al no aplicar el principio de mutabilidad del contrato, que faculta a la administración pública para modificar parcialmente el contrato con el fin de proteger el interés público, que en este caso significaba restaurar el equilibrio económico del contrato para terminar la ejecución de los proyectos adjudicados al Consorcio. Dejando así el contrato, con un serio desbalance financiero.

Se detallan las pruebas cronológicamente explicadas, que respaldan estos hechos:

1.1.26. SUP-RD-973-2019 (Anexo 53), recibido el 13 de mayo del 2019, el Fideicomiso solicita al Consorcio atender una serie de observaciones generadas por el regente ambiental.

1.1.27. GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204 (Anexo 54), del 20 de mayo del 2019, El Consorcio responde las observaciones del regente ambiental. Adicionalmente, en el folio 2 notifica a la administración que se presentará el reclamo administrativo amparado por el cartel para devolver equilibrio económico del contrato y adicionalmente en el folio 3, párrafo 1, el Consorcio solicitó una reunión para definir el monto de la indemnización a la cual El Consorcio tenía derecho después de los 180 días del periodo de suspensión.

1.1.28. El 1 de julio de 2019 por medio del Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52), se pormenoriza asuntos de legalidad, costos, plazo, se presentó el primer Reclamo Administrativo por Suspensión del Plazo de Ejecución Proyecto por un monto de $162.449,89 y además se detallaron ampliamente los gastos en los cuales el Consorcio invirtió sus recursos en cumplimiento de sus obligaciones contractuales, todo esto durante el periodo de suspensión y además la justificación legal del reclamo.

1.1.29. El 29 de Julio del 2019, dado que transcurrieron 39 días y no hubo respuesta de la Administración con respecto a la reunión solicitada para la definición de la Indemnización, el Consorcio dio seguimiento a la solicitud, por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-263 (Anexo 55). Este oficio no tuvo respuesta. Note este tribunal, el grave daño que generó al consorcio, en la omisión definir o al menos responder la solicitud del consorcio un tema tan delicado de tratar como la indemnización por daños al consorcio dentro del proceso administrativo, según se dice.

1.1.30. El 2 de octubre del 2019 por medio el oficio FID-3566-2019 (Anexo 56), la Administración rechazó el reclamo administrativo con la siguiente conclusión : “Bajo lo expuesto queda claro para esta Administración que el Contratista NO CUMPLIÓ con los deberes impuestos por las Sub-cláusulas citadas en esta respuesta, siendo en consecuencia aplicables los efectos previstos en la Subcláusula 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales, según la cual “...Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, y el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir los pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación". Conforme lo expuesto, se considera que el reclamo debe ser rechazado, por no haber cumplido con los requisitos de presentación en tiempo. En lo que respecta propiamente al detalle y cuantificación de lo reclamado, considera esta Administración que carece de todo interés práctico hacer referencia a ello, en virtud del rechazo que por aspectos de extemporaneidad se está disponiendo.” Conclusión errónea, por cuanto en el momento de la presentación del reclamo, como a la hora del rechazo, el proyecto seguía suspendido o sea el perjuicio se mantenía en curso y segundo el Fideicomiso tenía 42 días para responder los reclamos y tardó 93 días en responder.

Graves daños por rechazo de segundo, tercer y cuarto reclamo administrativo El proyecto se mantuvo suspendido hasta el 11 de noviembre del 2019, por lo que el primer corte de reclamo administrativo (GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 (Anexo 52) consideró los costos referentes desde el 21 de julio 2018 hasta el 7 de junio 2019. En marzo de 2020, se procedió con la realización del segundo reclamo administrativo a través de oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-483 (Anexo 57), en el cual se detallaron los costos indirectos en los que incurrió el consorcio por concepto de reanudación de proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, así como los costos indirectos que conllevo el proyecto posterior a su fecha de finalización contractual debido a las indefiniciones del Fideicomiso en cuanto a trabajos adicionales no contemplados en el Diseño Final aprobado. El Fideicomiso procedió a rechazar de oficio la solicitud contenida en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-483 (Anexo 57) a través de FID-1604-2020 (Anexo 58).

Considerando lo establecido en la Sección VII. Condiciones Generales (CG) de los carteles de Licitación (LPI), específicamente en el acápite identificado como H. Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato I. Reclamaciones, Controversias y Arbitraje, punto 44.5, “ (b) el Contratista enviará mensualmente reclamaciones temporales adicionales , en las que especificará la demora acumulada o el monto exigido, además de toda la información adicional que pueda requerir razonablemente el Gerente de Proyecto”, el Consorcio procedió con el envío del tercer y cuarto corte de reclamos administrativos GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 (Anexo 59) y GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 (Anexo 60), respectivamente, con ocasión de documentar los daños y perjuicios a partir del rechazo de la solicitud de indemnización, rechazo de primer reclamo administrativo presentado y las afectaciones sobre el flujo de dinero y el correcto avance de los proyectos, a fin de continuar buscando, el equilibro financiero.

La Ley Autoriza al Poder Ejecutivo para suscribir una Operación de Crédito Público y Constituir un Fideicomiso con Contratos de Arrendamiento, para el Financiamiento del Proyecto Construcción y Equipamiento de Infraestructura Educativa del MEP a Nivel Nacional establece como una obligación utilizar los principios de contratación administrativa de eficacia y eficiencia, igualdad y libre competencia, publicidad, libre concurrencia, igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos, así como la seguridad jurídica, formalismo en los procedimientos licitatorios, equilibrio de intereses, buena fe, mutabilidad del contrato, intangibilidad patrimonial y el control de los procedimientos, según se detalla a continuación.

En el punto 40.1) e) de la Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato, según las Condiciones Generales de las Licitaciones se establece lo siguiente: "...(e) cualquier incumplimiento o violación del Contrato por parte del Contratante .... o cualquier actividad, acto u omisión del Contratante, o el Gerente de Proyecto, o cualquier otro Contratista empleado por el Contratante...". Además, en el punto 44.5 denominado como Reclamaciones, Controversias y Arbitraje de las Condiciones Generales establece "...a partir del momento en que el Contratista se dé cuenta (o haya debido darse cuenta) del hecho o circunstancia en que se originó la reclamación, o dentro de cualquier otro plazo que proponga el Contratista y apruebe el Gerente de Proyecto, el Contratista enviará al Gerente de Proyecto una reclamación completa y pormenorizada que incluya toda la información complementaria relativa al fundamento del reclamo ...". Según se explicará.

Según lo establece este mismo punto 44.5 de las Condiciones Generales, si el hecho o circunstancia en que se origina el reclamo tiene efecto continuo, el plazo empieza a correr desde el momento en que se reconoce su error, en este caso, se empieza a contabilizar desde el momento en el cual la Unidad de Inspección del Fideicomiso empezó a remitir al Consorcio notas firmadas por los Gerentes de Obra de los Proyectos.

Estas reclamaciones encuentran además fundamento en esa actuación y omisión del Contratante, el cual corresponde a daños patrimoniales que han sido causados por una situación no imputable a este Consorcio, por tal motivo, al existir un incumplimiento contractual del FIDEICOMISO, se alega una responsabilidad contractual, esto en aplicación de los principios de responsabilidad contractual, integración del contrato, intangibilidad patrimonial, legalidad y razonabilidad, según se explicó, líneas arriba.

En materia de incumplimiento contractual, se alega como principal motivo de esta reclamación, una violación en todos los contratos que fueron firmados entre las partes, específicamente en relación a las comunicaciones generadas por terceros no autorizados, y esto con respecto a las comunicaciones (inexistentes) de los Gerentes de Obra (GO) en cada proyecto, quienes siendo representantes del Contratante, omitieron su obligación de mantener -en sentido estricto- comunicaciones con nuestro Consorcio.

Esta situación ha sido reconocida por los mismos Gerentes de Obra (GO) y la Unidad de Supervisión, en torno a que las comunicaciones realizadas a mi representada no eran formales ni oficiales. En ese sentido, el Gerente de Obra no actuó según lo establecido en las Condiciones Generales, sino que sus comunicaciones fueron manejadas por personas que no estaban autorizadas para ello. Ver punto 17.2 de las CG. Con esto mi representada demostró un hecho y motivo inequívoco, con el cual se establece un motivo real para alegar la existencia de una responsabilidad administrativa ocasionada por una reiterada omisión en los Gerentes de Obra de este Fideicomiso, la cual ha sido permitirle a la Unidad de Inspección que se incumpliera - durante la ejecución de esos contratos - con la formalidad establecida vía contrato, en torno a las comunicaciones. El Consorcio fue víctima de una violación contractual en el cumplimiento de las comunicaciones del GO, específicamente del Acápite Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato, punto 40.1) e) de las Condiciones Generales de esta Licitación Pública.

El funcionamiento de la Unidad de Inspección (UI), así como de los Gerentes de Obra de cada proyecto, ha sido anormal, ya que sus actuaciones materiales asociadas con los rechazos en diferentes instancias de estos proyectos, sumado a Órdenes de Servicios y de Modificación que nos fueron negadas o no requeridas debidamente, nos han ocasionado situaciones imprevisibles, las cuales, causaron graves daños patrimoniales.

A pesar de como se explicó, los reclamos administrativos que se presentaron al FIDEICOMISO contaban con todos los elementos para ser reconocidos, la solicitud de pago fue rechazada mediante el oficio FID-1604-2020 (Anexo 58), en el que se indicó: "... el Contratista también ha incumplido con su deber de indicar y probar los supuestos daños y perjuicios que se reclaman, su estimación, su origen y naturaleza, específicamente lo estipulado en las Sub-cláusulas 44.4, y 44.5, así como lo dispuesto en el artículo 193 de la LFAP, pues una reclamación como la pretendida, que versa sobre unos supuestos mayores costos incurridos, necesariamente exige aportar toda la información complementaria relativa al fundamento del reclamo, debiendo acreditar mediante la prueba pertinente, conducente e idónea, tanto el quantum como la erogación correspondiente reclamada, todo lo cual se echa de menos en los reclamos presentados, pues tales mayores costos de ninguna forma se pueden “suponer o asumir”, a partir de una sumatoria de simples fotocopias sin ninguna fundamentación, relación, ni acreditación de su vinculación con las contrataciones y obras, la prueba que las mismas se originen en el evento alegado y no en la negligencia del contratista o en los riesgos asumidos al celebrar la contratación… ”.

Ante esa respuesta, solicitamos con el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-528 (Anexo 61), esto: “Por tanto, solicito se proceda a dar las razones con comentarios detallados por la cual nuestra reclamación no fue acogida, ya que no se establecen con claridad las razones para su rechazo, así como también debe subsanar el error de no haber requerido la información que resultaba ser necesaria para para aprobar la reclamación o bien para contar con los elementos suficientes para su rechazo. Solicito este asunto sea remitido ante un Comité de Resolución de Controversias, según se establece en el apéndice de Condiciones Generales del Convenio del Comité de Resolución de Controversias”. Siendo que el Consorcio fue meticuloso en la presentación de los reclamos administrativos, brindando las explicaciones a nivel de pretensión de los daños, su origen y la estimación correspondiente, sin embargo, el FIDEICOMISO se enfocó en rechazar los oficios de pleno, alegando que los reclamos no contienen suficiente información para realizar el análisis, evitando la solicitud de documentación adicional para continuar con el análisis exhaustivo de la información propuesta por nosotros.

Solo en el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa los reclamos administrativos ascendieron a ¢220.900.241,63 (aproximadamente $400.000) o sea ? del monto del contrato original, generando estos rechazos injustificados un grave daño al equilibrio económico del contrato al no reconocer, sabiendo de la existencia de más de un año de atrasos en definición; la inversión que el Consorcio realizó para el cumplimiento de sus compromisos contractuales en los proyectos adjudicados.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO DE ESCUELA LA HERMOSA En atención a FID-2317-2020 (Anexo 62) ACTO INICIAL DE PROCEDIMIENTO SUMARIO PARA LA APLICACIÓN DE LA CLÁUSULA PENAL, mi representada procedió a dar respuesta en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 (Anexo 63) apelando a la Defensa de contrato no cumplido (non adimpleti contractus) con sustento en el artículo 692 del Código Civil, aplicable supletoriamente conforme al artículo número 9.2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), no se evidenciaban circunstancias fácticas para la aplicación de la cláusula penal. Esta afirmación se respaldó a través de la resolución número 6639-2013 de la Sala Constitucional, la cual considera que la Administración Pública siempre deberá demostrar que el incumplimiento del contratista le es efectivamente imputable, ya que (como sucede en este caso) puede haber causas eximentes de esa responsabilidad: “…previo a la ejecución de una cláusula penal debe corroborarse a través de un debido proceso si el cumplimiento tardío o prematuro fue efectivamente responsabilidad del contratista o, por el contrario, existió alguna circunstancia eximente de responsabilidad… Ciertamente, la Administración contratante se encuentra llamada a resguardar el interés público en cada una de las contrataciones administrativas que convenga con los particulares, así como a garantizar la regularidad de los servicios públicos y, consecuentemente, evitar cualquier tipo de retrasos injustificados en la ejecución del objeto del contrato administrativo; empero, estos principios constitucionales no autorizan a la Administración a incurrir en arbitrariedades, como lo sería ejecutar de manera automática las cláusulas penales convenidas sin descartar de previo circunstancias eximentes de responsabilidad contractual”. En este caso es evidente que lo sucedido es una responsabilidad directa del Fideicomiso y, por consiguiente, no resulta justo ni es acorde con los postulados del Estado social y democrático de Derecho la aplicación de la cláusula penal contra el Consorcio, cuando es evidente que quien incumplió fue el Fideicomiso, al no lograr buscar, garantizar, mantener el equilibro económico en la ejecución de este contrato; viéndose mi representada seriamente afectada por el rechazo del primer cobro administrativo y siguientes realizados para el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, así como la no respuesta a la solicitud de indemnización por más de 180 días en el mismo proyecto, dicha situación conlleva a que no se logrará avanzar en este Proyecto desde el mes de enero de 2019.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO DE ESCUELA AZUL En el caso del proyecto Escuela Azul de Turrialba se presentaron atrasos en el proyecto debido a la definición de la Supervisión y del Fideicomiso respecto a los hallazgos arqueológicos encontrados en el proyecto, esa situación se notificó a través de oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289 (Anexo 64), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290 (Anexo 65), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 (Anexo 66) y la Administración agendó una cita con el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, la misma se efectuó 10 días después de esa notificación.

Adicionalmente, ajenos a la responsabilidad del Consorcio, se identificó un problema de colindancia que involucra a los vecinos y al Ministerio de Salud que no se ha dirimido al día de hoy, generando problemas graves para continuar ejecutando este proyecto.

El Consorcio se vio imposibilitado de continuar ejecutando obras en la Escuela Azul, por cuanto, la resolución número 2020008458 (Anexo 67) de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de las nueve horas veinte minutos del ocho de mayo de dos mil veinte, declaró con lugar un recurso de amparo por incumplimiento a una orden sanitaria para evitar el desfogue de aguas residuales en el terreno de la Escuela Azul, "¨... se ordena a Guiselle Solano Fernández, en su condición de Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, o a quien ejerza dicho cargo, que en el plazo de DIEZ DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de la presente sentencia, deberá contestar al amparado la denuncia presentada desde el 10 de junio de 2019." “Asimismo, se ordena a la recurrida, que INMEDIATAMENTE verifique el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria emitida a fin de evitar el desfogue de aguas residuales en el terreno de la Escuela de Azul. De no haberse cumplido dicha orden, deberá adoptar las medidas necesarias que resguarden la salud de las personas afectadas, esto dentro del plazo máximo de UN MES, contado a partir de la notificación de esta resolución".

Cabe resaltar que esta situación de aguas residuales en el terreno de la Escuela Azul es una situación de fuerza mayor fuera del control del Consorcio, por lo que estamos ante una situación que suspendió el contrato e impidió continuar ejecutando su objeto y, es razón suficiente para vernos obligados a suspender el conteo de días para su entrega. El proyecto contaba con Prórrogas, a la fecha de su rescisión (dado que el recurso de amparo al día de hoy no ha sido cumplido) de hasta 3,2 veces su plazo contractual, generando costos indirectos adicionales y los reclamos administrativos por estos períodos fueron rechazados por la Administración, sin justa razón ni análisis detallado.

El proyecto Escuela Azul inició aproximadamente cuatro meses después -diciembre 2018- que la totalidad de los proyectos de las licitaciones adjudicadas a mi representada. En este punto el desequilibrio económico de los contratos ya era grave implicando la decisión por parte del Consorcio, en enero de 2019 de suspender los trabajos en proyecto Escuela La Hermosa. Adicionalmente el plazo se extendió debido a indefiniciones del Fideicomiso, órdenes de servicio por ampliación de plazo y una indebida recepción de los proyectos de las demás licitaciones adjudicadas a mi representada, afectando el equilibrio económico de los contratos impidiendo a mi representada realizar la entrega definitiva del proyecto el día 17 de junio de 2019. Toda esta situación llevó al Consorcio a realizar la solicitud de rescisión de los contratos, en resguardo del principio de intangibilidad patrimonial, el cual, en este caso, fue violentado por el Fideicomiso, al no habernos garantizado una objetiva determinación entre los plazos de la ejecución de esa obra y la revisión de los precios que fueron inicialmente contratados versus la realidad que se ha ejecutado en el contrato 88-2017 (Anexo 1). Dicho incumplimiento sustancial por parte del Fideicomiso imposibilita que el Consorcio continúe ejecutando obra constructiva, razón que ha sido ampliamente explicada en las citadas consideraciones de este apartado de derecho.

COMUNICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO A TRAVÉS DE PERSONAS NO AUTORIZADAS CONTRACTUALMENTE PARA LA COMUNICACIÓN DEL CONTRATO. VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA CONTRACTUAL Durante todo el proceso la persona designada como el Gerente de Obra, responsable contractual de la comunicación del proyecto, no realizó las comunicaciones oficiales violentando las instrucciones contractuales con respecto a la emisión de notificaciones, instrucciones, órdenes, certificados y aprobaciones. Dicha situación fue notificada a la administración por medio de los oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-450 (Anexo 68), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-456 (Anexo 69), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-461 (Anexo 70), la Unidad Supervisora de Proyecto normaliza la situación hasta la emisión de oficio SUP-RD-0374-2020 (Anexo 71) en que el gerente de obra firmó la comunicación escrita. Solicitamos que este tribunal brinde especial atención a la gravedad de este asunto, ya que durante todo el proceso se comunicaron con el contratante personas que no tenía la facultad contractual para comunicarse con el contratista; a pesar de su clara instrucción contractual y posterior instrucción brindada en el oficio CG-2018-1995/AD-2018-0166 (Anexo 72) donde se nos instruyó, nuevamente, que todas las comunicaciones debían realizarse al Gerente de Obra, instrucción respetada por el Consorcio, durante el intercambio de las comunicaciones.

MONTOS ADEUDADOS POR AVANCE DE OBRA El FIDEICOMISO ilegalmente se ha negado a cumplir con su obligación de pago por avance de obra, a pesar de que en este caso existió un acuerdo de voluntades, sea la contratación y respectiva entrega de una obra determinada, lo cual cumple con los artículos 1022, 1023 del Código Civil, en cuanto al principio de vinculación general de los contratos, el cual dispone que los contratos tienen fuerza de ley entre las partes contratantes, por ende, el FIDEICOMISO está obligado a pagarnos el avance de obra construido.

El Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI realizó una serie de obras, las cuales no fueron pagadas en el proceso por no estar supuestamente terminadas, pero ciertamente tenían obra ejecutada a la hora de la rescisión del contrato, existía un avance real, como consta en informes mensuales entregadas al Fideicomiso en marzo del 2020 y deben ser reconocidos, según la cláusula 42.4 de las condiciones generales del cartel: “En la presente Cláusula 42 de las CG, la expresión “Obras ejecutadas” incluirá todos los trabajos ejecutados, los servicios de instalación prestados y todos los elementos de planta adquiridos (o sujetos a una obligación jurídicamente vinculante de compra) por el Contratista y utilizados o destinados a ser utilizados para los fines de las Obras, hasta la fecha de la rescisión, inclusive .” En el caso de la Licitación identificada como la LPI-01-2017 Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 lotes de 15 Centros Educativos y 10 Canchas Multiuso, lote #2, existen obras ejecutadas pendientes de pago por un monto que asciende a $1.008.663,88 -UN MILLÓN OCHO MIL SEISCIENTOS SESENTA Y TRES DÓLARES CON OCHENTA Y OCHO CENTAVOS -, como se detalla en las siguientes Tablas. (adjunta tablas) El total de garantías de anticipo que pretende ejecutar el FIDEICOMISO es por una suma de $535.604,15 USD. No obstante, el FIDEICOMISO desconoce que el CONSORCIO ejecutó una serie de obras constructivas que no han sido pagadas. En ese sentido, existe una serie de montos pendientes de cancelar por avance de obra a pagar a favor del CONSORCIO, los cuales ascienden a la suma de $1.008.663,88 USD, dineros que deben rebajarse de los supuestos saldos de las garantías anticipadas, según lo establece la sección IX. Formularios del Contrato, apartado "C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago", específicamente en la sección de Anticipo 2.a., el cual dice: 2. El Anticipo será amortizado mediante deducciones del mismo porcentaje solicitado, de todos los pagos del contrato hasta su completa devolución (excluidos los respectivos al propio Anticipo), Si el anticipo no ha sido amortizado antes del Certificado de Terminación de las Obras o antes de la terminación según la Cláusula 42 de las CG, entonces todo el saldo que se encuentre pendiente en ese momento será pagado inmediatamente por el Contratista al Contratante. Dicho pago podrá ser realizado de acuerdo al siguiente detalle: a. Se rebajará de los saldos pendiente de obra por facturar o de cualquier pago adeudado por el Contratante; (Subrayado y resaltado no es del original).

Actualmente, existe un saldo por $473.059,73 USD a favor del CONSORCIO, el cual se demuestra con los informes de avance de obras de los proyectos aportado en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-565 (ver anexo 96); dineros que no se pagaron, a pesar de que son saldos asociados a obras propias de la ejecución constructiva de los proyectos de esta Licitación.

PERJUICIOS Se solicita declarar el pago de intereses sobre las sumas que sea declaradas en sentencia por los pagos retenidos ilegítimamente por el FIDEICOMISO por avance de obra, en condición de perjuicios sobre las sumas cobradas por daños materiales, por cuanto el FIDEICOMISO ha incumplido con su obligación de pago, por lo cual le asiste derecho a mi representada de que sea declarado un incumplimiento, y se ordene la ejecución forzosa de su obligación, sea la de pagar lo adeudado a mi representada, así como sus respectivos intereses, por daños y perjuicios causados, hasta su efectivo pago. Al respecto, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia ha establecido: (…) En estos casos y de conformidad con el artículo 706 del Código Civil: “ Si la obligación es de pagar una suma de dinero, los daños y perjuicios consisten siempre y únicamente en el pago de intereses sobre la suma debida, contados desde el vencimiento del plazo. Por disposición de ley, cuando la obligación es de las llamadas de dinero o pecuniarias, los daños y perjuicios reclamables consisten en el pago de los intereses moratorios (…). Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, a las 15:20 hrs del 28 de junio de 1996.

III.- OPOSICIÓN DEL BNCR. Se alega y aduce en lo concreto y en lo conducente en relación con el objeto del proceso lo siguiente: SOBRE LOS HECHOS. PRIMERO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. SEGUNDO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. No obstante. no consta que dicho Consorcio actor haya designado a IDECO como empresa líder. TERCERO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. CUARTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. QUINTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. SEXTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Las fechas indicadas por la parte actora no son las de entrega de las ordenes de inicio. Sino que estas fechas corresponden al día en el que debía darse inicio efectivo de los trabajos en cada Proyecto. Asimismo, la parte actora omite indicar que las ordenes de inicio son tanto para construcción, como para equipamiento.

ACERCA DE LA APROBACIÓN FINAL DE LOS PLANOS CONSTRUCTIVOS. SÉTIMO.- NO ME CONSTA. Me atengo al recurso probatorio. OCTAVO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. La etapa de diseño de los Proyectos se analiza hasta que la actora comunicara al Fideicomiso contratante que han sido aprobados los permisos correspondientes ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos (CFIA). El anexo 74 de la demanda corresponde al oficio CG-2018-0506 ARQ-201 8-0193 CON del quince de marzo de dos ml dieciocho y este versa sobre la autorización que la Unidad Ejecutora del Fideicomiso le realiza al Consorcio actor para que proceda con las gestiones de permisos ante el CFIA, pero solamente en relación al proyecto Escuela La Hermosa. Véase el expediente administrativo para cada Proyecto según se indica: a. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO LPI-01-2017-024 del veinticuatro de abril de dos mil dieciocho (Exp. LRSR, Ampo D. folios 1372 y 1373). Es hasta el 24 de abril de 2018, que se da por terminada la etapa de diseño. Adicionalmente, para lo concerniente a los planos constructivos, obsérvese el Exp. LRSR, Ampo C, folios 1237 al 1293 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas) y el Ampo D, folios 1668, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1674 y 1675 (Comunicaciones sobre APC). b. Escuela Azul Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-034 del doce de julio de dos mil dieciocho (Exp. EA Ampo D. folios 1300 y 1301). Es hasta el 12 de julio de 2018, que se da por terminada la etapa de diseño. Adicionalmente, para lo concerniente a los planos constructivos, obsérvese el Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 1153 al 1190 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas) c. Escuela La Hermosa: Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-201 7-025 del dos de mayo de dos ml dieciocho (Exp. EH Ampo D. folios 1377 y 1376). Es hasta el 11 de mayo de 2018, que se da por terminada la etapa de diseño. Adicionalmente. para lo concerniente a los planos constructivos, obsérvese el Exp. EH Ampo C. folios 1277 al 1298 y 1274 al 1234 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas) y el Exp. EH Ampo D, folios 1364 al 1375 (Comunicaciones sobre APC).

FASE DE CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EJECUCIÓN DEL PROYECTO ACERCA DEL PROYECTO LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA.

NOVENO.- ES CIERTO.- Se admite. DÉCIMO.- ES INEXACTO.- Se rechaza por inexacto. El oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos ml dieciocho, respondió al oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 del primero de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho, mediante el cual el actor realizó una solicitud adicional de ampliación de suspensión de plazo por 15 días naturales para preparar una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas de la OM-1 (folio 29 del expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR). Dicha solicitud fue rechazada por la Unidad de Supervisión mediante el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho, por no ser económicamente viable. Además, el actor no había aportado la propuesta con mejoras técnicas y económicas que se había comprometido a presentar. Por otro lado, la nueva suspensión de plazo fue denegada. porque a pesar de que en ese momento las obras se encontraban con orden de suspensión a solicitud del propio actor, de forma contradictora, irrespetó dicha suspensión y procedió a ejecutar obras que no fueron supervisadas y avaladas por el contratante (anexo 10 de la demanda). DÉCIMO PRIMERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por exacto. Si bien es cierto el actor mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho (anexo 11 de la demanda) responde los puntos señalados en el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018, no es cierto que de esa forma se dio inicio a la OM-1, ya que ésta nació con la presentación de la primera versión de la orden de modificación que presentó el actor mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 del doce de octubre de dos mil dieciocho. DÉCIMO SEGUNDO.- ES CIERTO PARCIALMENTE. Se admite con variantes. Se aclara que la solicitud de la OS-02, la realizó el actor el 26 de agosto de 2018 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 del veinticuatro de agosto de dos ml dieciocho (folios 17 al 23 del expelente cobro de multas de LRSR) y quedó debidamente aprobada el 13 de setiembre de 2018 (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 335 al 337). DÉCIMO TERCERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. La primera solicitud de suspensión la realizó el Consorcio actor el 16 de julio de 2018 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 y fue aprobada por la OS-01 el 20 de julio de 2018 (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. foros 338 al 340). La aprobación de la OS-01 se dio con la aceptación de todas las partes y dicha aceptación se dio el 20 de julio de 2018, incluyendo la firma del señor José Luis Brenes San GI, Representante Legal del actor (Exp. LRSR Ampo B, foro 339). Ahora bien. por cuestiones formales y de procedimiento atinentes a la ejecución de los proyectos, la aprobación de la OS-01 se comunicó a la Dirección del Fideicomiso el 23 de julio de 2018 mediante oficio CG-20181403IARQ-2018-0536 (anexo 18 de la demanda). Cuando se tuvo por efectiva la comunicación a la Dirección del Fidecomiso, se procedió a notificarle al Ingeniero Allan Muñoz Vives (Director Técnico del Proyecto, trabajador del propio actor, véase Exp. LRSR Ampo B, folios 485 al 492) que dicha gestión había sido realizada. Esto se hizo el 26 de julio de 2018 mediante oficio SUP-RD-370-2018 (folio 16 del expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR) por medio del cual se le adjuntó a dicho ingeniero la OS-01, así como el oficio CG-2018-1403IARQ-2018-0536 del veintitrés de julio de dos mil dieciocho. DÉCIMO CUARTO.- ES CIERTO PARCIALMENTE. Se admite con variantes. Si bien es cierto que dentro de las petitorias del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho (anexo 11 de la demanda) se encontraba la solicitud de una nueva suspensión de plazo, cabe aclarar que el Consorcio actor el 01 de noviembre de 2018 había realizado la presentación de la OS-04 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (folio 29 del expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR), en la cual solicitó suspensión de plazo porque requería tiempo adicional para la presentación de una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas a la OM-01. DÉCIMO QUINTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Se aclara que a pesar de que la OS-13 se firmó por parte del Consorcio actor el 28 de agosto de 2019, esta quedó aprobada con la aceptación de todas las partes hasta el 02 de setiembre de 2019. Asimismo, dicha OS otorgó una extensión de plazo de 200 días naturales (150 días de la OM-01 y 50 días de remanente del contrato original) en la ejecución del proyecto (folios 67 al 71 expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR). Del mismo modo, se debe precisar lo señalado por la parte actora respecto a la OM-01, ya que esta se aprobó por un monto de $1.015.346.08 y la variación acumulada correspondió a un aumento del 76.95% del monto original (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 326 al 334). Por otra parte, el proyecto estuvo suspendido 338 días naturales y no 403 como indica erradamente el Consorcio actor, esto se verifica con la sumatoria de días de las trece órdenes de servicio (Exp. LRSR Ampo B, folios 335 al 385-L). DÉCIMO SEXTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. La razón por la cual los planos no fueron efectivamente aprobados en el plazo de 30 días naturales posterior a la reanudación de la ejecución del proyecto, si recae exclusivamente en la responsabilidad del actor, esto según lo estipulado en la "Sección VI. Requisitos del Diseño, La Obra y el Equipamento", apartado "K. Definiciones. conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar" del Cartel de Licitación de referencia. Obsérvese que el Consorcio actor ingresa el 17 de setiembre de 2019 los planos al APC, que es la plataforma Administrador de Proyectos de Construcción del CFIA, mediante la cual se revisan los planos de los proyectos para su respectivo visto bueno ( Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1637) e informa sobre dicha gestión a la Unidad Ejecutora del Fideicomiso el 24 de setiembre de 2019 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-305 (Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1638). Sin embargo, dicho trámite fue rechazado por el CFIA mediante la plataforma APC, debido a problemas de forma en la presentación, con lo cual, el actor tuvo que proceder el día el 27 de setiembre de 2019 con una nueva introducción de los planos en la plataforma APC. Así lo informó el mismo Consorcio actor a la Unidad Ejecutora mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-308 (Exp. LRSR Ampo D folios 1639 al 1645) y siendo que la realización de dicho trámite forma parte de las obligaciones del actor conforme lo estipulado en la "Sección VI. Requisitos del Diseño. La Obra y el Equipamiento", apartado *K. Definiciones. conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicaron a cada uno de los lotes a licitar". Así como a lo señalado en las subcláusulas 7.1.20.1 de las Condiciones Generales y Cláusula 40 de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación de referencia. Es por lo anterior, que no lleva razón el Consorcio actor al señalar que las obras no se pudieron iniciar en la fecha prevista por razones ajenas a su responsabilidad. Por ende, no procedía otorgar la suspensión de plazo solicitada mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 del tres de octubre de dos mil diecinueve (anexo 46 de la demanda). DÉCIMO SÉTIMO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. En este sentido, las objeciones del ente municipal iban relacionadas sobre el incumplimiento del trámite del permiso de construcción que no había gestionado y finalizado de forma correcta el actor. Asimismo, los problemas suscitados fueron producto de una escasa coordinación y desacertada comunicación entre el Consorció actor y el gobierno local. El hecho de que estas objeciones imposibilitaran la ejecución normal de las obras, es exclusiva responsabilidad del Consorcio actor, por no haber finalizado el trámite del permiso de construcción y con ello, evitar cualquier objeción por parte de la Municipalidad. DÉCIMO OCTAVO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. El problema con el permiso de construcción para el reinicio de la obra fue exclusiva responsabilidad del actor. Véase que el Consorcio actor arrastró este inconveniente desde el inicio de la ejecución de las obras, pues el 05 de junio del año 2018, la Municipalidad de Oreamuno había clausurado la ejecución del proyecto porque el Consorcio actor no había realizado de forma correcta el trámite del permiso de construcción ante dicho gobierno local como era su responsabilidad contractual (Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 al 1377). Ante esto, la Unidad Ejecutora calificó dicho evento como una no conformidad mayor, pues el actor no atendió de forma oportuna dicho requisito (Exp. LRSR Ampo D. folio 1703). En ese mismo sentido, en el mes de octubre de 2019 cuando el actor notificó mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 a la Municipalidad de Oreamuno sobre el reinicio de las obras, se produjo el mismo inconveniente, pues el Consorcio actor no realizó de manera correcta el trámite respectivo y eso quedó reflejado en la respuesta que da la Dirección de Control Urbano de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, mediante oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 del diez de octubre de dos mil diecinueve (anexo 49 de la demanda). En consecuencia, ante la ineficiencia del Consorcio actor para atender la problemática, fue que, la Unidad Ejecutora intervino en las gestiones ante la Dirección de Control Urbano de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, esto con el fin de clarificar la problemática del permiso de construcción, llegándose a verificar que dicha licencia fue ingresada desde el 20 de junio de 2018 a la Municipalidad, pero el Consorcio actor no había firmado ni retirado el certificado del permiso de construcción y los respectivos planos (anexo 49 de la demanda). Asimismo, la incongruencia y esencia del problema, fue que el Consorcio actor se eximía de la solicitud del permiso de construcción por haber ingresado el proyecto como Edificación Nacional. No obstante, cuando la Unidad de Supervisión del Fideicomiso le solicitó al actor por medio del oficio SUP-RD-0375-2020 el permiso de Edificaciones Nacionales, lo que aportó fue el permiso municipal N°24046. Posteriormente, se verificó que a la Municipalidad el actor tampoco les hizo llegar el supuesto permiso de Edificaciones Nacionales. En síntesis, el problema suscitado se debió a que, si bien el actor inició con el trámite de permiso municipal no lo completó ni ante Edificaciones Nacionales, ni ante el ente municipal (anexo 51 de la demanda). Por tal razón es que existía una incongruencia entre lo expresado por el actor y lo señalado por la Municipalidad y siendo que dicho problema fue a causa exclusiva de una mala gestión por parte de Consorcio actor, es que no procedía la aprobación de la OS-14, máxime que lo que pretendía el actor era una prórroga de plazo por 75 días en la entrega del proyecto y esto era injustificable, pues tuvo todo el tiempo de suspensión del proyecto, que fue más de un año calendario, para proceder a culminar el trámite del permiso de construcción ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, trámite que era responsabilidad contractual del actor. DÉCIMO NOVENO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Como se ha venido indicando en la contestación de los hechos. El plazo que el proyecto estuvo suspendido por razones ajenas a la responsabilidad del Consorcio actor, fue de 338 días naturales. Ahora bien, la suspensión fue por una situación de imprevisibilidad, que no fue responsabilidad de ninguna de las partes. Asimismo, dicha situación fue efectivamente indemnizada económicamente mediante la aprobación de la OM-01 y se le otorgó el plazo prudencial al actor para que culminara el proyecto. VIGÉSIMO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. El período que indica el Consorcio es impreciso, los días en los que actor tuvo que soportar una carga financiera ajena a su responsabilidad es el de 338 días naturales. Ahora bien, esta carga no incluye todos los ítems que el Consorcio actor cita en su demanda, ya que el proyecto se encontraba en suspensión, con lo cual, los recursos que debía mantener el Consorcio actor en funcionamiento eran mínimos. Aunado a esto, es dudosa la credibilidad sobre la inversión de recursos en el proyecto por parte del Consorcio actor durante la suspensión de las obras. Véase que se le tuvo que pedir en varias ocasiones que se hiciera cargo del mantenimiento de las obras, porque las tenía en completo abandono. De esta forma, mediante oficio SUP-RD-973-2019 del diez de mayo de dos mil diecinueve, se le indicó dentro de otras cosas al Consorcio, que atendiera dicha situación (anexo 53 de la demanda). Asimismo, el Consorcio admite mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204, que no mantiene ningún tipo de materiales y equipo en el proyecto. Por tal razón, no poseen tampoco contratado un guarda de seguridad (anexo 54 de la demanda). En consecuencia, la carga financiera que debió soportar el Consorcio actor fue mínima y tampoco lo hizo de una forma aceptable.

VIGÉSIMO PRIMERO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. El rechazo del Reclamo Administrativo se hizo conforme al régimen jurídico que imperó en la contratación. El Consorcio actor no se apegó al procedimiento estipulado cartelariamente para realizar reclamaciones, ya que para que este tipo de reclamos sean admitidos para su estudio, deben ser interpuestos de acuerdo al procedimiento estipulado en la Cláusula 44 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación de referencia. Por tal razón, el Reclamo Administrativo presentado mediante oficio GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 era inadmisible, pues se encontraba extemporáneo.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO ESCUELA LA HERMOSA VIGÉSIMO SEGUNDO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. VIGÉSIMO TERCERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Lo sucedido en el proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa, no tiene ninguna relación directa o indirecta con los atrasos en los que incurrió el Consorcio actor en la ejecución del proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, pues se trata de dos obras distintas, con objetos de construcción especificaciones, plazos y demás condiciones y características distintos y de ejecución independiente uno con respecto al otro. En este sentido, se evidencia que la parte actora pretende desarrollar una relación causal entre los proyectos, cuando lo cierto del caso, es que los atrasos y abandonos por parte del actor en cada uno de ellos, fue producto del incumplimiento de sus obligaciones contractuales. Nótese a este respecto, que en el Cartel de la Licitación de referencia, ni tampoco el Contrato suscrito entre el actor y el Fideicomiso, prevén que la ejecución de La Escuela La Hermosa se encuentre supeditada al éxito previo de la ejecución del Proyecto del Liceo Rural de Santa Rosa y esto es, porque son proyectos completamente independientes entre sí. Asimismo, es improcedente que el Consorcio actor realice tal relación de causalidad, pues como oferente y empresa adjudicataria, tuvo que haber presupuestado su capacidad económica para afrontar cada proyecto de forma independiente, esto incluye prever riesgos y situaciones imprevisibles. Ahora bien, con este hecho de la demanda es la primera vez en la que el Consorcio actor nos hace saber esta supuesta relación y afectación entre proyectos, ya que durante la ejecución de las obras en ningún momento los representantes del actor expresaron que existiera un riesgo de abandono del proyecto Escuela La Hermosa a causa de lo suscitado en el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Por otro lado, lo indicado por el Consorcio actor no encuentra sentido cuando se analizan los plazos de ejecución de cada proyecto, ya que de haber cumplido el actor con los trabajos de ejecución de manera eficiente en el proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, en ningún caso se podría haber visto afectado por la suspensión del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Al respecto, véase que el plazo definitivo para entregar las obras de Escuela La Hermosa, incluyendo las extensiones de plazo por lluvias (OS-01 y OS-02), era para el 23 de enero de 2019 (folios 16 y 17 expediente de cobro de multas de ELAH). No obstante, desde el 15 de enero de 2019 la Supervisión le advirtió al Consorcio actor mediante oficio SUP-RD-043-2019 del quince de enero de dos mil diecinueve (folio 14 expediente de cobro de multas de ELAH), que, de acuerdo a las visitas de inspección realizadas al proyecto, este evidenciaba serios atrasos en el cronograma de trabajo. Entonces, el Consorcio actor tuvo desde el 06 de agosto de 2018 hasta el 23 de enero de 2019 para ejecutar las obras de Escuela La Hermosa, sin embargo nunca realizó dicha entrega y tampoco lo hizo posteriormente, pues se evidencia que 08 de noviembre de 2019, la Supervisión advirtió al actor mediante oficio SUP-RD-2634-2019 que el proyecto acumulaba un atraso de 289 días naturales (folio 18 expediente de cobro de multas de ELAH) y aún bajo este apercibimiento, el Consorcio actor dejó de ejecutar las obras y el 08 de junio de 2020 abandonó incluso la seguridad de las mismas. Obsérvese que ordinalmente la diferencia de plazo para entregar los proyectos Escuela La Hermosa y Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, era de tres meses con ejecuciones simultáneas durante los meses de agosto, setiembre y octubre de 2018. Sin embargo, desde la emisión de la orden de inicio de Escuela La Hermosa (06 de agosto de 2018) hasta la fecha original de entrega del proyecto (23 de enero de 2019), el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa estuvo suspendido 116 días naturales. No obstante, ordinalmente estaba para ser entregado el 21 de octubre de 2018. Por consiguiente, al estar suspendido el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, lo lógico hubiere sido que el Consorcio actor, para maximizar su rendimiento, concentrara sus recursos financieros y humanos en la construcción de Escuela La Hermosa, así como los proyectos Escuela Azul, Escuela de Enseñanza Especial Santa Ana, Cancha Multiuso CTP Hojancha, Cancha Multiuso CTP 27 de Abril y Cancha Multiuso CTP Santa Lucia, los cuales también se encontraban en ejecución en el mismo período de tiempo en el que estuvo suspendido el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Sin embargo, los expedientes administrativos de ejecución, así como los expedientes de aplicación de cláusulas penales de cada proyecto, evidencian que el Consorcio actor no logró cumplir con la entrega efectúa de cada una de estas obras por su exclusiva responsabilidad (Véase los Actos Finales de cada expediente de cobro de multas). Finalmente, no es cierto que el Consorcio actor haya cumplido con un debido proceso de rescisión contractual. Primeramente, porque en ningún momento devino una causal para que procediera una rescisión por parte del actor. Para que el Consorcio actor hubiere estado Legitimado a rescindir el contrato, el Fideicomiso tendría que haber omitido pagar las sumas debidas por la ejecución del contrato o rehusado a aprobar facturas o documentos justificativos sin razón válida y estos supuestos nunca ocurrieron dentro de la contratación, tal y como lo estipula la Subcláusula 42.3 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de la Licitación de referencia. Segundo, porque con independencia de la improcedencia de la rescisión, el pretendido intento que invoca el Consorcio actor no fue realizado conforme al procedimiento estipulado para tales efectos. Dicho procedimiento, que se encuentra señalado en la Subcláusula 42.3 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación de referencia, requiere que cuando exista una causal de rescisión originada por la contratante respecto a incumplimiento de procedimientos o condiciones de pago, el contratista que no ha incumplido primero deberá enviar una notificación al otro contratante exigiendo que adecue la conducta que da origen a la posibilidad de rescisión. Si el contratante que ha incumplido no pone en regla dicha situación dentro de los 14 días posteriores a dicho apercibimiento, el contratista que no ha incumplido queda facultado a inviar una nueva notificación al otro contratante y solo si este último no responde dicha solicitud (sea aprobándola o dando las razones de su rechazo), es que el contratista que no ha incumplido puede rescindir el contrato. Véase que el actor el 22 de mayo de 2020 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 del veintidós de mayo de dos mil veinte, presentó un reclamo administrativo en el que pretendía el reconocimiento de ciertos montos económicos. Posteriormente, el día 25 de mayo de 2020, presentó un memorándum mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539 del veintidós de mayo de dos ml veinte, en el cual indicó que si el Fidecomiso no le reconocía esos montos económicos del reclamo, procedería a rescindir el contrato unilateralmente. Dicho reclamo fue rechazado el 04 de junio 2020 de forma válida y motivada por parte del Fideicomiso mediante oficio FID-2100-2020 del cuatro de Junio de dos mil veinte, debido a que este no se apegaba al procedimiento pertinente para la interposición de reclamaciones de acuerdo a la Cláusula 44 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de la Licitación de referencia. Posteriormente, el Consorcio actor el 24 de Junio de 2020 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 (anexo 78 de la demanda) interpuso una rescisión contractual basado en un supuesto incumplimiento contractual que había sido comunicado al Fidecomiso el día 22 de mayo de 2020. Como se verifica, lo que presentó el Consorcio actor el día 22 de mayo de 2020 fue un reclamo administrativo, mismo que fue rechazado de forma motivada y razonada por parte del Fideicomiso. Es decir, el actor hizo alusión a un supuesto incumplimiento sustancial que nunca existió y que mucho menos comunicó en la fecha que señala. Ahora bien, el apercibimiento que presentó el Consorcio actor el día 25 de mayo de 2020 al Fideicomiso, no constituye una notificación de rescisión contractual, pues no se fundamenta fehacientemente en una causal de incumplimiento por parte del contratante de acuerdo a lo estipulado en la Subcláusula 42.3.1 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de la Licitación de referencia. Además, la notificación del 25 de mayo de 2020 cita cláusulas que solo el contratante puede avocar. Por tal motivo, contrariamente, al existir evidentes causales de incumplimiento por parte del Consorcio actor, es que el día 12 de junio de 2020, el Fideicomiso remite el oficio FID-2213-2020 al Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), para que de la no objeción para la rescisión contractual del contrato N° 88-2017, correspondiente al proyecto Escuela La Hermosa. La solicitud de no objeción es un requisito previo, pues al ser una contratación excluida de los procedimientos ordinarios de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, se debe contar con la autorización del órgano prestatario de los recursos. De esta forma, la no objeción, fue otorgada por el BID mediante oficio CID/CCR/673/2020 del dieciocho de junio de dos mil veinte y el Fideicomiso procedió el día 29 de Junio de 2020 a comunicar al Consorcio actor mediante oficio FID-2493-2020 del veintinueve de junio de dos mil veinte, la rescisión contractual por parte del contratante, conforme lo estipulado en la Subcláusula 42.2.2 incisos c) y d) de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de la Licitación de referencia. Asimismo, es importante indicar, que el Consorcio actor no impugnó la decisión del Fidecomiso de rescindir el contrato, de lo que deriva un hecho jurídico aceptado por el actor de efectos contractuales plenos. VIGÉSIMO CUARTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. De acuerdo al "Informe Técnico Sobre Estado de Avance Fisico-Financiero y Proyección de Costo de la Obra Faltante Proyecto N° 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" realizado el 12 de mayo de 2020 por la Unidad de Supervisión (Exp. ELAH Ampo C. folios 524.73 al 524.87), el avance real de la obra al momento de abandono de la obra por parte del Consorcio actor, era de un 73.40%. Dicho avance se calcula sobre los faltantes de obras que el actor dejó en proceso, complementos y los reprocesos que acontecieron por el período en el que el proyecto no tuvo ningún avance, que abarcó desde el 06 de junio de 2019 hasta el 06 de diciembre de 2019 (Véase informes mensuales de inspección, Exp. ELAH Ampo C, folios 91 9 al 1192). Asimismo. para la estimación real, se debe tomar en cuenta el deterioro al que estuvieron expuestos los materiales apilados en la construcción, pues estos se deterioraron debido al abandono unilateral que realizó el actor, los cuales no pudieron ser incluidos dentro de la estación del proyecto. Respecto a las obras ejecutadas, también debe estimarse los deterioros en repellos, reparación de elementos con fisuras en rampas y pasillos, completar pasamanos pendientes, detallado de elementos de hojalatería y otros, producto del descuido derivado del abandono por parte del Consorcio actor.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO ESCUELA AZUL.

VIGÉSIMO QUINTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. Los trabajos de construcción iniciaron el día 17 de diciembre de 2018. VIGÉSIMO SEXTO.- ES PARCIALMENTE CIERTO. Se admite con variantes. Es cierto que en el curso de las obras se produjeron hallazgos arqueológicos, no obstante, estos no afectaron la ruta crítica del proyecto, ni significó un agravante en los atrasos en los que incurrió el actor en la ejecución de las obras. Se constata que, el Consorcio actor el 10 de setiembre de 2019 informó a la Unidad Ejecutora mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289 del diez de setiembre de dos mil diecinueve, que se hallaron objetos arqueológicos en el proyecto Escuela Azul (anexo 64 de la demanda). Ante tal situación, el mismo 10 de setiembre de 2019 la Supervisión del Fideicomiso le informó al actor, mediante oficio SUP-RD-2098-2019, que no realizaran labores en los sectores donde se habían encontrado los vestigios arqueológicos hasta que se realizara la visita del Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, misma que se programó para el martes 17 de setiembre de 2019 (Exp. EA Ampo D. folio 1781). Posteriormente el 11 de siembre de 2019 el Consorcio actor envía a la Unidad Ejecutora el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290, en el cual indica que considera que la situación de los hallazgos arqueológicos es un tema urgente que debe ser notificado a las entidades correspondientes (anexo 65 de la demanda). Dicho oficio carece de sentido, pues como se indicó, el mismo 10 de setiembre de 2019 se le notificó al Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica sobre este acontecimiento y quedó fijada la fecha de la visita al sitio. El día 13 de setiembre de 2019 el Consorcio actor informó a la Unidad Ejecutora mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 (anexo 66 de la demanda), que los vestigios arqueológicos se encontraban afectando el avance en la ejecución de las obras y que, por tal razón, a partir de dicha fecha iban a detener el proyecto. Ulteriormente el día 16 de setiembre de 2019, la Supervisión remitió al actor el oficio SUP-RD-2149-2019 (Exp. EA Ampo D. folio 1790) mediante el cual se confirmó la vista programada por el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica. Dicha visita fue efectivamente realizada de esta forma, el día 23 de setiembre de 2019 el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, comunicó a la Supervisión mediante oficio DAH-2019-O-321 del veinte de setiembre de dos ml diecinueve, que la inspección in situ evidenció que no era necesario realizar estudios arqueológicos complementarios. Consecuentemente, el día 24 de setiembre de 2019, la Supervisión le indicó al Consorcio actor mediante oficio SUPRD-2208-2019 (Exp. EA Ampo D, folio 1852), que normalizara las labores en el sector donde se habían detenidos los trabajos. Entonces, esta situación provocó que en un sector del proyecto Escuela Azul, no se pudieran realizar trabajos durante doce días naturales, sin embargo, se trató de una suspensión parcial. Además, durante dicha suspensión, el proyecto se encontraba en prórroga otorgada mediante oficio CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 del dieciséis de junio del dos mil diecinueve, por ocasión de la tramitación de la OM-02 (folios 08 de expediente de cobro de multas de EA y Exp. EA Ampo D. 1851 y 2179). Dicha prórroga quedó sin efecto el 25 de noviembre de 2019 mediante oficio CG-2019-2069-ARQ-2019-558 (folio 12 de expelente de cobro de multas) por lo cual, no afectó realmente al actor en el plazo de ejecución para la entrega de las obras. VIGÉSIMO SÉTIMO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Si bien es cierto el 10 de junio se planteó una denuncia ante el Ministerio de Salud relativa a aguas residuales, esta fue interpuesta por el señor Víctor Romero Jiménez, Director del centro educativo Escuela Azul, mediante oficio DEA-1 6-2019 (Exp. EA Ampo D, folio 1931), a solicitud de la Unidad Supervisora de Proyecto (USP) (Exp. EA Ampo D. folio 1929). Ahora bien, esta denuncia fue producto de las gestiones que coordinó el Fideicomiso para evitar afectación en el avance del proyecto, que desde el 21 de mayo de 2019 remitió al Consorcio actor el oficio DVM-A-USP-0377-2019 en el cual se le instruyó realizar una propuesta para recolectar las aguas servidas temporalmente, mientras se resolvía ante las autoridades competentes. No obstante, el Consorcio actor no acató las recomendaciones dadas por la Unidad de Supervisión, no realizó ninguna medida paliativa, a pesar de que se le advirtió en múltiples ocasiones sobre sus obligaciones de cumplir con las medidas ambientales. Por tal razón, aunque es cierto que existía una situación de desfogue de aguas que provenían de una propiedad colindante y terminaban en el terreno donde se construía el proyecto Escuela Azul, esta situación no debió representar problemas graves y mucho menos posibilidad para que el actor siguiese continuando con la ejecución normal de las obras (folio 118 expediente de cobro de multas de EA y Sentencia 2020-008458, anexo 67 de la demanda). VIGÉSIMO OCTAVO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. La parte actora no aporta recurso probatorio que demuestre tal hecho. Contrariamente, se evidencia que el rechazo de la OS-01. OS-02, OS-04, fueron rechazadas de forma correcta por ser estas improcedentes. VIGÉSIMO NOVENO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. El proyecto no se suspendió en ninguna ocasión, pero si existieron prórrogas de plazo a causa de órdenes de modificación, las cuales en principio debieron haber beneficiado al actor para que terminara las obras dentro del plazo contratado. Sn embargo, ni con estas ampliaciones de plazo logró cumplir con sus obligaciones contractuales, ya que abandonó el proyecto a partir del 08 de junio de 2020. Según se desprende del "Informe Especial- Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto N° 024-1942 Escuela Azul", realizado en marzo de 2021 por la Supervisión, los hechos más relevantes que conllevaron a que el Consorcio actor no lograra cumplir con sus obligaciones, fueron producto de su responsabilidad. Dicho informe evidencia que el actor no realizó un adecuado análisis del riesgo, pues en la etapa inicial de la obra se destacó un atraso, el cual no pudo ser subsanado en el tiempo y más bien tendió a agravarse. El Consorcio actor incumplió el programa de ejecución y no logró implementar un plan remedial para intentar resolver los atrasos en los que había incurrido. Por otra parte, derivado de una mala gestión empresarial, el actor se vio con una falta de flujo de caja para afrontar el proyecto. Esta situación, que es completa responsabilidad del Consorcio actor, provocó que existiera poca disponibilidad de recursos, ausencia de materiales en campo, así como personal idóneo para la ejecución de los trabajos. Por tal razón, el abandono que realizó el Consorcio actor en la ejecución de los trabajos del proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, no tiene relación con lo acontecido en el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Asimismo, nunca existió por parte del Fideicomiso contratante, la negativa a recibir otros proyectos adjudicados al Consorcio actor, de forma contraria, se constata que existió por parte del actor, un incumplimiento en la entrega de las obras de todos los proyectos en los que resultó adjudicatario. TRIGÉSIMO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por exacto. De acuerdo al "Informe Especial- Obras Inconclusas. Proyecto N° 024-1942 Escuela Azul", realizado en el mes de marzo de 2021 por la Unidad Supervisora, se verifica que las obras en el momento de la suspensión de las labores tenían un avance nominal de un 56%. Ahora bien, dentro de esta estimación, no se encuentran contemplados los reprocesos a causa de los deterioros que pudo haber sufrido el proyecto por el abandono en la ejecución de la obra que realizó el actor.

COMUNICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO A TRAVÉS DE PERSONAS NO AUTORIZADAS CONTRACTUALMENTE PARA LA COMUNICACIÓN DEL CONTRATO.

TRIGÉSIMO PRIMERO.- NO NOS CONSTA. Me atengo al recurso probatorio. El Gerente de Obra de acuerdo a la Cláusula 1.1 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación N° LPI-01-2017, es la persona nombrada por el Representante del Actor de la manera prevista en la Subcláusula 17.2.7. Se desconoce si el representante del Consorcio actor no realizó las comunicaciones oficiales según establecen las instrucciones contractuales. Por corresponder entonces este hecho a un tema de organización y operación interna del propio actor, no nos consta. Por lo demás, no acredita el actor a cuáles comunicaciones en específico se refiere y cuál habría sido el impacto de ello en la ejecución de sus obligaciones contractuales. TRIGÉSIMO SEGUNDO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Parte de los oficios mencionados por la parte actora en este hecho, no constan en el recurso probatorio. Por otro lado, lo indicado en el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-450 (anexo 68 de la demanda), hace referencia al representante del Fidecomiso, el cual de acuerdo a la Cláusula 1.1 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación N° LPI-01-2017, se denomina Gerente de Proyecto. Ahora bien, aquí existe un error en la redacción del Cartel, mismo que fue comunicado al Consorcio mediante oficio CG-2018-1995 AD-2018-0166 del once de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho (anexo 72 de la demanda), ya que lo correcto es que se sustituya el concepto de "Director del Proyecto" por "Gerente de Obra" y viceversa. Habiéndose aclarado esto, se puede observar que, conforme a la Cláusula 1 de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación N° LPI-01-2017, el Gerente de Obra, es la señora Maria Lourdes Fernández Quesada. Sin embargo, en esta Cláusula se indicó: Dicha funcionaria delegará en un profesional en ingeniería nombrado a los efectos de este contrato, ciertas funciones relativas a la gerencia de la obra. Los profesionales delegados para dicha función, fueron el Consorcio CALVI+FSA como Unidad Ejecutora y el Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA como Unidad Supervisora, quienes, actuando de manera conjunta, representaron los intereses del Fideicomiso. De todos modos, la Unidad Supervisora quedó como encargada de nombrar a un Gerente de Obra, en el sentido de contar con un profesional que tendría funciones relativas a la gerencia de la obra, pero, sobre todo, la función primordial de director del equipo de Supervisión. No obstante, este profesional no ostentaba como tal, de manera individual, el cargo de mantener de forma única y exclusiva las comunicaciones con el Consorcio actor, ya que, por la magnitud del proyecto, se consolidó precisamente una Unidad de Supervisión en la cual existía un Gerente de Supervisión, un Gerente de Obra y una profesional Adjunta a la Gerencia, quienes mantenían la comunicación constante entre el Consorcio y la Unidad Ejecutora. Por consiguiente, no lleva razón lo indicado por la parte actora, pues el Gerente de Obra fue nombrado desde el Pliego de Condiciones del Cartel. Asimismo, los profesionales en ingeniería que se encargarían de representar al Fidecomiso contratante, fueron designados desde mucho antes que se emitiera la orden de inicio, pues la Unidad Ejecutora y la Unidad de Supervisión, fueron las mismas para todos los proyectos que administró el Fideicomiso y de acuerdo a los "Informes iniciales de Planeamiento" (Exp. EA Ampo C. folios 1191 al 1219 Exp. LRSR Ampo C, foros 1994 al 1322 y Exp. ELAH Ampo C, folios 1299 al 1327) se constata que estas dependencias fueron las encargadas de mantener siempre las comunicaciones con el Consorcio actor. Por otra parte, el Gerente de Obra designado al efecto por la Unidad de Supervisión, no suscribió todas las comunicaciones que iban dirigidas al actor. Pues como se indicó, desde la Unidad de Supervisión. los designados para comunicarse con el Consorcio siempre fueron tres personas: Gerente de Supervisión (Adran Ruilova Reacia), Gerente de Obras (Varía conforme al proyecto) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia (Fabiana Rege González). No todos los oficios eran necesario que los suscribiera el Gerente de Obra. Porque lo esencial era que las comunicaciones siempre pasaran por la Unidad de Supervisión. Lo que sí debía suscribir siempre el Gerente de Obra, eran los informes mensuales de supervisión, pues él era el encargado de dirigir el equipo supervisor. Pero existían comunicaciones técnicas o alguna otra notificación que, por su naturaleza, no era necesaria la firma del Gerente de Obra. En todo caso, en términos contractuales no representa ningún incumplimiento que el Gerente de Obra no suscribiera todas las comunicaciones dirigidas al actor y menos aún, podría haber significado algún inconveniente para el Consorcio actor. TRIGÉSIMO TERCERO.- ES PARCIALMENTE CIERTO. Se admite con variantes. Es cierto que a partir de dicha fecha se empezó a incluir la firma del Gerente de Obra en la mayoría de comunicaciones que se dirigían al Actor. No obstante, esto no significa que las comunicaciones en las que no se incluyó la firma de dicho profesoral, no fueran igual de válidas para todos los efectos contractuales, ya que las mismas fueron suscritas por el Gerente de Supervisión o por un profesional adjunto a la Gerencia y en todo caso, la representación designada por el Director del Proyecto, recae en la Supervisión como una unidad y no un profesional en particular. TRIGÉSIMO CUARTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Se denota que la parte actora tiene una confusión entre el Gerente de Obra y el Gerente de Proyecto. En el caso del actor, el Gerente de Obra es aquel que nombre el actor desde el comenzó del montaje de las Obras en el sitio hasta la terminación de las mismas, el Representante del Actor designa una persona idónea como Gerente de Obras. Quien supervisará todos los trabajos que el Actor realice en el sitio y estará presente en el sitio durante el horario normal de trabajo (Cláusula 1 y Subcláusula 17.2.7 de las Condiciones Generales). En el caso del Contratante, el Gerente de Proyecto representa al Contratante y actúa en su nombre en todo momento durante la vigencia del Contrato. Todas las notificaciones, instrucciones, órdenes, certificados, aprobaciones y demás comunicaciones en el marco del Contrato, serán emitidos, en principio, por el Gerente de Proyecto (Cláusula 1 y Subcáusula 17.1.1 de las Condiciones Generales). El Gerente de Proyecto, fue la señora María Lourdes Fernández Quesada, quien se encontraba facultada para contratar a un consultor en ingeniería para que ejerciera dicha función (Cláusula 1 de las Condiciones Especiales). Dicho consultor fueron el Consorcio CALVI+FSA como Unidad Ejecutora y el Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA como Unidad Supervisora. Ahora bien, la Unidad Supervisora tiene dentro de sus puestos de trabajo, a un Gerente de Obra, quien tiene como función primordial ser el director del equipo de Supervisión y también posee la tarea de mantenerse en comunicación con el actor. No obstante, el Gerente de Obra no es la representación del Gerente de Proyecto. El Gerente de Proyecto es la Unidad de Supervisión y la Unidad Ejecutora y estos dos entes son las únicos autorizados a actuar en nombre del Fidecomiso, lo cual realizaron a plena satisfacción.

TRIGÉSIMO QUINTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. TRIGÉSIMO SEXTO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. El Consorcio actor no cumplió con la entrega de ninguno de los tres proyectos que en la demanda se mencionan. Contrariamente, incurrió en serios atrasos culminando irresponsablemente en un abandono total de la ejecución de las obras y la seguridad de estas. Los procedimientos administrativos realizados fueron a causa de los incumplimientos del actor, estos se llevaron a cabo conforme a derecho y respetando el debido proceso y derecho de defensa del Consorcio actor. El resultado de dichos procedimientos dio como resultado la aplicabilidad de la cláusula penal al actor (Expedientes de cobro de multas). Los Actos Finales (visibles en los expedientes de cobro de multas de cada proyecto), fueron impugnados por el Consorcio actor. Sin embargo, puede constatarse con el estudio de los recursos de revocatoria, que el Consorcio actor no pretendía verdaderamente impugnar las decisiones del Fideicomiso, ya que sus escritos de impugnación se limitaron a una transcripción literalmente idéntica con relación a los escritos de conclusiones que habían presentado durante la fase del traslado de cargos. De todas formas, el Fideicomiso atendió dichas impugnaciones conforme a derecho, todo cual puede ser corroborado con el análisis de cada expediente de cobro de multas.

ACERCA DE OTROS INCUMPLIMIENTOS CONTRACTUALES DEL FIDEICOMISO. TRIGÉSIMO SÉTIMO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. No se solicitaron cambios a los diseños finales aprobados. Los cambios implementados a solicitud del contratante, se hicieron bajo el procedimiento de órdenes de modificación. tal y como se tiene contemplado en el contrato y el Cartel de Licitación. Asimismo, cada orden de modificación aprobada, aumentó el monto original del contrato a favor del actor, que contemplaba todos los costos directos e indirectos en los que incurriría el Consorcio actor para su respectiva ejecución (Véanse las órdenes de modificación que constan en los expedientes de ejecución). TRIGÉSIMO OCTAVO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. De acuerdo a los términos establecidos en el Cartel y el contrato, los hitos de pago se hacen efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento (Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017). Asimismo. conforme a la Sección C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017, si el Actor incumplió o incumple con alguna obra u obligación según el Contrato y ha sido notificado por el Gerente de Obra, el valor de esta obra u obligación podrá ser retenido hasta que se cumpla con dicha obra u obligación. A este respecto que, en su propia demanda, el actor reconoce que abandonó y, por ende, no finalizó las obras cuyos costos temerariamente pretende cobrar. TRIGÉSIMO NOVENO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. No existe una correlación entre las fechas en las que fueron emitidas las órdenes de inicio de cada proyecto. Véase que, de acuerdo a la Subcláusula 2.1 inciso 3), párrafo cuarto de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación, la gestión de cada centro educativo se debe realizar de forma individual. Todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, deben adecuarse a las particularidades de cada proyecto. Es decir. no puede existir una tardanza entre la emisión de las órdenes de inicio porque cada proyecto de manera individual, constituye un proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento, en el que devienen particularidades ajenas a los otros centros educativos.

Asimismo, se debe tomar en cuenta que las órdenes de inicio de referencia, son las que corresponden al proceso constructivo y de equipamiento, ya que de previo se habían emitido órdenes de inicio para el proceso de diseño. Entonces, conforme a las características de este proceso previo y lo que en él devino, es que se emitieron posteriormente las órdenes para la construcción y equipamiento de cada proyecto. CUADRAGÉSIMO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Observarse que el Consorcio actor no es preciso en este hecho, pues no indica a cuál de los tres proyectos hace referencia. Se recuerda que son obras completamente independientes entre sí, aun y cuando son parte de un mismo contrato. Ahora bien, de acuerdo a los documentos citados por la parte actora, se nota que hace referencia al centro educativo Escuela Azul. En este sentido, si bien es cierto existió un margen de tiempo amplio para conocer y tramitar las Órdenes de Modificación, esto es normal dado la complejidad de este tipo de proyectos. Además, no es exacto el conteo de días que realiza el Consorcio actor en su demanda. Asimismo, es falso que la tramitación de las órdenes de inicio le provocara al actor atrasos en el plazo contractual de ejecución de los proyectos, esto se verifica por varias razones:

Respecto a OM-02 (véase expediente de cobro de multas).

-La última versión de la OM-02 fue presentada por el actor el 10 de octubre de 2019 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-312 del nueve de octubre de 2019 (folio 10 del expediente de cobro de multas de EA) y fue resuelta el 25 de noviembre de 2019 mediante oficio CG-201 9-2069-ARQ-2019-558 del veinticinco de noviembre del dos mil diecinueve (folio 12 del expediente de cobro de multas de EA). Es decir, transcurrieron 47 días naturales para que el contratante diera la debida respuesta y no los 175 días como erradamente indica el Consorcio actor.

-Durante el lapso de tiempo que tardó en tramitarse la OM-02, al actor se le otorgó una prórroga de plazo mediante oficio CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 del dieciséis de junio del dos mil diecinueve (folio 08 del expediente de multas de EA), esto para que no se viera afectada por dichas gestiones administrativas. Entonces, ante este plazo de extensión extra, el actor pudo haberlo aprovechado y seguir ejecutando las obras originales del proyecto, es decir, aquellas que no eran parte de una orden de modificación, pues estas mantenían un atraso considerable.

-Sin embargo, consta en los informes de supervisión del mes de octubre de 2019 y noviembre de 2019 (Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 1017 y 1064), que el Consorcio actor aún se encontraba con serios atrasos en la ejecución de las obras originales del proyecto. En el informe del mes de noviembre de 2019, se indica: "En cuanto al proyecto, actualmente no hay ninguna novedad, esto no presenta casi avance, el personal que se encuentra laborando es mínimo sin embargo, cabe mencionar el desfaje (sic) y atraso considerable con respecto al cronograma inicial" (Exp. EA Ampo C, 1062).

Asimismo, sigue señalando que: "En relación a las medidas correctivas a aplicar por parte del actor, en lo que concierne a las tareas de ejecución durante el cierre de este informe, como se ha mencionado en informes anteriores, la situación de obra continúa siendo la misma, incrementándose considerable el atraso existente. Se calcula. aproximadamente, que la obra presenta un atraso de alrededor de 28 semanas (...) cabe mencionarse que la situación de avance de la obra es prácticamente nula y no se vislumbra ningún tipo de acción inmediata, por parte de la contratista, para contrarrestar el incremento del atraso y el creciente deterioro de las instalaciones en proceso del Centro Educativo" (Exp. EA Ampo C. folio 1055).

-En consecuencia, cuando se resolvió el asunto de la OM-02, el actor acumulaba un atraso de 28 semanas, que es lo mismo que decir, 4 meses o 120 días naturales de desfase en la ejecución de las obras originales del proyecto. Por otra parte, la OM-02, fue rechazada, por ende, el actor no tuvo que realizar nuevas obras a causa de una modificación. Por consiguiente, es imposible que esto le generara un atraso en el plazo contractual de ejecución del proyecto Escuela Azul.

La solicitud que el actor presentó mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LP-01-2017-397 del nueve de enero de dos mil veinte (anexo 90 de la demanda), era improcedente, pues el actor pretendía cobrar un monto por una no ejecución de una orden de modificación originada por el contratante, cuando en realidad la OM-02 fue a solicitud del Consorcio actor, con lo cual fue una orden de modificación solicitada por el actor. En este sentido, la Subcláusula 39.3.2 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación es clara cuando dispone que: "Si el Contratante decide no efectuar las modificaciones, el Actor no tendrá derecho a recuperar los costos de preparación de la solicitud de propuesta de modificación." Respecto a la OM-04. El 22 de enero de 2020, el actor mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-413 del veinte de enero de dos mil veinte (folio 15 de expediente de multas de EA), presentó ante el contratante la última versión de la OM-04. El 25 de marzo de 2020, mediante oficio SUP-RD-0417-2020. le fue remitida al actor la OM-04 para su respectiva firma y aceptación. Es decir, el contratante tardó 3 días en tramitar dicha OM y no 165 días, como inexactamente indicó la parte actora en su demanda.

-Ahora bien, el actor el 31 de marzo de 2020, le comunicó al contratante mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-494 (folio 17 del expediente de cobro de multas de EA), que no firmarían la OM-04. Por consiguiente, el contratante mediante oficio DVM-A-USP-0292-2020 del veintidós de mayo de dos mil veinte, manifestó que debido a la negativa del Consorcio actor en firmar y aceptar la OM-04. se estaba de acuerdo en desestimar y dejar sin efecto dicha orden de modificación. Por ende, se le comunicó al Consorcio actor mediante oficio SUP-RD-0629-2020 del veintiséis de mayo de dos mil veinte (folio 19 del expediente de cobro de multas de EA), que los trabajos contemplados en la OM no se iban a realizar. En consecuencia, al igual que lo sucedido respecto a la OM-02, es imposible que la tramitación de la OM-04, le generara al actor un atraso en el plazo contractual de ejecución del proyecto Escuela Azul.

SOBRE LA SOLICITUD DE RESCISIÓN CONTRACTUAL PLANTEADA POR EL CONSORCIO.

CUADRAGÉSIMO PRIMERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Tal y como se explicó en el hecho número veintitrés, el Consorcio actor no cumplió con el debido proceso de rescisión contractual conforme a lo estipulado en la Subcláusula 42.3.1 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación. En ningún momento devino una causal para que procedería una rescisión por parte del actor. Para que el Consorcio actor hubiere estado legitimado a rescindir el contrato, el contratante tendría que haber omitido pagar las sumas debidas por la ejecución del contrato o rehusado a aprobar facturas o documentos justificativos sin razón válida y estos supuestos nunca ocurrieron dentro de la contratación. El Fideicomiso siempre se apegó al régimen jurídico y procedimientos dispuestos en la contratación, a partir del cumplimiento de estas disposiciones, el contratante siempre estuvo resguardando en todo momento el mantenimiento del equilibrio económico del contrato. En consonancia con dichos parámetros y con independencia de la improcedencia de la rescisión por el fondo, el pretendido intento de rescisión que invoca el Consorcio actor, no fue realizado conforme al procedimiento formal estipulado para tales efectos. CUADRAGÉSIMO SEGUNDO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. Igualmente, como se mencionó en el hecho veintitrés, es falso que el 22 de mayo de 2020 el Consorcio actor comunicara por primera vez al Fideicomiso su atención de rescindir el contrato. El Consorcio actor lo que presentó el 22 de mayo de 2020, fue un reclamo administrativo en el que pretendía el reconocimiento de ciertos montos económicos y esto lo hizo mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 del veintidós de mayo de dos mil veinte. El anexo 77 de la demanda, que corresponde al oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539 del veintidós de mayo de dos mil veinte, fue presentado por el actor el 25 de mayo de 2020 y no correspondía a una notificación de rescisión contractual, sino a un apercibimiento al Fideicomiso, en el cual indicó que, sino se le reconocía el reclamo interpuesto mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538 del veintidós de mayo de dos mil veinte, procedería a rescindir el contrato unilateralmente. CUADRAGÉSIMO TERCERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. El Consorcio actor no remitió ninguna notificación al contratante el día 08 de Junio de 2020. El anexo 78 de la demanda corresponde al oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 del veinticuatro de junio de dos mil veinte y se trata de una notificación de rescisión contractual que presentó el actor el día 24 de junio de 2020, la cual se fundamenta en un supuesto incumplimiento contractual por parte del contratante, que en principio había sido comunicado al Fideicomiso el día 22 de mayo de 2020. Sin embargo, el día 22 de mayo de 2020, lo que le fue comunicado al contratante fue un reclamo administrativo, mismo que fue rechazado de forma motivada y razonada por parte del Fideicomiso al no apegarse al procedimiento pertinente para la interposición de reclamaciones de acuerdo al Cartel. Esto sucedió el 04 de junio 2020, mediante oficio FID-2100-2020. Ahora bien, el apercibimiento que presentó el Consorcio actor al Fideicomiso el día 25 de mayo de 2020, no constituye una notificación de rescisión contractual, pues no se fundamenta fehacientemente en una causal de incumplimiento por parte del contratante y se encuentra amparada erróneamente en cláusulas que solo el contratante puede invocar. CUADRAGÉSIMO CUARTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. Al existir evidentes causales de incumplimiento por parte del Consorcio actor, el Fideicomiso ya había iniciado un debido procedimiento de rescisión contractual. Es por ello, que el día 29 de junio de 2020, se realizó ante el BID, la solicitud de no objeción mediante oficio FID-2495-2020. La no objeción fue otorgada mediante oficio CID/CCRI736/2020 del ocho de julio de dos mil veinte, en consecuencia, el Fideicomiso comunicó la rescisión contractual al Consorcio actor mediante oficio FID-2692-2020 del trece de julio de dos mil veinte. Como se ha venido indicando, la solicitud de no objeción es un requisito previo, pues al ser una contratación excluida de los procedimientos ordinarios de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, se debe contar con la autorización del órgano prestatario de los recursos, esto viene dado desde las "Políticas para la Adquisición de Bienes y Obras financiadas por el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo GN-2349-9".

SOBRE LA DECLARATORIA DE RESCISIÓN POR PARTE DEL FIDEICOMISO.

CUADRAGÉSIMO QUINTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. CUADRAGÉSIMO SEXTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite parcialmente. Se aclara que estos oficios, tanto del Consorcio actor, como los del Fideicomiso, son parte del procedimiento de aplicación de la cláusula penal por entrega tardía de los proyectos y no de la rescisión contractual.

DE LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS SUMARIOS PARA EJECUCIÓN DE LA CLÁUSULA PENAL.

CUADRAGÉSIMO SÉTIMO.- ES PARCIALMENTE CIERTO. Se admite con rectificaciones. La Resolución N° 29-2020/oficio FID-3278-2020 de las trece horas con diez minutos del veinticinco de agosto del dos mil veinte, no corresponde al Acto Final del Procedimiento Sumario para la aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, sino al Acto que da respuesta al Recurso de Revocatoria que interpuso el actor mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 del tres de agosto de dos mil veinte. El Acto Final, corresponde a la Resolución N° 24/oficio FID-2879-2020 del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte. CUADRAGÉSIMO OCTAVO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. CUADRAGÉSIMO NOVENO.- ES PARCIALNIENTE CIERTO. Se admite con rectificaciones. La Resolución N° 31-2020/oficio FID-3331-2020 del veintiocho de agosto de dos mil veinte, no corresponde a la resolución del recurso de revocatoria, sino al Acto Final del proyecto Escuela Azul.

DE LAS GARANTÍAS DE ANTICIPO.

QUINCUAGÉSIMO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. QUINCUAGÉSIMO PRIMERO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. No es cierto que existan obras que no hayan sido pagadas al Consorcio actor. Los avances de obra que el actor dejó en proceso cuando abandonó la ejecución de los proyectos, no constituyen hitos al 100%. Por tal razón, de acuerdo a la "Sección IX. FORMULARIOS DEL CONTRATO" apartado "C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago" del Cartel de Licitación, estos no deben ser pagados al actor. Asimismo, el abandono de las obras por parte del Consorcio actor, provocó un deterioro en las obras, así como reprocesos, con lo cual los costos de eventuales nuevas adjudicaciones que tuvieran que ser realizadas para la culminación de los proyectos, se elevarían en gran medida. La magnitud de estos costos y reprocesos, puede ser verificados en los "Informes Especiales de Obras Inconclusas" que realizó la Unidad de Supervisión sobre cada proyecto (Exp. ELAH, Ampo F, folios 2446 al 2478). QUINCUAGÉSIMO SEGUNDO.- ES INEXACTO. Se rechaza por inexacto. No existe ningún saldo a favor del Consorcio actor, los avances de obra que pretende el actor que se le reconozcan, no figuran dentro de las previsiones del cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017. Por otra parte, respecto a la devolución de garantías de anticipo, esto no procede porque el Consorcio actor no cumple con el requisito esencial para que estas sean devueltas y es haber cumplido con sus obligaciones contractuales, así como haber cancelado efectivamente la totalidad del anticipo. Asimismo, de acuerdo a lo estipulado en los artículos 2.34 y 2.35 de las Políticas GN-3249-9, así como en la "SECCIÓN IX. FORMULARIOS DEL CONTRATO" apartado "C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago" del Cartel de la Licitación de referencia. Estas garantías deben seguir siendo retenidas por el Fideicomiso y ejecutadas a su favor, ya que imperan saldos por los anticipos para el caso de los tres proyectos aquí en mención. Mismos, que de acuerdo al oficio CG-2020-1139 AD-2020-0221 INF del veintitrés de octubre de dos mil veinte, son por un monto de USD $535.604,15., los cuales no han sido efectivamente cancelados por el Consorcio actor. QUINCUAGÉSIMO TERCERO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. Se rechazó mediante Resolución N° 38-2020 de las trece horas con veinte minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil veinte, oficio FID-4631-2020. QUINCUAGÉSIMO CUARTO.- ES CIERTO. Se admite. Es cierto que el Consorcio actor una vez que recibió la orden de inicio, procedió a realizar las labores de diseño y elaboración de planos constructivos. También es cierto que las labores fueron realizadas tomando como base de referencia anteproyectos aprobados para cada uno de los proyectos. La revisión y aprobación de diseño y planos para cada proyecto la realizó la Unidad de Supervisión, mediante los informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas (Exp. ELAH Ampo C, folios 1234 al 1274 y 1277 al 1298; Exp. EA Ampo C folios 1153 al 1190 y Exp. LRSR Ampo C. folios 1236 al 1293). Estas revisiones fueron aprobadas pero todas con comentarios, porque dichos diseños se consideran finalmente aprobados hasta que hayan cumplido con el visto bueno por parte del CFIA, es en ese momento donde se genera precisamente el Diseño Final aprobado. Ahora bien, respecto al argumento del Consorcio actor, se le indicó en reiteradas ocasiones que los diseños finales, aún aprobados, son una guía para el proceso del desarrollo constructivo y estos pueden ser susceptibles de modificaciones mediante órdenes de modificación o porque sea necesario que lo que se está construyendo cumpla con la normativa nacional en relación a edificaciones. El Cartel de la Licitación referencia en la "Segunda Parte, Requisitos del Diseño, La Obra y El Equipamiento", señala que los planos, anteproyectos, estudios preliminares y especiales, son referenciales, con lo cual, el Consorcio actor debió realizar una revisión minuciosa y ajustarla a la legislación vigente, de no hacerlo así, se vería en la obligación de realizar los cambios que fueran necesarios para adecuar el proyecto a los requisitos de seguridad y accesibilidad humana. Asimismo, desde la presentación de la oferta se le señaló a los oferentes que los planos son referenciales y fungen como una guía. Los diseños del Anteproyecto final, aunque estén aprobados por el Contratante, no se superponen jerárquicamente a las modificaciones que se le realicen durante la ejecución del Contrato, las cuales corren a cuenta del Contratista, sin perjuicio del mantenimiento del equilibro económico del Contrato por parte del Contratante cuando se vean involucradas las Órdenes de Modificación o Reclamaciones que resulten acogidas favorablemente por la Administración. En este mismo sentido, los planos constructivos aprobados, no relevan al Contratista de su responsabilidad de cumplir con la normativa, leyes, reglamentos que rigen el Proyecto de construcción, así como las especificaciones técnicas mínimas y el cuadro de mínimos de cada una de las áreas. Si no se cumple con estos requerimientos, es imposible que las obras puedan ser consideradas en condiciones generales satisfactorias. El Contratista posee la responsabilidad de que las obras cumplan los requerimientos mínimos para ser entregadas al Contratante dentro del plazo estipulado en el Contrato. Si eventualmente las necesidades mínimas del Proyecto no están en los planos finales aprobados, estos deben ser modificados, sin que esto conlleve a constituirse un eximente de responsabilidad de la Contratista de cumplir con los requisitos cartelarios. En síntesis, los cambios en los diseños devinieron en su mayoría de órdenes de modificación, que de acuerdo al artículo 1.1 y 1.2 del Contrato N° 88-2017, son consideradas como el documento jerárquicamente superior respecto a la ejecución e interpretación del contrato. En menor medida, existieron modificaciones que tuvieron que ser implementadas por el contratista por no ajustarse las obras a los requerimientos y cuadro de mínimos en relación con la normativa nacional respecto a edificaciones (Véase expedientes de cobro de multas). Finalmente, es falso que el pago de los hitos haya estado condicionados a la ejecución de trabajos adicionales, no existe recurso probatorio que acredite tal afirmación. Además, los informes mensuales realizados por la Unidad de Supervisión demuestran que el Consorcio actor tuvo problemas de atrasos en la ejecución de las obras desde las primeras semanas de ejecución en todos los proyectos y que esto se debió principalmente a un problema de flujo de caja que tenía el actor, situación que es completa responsabilidad de su esfera empresarial.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA.

Respecto a lo mencionado por el Consorcio actor, tal y como se admitió en el hecho noveno, es cierto que el proyecto se ejecutó con normalidad durante las primeras semanas, pero luego sobrevino una situación imprevisible que ameritaba que el Consorcio actor realizara estudios complementarios, por lo cual se suspendió temporalmente el plazo por cuatro semanas. Ahora bien, tal y como se indicó en la contestación de hecho décimo, el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho, respondió al oficio GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-088 del primero de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho, mediante el cual el Consorcio actor realizó una solicitud adicional de ampliación de suspensión de plazo por 15 días naturales para preparar una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas de la OM-1 (folio 29 del expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR). Es cierto que el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho (anexo 11 de la demanda) responde los puntos señalados en el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018. Pero no es cierto que de esa forma se dio inicio a la OM-1, ya que ésta inició con la presentación de la primera versión de la orden de modificación que presentó el actor mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-01-2017-075 del doce de octubre de dos ml dieciocho. Por otro lado, tal y como se contestó en el hecho décimo segundo, es cierto que una vez culminada la suspensión de la OS-01, el Consorcio solicitó la OS-02, porque aparecieron bolsas de material rocosos suelto y un relleno de material suelto, lo que, a criterio del contratista, era necesario realizar estudios adicionales. Sin embargo, tal y como contestó en el hecho décimo tercero, no es cierto que la suspensión de plazo fue aprobada hasta el 23 de julio de 2018. Ésta fue solicitada por el Consorcio el 16 de julio de 2018 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044 y fue aprobada por la OS-01 el 20 de julio de 2018 (Exp. LRSR Ampo B. folios 338 al 340). Es cierto que el 06 de noviembre de 2018 el Consorcio mediante oficio GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho (anexo 11 de la demanda) realiza una nueva solicitud de suspensión de plazo. Pero es inexacto indicar que requerían un pronunciamiento de la OM-01 por parte del contratante, ya que el Consorcio se encontraba apenas realizando mejoras técnicas y económicas a dicha OM. Precisamente porque requería tiempo adicional para la presentación de una oferta actualizada, fue que el 01 de noviembre de 2018, solicitó la OS-04 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088 (folio 29 del expediente de cobro de multas de LRSR), para suspender el plazo de ejecución.

ACERCA DE LOS RETRASOS AJENOS A LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONTRATISTA EN LA REVISIÓN, APROBACIÓN Y ORDEN DE INICIO DE OM-01: OBRA DE ESTABILIZACIÓN DE LOS TALUDES DEL SECTOR NORTE DEL TERRENO DEL PROYECTO LLAMADO LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA 1.1.1. Es cierto. 1.1.2. Es cierto. Se presenta la versión dos de la OM-01 y es aquí donde se contesta el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018. 1.1.3. Es cierto. 1.1.4. Es cierto. 1.1.5. Es cierto.

1.1.6. Es cierto. 1.1.7. Es Inexacto. Se trata del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127. 1.1.8. Es cierto. 1.1.9. Es cierto. 1.1.10. Es inexacto. El oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145, es del 28 de enero de 2019. 1.1.11 Es cierto. 1.1.12. Es cierto. 1.1.13. Es cierto. 1.1.14. Es cierto. 1.1.15. Es inexacto. La OM-01 no estuvo bien desglosada desde el inicio, la Unidad de Supervisión en reiteradas ocasiones se vio en la necesidad de solicitar información adicional o correcciones (anexos 2526.29.33 y 43 de la demanda). La OM-01, siempre fue una probidad para el contratante, no obstante, es cierto que por su complejidad, necesitó de un tiempo prudencial para su adecuada implementación. Sin embargo, gran parte de los atrasos, fue porque el Consorcio no presentaba órdenes de modificación pertinentes. 1.1.16. Es cierto. 1.1.17. Es inexacto. Toda reclamación que fue rechazada al Consorcio. se hizo conforme a derecho, en armonía y respeto de los principios de la contratación administrativa. Los rechazos se realizaron por ser improcedentes, extemporáneos o no apegarse al procedimiento estipulado para dichas reclamaciones. 1.1.18. Es cierto. La orden de inicio no se podía girar hasta que se firmara la adenda y el contratista cumpliera una serie de requisitos, tales como actualización de la garantía de cumplimiento, póliza todo riesgo, entre otros. 1.1.19. Es cierto. Gran parte del atraso entre la aprobación de la OM-01 y la emisión de la OM-01, se debió a que el Consorcio se encontraba en los trámites de cumplimientos de requisitos. Asimismo. el plazo con el que contaba el Consorcio para ejecutar las obras era de 200 días naturales, es decir, casi siete meses, que correspondían a 150 días de ampliación y 50 días de remanente del contrato original. 1.1.20. Es inexacto. Tal y como se mencionó en la contestación del hecho décimo sexto, la razón por la cual los planos no fueron efectivamente aprobados en el plazo de 30 días naturales posterior a la reanudación de la ejecución del proyecto, si recae exclusivamente en la responsabilidad del actor, esto según lo estipulado en la "Sección VI. Requisitos del Diseño. La Obra y el Equipamiento, apartado "K. Definiciones, conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar". Obsérvese que el Consorcio actor ingresa el 17 de setiembre de 2019, los planos al APC, que es la plataforma Administrador de Proyectos de Construcción del CFIA, mediante la cual se revisan los planos de los proyectos para su respectivo visto bueno (Ampo D. folio 1637) e norma sobre dicha gestión a la Unidad Ejecutora del Fideicomiso el 24 de setiembre de 2019 mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-305 (Exp LRSR Ampo D, folio 1638). Sin embargo, dicho trámite fue rechazado por el CFIA mediante la plataforma APC, debido a problemas de forma en la presentación, con lo cual, el actor tuvo que proceder el día el 27 de setiembre de 2019 con una nueva introducción de los planos en la plataforma APC. Así lo informó el mismo Consorcio actor a la Unidad Ejecutora mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-308 (Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1639 al 1645) y siendo que la realización de dicho trámite forma parte de las obligaciones del actor conforme lo estipulado en la "Sección VI. Requisitos del Diseño, La Obra y el Equipamiento", apartado "K. Definiciones. conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar". Así como a lo señalado en las subcláusulas 7.120.1 de las Condiciones Generales y Cláusula 40 de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación. Es por lo anterior, que no lleva razón el Consorcio actor al señalar que las obras no se pudieron iniciar en la fecha prevista por razones ajenas a su responsabilidad. Por ende, no procedía otorgar la suspensión de plazo solicitada mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 del tres de octubre de dos mil diecinueve (anexo 46 de la demanda). 1.1.21. Es cierto. 1.1.22. Es cierto. Estas objeciones fueron producto del incumplimiento del trámite del permiso de construcción que no había gestionado y finalizado de forma correcta el contratista. Asimismo, los problemas suscitados fueron producto de una escasa coordinación y acertada comunicación entre el Consorcio y el gobierno local. El hecho de que estas objeciones imposibilitaran en alguna medida la ejecución normal de las obras, es exclusiva responsabilidad del Consorcio, por no haber finalizado el trámite del permiso de construcción y con ello, evitar cualquier objeción por parte de la Municipalidad. 1.1.23. Es inexacto. Como se señaló en la contestación del hecho décimo octavo, al Fideicomiso no le correspondía realizar dichas negociaciones con el ente municipal, no obstante, se intervino porque el Consorcio no logró cumplir con sus obligaciones. El problema con el permiso de construcción para el reinicio de la obra fue exclusiva responsabilidad del actor. Véase que el Consorcio actor arrastró este inconveniente desde el inicio de la ejecución de las obras, pues el 05 de junio del año 2018, la Municipalidad de Oreamuno había clausurado la ejecución del proyecto porque el Consorcio no había realizado de forma correcta el trámite del permiso de construcción ante dicho gobierno local, como era su responsabilidad contractual (LRSR Ampo D folios 1375 al 1377). En ese mismo sentido, en el mes de octubre de 2019 cuando el actor notificó mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321 a la Municipalidad de Oreamuno sobre el reinicio de las obras, se produjo el mismo inconveniente, pues el Consorcio actor actor no realizó de manera correcta el trámite respectivo y eso quedó reflejado en la respuesta que da la Dirección de Control Urbano de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, mediante oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019 del diez de octubre de dos mil diecinueve (anexo 49 de la demanda). 1.1.24. Es cierto. Pero el atraso fue derivado de la esfera de responsabilidad del Consorcio, lo que hizo el Fideicomiso, fue intervenir para procurar una pronta solución. 1.1.25. Es inexacto. En ningún momento existió mala fe por parte del Fideicomiso, los atrasos derivados del inconveniente con la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, fueron porque el Consorcio ingresó la Licencia para el permiso de construcción desde el 20 de junio de 2018, pero nunca se apersonó a firmar y retirar el certificado del permiso de construcción y los respectivos planos (anexo 49 de la demanda). Asimismo, la incongruencia y esencia del problema, fue que el Consorcio actor se eximia de la solicitud del permiso de construcción por haber ingresado el proyecto como Edificación Nacional. No obstante, cuando la Unidad de Supervisión del Fideicomiso le solicitó al actor por medio del oficio SUP-RD-0375-2020, el permiso de Edificaciones Nacionales, lo que aportó fue el permiso municipal N°24046. Posteriormente, se verificó que el actor tampoco les hizo llegar a la Municipalidad el supuesto permiso de Edificaciones Nacionales. En síntesis, el problema suscitado se debió a que, si bien el actor inició con el trámite de permiso municipal, no lo completó ni ante Edificaciones Nacionales, ni ante el ente municipal (anexo 51 de la demanda). Por tal razón es que existía una incongruencia entre lo expresado por el actor y lo señalado por la Municipalidad y siendo que dicho problema fue a causa exclusiva de una mala gestión por parte del Consorcio actor, es que no procedía la aprobación de la OS-14, máxime que lo que pretendía el actor era una prórroga de plazo por 75 días en la entrega del proyecto y esto era injustificable, pues tuvo todo el tiempo de suspensión del proyecto, que fue más de un año calendario, para proceder a culminar el trámite del permiso de construcción ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, trámite que era responsabilidad contractual del actor.

En otro orden de ideas, el proyecto solo estuvo suspendido por razones ajenas al Consorcio, durante 338 días. El resto del plazo en el que el proyecto estuvo suspendido, fue producto de la responsabilidad del Consorcio. Por otro lado, el Consorcio pudo haber reducido en gran medida su carga financiera y emplearla en otros de los proyectos en los que resultó adjudicatario y que se encontraban en ejecución en este momento. En cuanto a los costos directos, estos se encontraban contemplados en la OM-01 y las razones del reclamo, fueron con justa razón, pues el Consorcio no realizó el reclamo conforme al procedimiento establecido.

PRESENTACIÓN Y RECHAZO DE SOLICITUD DE INDEMNIZACIÓN CONTRACTUAL Y PRIMER RECLAMO ADMINISTRATIVO POR RETRASOS AJENOS A LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONSORCIO.

No es cierto que existiera un período de 478 días en los que por responsabilidad del Fideicomiso no se pudieran iniciar las obras. Como se indicó, durante 338 días naturales, el proyecto se suspendió por una situación imprevisible que no era responsabilidad de ninguna de las partes. En el transcurso de este tiempo, se realizaron los estudios de suelos y geológicos, propuestas de OM, estudio y análisis económico, solicitud de aprobación ante el BID de la OM, entre otras gestiones, que devienen de la situación imprevisible y que ciertamente, no son responsabilidad de ninguna de las partes. Sin embargo, el hecho de que la OM-01 no estuviera lista rápidamente, se debe en parte a que el Consorcio no presentaba una propuesta lo suficientemente aceptable. Como se ha venido retirando, las reclamaciones que fueron rechazadas por el Fideicomiso, se realizaron conforme a derecho. En todo momento se respetaron las estipulaciones cartelerias y contractuales, así como los principios de la contratación administrativa. El Consorcio alega una serie de sobrecostos en los que incurrió, pero no utilizó el procedimiento estipulado contractualmente para solicitar estos sobrecostos. Asimismo, gran parte del recursos económico y humano que poseía el Consorcio, podía ser utilizado en otros proyectos que se encontraba ejecutando en ese momento y dejar en el centro educativo Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, solo el personal esencial. Recordemos que el proyecto se encontraba suspendido, esto significa que el Consorcio no tenía que mantener toda su estructura de costos directos e indirectos tal como si el proyecto se estuviera ejecutando. Asimismo, obsérvese que el contrato se aumentó en más de un 70% y en dicha variación se consideraron los sobrecostos en los que había incurrido el Consorcio. 1.1.26. Es cierto. Lo que se ordenó, fueron trabajos básicos de mantenimiento y se puede corroborar en el mismo oficio SUP-RD-973-2019 del 13 de mayo de 2019 (anexo 53 de la demanda). 1.1.27. Es cierto. 1.1.28. Es inexacto. El Reclamo Administrativo presentado mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, a pesar de que tiene fecha del primero de julio de 2019, fue suscrito el día 01 de agosto de 2019 y remitido al Fideicomiso el día 02 de agosto de 2019. 1.1.29. No me consta. Me atengo al recurso probatorio. 1.1.30. Es cierto. El reclamo fue rechazado conforme a derecho. El Consorcio no se apegó a lo señalado en las Subcláusulas 44.1 y 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación y por eso no era procedente el reclamo. La respuesta de rechazo no tardó 93 días, sino 60 días. Para el momento de la presentación del reclamo, ya la orden de modificación se encontraba aprobada desde el 09 de mayo de 2019 (anexo 44 de la demanda) y la orden de inicio no se había girado porque faltaba que el Consorcio cumpliera con los requisitos y trámites previos: actualización de garantía de cumplimientos, póliza de seguros, entre otros. Es decir, el proyecto se encontraba en ese momento en suspensión, a causa del Consorcio.

GRAVES DAÑOS POR RECHAZO DE SEGUNDO, TERCER Y CUARTO RECLAMO ADMINISTRATIVO.

El proyecto estuvo suspendido hasta el 03 de setiembre de 2019, posteriormente fue suspendido por la Municipalidad por responsabilidad del Consorcio. Nuevamente se indica, que toda reclamación que le fue rechazada al contratista, se hizo conforme a los postulados normativos que reglan la contratación. En ningún momento, el afán del Fidecomiso podría ser entorpecer los fines públicos de la construcción de la infraestructura educativa. El Fideicomiso tuvo a su cargo decenas de proyectos de esta índole y en ningún caso se presentaron los problemas que suscitaron con el Consorcio. La Unidad de Supervisión y la Unidad Ejecutora se mantuvieron presente en todas las ejecuciones de los proyectos que se realizaron con otros contratistas, mismas que terminaron a satisfacción de las partes. La situación que afrontaron los proyectos adjudicados al Consorcio, son derivados de malas gestiones empresariales de los consorciados, que se escapan de la responsabilidad del Fideicomiso.

RESUMEN CRONOLÓGICO DEL PROCESO CONSTRUCTIVO DERIVADO DEL "INFORME ESPECIAL- OBRAS INCONCLUSAS, PROYECTO N° 023-5969 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA" QUE EVIDENCIA LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONSORCIO, RESPECTO A SUS INCUMPLIMIENTOS CONTRACTUALES a. Este proyecto forma parte del Contrato N° 88-2017, entre el Fidecomiso Banco Nacional - Ministerio de Educación Pública Ley N° 9124 y el Consorcio actor IDECO-RUCO-GCI, suscrito el día 26 de octubre del año 2017. Se encuentra ubicado en la provincia de Cartago, cantón de Oreamuno, distrito de Santa Rosa.

b. La Orden de Inicio fue emitida el día 18 de mayo del 2018, para hacerse efectiva el día 21 de mayo de 2018, para un plazo original de 154 días naturales. La fecha de entrega original estaba programa para el 21 de octubre de 2018. Sin embargo, por suspensiones, prórrogas, ampliaciones y compensaciones, se trasladó la fecha hasta el 13 de abril de 2020.

c. Durante el proceso constructivo se generaron 338 días de suspensión de plazo (no continuos) por proceso de estudios, formulación de propuesta para estabilización del talud norte y su posterior trámite de revisión y aprobación por parte de la Administración. Asimismo, se dieron prórrogas en el plazo de ejecución, 23 días de compensación de plazo y 91 días por atrasos imputables al actor. Cuando se rescindió el contrato al actor, el día 13 de julio de 2020, el proyecto acumulaba 694 días desde su inicio de ejecución.

d. Durante los inicios de ejecución del proyecto, el personal de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno clausuró el proyecto temporalmente ante la falta de documentación en relación al permiso de construcción, esto se solucionó de forma rápida y al día siguiente a la suspensión, fueron levantado los sellos.

e. Las labores fueron detenidas por el potencial riesgo de deslizamiento de los taludes que conforman el sector Norte. El actor realizó análisis geotécnicos y geológicos para definir la implementación de medidas correctivas de mitigación.

f. Las obras siguieron suspendidas durante varios días, mientras se analizaba técnica y económicamente la estrategia para corregir el problema de los taludes. Durante varias semanas, en el proyecto solo quedó el guarda de seguridad, pero a partir del mes de febrero de 2019, las obras quedaron totalmente abandonadas, sin resguardo alguno. El proyecto quedó cerrado con malla tipo sarán y rotulado de seguridad y precaución.

g. Durante la suspensión del proyecto, el actor abandonó en gran parte los trabajos de mantenimiento de las obras. A partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, se reanudó la ejecución de las obras con la aprobación de la OS-13 e implementación de la OM-01, que contemplaba la estabilización de taludes.

h. Las obras continuaron con normalidad y se generaron problemas menores que fueron advertidos al actor, quien en la mayoría de ocasiones, implementó las medidas correctivas. Sin embargo, para la visita número 25 de Regencia Ambiental se constató que el Consorcio actor había desmantelado todas las obras temporales, incluyendo Centro de Acopio de residuos sólidos ordinarios y especiales. Asimismo, se detectaron zanjas sin colocación de cintas de seguridad. Estas dos situaciones fueron calificadas como No Conformidad.

i. Estas conformidades se mantuvieron, sumándose a las mismas, el crecimiento desmedido de vegetación en la propiedad colindante que se utilizaba para obras temporales. Durante toda la ejecución del proyecto, al actor tuvo que dársele un seguimiento exhaustivo para que cumpliera con el manejo y buen control de residuos, parámetros de orden, seguridad, limpieza del lugar, así como capacitación a los trabajadores.

j. El actor sufrió una situación financiera crítica, especialmente por la falta de flujo. Esto lo verificó la Unidad Supervisora a partir de sus visitas de campo, quien reportó que en la ejecución de las obras se mantenía muy poco personal, así como falta de materiales y maquinarias para la ejecución de las obras. Esto devino en evidentes atrasos, pues el actor no estaba invirtiendo los recursos que ameritaba el proyecto, lo que desembocó en una suspensión de toda actividad en campo por parte del Consorcio actor, hasta su posterior abandono definitivo.

k. Se detectó un atraso significativo desde la etapa inicial de la obra, el cual no pudo ser subsanado por el actor. A medida que transcurrió el tiempo de ejecución de la obra, la situación del proyecto se tornó aún más compleja, especialmente por la inestabilidad en los taludes.

l. Cuando se solucionó el tema geológico, la situación de falta de recursos del actor, generó varios inconvenientes para atender el proyecto. Los cuales desencadenaron en la desaceleración de la dinámica de ejecución y retrocesos alarmantes en cuanto al avance de obra, hasta culminar en su absoluta paralización de actividades.

m. La falta de flujo del Actor se constituyó en uno de los hechos más importantes y de riesgo detectado, el cual a pesar de que se realizaron constantes intervenciones, no pudo ser subsanado por el actor. Esto conllevó a que el contratante se viera en la difícil decisión de rescindir el contrato, medida drástica por la que se optó para proteger el interés público, al mismo tiempo que se cumplía con las obligaciones contractuales.

n. Esta falta de flujo del actor se evidenció desde el primer mes de ejecución de las obras, ya que, durante las primeras cuatro semanas, se reportaba un atraso de 20 días calendario en actividades como movilización, trazado, demoliciones, movimientos de tierra, que pertenecían a la ruta crítica del proyecto. Al actor siempre se le solicitó un plan remedial para subsanar estos atrasos, sin embargo, nunca fue efectivo para la corrección de sus incumplimientos.

o. Para el segundo mes de ejecución, persistía la afectación del atraso por 30 días calendario. El proceso constructivo no se desarrollaba de acuerdo a lo esperado y planificado por el actor. Respecto a estos atrasos, el actor alegaba que era por ocasión de lluvias fuertes. Sin embargo, el grupo supervisor constató que la cantidad de lluvia durante los primeros dos meses fue bastante leve.

p. Posteriormente a este período, se definió que era imprescindible la realización de estudios técnicos sobre la estabilidad de los taludes. La Unidad Supervisora advirtió a todos los intervinientes del proyecto, que los estados previos resultaban insuficientes, ya que la condición del suelo era distinta a la que reflejaban dichos estudios. Después de una reunión de todas las partes del proyecto, se decidió suspender las obras por un período de tres semanas para realizar los estudios adecuados.

q. Los nuevos estudios evidenciaron que la estabilidad del suelo no era la que correspondía con los estudios iniciales. Se definió por todas las partes, que el actor a partir de los estudios técnicos debía presentar una solución sobre este tema de estabilidad y se suspendieron las obras hasta que el actor aportara dicha solución y su respecto costo. Además, se hicieron estudios complementarios a nivel geotécnico que también ameritaron suspensión de plazo.

r. Para el día 12 de octubre del 2018, el actor presentó una propuesta de solución técnica para resolver la situación existente que representaba un aumento de muy elevado del contrato original, lo cual resultaba poco viable. El actor se comprometió a buscar una solución alternativa que redujera los costos y por tal razón, se procedió con la OS-04 para la suspensión de plazo.

s. Se constató que, durante el período de suspensión del proyecto, el actor ejecutó algunas obras que consistieron en construcción de cunetas, muros de contención y relleno en el bloque. Estas actividades no fueron autorizadas por el contratante, ni supervisadas por la Unidad de Supervisión y tampoco fueron introducidas en bitácora. Por tal razón, se le cuestionó al actor, por qué había solicitado suspensión de las obras, si seguía ejecutando parte de las mismas. Esto fue considerado como una falta grave cometida por el actor.

t. En el séptimo mes del proceso constructivo, se autorizó una cuarta suspensión y luego de una serie de ajustes y revisiones, se logró que el actor aportara una solución con una reducción del 5% a la propuesta original presentada. De esta forma la OM-01 se firmó y se envió al Fideicomiso para su revisión. Sin embargo, durante el proceso de revisión de la OM, el BID pidió criterio de un consultor externo, quien emitió observaciones, lo cual generaba cambios al diseño, por ende, trabajos adicionales, mismos que incrementaron el monto original de la OM.

u. Para la finalización del décimo quinto mes del proceso constructivo, la ADENDA al Contrato había sido firmada por parte del actor y habiendo este cumplido con los requisitos adicionales a causa de dicha ampliación de contrato, se reanudaron las obras mediante la OS-13 a partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019. Sn embargo, el proceso constructivo se vio nuevamente truncado, pues sobre las obras originales del contrato, el actor no había tramitado correctamente el permiso de construcción ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno.

v. Las obras debían reanudarse a parte del 13 de noviembre de 2019, pero la Unidad de Supervisión realizó una visita el día 14 de noviembre de 2019 y no había personal o indicios de labor en campo. El día 20 de noviembre de 2019, la Unidad de Supervisión realizó otra vista al proyecto, verificándose que se habían reanudado las labores pero que el personal era mismo (cuatro personas), era evidente a simple vista, que, por la envergadura de las tareas a ejecutar, los recursos para tal fin eran insuficientes.

w. Durante los meses de noviembre y diciembre de 2019, se presentaron lluvias, dificultando el desarrollo de las obras, por tal razón, se aprobó la OS15, que otorgó plazo de compensación al actor. En el período que abarcó el vigésimo segundo mes del proyecto, se verificaba un avance global de las obras de la OM-01 a un 85%. Sin embargo, el problema, era que las obras del contrato original, se mantenían prácticamente igual, no existía avance en su ejecución. Esto puso en evidencia la poca capacidad existente por parte del actor para completar el proyecto dentro del plazo establecido.

x. A partir del día martes 12 de mayo de 2020, se confirmó ausencia de personal en el proyecto, únicamente se encontró en el sitio al guarda de seguridad. Para el 05 de junio de 2020, la obra se encontraba en total abandono por decisión unilateral del actor, con la ausencia inclusive del personal de segundad, situación que perduró de esta manera hasta la rescisión del contrato el día 13 de julio de 2020.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO: ESCUELA LA HERMOSA.

Es cierto que el Consorcio actor en las conclusiones presentadas mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 del veinticuatro de Junio de dos mil veinte, apeló a la Defensa de contrato no cumplido. Sin embargo, dichos alegatos y pretensiones fueron dilucidados mediante el Procedimiento Sumario para la aplicación de la Cláusula penal, en el cual mediante Acto Final se corroboró que no existían eximentes de responsabilidad y donde efectivamente se logró demostrar que le era efectivamente imputable el atraso en la entrega de las obras. Contrariamente a lo señalado por el Consorcio actor, los hechos y prueba documental expuesta en los expedientes de ejecución y de cobro de multas, constata de manera clara que el Consorcio actor incurrió de forma concatenada en incumplimientos contractuales y que por su lado, el Fideicomiso por medio de sus dependencias, hizo todo lo posible para que el Consorcio actor, aún y cuando se encontraba fuera de plazo, lograra entregar las obras a satisfacción. Sin embargo, era prácticamente irreal que el Consorcio lograra culminar de forma responsable dichos proyectos. Por otro lado, los rechazos de reclamos administrativos siempre se realizaron conforme a derecho, dado que eran procedentes, extemporáneos o no cumplían con el procedimiento cartelario para su aceptación. Asimismo, el Fideicomiso, contrariamente a lo señalado por el Consorcio actor, siempre mantuvo el equilibrio económico del contrato por medio de la generación de órdenes de modificación, que aumentaban el precio del contrato en hasta más de un 70% como ocurrió en el caso del Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

RESUMEN CRONOLÓGICO DEL PROCESO CONSTRUCTIVO DERIVADO DEL "INFORME ESPECIAL-OBRAS INCONCLUSAS, PROYECTO N° 058-0870 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA" QUE EVIDENCIA LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONSORCIO, RESPECTO A SUS INCUMPLIMIENTOS CONTRACTUALES a. Este proyecto forma parte del Contrato No 88-2017, entre el Fideicomiso Banco Nacional - Ministerio de Educación Pública Ley N° 9124 y el Consorcio actor IDECO-RUCO-GCI, suscrito el día 26 de octubre del año 2017. Se encuentra ubicado en la provincia de San José, cantón de Pérez Zeledón, distrito de General en la Hermosa.

b. La Orden de Inicio fue emitida el día 31 de julio de 2018, para hacerse efectiva el día O6 de agosto de 2018, para un plazo original de 154 días naturales. La fecha de entrega original estaba programada para el 06 de enero de 2019. Sin embargo, por prórrogas. la entrega final se trasladó al 23 de enero de 2019.

c. Durante el proceso constructivo se generaron 523 días naturales de atrasos atribuible al actor. En la etapa inicial de la obra se destacó un atraso que no pudo ser subsanado por el actor y fue incrementándose a medida que transcurrió el tiempo. Existió un incumplimiento del programa de ejecución y ausencia de un plan remedial para tratar de resolver la situación existente en la obra.

d. La Unidad de Supervisión constató que la situación financiera del actor se encontraba afectando la ejecución del proyecto, pues existía poca disponibilidad de recursos para invertir en la obra, ausencia de materiales en campo y falta de personal idóneo para la ejecución de los trabajos. Se detectó un atraso significativo desde la etapa uncial de la obra, el cual no pudo ser subsanado por el actor.

e. A medida que transcurrió el tiempo de ejecución de la obra, la situación del proyecto se tornó aún más compleja, debido a la ausencia de una planificación de obra acertada, así como por la falta de flujo del Consorcio actor. Esto constituyó uno de los hechos más importantes de riesgo detectado y a pesar de que las partes intervinientes realizaron esfuerzos para subsanar la situación, esto no fue posible, lo que conllevó a la rescisión del contrato y la no finalización de la obra.

f. En los primeros dos meses de ejecución, los trabajos se realizaron en perfecta armonía con el cronograma. Sin embargo, la Unidad de Supervisión le advirtió al actor que el inicio de actividades (como por ejemplo la estructura metálica), podrían tener atrasos por no contar con los materiales y mano de obra para ejecutaras. Posteriormente. efectivamente sucedió un desfase importante en la ejecución por no haber ingresado al proyecto el prefabricado y la mano de obra idónea. El actor no hizo caso de las advertencias de la Supervisión y no implementó medidas correctivas para la recuperación del tiempo perdido.

g. Al actor se le otorgó una ampliación de plazo mediante la OS-01 y la OS-02 a causa de las lluvias de los meses de agosto, setiembre, octubre y noviembre de 2018, quedando el plazo de entrega del proyecto para el día 23 de enero de 2019. Durante el quinto mes de proceso de obra, se detectó un atraso significativo en las actividades que tenían que ver con el área eléctrica y se observaron agrietamientos preocupantes en las columnas prefabricadas. El actor no había logrado implementar medidas suficientes, ni concentrar esfuerzos que tuviesen efectos directos en la reducción del atraso verificado en el sitio.

h. Al sexto mes, en lugar de reducirse el atraso, este se incrementó y el actor siguió sin implementar un adecuado plan remedial. Para el noveno mes de ejecución, se aprobó la OM-01, que reducía el monto del contrato en $800.00., esto a causa de deducción de costos de permisos y trámites no cancelados por el actor. La tabla de hitos seguía manteniendo un atraso considerable y el ritmo en el proceso de construcción era muy bajo para lo esperado.

i. Al décimo mes, si bien algunos hitos ya se estaban completando al 100%, llamó la atención el hecho de que se disminuyó la presencia de personal trabajando en el sitio, esto preocupó al contratante. Por tal razón, se convocaron una serie de reuniones entre todas las partes, en las cuales se verificó que la propuesta del actor no era seria, porque en el campo no se vislumbraba la aplicación de ninguna medida correctiva que reactivara el proyecto. Contrariamente, las medidas utilizadas por el actor incrementaron el atraso inicial.

j. En las visitas de la Unidad de Supervisión el día 12 de julio de 2019, se constató que existía poco personal trabajando en el proyecto. Pero la situación se volvió crítica a partir del 12 de agosto de 2019, tanto que, para el 04 de octubre de 2019, solo se encontraba en el proyecto el guarda de seguridad. Asimismo, para esa fecha se empezaron a notar deterioros en canoas, pintura y tuberías. Por tal motivo, se le volvió a solicitar al Consorcio actor planes remediales, pero nunca presentó la información solicitada.

k. El 20 de noviembre de 2019, el actor remitió un nuevo cronograma en el cual señalaba que las obras estarán concluidas para el 07 de febrero de 2020. Por esta razón, el día 22 de noviembre de 2019, se empezó a notar movimiento en la obra, retornó el personal, aunque en número reducido, pero se verificó un leve avance. Sin embargo, esta dinámica se mantuvo a la baja durante los posteriores meses de ejecución, el personal era mínimo y en muchas ocasiones el ingeniero residente no permanecía en la obra. Es así como el 14 de enero de 2020, el actor presenta un nuevo cronograma en el que indica que el proyecto estará listo para el 13 de marzo de 2020. Sin embargo, ante todo lo evidenciado, esta propuesta era irreal y de una falta de credibilidad absoluta.

l. El 12 de marzo de 2020, el actor volvió a remitir un nuevo cronograma, indicando que la fecha de finalización de las obras sería para el 24 de abril de 2020. Ante este escenario, la Unidad Supervisora calicó que el actor no tenía claridad constructiva, que se encontraba carente de atención a la realidad del proyecto y que no demostraba un genuino compromiso para lograr una correcta reanudación de las obras inconclusas.

m. El 31 de marzo de 2020, la Unidad de Supervisión visitó el lugar y solo se encontraba el guarda de seguridad, con este panorama, el actor evidentemente no cumplió con la entrega que había señalado para el 24 de abril de 2020. Para el vigésimo tercer mes de ejecución, el actor había cesado al guarda de seguridad, dejando en completó abandonó el proyecto por decisión unilateral del actor, situación que perduró de esta manera hasta la rescisión del contrato el día 13 de julio de 2020.

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO ESCUELA AZUL Como se mencionó en la contestación del hecho vigésimo sexto, es cierto que en el transcurso de la ejecución del proyecto se hallaron restos arqueológicos. Sin embargo, esta situación fue prácticamente imperceptible. La Unidad de Supervisión, coordinó una cita el 10 de setiembre de 2019, mismo día en el que el Consorcio actor notificó tal situación y esta se realizó siete días después y no diez días como erróneamente indica el Consorcio. Ahora bien, fue hasta el 13 de setiembre de 2019, que el Consorcio actor informó que iban a detener el proyecto, pues supuestamente las obras que se estaban ejecutando en ese momento, correspondían a esa área del proyecto. Entonces, desde la suspensión de la ejecución de las obras, hasta la visita del Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, transcurrieron cinco días. Sin embargo, fue hasta el 23 de setiembre 2019 que el Museo nos indicó que los vestigios arqueológicos carecían de valor, entonces, el día 24 de setiembre se ordenó la reanudación de las labores, con lo cual, transcurrieron doce días de supuesta suspensión por esta situación. ya que ciertamente existían otra serie de hitos que podían continuar o avanzar su proceso constructivo durante esos días sin afectación al lugar donde se encontraron los restos arqueológicos.

Respecto a la situación de la colindancia, es cierto que existía una invasión en el costado norte, pero esto solo afectaba la construcción del muro, pues la invasión tenía como cuota máxima 1 metro y lo que impedía era justamente el cerramiento en su posición correcta (folio 115 expediente de cobro de multas de EA). Por lo cual, se optó por indicarle al Consorcio que construyera la tapia a 1,5 metros de distancia, esto se tramitó mediante la Orden de Modificación OM-04. Sin embargo, el Consorcio se negó a firmar dicha OM, por ende, el contratante se vio en la decisión de desestimar y dejar sin efectos dichos cambios (folio 93 del expediente de cobro de multas de EA).

En lo concerniente a las aguas residuales que afectaban el terreno del proyecto estas también provenían de la colindancia norte, por ende, no impactaban la totalidad del proyecto. Es decir, el Consorcio actor no puede justificar sus atrasos a dos situaciones mínimas que sobrevinieron en uno de los costados del terreno. En este mismo sentido, es completamente falso que la Resolución número 2020008458 de las nueve horas veinte minutos del ocho de mayo de dos mil veinte de Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. haya imposibilitado al Consorcio de continuar ejecutando las obras (anexo 67 de la demanda). Primero, porque dicha Resolución va dirigida a Guiselle Solano Fernández en su condición de Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba. La declaratoria con lugar del Recurso de Amparo, se encamina a garantizar el derecho fundamental a una justicia pronta y cumplida para el amparado (Director de La Escuela Azul de Turrialba). Obligando a la Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, que verifique el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria emitida a la representante legal de la Asociación Administradora del Acueducto de la Urbanización Torrealba. La instrucción va dirigida al Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba, para que haga valer el cumplimiento de la orden sanitaria y así evitar el desfogue de aguas residuales provenientes de la propiedad vecina a la construcción del Proyecto. Al Consorcio nunca le fue girada ninguna instrucción u orden por parte de la Sala Constitucional, ni por parte del Área Rectora de Salud de Turrialba para que suspendiera las obras. Además, el Recurso de Amparo fue resuelto en mayo de 2020 y de acuerdo a la visita realizada por la Unidad de Supervisión el 30 de abril de 2020, ya para dicho mes en el lugar no existía ningún tipo de actividad constructiva. Por tal razón, en ningún caso esto puede ser considerado como una causal de fuerza mayor y atribuir una suspensión de contrato por esta situación. La situación de la colindancia y el desfogue de aguas, pudo ser contrarrestado y solucionado mediante la OM-04, pero el Consorcio no aceptó dicha OM. Por tanto, la no solución de dichos problemas fue producto de su responsabilidad. El supuesto desequilibrio económico con el que Consorcio afrontó el proyecto, no es producto de la responsabilidad del Fidecomiso, sino de sus malas gestiones empresariales y problemas internos entre los consorciados.

Ya se reiteró en varias ocasiones, que el Consorcio no cumplía los presupuestos para solicitar una rescisión contractual, además, no cumplió con el procedimiento pertinente. El incumplimiento sustancial del Consorcio, según se desprende de una adecuada valoración de los hechos y prueba aquí expuestos, es producto plenamente de la responsabilidad del Consorcio.

RESUMEN CRONOLÓGICO DEL PROCESO CONSTRUCTIVO DERIVADO DEL "INFORME ESPECIAL-OBRAS INCONCLUSAS, PROYECTO N° 024-1942 ESCUELA AZUL" QUE EVIDENCIA LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONSORCIO, RESPECTO A SUS INCUMPLIMIENTOS CONTRACTUALES a. Este proyecto forma parte del Contrato N° 88-2017, entre el Fideicomiso Banco Nacional - Ministerio de Educación Pública Ley N° 9124 y el Consorcio actor IDECO-RUCO-GCI, suscrito el día 26 de octubre del año 2017. Se encuentra ubicado en la provincia de Cartago cantón de Turrialba, distrito La Isabel, sector Azul.

b. La Orden de Inicio fue emitida el día 13 de diciembre de 2018, para hacerse efectiva el día 17 de diciembre de 2018, para un plazo original de 183 días naturales. La fecha de entrega original estaba programada para el 17 de junio de 2019. Sin embargo, por prórrogas, ampliaciones y compensaciones de plazo otorgadas, se trasladó la fecha para el 28 de mayo de 2020.

c. Para este proyecto sucedió una situación respecto a un problema con la cantidad de zanjas con agua de escorrentía acumulada. Esta situación perduró durante mucho tiempo, pues la solución permanente no estaba en manos del actor. Sin embargo, se le solicitó en múltiples ocasiones implementar medidas paliativas, tal como mantener un continuo bombeo de las aguas, ejecutar obras y cerrar zanjas. Pero el actor no disponía de una bomba hidráulica, entonces se tardó en implementar las medidas correctivas.

d. En el inicio de la obra, se destacó un atraso que no pudo ser subsanado por el actor y fue incrementándose a medida que transcurrió el tiempo. El incumplimiento del programa de ejecución y la ausencia de un plan remedial para tratar de resolver la situación de remediar el atraso producto. A medida que transcurrió el tiempo de ejecución de la obra, la situación del proyecto se tornó aún más compleja, debido a la ausencia de una planificación acertada por parte del actor, el cual se constituyó en uno de los hechos más importantes y de riesgo detectado.

e. Desde el primer mes de ejecución de la obra, se detectaron acontecimientos relevantes por parte de la Unidad Supervisora que podrían impactar negativamente el correcto desarrollo de la obra: Estos eran, la localización en el sitio de petroglifos y la invasión de vecinos al terreno del proyecto en conjunto con las aguas residuales de los vecinos. Sin embargo, estos no afectaron la ejecución durante los primeros dos meses de ejecución y la obra se desarrolló de acuerdo a lo planificado.

f. Al actor se le aprobaron la OS-03 y OS-05 por ocasión de atrasos derivados de lluvias y ya iniciado el cuarto mes de obra, se constató un atraso importante en lo concerniente a los trabajos relacionados con el área eléctrica, situación previsible debido al ritmo lento en la ejecución que ya se había detectado. En el quinto mes, el actor incrementó su personal en la obra y se aprobó la OM-01, que se trata de una reducción de $800.00., del monto del contrato por deducción de costos de permisos y trámite no cancelados por el actor.

g. El día 20 de febrero de 2019, la arqueóloga Tatiana Hidalgo Orozco visitó el proyecto y realizó un informe con las recomendaciones que debían seguirse, mismas que fueron comunicadas al actor para su implementación. Al sexto mes de obra, continuó creciendo el atraso existente desde la etapa inicial, mismo que se estimaba en 9 semanas respecto al cronograma original. Durante el noveno mes, se produjo hallazgo de nuevos restos arqueológicos, se planificó una visita para el 17 de setiembre de 2019 por parte del Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, concluyendo que estos hallazgos no tenían ningún valor arqueológico que ameritara tratamiento especial.

h. Durante la ejecución de los meses posteriores, el proceso sufrió los mismos inconvenientes que en los centros Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y Escuela La Hermosa. El actor avanzaba lentamente en la ejecución de las obras, el personal en el proyecto era mínimo, a medida que pasaba el tiempo los atrasos se incrementaban, el actor no implementaba medidas correctivas y se vislumbraba que la obra no se terminaría en ninguna fecha que el actor propusiera.

i. En el décimo séptimo mes de obra, el personal de obra había sido retirado del sitio, por lo cual el escenario se vislumbraba aún más crítico. El día 30 de abril de 2020, el equipo supervisor concurrió al sitio y constató que no existía ningún tipo de actividad en el proyecto. Durante el octavo mes, se retiró el personal de seguridad, dejando en completo abandono el proyecto por decisión unilateral del actor, situación que perduró de esta manera hasta la rescisión del contrato el día 13 de julio de 2020.

"COMUNICACIÓN DEL PROYECTO A TRAVÉS DE PERSONAS NO AUTORIZADAS CONTRACTUALMENTE PARA LA COMUNICACIÓN DEL CONTRATO".

Como ya se hizo referencia en la contestación del hecho trigésimo cuarto, el Gerente de Obra que nombra el Contratante, corresponde a la Unidad de Supervisión y a la Unidad Ejecutora (ambas unidades con funciones distintas). Fueron estas dependencias, las responsables de mantener la comunicación del proyecto con el contratista. Por su parte, el Gerente de Obra nombrado por la Unidad de Supervisión, si bien ostenta la función de mantenerse en comunicación con el contratista, no es el único profesional que mantiene esta potestad. Durante todo el proceso de contratación, la Unidad de Supervisión mantuvo contacto con el Consorcio actor mediante tres profesionales Gerente de Supervisión (Adrian Ruilova Resca), Gerente de Obras (Para el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Primero fue el señor Víctor Azofeifa Alvarado, posteriormente fue Juan Carlos Rodríguez Arce, luego ostentó el puesto Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado y finalmente, Adrián Ruilova Reacia culminó como Gerente de Obra. En el caso de los proyectos Escuela Azul y Escuela La Hermosa, primero estuvo Álvaro Quirós Rossi y luego lo sustituyó Gonzalo Muñoz Zeledón) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia (Fabiana Rego González).

Ahora bien, al Consorcio actor se le indicó que siempre dirigiera toda comunicación al Gerente de Obra designado por la Unidad de Supervisión, esto para mantener una claridad respecto a las comunicaciones. Entonces, el Consorcio actor pretende hacer ver esto ante los ojos del Tribunal como un incumplimiento grave del contratante, pero lo cierto del caso, es que siempre se mantuvo una claridad y precisión de quienes eran los que mantenían las comunicaciones con el contratista. En todo caso, los profesionales con los que el Consorcio mantuvo comunicación, siempre fueron parte de la Unidad Supervisora y todas las notificaciones mantuvieron la misma línea de acción, es decir, no existió en ningún momento contradicciones o conflictos generados por el hecho de que una comunicación no estuviera suscrita por el Gerente de Obra.

"MONTOS ADEUDADOS POR AVANCE DE OBRA" Como se mencionó en la contestación de los hechos vigésimo cuarto, trigésimo y quincuagésimo primero, el Consorcio actor abandonó la ejecución de los proyectos con avances de hitos que no cumplían el 100%. En este sentido, no existe un incumplimiento por parte del Fidecomiso, debido a que conforme lo establecido en la "SECCIÓN IX. FORMULARIOS DEL CONTRATO" apartado "C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago" del Cartel de la Licitación referencia, los pagos se realizan solamente por hito concluido a satisfacción del contratante.

Si bien es cierto, el Consorcio actor dejó obras en algún estado de avance, la aplicación de la Subcláusula 42.2.5 de las Condiciones Generales, hay que analizarla a la luz de los incumplimientos del Consorcio, así como en contraste con la cuantificación real de los avances de las obras. En primer lugar, es falso que los avances de obras dejados por el Consorcio actor, rondan los porcentajes de avance de más del 90%. Por consiguiente, tampoco es cierto que el monto de los avances sume $1.008.633,88. Véase que, de acuerdo a los Informes Especiales de Obras Inconclusas realizados por la Unidad Supervisora, la obra realmente ejecutada por el Consorcio, se resume de la siguiente forma:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa.

Hito avance precio total precio de avance 16.2 Muros de tierra armada 80% $304.603,82 $243.683,06 TOTAL: $243.683,06 B. Escuela La Hermosa:

10.3 Acabados ventanearías y puertas 80% $66.425,35 $53.140.28 11 Pintura 65% $33.212,68 $21.588.24 12.2 Sistemas Eléctricos (Cableados y acometidas) 75% $66.425,35 $49.819,01 12.3 Sistemas Eléctricos 83% $33.212,68 $27.566,52 (Dispositivos y Accesorios) 13 Sistemas Mecánicos 50% $33.212,68 $16.606,34 (Módulos) 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos 62% $33.21268 $20.591.86 (Exteriores) 14.2 Equipamientos y 10% $99.638.03 $9.963,80 Mobiliario 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 71% $132.850,68 $94.323.98 TOTAL: $293.600,03 C. Escuela Azul:

6 Concretos estructurales de rampa 89% $189.961.00 $169.065,29 7.2 Contrapisos (100% de avance-colado) 25% $63.320,00 $15.830,00 12.1 Sistemas Eléctricos (Canalización) 6% $94.981,00 $5.698,86 13 Sistemas Mecánicos (Módulos) 20% $63.320,00 $12.664,00 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos (Exteriores) 35% $63.320,00 $22.162,00 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 40% $253.282,00 $101.312,80 TOTAL: $326.732,95 Sumatoria de avances de los proyectos:

1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa $243.683,06 2. Escuela La Hermosa $293.600,03 3. Escuela Azul $326.732,95 TOTAL: $864.016,04 Ahora bien, respecto al proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, se corroboró en una valoración realizada posterior a la rescisión, que el Hito 10.2 Acabados cielos y paredes livianas, a pesar de que tenía validación de pago por estar supuestamente al 100%, tenía un faltante del 60%. Entonces, se debe corregir y deducir lo correspondiente al falso porcentaje de avance de la siguiente forma:

Hito Avance precio total precio avance 10.2 Acabados de cielos y paredes 40% $49.819,01 $19.927.60 livianas RESTA: $29.891,41 El monto dejado de ejecutar, debe ser restado al monto de los avances de los tres proyectos:

Monto de Avances Hito 10.2 de Escuela La Hermosa TOTAL DE AVANCES $864.016.04 $29.891.41 $834.124,63 En consecuencia. el monto correcto de la sumatoria de los avances de obra dejados por el Consorcio al momento del abandono de las obras de los tres proyectos, suman $834.124,63 (ochocientos treinta y cuatro mil ciento veinticuatro dólares con 63/100). Ahora bien, este monto corresponde a avances íntegros, al cual no se les ha restado los reprocesos y deterioros que sufrieron las obras y materiales producto del abandono abrupto que realizó el Consorcio. Además de la necesidad de realizar el ejercicio de los deterioros y reprocesos de los proyectos, es importante mencionar, que tal y como el Consorcio alega que se debe cumplir con el pago de dichos rubros. Está dejando de mencionar que existe un saldo pendiente a favor del Fideicomiso producto de anticipos, por un monto de $535.604,15., los cuales se resumen:

PROYECTO MONTO DE ANTICIPO 1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa $168.235,19 2. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Adenda) $45.690,57 3. Escuela La Hermosa $74.728.52 4. Escuala Azul $246.949,87 TOTAL: $535.604,15 Por tal razón, el monto que realmente le correspondería al Consorcio actor producto de los avances de obra, es de $298.520,48. Sin embargo, como se indicó, a este monto se le debe restar todo lo concerniente a los reprocesos y deterioros, así como sobrecostos, que sufrieron los proyectos a causa del abandono del contratista. Asimismo, no hay que dejar de mencionar, que existen tres multas pendientes de pago por parte del Consorcio, que se encuentran en firme y que no se han ejecutado por encontrarse con una medida cautelar, pero que se determinan en el monto de $393.470,26. Por tanto, cuando se realizan los cálculos correspondientes, se observa que en realidad el Consorcio actor se encuentra en números negativos y que en cualquier supuesto, quedaría debiendo al Fidecomiso un saldo a favor, el cual sin la sumatoria de los sobrecostos, reprocesos y deterioros, da un aproximado de $94.949,78. Pero dicho monto no es un acercamiento real a lo que realmente ha tenido que hacer frente el Fideicomiso por los incumplimientos del Consorcio actor. Consideraciones de fondo. El Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento 1099 de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional, fue suscrito el 10 de abril del año 2013, siendo refrendado por la Contraloría General de la República el 14 de julio del mismo año. De conformidad con lo establecido en la cláusula cuarta del Fideicomiso, las partes son las siguientes: 1- Fideicomitente: Ministerio de Educación Pública, 2- Fiduciario: Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, 3- Fideicomisarios: Ministerio de Educación Pública y los Bancos u organismos, internacionales que otorguen el crédito al Fideicomiso y los inversionistas tenedores de títulos valores emitidos por el Fidecomiso (...), el Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional, se encuentra suscrito y es válido, que el Fiduciario suscribió el Contrato de Préstamo en representación del Fideicomiso deudor, y que dicho crédito constituye una obligación válida, por contar con autorización expresa de la Ley 9124 supra citada, así como del propio Contrato de Fideicomiso, el cual se encuentra debidamente refrendado por la Contraloría General de la República. Para dicho contrato de crédito se cuenta con la garantía o aval del Estado, por disposición expresa de la misma Ley 9124. Transcribe varias cláusulas del Fideicomiso: Obligaciones asumidas por el Fiduciario en materia de las contrataciones de empresas para cumplir con las obras de infraestructura que forman parte de la finalidad del encargo fiduciario, para lo cual se transcriben varias cláusulas contractuales de especial interés: "CLÁUSULA CUARTA. (...), CLÁUSULA QUINTA (...), CLÁUSULA SEXTA (...). Indica: De las anteriores disposiciones contractuales queda claro que el Fiduciario cuenta con varios órganos propios del Fideicomiso, dentro de los cuales toma especial importancia la Unidad Ejecutora, quien es el brazo técnico del Fiduciario y se encarga propiamente de las labores operativas del Fideicomiso, tales como pero no limitadas a realizar los procesos de contratación de las diferentes empresas constructoras de los proyectos indicados por el MEP, siguiendo para ello las instrucciones y aprobaciones de la Unidad Supervisora del Proyecto del MEP. La contratación de dicha Unidad Ejecutora la realizó el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica en su calidad de Fiduciario, realizando un procedimiento de contratación respetuoso de los principios de contratación administrativa. Si bien es la Unidad Ejecutora del Fideicomiso la principal responsable de realizar dichos procesos de contratación, lo cierto del caso es que el Fiduciario no descarga responsabilidad por las actuaciones de dicha Unidad, de manera que corresponde en todo caso supervisar dicha actuación y realizar labores de coordinación, para evitar así situaciones que sean susceptibles de comprometer su responsabilidad en el encargo fiduciario. En el caso de los contratos que sufrieron atrasos o fueron abandonados por los contratistas, corresponde al Fiduciario la aplicación de las multas, así como tomar las medidas necesarias para la finalización de dichos proyectos, limitándose responsabilidad a la realización de dichas funciones, todo lo cual ha sido diligentemente realizado por el Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, en su condición de Fiduciario del presente contrato.

IV.- HECHOS PROBADOS. Del acervo probatorio examinado y admitido en autos, así como de las deposiciones de los testimonios rendidos en la Audiencia Complementaria se tienen por acreditados los siguientes hechos de determinación pertinente para el dictado de ésta resolución.

1.- Mediante ley número 9124 denominada "AUTORIZACIÓN AL PODER EJECUTIVO PARA SUSCRIBIR UNA OPERACIÓN DE CRÉDITO PÚBLICO Y CONSTITUIR UN FIDEICOMISO CON CONTRATOS DE ARRENDAMIENTO, PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DEL PROYECTO CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EQUIPAMIENTO DE INFRAESTRUCTURA EDUCATIVA DEL MEP A NIVEL NACIONAL", se autorizó al Ministerio de Educación Pública, para constituir un Fideicomiso con contratos de arrendamiento financiero, para financiar el Proyecto Construcción y Equipamiento de Infraestructura Educativa del MEP a Nivel Nacional, el cual consiste en la construcción y el equipamiento de infraestructura física, tales como colegios, escuelas y canchas multiusos para el cumplimiento de sus fines encomendados. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 2.- El referido Fideicomiso promovió, en lo que interesa a esta demanda, la Licitación Pública Internacional LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos -en adelante LPI-01-2017. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 3.- Las empresas IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A. (en adelante "IDECO"), GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A., CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A. y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., conformaron el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, autorizándose a la primera para la firma del Contrato 88-2017, respondiendo a la adjudicación en la Licitación Pública Internacional LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos -en adelante LPI-01-2017. (ver CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 1/imág.1-7) 4.- El Consorcio participó en la referida Licitación, resultando adjudicatario en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); para un monto total contractual de USD $6,146,149.50.2. (hecho no controvertido por las partes y CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 1/imág.1-6) 5.- Al quedar firme la adjudicación, se da la firma del contrato el 26 de octubre de 2017 por parte del Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 6.- Las órdenes de inicio efectivo de los trabajos de construcción y equipamientio en cada Proyecto del lote número 2 adjudicado se dieron en diferentes fechas para ser entregados igualmente en fechas distintas y con plazo de entrega diferenciados:

• a)oficio del 18 de mayo de 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento del Centro Educativo: Centro Educativo 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 21 de mayo de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 21 de octubre del año en curso.
• b)oficio del 31 de julio de 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 06 de agosto de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 06 de enero del año 2019.
• c)oficio del 13 de diciembre de 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. ORDEN DE INICIO -Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Cancha Multiuso Centro Educativo 024-1942 Escuela Azul: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 17 de diciembre de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (6 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 17 de junio del año 2019. (ver CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 2/imág.1-3) ACERCA DE LA APROBACIÓN FINAL DE LOS PLANOS CONSTRUCTIVOS.

7.- El fideicomiso entregó al Consorcio los anteproyectos técnicos, estudios de suelo, e información brindada a los oferentes, incluyendo al Consorcio, como además los planos topográficos, estudios de suelo básico- general, catastro, planos de anteproyecto, documentos de Setena, copia de órdenes de modificación y de servicios y algunas notas de particularidades del proyecto, los cuales son de mera referencia, para la realización de los planos correspondientes, y a quien le correspondía realizar y establecer las especificaciones técnicas que deberían ser iguales o superiores a las establecidas en los documentos de licitación, incluido el anteproyecto de naturaleza referencial, siendo que el diseño resultaba obligación del contratista, que además debía incluir planos constructivos finales, sellados y visados por el CFIA, la municipalidad correspondiente y en general por todas aquellas instituciones competentes, para facilitar la ejecución de las obras por parte del Contratista y su inspección por parte del Contratante. Concluyéndose la etapa de diseño a. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: el 24 de abril de 2018, b. Escuela Azul: el 12 de julio de 2018 y c. Escuela La Hermosa: el 11 de mayo de 2018. (ver CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 74/imág.1-10 oficio CG-2018-0506 ARQ-2018-0193-CON del 15 de marzo de 2018, ver CD prueba/carpeta1/Expediente Ejecución Escuela Azul/Escuela Hermosa/Santa Rosa/Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO LPI-01-2017-024 del 24 de abril de 2018/Exp. LRSR, Ampo D. folios 1372 y 1373, Exp. LRSR, Ampo C, folios 1237 al 1293 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas) y el Ampo D, folios 1668, 1669, 1670, 1672, 1674 y 1675 (Comunicaciones sobre APC), Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-034 del 12 de julio de 2018/Exp. EA Ampo D. folios 1300 y 1301), Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 1153 al 1190 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas, Oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-025 del 02 de mayo de 2018/Exp. EH Ampo D. folios 1377 y 1376, Exp. EH Ampo C. folios 1277 al 1298 y 1274 al 1234 (Informes de Revisión de Planos y Especificaciones Técnicas) y el Exp. EH Ampo D, folios 1364 al 1375 (Comunicaciones sobre APC), Contrato de préstamo 2824/OC-CR, LEY 9124/Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017/Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 Lotes de (15) Centros Educativos y (10) Canchas Multiuso/SEGUNDA PARTE. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/SECCIÓN VI. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/K. Definiciones, conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar. Especificaciones técnicas generales.1.19 Diseño final y “tal como se construyó” (“As Built”) 1.20 Planos constructivos y deposición del testigo en Audiencia Complementaria Guillermo Rojas Chaves 1:16:00 a 1:20:25, 1:11:17 al 1:29:00).

8.- El anteproyecto es un documento con un medio gráfico digital o impreso, en donde el profesional prepara una planimetría general en donde se especifica dónde van ubicados cada uno de los aposentos, el arquitecto de cumplir con el contenido establecido por el CFIA. Son planos de anteproyecto, este no es un documento que defina la ingeniería estructural, eléctricos, civiles ni otros, es arquitectónico. Los arquitectos debían utilizar los planos típicos establecidos por el MEP y a los oferentes se les permitía o daba la libertad de hacer su anteproyecto y estudios de suelo, siempre y cuando la oferta se presente el día y la hora establecida. Las listas de hitos se le entregó al Consorcio actor junto con los documentos de la licitación, resultando que uno de los primeros hitos es la entrega de los planos constructivos, basados en el anteproyecto, así, los contratistas debían generar las especificaciones técnicas junto con los planos constructivos y además. (deposición del testigo en Audiencia Complementaria Guillermo Rojas Chaves: 1:24:00 – 1:25:15, Contrato de préstamo 2824/OC-CR, LEY 9124/Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017/Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 Lotes de (15) Centros Educativos y (10) Canchas Multiuso/SEGUNDA PARTE. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/SECCIÓN VI. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/K. Definiciones, conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar. Especificaciones técnicas generales.1.19 Diseño final y “tal como se construyó” (“As Built”) 1.20 Planos constructivos).

9.- Las modificaciones aprobadas y aceptadas por el Fideicomiso a los planos y diseños definitivos finales y que vinculaban directamente al Consorcio impactando al contrato 88-2017 en cuanto plazo de entrega, objeto y precio de obra -contemplando los costos directos e indirectos en los que incurriría el Consorcio para su respectiva ejecución, se produjeron por medio del procedimiento para emisión y aprobación de las Órdenes de Modificación, precisamente para la correspondiente a Reanudación de las obras en el proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa a partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, otorgándose una extensión de plazo de 200 días naturales (150 días de la OM-01 y 50 días de remanente del contrato original) en la ejecución del proyecto, aprobándose la misma por un monto de $1.015.346.08 con variación acumulada correspondiente a un aumento del 76.95% del monto original, para un costo total de $2.334.837.78, y transcurriendo 465 días naturales desde la fecha original de inicio de obras hasta la fecha de aceptación de la OS-13 -28/08/2019- 28 de agosto de 2019, misma que se firmó con la Orden de Servicio N° 13 que formalizó la Orden de Modificación OM-01 y estableció las condiciones para el reinicio de la obra. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 45/imág.1-4) FASE DE CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EJECUCIÓN DEL PROYECTO. ACERCA DEL PROYECTO: LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA.

10.- El proyecto inició su construcción en tiempo y forma, y el Consorcio el 16 de julio de 2018, gestó ante Gerente de Supervisión Consorcio CSI-CACISA el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044, mediante el cual se planteó solicitud de suspensión temporal de plazo de obras de cuatro semanas para poder realizar los estudios de suelo y estabilidad complementarios, con el fin de plantear las modificaciones al diseño actual requeridas y coordinar la ejecución de los estudios de suelos, elaboración de los informes, análisis de la información y rediseño de planos de movimiento de tierras, en razón de encontrarse durante el inicio de las labores de movimiento de tierras del proyecto, y que al realizar el corte de los taludes, aparecen “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura, surgiendo rellenos de materiales no consolidados, que se encontraron por debajo de otras capas de suelo, que no fueron detectados por las pruebas puntuales ni era fácilmente detectables de manera cualitativa mediante observación directa dada la cobertura vegetal que existía, razón por la cual se considera una situación no previsible en la condición de los suelos, durante la actividad de movimiento de tierras. Gestión misma que fue resuelta, aceptada y aprobada, en fecha 20 de julio de 2018, según se aprecia en oficio: Heredia, 26 de julio de 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018, en donde se comunica al Consorcio: "Asunto: OS-01 SUSPENSION PLAZO DE EJECUCION - Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. Estimado ingeniero. En relación con la suspensión del plazo de ejecución para el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, adjuntamos la Orden de Servicio OS-01 debidamente firmada por la Firma Supervisora, el representante legal del Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI y del Ing. Marco Antonio González Echeverría, Coordinador General de la Unidad Ejecutora, suspensión que rige desde el 21 de julio y hasta el 11 de agosto de 2018. Así mismo adjuntamos para su conocimiento el oficio CG-2018-1403 / ARQ-2018-0536, del 23 de julio de 2018, en el que la Unidad Ejecutora notifica a la Directora del Fideicomiso, para su conocimiento la Orden de Suspensión del plazo de ejecución. "(...) Dado que la fecha efectiva e inicio de la etapa de construcción y equipamiento del centro educativo en referencia fue el 21 de mayo de 2018 y la fecha original de entrega el 21 de octubre (...) la presente Orden de Servicio 1 (...) establece el inicio de los 22 días naturales de suspensión el sábado 21 de julio de 2018 finalizado el día 11 de agosto de 2018 lo cual traslada la fecha de entrega de las obras al 12 de noviembre de 2018." (hecho no controvertido por las partes, y ver también CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 8/imág.1-8, CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 15/imág.1-8 y 9-52, CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 18/imág.1-2 y archivo en CD prueba/carpeta1/Expediente Ejecución Santa Rosa/Ampo B, folios 338 al 340) 11.- El Consorcio por medio de oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 del primero de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho, realizó una solicitud adicional de ampliación de suspensión de plazo por 15 días naturales para preparar una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas de la OM-1. Dicha gestión fue rechazada por la Unidad de Supervisión mediante el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho, por no ser económicamente viable, como además porque no se había aportado la propuesta con mejoras técnicas y económicas que se había comprometido a presentar y por la circunstancia de que a pesar de que en ese momento las obras se encontraban con orden de suspensión a solicitud del propio Consorcio, se estaban ejecutando obras que no fueron supervisadas y avaladas por el contratante, por lo que las obras se debían reiniciar a partir del 03 de noviembre de 2018, solicitándose indicar la fecha en que entregarían la propuesta de estabilización de los taludes con mejoras técnicas y económicas, concediéndose tres días hábiles a partir de esta notificación, para presenten un programa de trabajo actualizado para la ejecución de las obras.(ver CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 21/imág.1 y (...) carpeta4/Anexo 10/imág.1) 12.- El Consorcio por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho respondió a los puntos señalados en el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho y es por gestión del mismo Consorcio en oficio precedente GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 del doce de octubre de dos mil dieciocho (Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa) que se dio inicio a la OS-1. (ver CD prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 11 y 12/imág.1-14 en ambos) 13.- La situación de hecho de la inestabilidad del terreno para la obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa resultaba ser un hecho notorio en situ del proyecto, en donde el Consorcio a partir de la información referencial del anteproyecto y los estudios de suelo informativos, debía realizar mayores estudios desde el inicio e incluso desde la presentación de su oferta si así era de su interés, ya que a los oferentes se les invitaba a ir al sitio a revisar las condiciones topográficas físicas del terreno, y también se les habilitaba a realizar las consultas que deseaban, utilizar o no el anteproyecto general, esto para decidir si participaban o no o realizar las consultas necesarias. El contratista podía ir al sitio y comprobar las condiciones del terrero. El profesional es responsable de hacer los planos constructivos, posee la obligación de hacer todos los estudios necesarios y hacer un diseño estructural que soportada el talud. Eran previsible que debía hacerse un estudio adicional para cumplir con los requisitos desde el inicio, lo que generó por esa omisión del Contratista que pudo preveer desde antes de la presentación de su oferta, la necesidad de realizar posteriormente una orden de modificación que contemplaban obras mayores de estabilización de suelos, y por el monto incluso hubo que llevarla a aprobación del BID. (deposición del testigo en Audiencia Complementaria Guillermo Rojas Chaves: grabación min 1:53:14 a 2:02:30, 1:32:35 a 1:32:45) 14.- Finalizado el plazo correspondiente a la Orden de servicio OS-1, informada por el oficio del 26 de julio de 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018, por gestión del Consorcio solicitó una suspensión de plazo adicional por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 del veinticuatro de agosto de dos mil dieciocho, para la aprobación de la Orden de Servicio OS-2, debido a que durante el proceso constructivo de movimiento de tierras aparecieron “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura, misma que quedó debidamente aprobada el 13 de setiembre de 2018, suspendiéndose 35 días naturales adicionales para lo cual traslada la fecha de entrega de las obras al 15 de diciembre de 2018. (ver CD prueba/carpeta1/archivo Expediente Ejecución Santa Rosa/imág.206-210, carpeta física, folios 17 al 23 del expediente cobro de multas de LRSR (2) y CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 16/imág.1) 15.- El Consorcio, por oficio datado 6 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 solicitó una nueva suspensión de plazo a partir del 3 de noviembre del 2018 y hasta que se defina una solución al problema de la inestabilidad del talud, aceptándose la OS-3 por la contratante el 17 de octubre de 2018 por oficio remitido del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-078 del diecisiete de octubre de dos mil dieciocho, aumentando el plazo 15 días naturales para un plazo autorizado al 01 de enero de 2019. E igualmente a lo anterior, por oficio del 01 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, solicitó la OS-04, para la presentación de una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas a la entregada por la OM-1, siendo la OS-04 aceptada por la contratante el 14 de diciembre de 2018, aumentando el plazo 22 días naturales para un plazo autorizado al 23 de enero de 2019. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 11/imág.1-4, carpeta física, folio 29-33 del expediente cobro de multas de LRSR (2)) 16.- Sucesiva y posteriormente se requirieron las prórrogas a los efectos pedidos en oficio del 01 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, aceptándose las Órdenes de suspensión de Plazo de Ejecución OS-5, OS-6, OS-7, OS-8, OS-9, OS-10, OS-11, OS-12, en consideración de que no se había firmado la Addenda correspondiente con la OM-1, indicándose en la última OS-12 "que la suspensión del plazo de ejecución de las obras estará vigente hasta que la Administración le comunique al contratista la Orden de Reanudación de las Obras, una vez que la Addenda de la OM-1 haya sido firmada por las partes y el contratista haya entregado la respectiva Garantía de Cumplimiento y cancelado las especies fiscales correspondientes.", resultando que se habían autorizado aumentar más el plazo por 239 días naturales para un plazo último autorizado al 28 de agosto de 2019. (ver carpeta física, folios 35-65 del expediente cobro de multas de LRSR -2-) 17.- Mediante la Orden de Servicio N°13, aceptada por todas las partes hasta el 02 de setiembre de 2019 (Gerente de obra y Contratista el 28/08/19, Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora el 02/09/19) se firmó la Orden de Servicio Nº13 con la Orden de Modificación N°1 (OM-1), correspondiente a Reanudación de las obras en el proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa a partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, otorgándose una extensión de plazo de 200 días naturales (150 días de la OM-01 y 50 días de remanente del contrato original) en la ejecución del proyecto, aprobándose la misma por un monto de $1.015.346.08 con variación acumulada correspondiente a un aumento del 76.95% del monto original, para un costo total de $2.334.837.78, y transcurriendo 465 días naturales desde la fecha original de inicio de obras hasta la fecha de aceptación de la OS-13 -28/08/2019-. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 45/imág.1-4) 18.- Los planos relacionados con la instrucción de la OM-1 no fueron efectivamente aprobados por el CFIA en el plazo de 30 días naturales posterior a la reanudación de la ejecución del proyecto, de allí que el Consorcio por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 de 3 de octubre de 2019, solicitó suspensión temporal del plazo establecido en OM-01 hasta que se le aprobaran los planos constructivos ingresados en plataforma APC del CFIA, en razón de problemas de forma en la presentación previa de ellos ante esa institución, que ameritó su reingreso en más de una ocasión. Dicha gestión de suspensión le fue denegada por el Fideicomiso, por ser ello responsabilidad del Consorcio. (ver CD prueba/carpeta1/Expediente Ejecución Santa Rosa/Ampo D, folios 1637, 1638, 1639 al 1645, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 46/imág.1-2) 19.- Por oficio de cita Oreamuno, 10 de octubre de 2019, MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, la Municipalidad de Oreamuno de Cartago, indicó que el Consorcio incumplió el trámite del permiso de construcción que no había gestionado y finalizado de forma correcta, señalando que: "Como bien lo señalan los artículos 74 de la Ley de Construcciones y 6 y 7 del Código Municipal se deriva que los entes públicos no están obligados a solicitar permiso de construcción, debiendo comunicar a la Municipalidad con anticipación las obras que pretenden o requieran construir", toda vez, que previamente el Consorcio había ingresado la solicitud para ser revisado por Edificaciones Nacionales y que no se tramitó el permiso de construcción ante la Municipalidad, imposibilitando la ejecución oportuna y normal de las obras, ocasionando que la Municipalidad de Oreamuno clausurara la ejecución del proyecto. Posteriormente, ante aclaraciones del Fideicomiso y la Contratista ante ese gobierno local, éste remite correo electrónico indicando: "From: María de la Cruz Calderón Moya <[email protected]> Date: November 7, 2019 at 16:01:05 CST. To: Luis Granados Figueroa <[email protected]>Cc: Luis Gómez Artavia <[email protected]>, Catalina Coghi Ulloa <[email protected]> Subject: SOBRE PERMISO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN LICEO DE SANTA ROSA-MUNICIPALIDAD DE OREAMUNO. "Buenas tardes, Referente al trámite de permiso de construcción iniciado en la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, para la construcción del Liceo de Santa Rosa, ingresado el 20 de junio del 2018, sobre el plano catastro C-1213011-2008, cuyo propietario es el Banco Nacional de C.R, permiso Nº 24046, dicho permiso ya se encuentra APROBADO por este departamento. Es necesario que la empresa contratista se acerque a la municipalidad a firmar y retirar el certificado correspondiente a la licencia municipal de construcción. Asimismo, debido a lo expuesto el día de hoy en horas de la mañana por su persona, este departamento autoriza el inicio de las obras constructivas para el desarrollo del proyecto, eso sí, con el compromiso de que se retire por parte de la empresa el correspondiente certificado así como los planos." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 48/imág.1-3, (...) Anexo 51/imág.1-4, Anexo 49/imág.1-3, ver CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 al 1377).

20.- Por oficio Heredia, 30 de marzo del 2020, SUP-RD-0440-2020 del Gerente de Obra G03, Gerente de Supervisión -Consorcio CSI-CACISA- remitido al CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, se la hace saber: "El 28 de octubre la Contratista remite oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333, con solicitud de OS-14, por retrasos en el inicio de las obras, debido a los requisitos solicitados por la Municipalidad de Oreamuno en el oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019. 4- Mediante oficios SUP-RD-0151-2020 y SUP-RD-0375-2020 se solicitó a la Contratista documentar la gestión realizada por su representada, luego de que se recibió, de parte de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, el oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, del 10 de octubre de 2019. 5- El 11 de febrero 2020, la Contratista remite oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 en la cual hace una cronología de oficios, pero ninguno se refiere trámites realizados ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno en relación a lo indicado en el oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, por lo que no se cumple con lo solicitado. 6- El 25 de marzo 2020, la Contratista remite oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-484, donde vuelve a referir a la cronología del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 y aporta permiso de Construcción # 24 046 de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, con fecha 22 de noviembre 2019. 7- Al revisar el permiso otorgado por la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, se encuentra que el mismo se refiere a una obra 1332m2, la cual corresponde a la obra del contrato original y no tiene que ver con las obras de estabilización del talud norte del proyecto. De modo que la problemática de la Municipalidad, para el reinicio de los trabajos en el proyecto estaban relacionadas con trámites pendientes de la Contratista del Contrato Original y no por las nuevas obras. 8- Si bien la Contratista indicó en el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, que el trámite de Permiso de Construcción Municipal no se realizó debido a que este proyecto fue ingresado para ser revisado por Edificaciones Nacionales y no por Municipalidades, según la Ley de Construcciones, artículo número 75, nunca aportó ni el permiso emitido por Edificaciones Nacionales ni la notificación del mismo a la Municipalidad de Oreamuno tal y como se le solicitó en el oficio SUP-RD-0375-2020. 9- Tal y como se establece en la SECCIÓN VI. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO, K. Definiciones, conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar. "El diseño debe incluir planos constructivos, sellados y visados por el CFIA, la municipalidad correspondiente y en general por todas aquellas instituciones competentes, para este tipo de proyectos". 10- Con base en lo anterior, se establece que la negativa por parte de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno para el reinicio de las obras se debió a que no existía ningún trámite de permiso ante el Municipio del contrato original, ni tampoco se les había presentado el permiso emitido por Edificaciones Nacionales para su conocimiento, esto a pesar de que las obras se iniciaron desde el 21 de mayo 2018 y suspendida temporalmente a través de órdenes de servicio, en forma interrumpida mediante las OS-01, OS-02, OS-03 y OS-04 desde el 20 de julio de 2018 y en forma continua desde el 11 de diciembre de 2019 y hasta el 02 de setiembre de 2019, a través de las OS-05 y hasta la OS-12. A partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, a través del OS-13 se notifica la Reanudación de las obras. 11- El oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, del 10 de octubre de 2019 es el resultado de la comunicación realizada por la Contratista mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, con respecto al reinicio de las obras, sin embargo se debe a que la Contratista en apariencia, no completó el permiso de construcción de las obras del contrato original, ni ante Edificaciones Nacionales como lo indicó, ni ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno. 12- Por lo indicado anteriormente, no existe justificación para el trámite de la OS-14 por compensación de plazo por las razones dadas por la Contratista, ya que las razones no tienen relación con las obras que forman parte de la OM-01, sino con obras del Contrato original, para lo cual la Contratista tuvo tiempo suficiente para completar los permisos de construcción, sea ante Edificaciones Nacionales o Municipalidad de Oreamuno, sin que se completara ninguno de los trámites." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 51/imág.1-4, ver CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo D, folios 1375 al 1377, 1703).

21.- Por oficio Heredia, 10 de mayo del 2019 SUP-RD-973-2019 remitido al CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, se le informa que: "Durante la visita n°10 realizada el día martes 20 de marzo del 2019, el Regente Ambiental Ing. Andrés Zúñiga Garita realizó las siguientes observaciones en el proyecto, solicitando que las mismas sean atendidas lo antes posible: 1- Se observa crecimiento importante de vegetación principalmente en los alrededores del área de obras temporales (oficinas, bodegas y talleres). Se sugiere limpiar (chapear) lo antes posible. 2- Aún se observa una protección parcial de los taludes expuestos, con plástico. El viento está removiendo parte de estos, lo que genera potencial erosión. 3- Por vandalismo, se derribó el portón principal de entrada al proyecto, por ende, ya no hay paso restringido a éste de personas ajenas al Proyecto, exponiendo las obras y materiales remanentes. Se sugiere restituir este portón lo antes posible. 4- Es imperativo que, pese a que las obras se mantienen suspendidas, el desarrollador del proyecto a través de la contratista, ejecute obras de mantenimiento principalmente de áreas verdes y protección de taludes. Realizada la visita n°11 por parte de la Regencia Ambiental, el día lunes 22 de abril del 2019, la regencia realizó nuevamente las mismas observaciones; mismas que se repiten desde la visita anterior: 1- Actualmente dentro del AP, no reside nadie ni siquiera el oficial de seguridad. 2- Se observa crecimiento importante de vegetación principalmente en los alrededores del área de obras temporales (oficinas, bodegas y talleres). Se sugiere limpiar (chapear) lo antes posible. 3- Aún se observa una protección parcial de los taludes expuestos, con plástico (aproximadamente el 60% de la superficie del talud). El viento está removiendo parte de estos, lo que genera potencial erosión. Aún no se observan desprendimientos, sin embargo, es inminente la entrada del invierno y ésta situación podría empeorar. 4- Persiste caído el portón principal de ingreso al AP, por ende, ya no hay paso restringido de personas ajenas al Proyecto, exponiendo las obras y materiales remanentes. Se sugiere restituir este portón lo antes posible. 5- Es imperativo que, pese a que las obras se mantienen suspendidas, el desarrollador del proyecto a través de la contratista, ejecute obras de mantenimiento principalmente de áreas verdes y protección de taludes." Por su parte el Consorcio indica por medio de oficio San José, 20 de mayo de 2019 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204 al Gerente de Obra/Consorcio CALVI + FSA, que: "1.A través de oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-173 se indicó a su representada el retiro de materiales y equipo. De manera que para el consorcio no es necesario tener un oficial de seguridad en el AP. 2. Ya se procedió a cortar la vegetación. (Ver fotografías adjuntas) 3. Ya se procedió a restablecer la protección de los taludes. (Ver fotografías adjuntas) 4. El portón ya fue reparado. (Ver fotografías adjuntas) (...) En función de que el período de suspensión supera los 180 días y con el objetivo de restablecer el principio de balance económico del contrato, siendo que los trabajos y costos durante el período de suspensión representan un perjuicio para mi representada, siendo que la inversión de los recursos sin una utilidad asociada genera un lucro cesante y una inversión sin utilidad proyectada, acudimos a la subcláusula 25.5.3 “ En caso de que el período de suspensión conforme a la Subcláusula 25.5.1 precedente supere en la práctica los ciento ochenta (180) días, el Contratante y el Contratista convendrán en una indemnización adicional pagadera al Contratista. Entendemos que esta cláusula llama a una negociación entre el contratante y el contratista para lo cual, por este medio solicitamos una reunión con la Supervisión para definir el monto de dicha indemnización. La cual nosotros sugerimos iniciar en un 25% de los costos del cobro administrativo que se presentará en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222."(ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 53 y 54/imágs.1-2 y 1-6) 22.- El oficio del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222 referido a reclamo de administrativo planteado para el pago de costos indirectos fue presentado extemporáneamente al Fideicomiso, resultando denegado por oficio resolución FID-3566-2019 del Contratante por no haber cumplido formal y oportunamente en atención a lo pactado en el procedimiento estipulado en la Cláusula 44 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación de referencia, de la cual el Consorcio había aceptado, considerándose: "Nos referimos a las Sub-cláusulas 44.1 y 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales del Contrato, Sección VII. Condiciones Generales (CG), que a tal efecto estipulan: “...44.1 Si el Contratista considera que tiene derecho a cualquier prórroga del plazo de terminación o cualquier pago adicional en virtud de cualquier Cláusula de estas Condiciones o por otra consideración vinculada con el Contrato, el Contratista enviará una notificación al Gerente de Proyecto en la que describirá el hecho o circunstancia en que se origina la reclamación. La notificación se hará tan pronto como sea posible, a más tardar veintiocho (28) días después de que el Contratista se dé cuenta, o haya debido darse cuenta, de tal hecho o circunstancia. 44.2 Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación. De lo contrario, se aplicarán las siguientes disposiciones de esta Subcláusula.” Esta administración considera que dichas estipulaciones resultan aplicables al reclamo de la Contratista, incluso relativo a mayores costos o gastos derivados de las suspensiones contractuales, sobre todo por disposición de la Sub-cláusula 44.9 de las mismas Condiciones Generales, que señala: “...44.9 Los requisitos de esta Subcláusula son adicionales a los que se establece en cualquier otra Subcláusula que pueda aplicarse a una reclamación. Si, con respecto a cualquier reclamación, el Contratista incumple las disposiciones de esta u otra Subcláusula, se tomará en cuenta en toda prórroga del plazo o pago adicional la medida (de haberla) en que el incumplimiento haya impedido o perjudicado la investigación adecuada de la reclamación, salvo que la reclamación se haya excluido de acuerdo al segundo párrafo de esta Subcláusula.” Bajo tal entendimiento, y vista la documentación que consta en el expediente, se tiene la primera conclusión según la cual el Contratista incumplió su deber de notificar, dentro del plazo estipulado en el Contrato, sus reclamaciones al Gerente de Proyecto. Considerando que el primer periodo de suspensión contractual, dio inicio el 21/07/2018, el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días para notificar la reclamación, sobre todo a sabiendas que tal prerrogativa (Orden de Suspensión) le causaría mayores costos. Así mismo el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 21/07/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, y dado que el evento que origina el reclamo tiene efecto continuo, según afirma para el 1° periodo de suspensión que finalizó el 11/08/2018, contaba con 28 días luego de finalizado tal periodo para enviar su reclamación definitiva, obligaciones que evidentemente incumplió. Igual acontece con el segundo periodo de suspensión contractual, veamos. Según lo afirmado por el propio contratista, este periodo dio inicio el 14/09/2018 y finalizó el 02/11/2018, por lo cual el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días a partir de su inicio, para notificar la reclamación. Luego, el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 14/09/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, y dado que el evento que origina el reclamo tiene efecto continuo, según afirma, para el 2° periodo de suspensión finalizó el 02/11/2018, contaba con 28 días luego de finalizado tal periodo para enviar su reclamación definitiva, obligaciones que nuevamente incumplió. Y situación similar acontece con el tercer periodo de suspensión contractual, que corre del 11/12/2018 al 07/06/2019, por lo cual el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días a partir de su inicio, para notificar la reclamación. Luego, el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 11/12/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, la cual se consideraría temporal, estando obligado según aquella disposición, a remitir reclamaciones mensuales temporales adicionales, lo cual evidentemente no cumplió, limitándose a remitir una reclamación definitiva, con posterioridad a la terminación del tercer periodo de ejecución contractual. Bajo lo expuesto queda claro para esta Administración que el Contratista NO CUMPLIÓ con los deberes impuestos por las Sub-cláusulas citadas en esta respuesta, siendo en consecuencia aplicables los efectos previstos en la Sub-cláusula 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales, según la cual “...Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, y el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir los pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación.” (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 75/imágs.1-9) ACERCA DEL PROYECTO DE ESCUELA LA HERMOSA.

23.- El proyecto inició su proceso constructivo en tiempo y forma el día 6 de agosto de 2018 acorde con la orden de inicio del proyecto, según lo notificado por el Consorcio a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-051. (hecho no controvertido, igual ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 76/imágs.1-3) 24.- El Consorcio interrumpió con la continuación de las obras el día 24 de junio de 2020, y notificado al FIDEICOMISO mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 del 24 de junio de 2020, solicitándose al Fideicomiso el pago de los hitos relacionados con ese centro educativo por haberse rescindido el contrato, señalando Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Ventanería y puertas por un monto de $63.104,08 ? Pintura por un monto de $31.552,05 ? Sistemas eléctricos -cableado y acometida- por un monto de $63.104,08 ? Sistema eléctricos -dispositivos y accesorios- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Sistemas mecánicos -exteriores- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Obras complementarias y exteriores por un monto de $119.565,63, como además la devolución de las garantías de cumplimiento, justificándose en principio de mantenimiento del equilibrio económico de los contratos asociados a las Licitaciones Públicas número LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04, lo cual es un incumplimiento sustancial a esos contratos. El Consorcio por medio de oficio de 8 de abril de 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-508 informó del avance con reporte mensual marzo 2020: 8.1. Estructura Metálica 100%, 8.2. Cubierta 100%, 8.3. Hojalatería y precintas 100%, 9 Pisos y enchapes 100%, 10.1 Acabados - repellos 100%, 10.2 Acabados -Cielos - y Paredes liviana 100%, 10.3 Ventaneria y puertas 85%, 11 Pintura 95%, 12 Sistemas eléctricos (canaliz) 91%, 13 Sistemas mecánicos (Módulos) 96%, 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 92%. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 y 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5) 25.- De acuerdo al Fideicomiso el "Informe Técnico Sobre Estado de Avance Fisico-Financiero y Proyección de Costo de la Obra Faltante Proyecto N° 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" y realizado el 12 de mayo de 2020 por la Unidad de Supervisión el avance real de la obra al momento de abandono de la obra por parte del Consorcio actor, era de un 73.40%. Dicho avance se calculó sobre los faltantes de obras que el actor dejó en proceso, complementos y los reprocesos que acontecieron por el período en el que el proyecto no tuvo ningún avance, que abarcó desde el 06 de junio de 2019 hasta el 06 de diciembre de 2019 (CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192).

ACERCA DEL PROYECTO ESCUELA AZUL.

26.- El proyecto Escuela Azul inició su proceso constructivo el 17 de diciembre de 2018, alrededor de cuatro meses después del inicio de los restantes proyectos adjudicados al Consorcio, para un plazo original de 183 días naturales, siendo que la fecha de entrega original estaba programada para el 17 de junio de 2019, sin embargo, por prórrogas, ampliaciones y compensaciones de plazo otorgadas, se trasladó la fecha para el 28 de mayo de 2020. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 27.- En el curso de las obras de este proyecto, hubo hallazgos arqueológicos sobre un petroglifo existente, por lo que el Consorcio informó al Fideicomiso a través de oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289,GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290,GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 sobre éste, por lo que la Administración agendó una cita con el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica 10 días después de esa primera comunicación. Dicho petroglifo fue ubicado en una área parcial y mínima del proyecto, principalmente en la zona destinada a aparcamiento, sin afectación para el resto de ejecución del área del proyecto. El Museo Nacional, de conformidad con los resultados de su visita in situ el 17 de setiembre de 2019, dispuso realizar un cerramiento únicamente en la ubicación física de la piedra, provocando con ello que en un sector mínimo del proyecto Escuela Azul, no se pudieran realizar trabajos durante doce días naturales, dándose una suspensión parcial, por lo que no impedía o imposibilitaba al Consorcio con la ejecución de la obra en el área restante. (CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 81-122 informe mensual de inspección 17 enero de 2020, Informe Evaluación Arqueológica folios 672, 551-552, 798-501, deposición de Guillermo Rojas Chaves, Grabación min 1:34:30 al 1:35:14, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 64-65-66, /imágs.1-5, 1 y 1-2 respectivamente, oficio SUP-RD-2098-2019 en CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo D, folios 1781, oficio SUP-RD-2149-2019 en CD prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo D. folio 1790, oficio SUPRD-2208-2019 en CD prueba/carpeta1 folio 1852, oficio CG-2019-1186.1-ARQ-2019-0402.1 del dieciséis de junio del dos mil diecinueve, por ocasión de la tramitación de la OM-02 en folio 08 de expediente de cobro de multas de EA y Exp. EA Ampo D. folios 1851 y 2179, oficio CG-2019-2069-ARQ-2019-558 folio 12 de expediente de cobro de multas EA) 28.- Por el lindero norte del inmueble a desarrollar el proyecto, hubo problemas con aguas vertidas por los vecinos, por lo que al contratista se le requirió realizar obras para desviar las aguas, y por la distancia entre éste y el área del proyecto, no se interfería en la ejecución de las obras principales, optando el Contratante por indicarle al Consorcio que construyera la tapia a 1,5 metros de distancia, tramitándose la Orden de Modificación OM-04, sin embargo, no fue firmada por el Consorcio, dejándose sin efectos dichos cambios (Deposición testigo Grabación/ Guillermo Rojas Chaves grabación min 1:38:00 al 1:39:30, expediente de cobro de multas de EA folio 115 y 118) 29.- El Consorcio informa para el proyecto Azul, un avance superior al 60% al momento de la suspensión de las labores según último informe de avance de obra mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-466 con fecha del 17 de marzo de 2020, y al respecto el Contratante indicada menor avance de acuerdo al "Informe Especial- Obras Inconclusas Proyecto N° 024-1942 Escuela Azul", realizado en el mes de marzo de 2021 por la Unidad Supervisora, en donde se verifica que las obras en el momento de la suspensión de las labores tenían un avance nominal de un 56%. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95, /imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Eacuela Azul folios 1-36) ACERCA DE LAS GARANTÍAS DE CUMPLIMIENTO.

30.- El Consorcio rindió varias garantías de cumplimiento (bancarias) hasta por un diez (10) por ciento del monto de los tres Proyectos adjudicados: Proyecto número código 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 Escuela Azul, 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa:

N° Garantía Banco Emisor Monto de garantía 21655 Promerica RUCO $88.849,28 21666 Promerica IDECO $288.849,26 24515 Promerica IDECO $251.534,61 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN IDECO $50.000,00 4245422 BAC GCI $36.916,41, mismas que corresponden por proyecto con el siguiente desgloce: Liceo Santa Rosa: $233.483,77, Escuela Hermosa: $316.602,40, Escuela Azul $166.063,37, Total: USD $716.149.56. (hecho no controvertido por las partes y ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 1, imágenes 29-38 legajo de medida cautelar) SOBRE LA DECLARATORIA DE RESCISIÓN PRIMERAMENTE PEDIDA POR EL CONSORCIO Y LUEGO DECLARADA POR EL FIDEICOMISO.

31.- El Consorcio por oficio 22 de mayo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539, informa al Fideicomiso "Rescisión por incumplimiento sustancial del contrato por parte del Fideicomiso por haber incumplido con resguardar el principio de mantenimiento del equilibrio económico de los contratos asociados a las Licitaciones Públicas LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04, lo cual constituye un incumplimiento sustancial y su decisión unilateral y arbitraria de no acudir a la instauración del Comité de Resolución de Controversias, esto con respecto a los montos adeudados por ejecución de obras en los contratos constructivos de las Licitaciones LPI01, LPI02 y LP04, al no restablecerse el equilibrio económico contractual de todos nuestros contratos. Solicitamos proceder con el pago de la suma total de $5.404.235,98 (cinco millones cuatrocientos cuatro mil doscientos treinta y cinco dólares con noventa y ocho centavos), lo cual representa un veintiséis (coma) setenta y cinco (26,75) por ciento de la suma total de los montos de los contratos suscritos con su representada, con el fin de continuar ejecutando nuestras obligaciones. Caso contrario, se rescindirá automáticamente los contratos de las Licitaciones LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04."(ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 77/imágs.1) 32.- El Consorcio por oficio 24 de junio de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 comunica al Fideicomiso, aplicación de su parte y unilateral del numeral 42.3 Rescisión por el Contratista. 42.3.1 Si: (...) indicando que: "Por tanto, siendo que han pasado más de los veintiocho (28) días posteriores a la notificación realizada al Fideicomiso el día 22 de mayo del 2020, sin que el Fideicomiso subsanara el incumplimiento alegado, el Consorcio no puede continuar con las obligaciones de este Contrato, debido a razones que son atribuibles directamente al Contratante, por lo que este Contrato se da por rescindido unilateralmente y las obras pasan a ser responsabilidad exclusiva del Fideicomiso. Asimismo, siendo que el Contrato está rescindido solicito el pago de los siguientes hitos o extremos por un monto total de $2.225.335,11: 1. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: ? OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES por un monto de $31.667,80, ? Mejora de taludes -muros de tierra armada- por un monto de $274.142,53, 2. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Ventaneria y puertas por un monto de $63.104,08, ? Pintura por un monto de $31.552,05, ? Sistemas eléctricos -cableado y acometida- por un monto de $63.104,08, ? Sistema eléctricos -dispositivos y accesorios- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Sistemas mecánicos -exteriores- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Obras complementarias y exteriores por un monto de $119.565,63, 3. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 024-1942 Escuela Azul: ? Concretos estructurales de rampa: por un monto de $189.961 ? Sistemas eléctricos -canalización-: por un monto de $47.490,50, ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos-: por un monto de $31.660,00, ? Contrapisos -100% de avance colado-: por un monto de $31.660,00, 4. Además, debe procederse de forma inmediata con la devolución de las garantías de cumplimiento (Cumplimiento 21655 Promerica $88.849,28, Cumplimiento 21666 Promerica $288.849,26, Cumplimiento 24515 Promerica $251.534,61, Cumplimiento 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN $50.000,00, Cumplimiento 4245422 BAC $36.916,41, Anticipo 23828 Promerica $246.949,87, Anticipo 23835 Promerica $168.235,19, Anticipo 23829 Promerica $74.728,52, Anticipo 25107 Promerica $45.690,57. Total $1.251.753,71 (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4) 33.- El Fideicomiso por oficio del 11 de junio de 2020 FID-2213-2020, remite al BID Solicitud de No Objeción para resolver el contrato N° 88-2017, con el Consorcio IDECO-RUCOGCI, en lo que concierne al Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa. "Lo anterior, debido al atraso de 503 días registrado al 10 de junio de 2020, en la entrega del Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa, adjudicado al Consorcio. Este Centro, debió de ser entregado el 23 de enero del 2019 y así se le indicó al contratista según nota adjunta “19.01.24_SUP.RD.124_VENCIMIENTO DEL PLAZO DE EJECUCIÓN - ESCUELA LA HERMOSA”. La solicitud de no objeción para resolver el contrato se realiza al cumplirse lo indicado en la subcláusula 26.2 del cartel de licitación." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción La Hermosa/imágs.1-2) 34.- El Fideicomiso por oficio del 29 de junio de 2020 FID-2495-2020 remite al BID Solicitud de no objeción para resolver el contrato N° 88-2017, con el consorcio RUCO-IDECO-GCI, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul. Lo anterior debido a: "que aplicaron la rescisión unilateral a partir del 8 de junio de 2020, en las obras aún en construcción que le fueron adjudicadas en los procesos LPI-02-2016, LPI-04-2016 y LPI-01-2017. La rescisión unilateral realizada por el consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, incluyó el retiro de los vigilantes de las obras en construcción. Consideramos que esa actuación del contratista carece de la formalidad procedimental y aplicación correcta de las condiciones contractuales. El abandono de las obras provocó la actuación inmediata del Fideicomiso para procurar vigilancia y tomar posesión de los centros en construcción. Dado lo anterior, consideramos que al contratista le aplica la cláusula 42.2.2 del cartel de licitación LPI-04-2016, como causal para rescindir el contrato indicado en la referencia en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "el Liceo de Santa Rosa debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, por lo que le aplican las multas señaladas en la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación", "En el caso específico del Liceo de Santa Rosa, además, aplica el incumplimiento grave señalado en la subcláusula 26.2, dado que el presupuesto que contiene el inciso h) se alcanza a los 40 días de atraso en la entrega del centro, por lo que siendo que al día de hoy contabiliza 72 días de atraso registrado, con ello se supera el máximo establecido para dar lugar a la rescisión del contrato." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción Santa Rosa y Azul/imágs.1-2) 35.- El BID mediante oficio CID/CCR/736/2020 del ocho de julio de dos mil veinte autorizó la solicitud de rescisión. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción Santa Rosa y Azul/imágs.1-2 y ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Pruebas Adicionales/No objeción La Hermosa/imágs.1-2) 36.- El Fideicomiso mediante oficio FID-2692-2020 de fecha 13 de julio de 2020, respondiendo a los oficios del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548; GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-591; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-917, rechaza la rescisión gestionada por éste y a su vez le comunica Rescisión del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, al imputarle que "por fundarse en cláusulas que no prevén tal posibilidad, sino además por no haberse seguido el procedimiento que el cartel, como parte integrante del contrato", "el Consorcio al haber hecho abandono de las obras, con lo cual claramente “desistió” del contrato y constituye una causal adicional para que el Contratante rescinda el contrato, al amparo de lo que disponen los numeral 42.2.2 y 40.2.2, incisos a), c) y d).(...)", "el Liceo de Santa Rosa debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, por lo que le aplican las multas señaladas en la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación, que forma parte de las condiciones contractuales (...) En el caso específico del Liceo de Santa Rosa, además, aplica el incumplimiento grave señalado en la subcláusula 26.2, dado que el presupuesto que contiene el inciso h) se alcanza a los 40 días de atraso en la entrega del centro, por lo que siendo que al día de hoy contabiliza 72 días de atraso registrado, con ello se supera el máximo establecido para dar lugar a la rescisión del contrato" (...) "a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020, se habían retirado de los proyectos, aduciendo rescisión contractual. Consideramos que la rescisión unilateral realizada por el consorcio IDECORUCO-GCI, que incluyó el retiro de los vigilantes de las obras en construcción, carece de la formalidad procedimental y aplicación correcta de las condiciones contractuales. El abandono de las obras provocó la actuación inmediata del Fideicomiso para el debido resguardo de las inversiones; con la asignación de la vigilancia correspondiente y tomar posesión de los centros en construcción. Dado lo anterior, consideramos que al contratista le aplican los literales (c) y (d) de la subcláusula 42.2.2 del cartel de licitación LPI-01-2016, como causal adicional para rescindir el contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "y dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto y en su lugar declarar por su parte la rescisión", por lo que "SE DISPONE: La Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 79/imágs.1-8) 37.- El Fideicomiso mediante oficio FID-2493-2020 29 de junio de 2020 respondiendo a los oficios del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; rechaza la rescisión gestionada por éste y a su vez le comunica Rescisión del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela Hermosa, al imputarle que "por fundarse en cláusulas que no prevén tal posibilidad, sino además por no haberse seguido el procedimiento que el cartel, como parte integrante del contrato", "El Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, debió ser entregado el 23 de enero de 2019. Al 8 de junio 2020, fecha en la que el Consorcio se retiró del proyecto, se registró un atraso de 502 días, respecto de la fecha en la que debió haberse entregado el proyecto. En reunión sostenida con el consorcio el día 10 de junio de 2020, usted nos informó que a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020 se habían retirado de los proyectos, incluyendo los servicios de vigilancia. Por lo anterior y con el propósito de resguardar las inversiones realizadas, el fideicomiso se vio obligado a tomar las acciones necesarias para asignar vigilancia a la brevedad posible en el centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" (...) "Por ende, al haberse ya excedido sobradamente el tiempo de atraso necesario para alcanzar el 10% máximo de cobro permitido por este concepto, se constituye en una razón adicional para proceder con la rescisión del contrato por el incumplimiento grave del contratista, puesto que activa lo estipulado en la subcláusula 42.2.2, en los literales (c) y (d)"., y "dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto, y en su lugar declarar por su parte la rescisión", por lo que "SE DISPONE: la Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017 en lo que concierne a al Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 80/imágs.1-8) 38.- La rescisión unilateral declarada por el Fideicomiso del contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a los proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, empezó a regir a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, fecha en que el Consorcio fue notificado a través de oficio FID-2692-2020. La rescisión unilateral del contrato de proyecto 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa contrato N° 88-2017 rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión el día 26 de junio de 2020 a través de FID-2493-2020. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 39.- Para la fecha de retiro del Contratista de los proyectos contenidos en el contrato N° 88-2017 en lo que concierne al Liceo Rural Santa Rosa 23-5969, Escuela Azul 24-1942 y Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870, y del rige de las rescisiones ordenadas por el Fideicomiso en resoluciones oficio FID-2692-2020 de fecha 13 de julio de 2020 y FID-2493-2020 29 de junio de 2020, el Contratista dejó obras inconclusas no pagables por no superar con el entregable para calificar como hitos de pago según convenio Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017, que se hacen efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento, resultando que el Consorcio las liquida de la siguiente manera: ESCUELA LA AZUL: $395.752,05, ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: $338.769,30, LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA: $274.142,53, TOTAL PENDIENTE DE PAGO: $1.008.663,88, desglosado:

• 1)ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 15 VENTANERIA Y PUERTAS $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 16 PINTURA $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 18 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CABLEADO Y ACOMETIDA) $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 19 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (DISPOSITIVOS Y ACCESORIOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 21 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (EXTERIORES) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $132.850,70 75,00% $99.638,03 TOTALES: $338.769,30 2) LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO ITEM HITO MONTO AVANCE MONTO 25 Mejora de Taludes - MUROS DE TIERRA ARMADA $304.602,81 90,00% $274.142,53 TOTALES: $274.142,53 3) ESCUELA LA AZUL AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 6 CONCRETOS ESTRUCTURALES DE RAMPAS $189.961,00 95,00% $180.462,95 8 CONTRAPISOS (100% DE AVANCE -COLADO) $63.320,00 95,00% $60.154,00 17 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CANALIZACIÓN) $94.981,00 50,00% $47.490,50 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $63.320,00 50,00% $31.660,00 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $253.282,00 30,00% $75.984,60 TOTALES: $395.752,05 (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 y 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5, CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4) 40.- Según Fideicomiso, con los Informes Especiales de Obras Inconclusas realizados por la Unidad Supervisora del Fideicomiso, la obra ejecutada efectivamente por el Consorcio pero que no alcanzaban el criterio del 100% de su cumplimiento y entregable para ser pagados de conformidad con la Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017, es:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa:

Hito Avance Precio total Precio de avance 16.2 Muros de tierra armada 80% $304.603,82 $243.683,06 TOTAL: $243.683,06 B. Escuela La Hermosa:

10.3 Acabados ventanerías y puertas 80% $66.425,35 $53.140,28 11 Pintura 65% $33.212,68 $21.588,24 12.2 Sistemas Eléctricos (Cableados y acometidas) 75% $66.425,35 $49.819,01 12.3 Sistemas Eléctricos (Dispositivos y Accesorios) 83% $33.212,68 $27.566,52 13 Sistemas Mecánicos (Módulos) 50% $33.212,68 $16.606,34 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos (Exteriores) 62% $33.212,68 $20.591,86 14.2 Equipamientos y Mobiliario 10% $99.638,03 $9.963,80 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 71% $132.850,68 $94.323,98 TOTAL: $293.600,03 C) Escuela Azul 6 Concretos estructurales de rampa 89% $189.961,00 $169.065,29 7.2 Contrapisos (100% de avance-colado) 25% $63.320,00 $15.830,00 12.1 Sistemas Eléctricos (Canalización) 6% $94.981,00 $5.698,86 13 Sistemas Mecánicos (Módulos) 20% $63.320,00 $12.664,00 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos (Exteriores) 35% $63.320,00 $22.162,00 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 40% $253.282,00 $101.312,80 TOTAL: $326.732,95 Sumatoria de avances de los proyectos: $864.016,04 *Respecto al proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, se corroboró en una valoración realizada posterior a la rescisión, que el Hito 10.2 Acabados cielos y paredes livianas, a pesar de que tenía validación de pago por estar supuestamente al 100%, tenía un faltante del 60%. 10.2 Acabados de cielos y paredes livianas 40%. Precio Total: $49.819,01, Precio efectivo real: $19.927,60 RESTA: $864.016,04 - $29.891,41 = $834.124,63 - Anticipos ($535.604.15) = SALDO $298.520,48. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 a 4 y 5 a 31, ver CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2) RECLAMOS ADMINISTRATIVOS PRESENTADOS POR EL CONSORCIO Y DENEGADOS POR EL FIDEICOMISO.

41.- El Consorcio presentó diversos reclamos administrativos para el reconocimiento y pago de gastos directos e indirectos relacionados a los proyectos contenidos en el Contrato 88-2017, siendo que por oficio 1 de julio de 2019 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222/ASUNTO: Reclamo Administrativo por Suspensión del Plazo de Ejecución Proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: "suspensión de 251 días naturales con 12 Órdenes de Servicio (OS) con cierre al 07 de junio 2019...ha significado realizar erogaciones que no fueron previamente ofertadas por cuanto, era imposible para mi Representada o para cualquier otro oferente, conocer las condiciones del terreno, las cuales no eran identificables a simple vista sino hasta que se interviniese dicha área con un movimiento de tierras ... tales gastos, son para mi Representada daños patrimoniales causados por situaciones no imputables a nosotros, por tal motivo, es que planteamos ante la Unidad Ejecutora que usted Representa un reclamo administrativo por los daños causados con fundamento en la responsabilidad objetiva con que cuenta el Estado y los principios de responsabilidad civil contractual, integración del contrato, equilibrio de intereses, intangibilidad patrimonial, legalidad, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, todos ellos de raigambre constitucional, vertidos en los siguientes artículos de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica –COPOL-... rogamos proceder conforme a derecho corresponde con el reconocimiento del presente reclamo administrativo como indemnización por $162.449,89 (ciento sesenta y dos mil dólares con ochenta y nueve centavos), consecuencia directa de la suspensión del plazo de ejecución por 251 días naturales del 21 de julio 2018 al 07 de junio 2019 (excluyendo los dos períodos en los que se reinició) en el Proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, Contrato N° 88-2017." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 52,56/imágs.1-20, 1-9) 42.- El Fideicomiso por oficio 2 de octubre de 2019/FID-3566-2019, responde rechazando reclamo administrativo gestionado por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, indicando "en los contratos que se suscribieron se incluyeron los derechos y obligaciones que asumieron tanto el Contratante como el Contratista, así como los efectos legales derivados respecto a sus actuaciones y/u omisiones, condiciones contractuales que no se pueden desaplicar para el caso en concreto, entre otras, aquellas estipulaciones que fueron expresamente previstas y/o consentidas, respecto a la presentación de reclamaciones. Nos referimos a las Sub-cláusulas 44.1 y 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales del Contrato, Sección VII. Condiciones Generales (CG),... Bajo tal entendimiento, y vista la documentación que consta en el expediente, se tiene la primera conclusión según la cual el Contratista incumplió su deber de notificar, dentro del plazo estipulado en el Contrato, sus reclamaciones al Gerente de Proyecto... Bajo lo expuesto queda claro para esta Administración que el Contratista NO CUMPLIÓ con los deberes impuestos por las Sub-cláusulas citadas en esta respuesta, siendo en consecuencia aplicables los efectos previstos en la Sub-cláusula 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales, según la cual “...Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, y el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir los pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación.” Conforme lo expuesto, se considera que el reclamo debe ser rechazado, por no haber cumplido con los requisitos de presentación en tiempo." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 56/imágs.1-9) 43.- El Consorcio presentó diversos reclamos administrativos para el reconocimiento y pago de gastos directos e indirectos relacionados a los proyectos contenidos en el Contrato 88-2017, siendo que por oficio 24 de marzo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483 se indica: "Este es el principal hecho que motiva esta reclamación, ya que se reclama la existencia de un daño patrimonial causado por una responsabilidad administrativa omisa, anormal e ilícita, la cual según lo establece el artículo 196 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, corresponde a “... daño alegado habrá de ser efectivo, evaluable e individualizable en relación con una persona o grupo... A continuación, se explica brevemente, en una tabla resumen todos los montos de esta reclamación. Tabla N° 1 Descripción de las reclamaciones por número de LPI y Proyecto. 1 ESCUELA LA AZUL ¢171.008.746,80 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (1) ¢100.577.484,63 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (2) ¢120.322.757,00 COLONES, 1 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA ¢194.517.549,37 COLONES, TOTAL: ¢586.426.537,80 COLONES. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 57/imágs.1-11) 44.- El Fideicomiso por oficio 27 de abril de 2020/FID-1604-2020 responde rechazando reclamo administrativo gestionado por oficio 24 de marzo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, indicando "Damos respuesta a las notas GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-563, y GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2016-874, todas de fecha 24 de marzo de 2020, en las cuales plantea diversos Reclamos Administrativos relativos a varios Proyectos relacionados con los procesos de licitación LPI-01-2017, LPI-02-2016 y LPI-04-2016... En los propios contratos suscritos con las distintas Contratistas para el proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento de las Obras, se advertía a éstos que el Contratante – Fideicomiso BANCO NACIONAL – MEP, podría delegar en profesionales en ingeniería ciertas funciones relativas a la gerencia de la Obra, así como contar con una empresa consultora y asesores independientes, quienes realizarían el proceso de supervisión técnica de los trabajos, tal como se consigna con absoluta nitidez, en las Sub-cláusulas 1 y 23.2 de las Condiciones Especiales... la suscripción de un contrato con una Firma Consultora para la Supervisión de Obras en Centros Educativos y Canchas Multiuso para el Fideicomiso N°1099 MEP-BNCR, asegura al Fideicomiso BNCR-MEP el contar con servicios profesionales y técnicos que apoyan la fiscalización de la contratación, mediante la vinculación de empresas y profesionales que le apoyen en la “supervisión” de las contrataciones para el diseño y construcción de las Obras requeridas... En el caso del Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, el contrato estableció la obligación de contar, entre otros, con la figura del Gerente de Obra, quien bajo los términos de dicha contratación, asume un papel de coordinación con el Contratante, o con quien este designó a efecto de sus labores, tal como se advierte de las Sub-cláusulas 8.1 y 8.2, cláusula 8. RECURSOS QUE SUMINISTRARÁ EL CONSULTOR, de los Términos de Referencia. Conforme a dichas estipulaciones, en ningún momento se indica que las recomendaciones, con sus respectivas justificaciones, deban ser realizadas únicamente por medio del Gerente de Obra del Consorcio Supervisor, por lo que bien podrían ser hechas también por otra figura que forma parte de la estructura de la Supervisión, o incluso podría hacerlas el mismo Contratante - Fideicomiso Banco Nacional – MEP – o quien este designe, para que ejerza su potestad de aplicar los términos contractuales para que los Contratistas corrijan cualquier desajuste respecto del cumplimiento exacto de las obligaciones pactadas, o aquellas instrucciones, criterios o actuaciones giradas a los contratistas con ocasión de las actividades contratadas al Consorcio Supervisor. Así tenemos que ni el Contrato lo dispone, ni tampoco lo ha expuesto el Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, ni tampoco lo han entendido el Banco Nacional, ni el Consorcio CALVI+FSA, ni los Contratistas que han ejecutado y se encuentran ejecutando Obras... el contratista se encuentra obligado a presentar una relación fundamentada de cada “omisión, incumplimiento o violación del contrato” que acusa; del impacto de cada una de tales omisiones, incumplimientos o violaciones al contrato en el Programa de Trabajo, la afectación a las actividades en ruta crítica, el desplazamiento que ocasionaron sobre tales actividades, la relación de eso con los “mayores costos” respecto de aquellos estimados en la Oferta, su cuantificación, origen y naturaleza y su contraste con el equilibrio económico financiero de la oferta, y finalmente la fundamentación del quantum pretendido... el Contratista también ha incumplido con su deber de indicar y probar los supuestos daños y perjuicios que se reclaman, su estimación, su origen y naturaleza, específicamente lo estipulado en las Sub-cláusulas 44.4, y 44.5, así como lo dispuesto en el artículo 193 de la LFAP, pues una reclamación como la pretendida, que versa sobre unos supuestos mayores costos incurridos, necesariamente exige aportar toda la información complementaria relativa al fundamento del reclamo, debiendo acreditar mediante la prueba pertinente, conducente e idónea, tanto el quantum como la erogación correspondiente reclamada, todo lo cual se echa de menos en los reclamos presentados, pues tales mayores costos de ninguna forma se pueden “suponer o asumir”, a partir de una sumatoria de simples fotocopias sin ninguna fundamentación, relación, ni acreditación de su vinculación con las contrataciones y obras, la prueba que las mismas se originen en el evento alegado y no en la negligencia del contratista o en los riesgos asumidos al celebrar la contratación...". (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 58/imágs.1-15) 45.- El Consorcio presentó un reclamo administrativo por oficio 22 de mayo de 2020GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538, con ocasión de documentar daños y perjuicios a partir del rechazo de solicitud de indemnización y con base en el inciso b) de la subcláusula 44.5 de las Condiciones Generales, solicitó el reconocimiento financiero por un periodo adicional, así como los costos indirectos. El Fideicomiso por oficio 04 de junio de 2020 FID-2100-2020, dispuso el rechazo de plano la gestión al no cumplir con los requerimientos mínimos que exige el régimen jurídico para su admisión y valoración. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 59/imágs.1-44) 46.- El Consorcio presentó reclamo administrativo por oficio 27 de mayo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 en ocasión de documentar daños y perjuicios a partir del rechazo de solicitud de indemnización y con base en el inciso b) de la subcláusula 44.5 de las Condiciones Generales, solicitó el reconocimiento financiero por un periodo adicional, así como los costos indirectos. El Fideicomiso dispuso el rechazo de plano la gestión al no cumplir con los requerimientos mínimos que exige el régimen jurídico para su admisión y valoración. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 60/imágs.1-4, ) DE LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS SUMARIOS PARA EJECUCIÓN DE LA CLÁUSULA PENAL.

47.- Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. El Fideicomiso inició con Acto de Apertura de Procedimiento Sumario para la Aplicación de la Cláusula Penal de fecha 09 de julio de 2020-FID 2665-2020 al Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, trasladándole e informándole 25 hechos imputados, e imputándole Demora en la Terminación de Obras del Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, implicándole una penalidad de $131.949.18 por cláusula penal contenida en el Pliego de Condiciones del Cartel Sección VIII Condiciones Especiales, Cláusula 26 y 26.2 Garantía Plazo de Terminación, y otorgándole tres días hábiles para el descargo correspondiente facilitándole el expediente administrativo respectivo. (ver folios 76 a 84 expediente físico Cláusula Penal) 48.- El Consorcio contestó la audiencia conferida por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 del 15 de julio de 2020, justificando la improcedencia del procedimiento y de aplicación de la cláusula penal basado en: I. Ausencia de unos de los presupuestos básicos para la imposición de la cláusula penal: Existe un incumplimiento del Contratante en el Contrato, II.- Defensa de contrato no cumplido con sustento en el artículo 692 del Código Civil, aplicable supletoriamente conforme al artículo 9.2 de la LGAP, III.- Acerca de la aprobación de los Planos Constructivos del Proyecto, IV.- Hallazgos de situación no previsible de la condición de los suelos presentes que generó una orden de modificación que tardó 10 meses en proceso de solicitud, revisión y aprobación por parte del Fideicomiso, V.- Incumplimiento del Contratante: Fideicomiso rechazó indemnización por más de 180 días de suspensión en el plazo por causa ajena del Contratista, VI.- Acerca de la base considerar para cálculo del monto de la cláusula penal. (ver folios 85 a 98 expediente físico Cláusula Penal) 49.- El Fideicomiso por Acto Final del 11 de agosto de 2020 FID-3076-2020, resolución N°26-2020 dispuso rechazar en todos sus extremos la pretensión expuesta por el Consorcio en sus alegatos de descargo y conclusiones presentados por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 del 15 de julio de 2020. (ver folios 158 a 195 expediente físico Cláusula Penal) 50.- El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 del 18 de agosto de 2020 justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver folios 196 a 209 expediente físico Cláusula Penal) 51.- El Fideicomiso por oficio del 08 de setiembre de 2020 FID-3468-2020 resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 del 18 de agosto de 2020, confirmando el Acto Final del 11 de agosto de 2020 FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $131.949.18 bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver folios finales sin numerar del expediente físico Cláusula Penal) 52.- Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa. El Fideicomiso, dictó previo trámite de audiencia y objeción conferido a la Contratista, procedimiento de aplicación de Cláusula Penal, dictando el Acto Final FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, imponiéndosele el monto USD $166,063.38.(ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 98 /imágs.1-31) 53.- El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 del tres de agosto de dos mil veinte justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 84 /imágs.1-12) 54.- El Fideicomiso por oficio del 25 de agosto de 2020 FID-3278-2020 RESOLUCIÓN N°29-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las trece horas con diez minutos del veinticinco de agosto del dos mil veinte resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 del tres de agosto de dos mil veinte, confirmando el Acto Final FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte, y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $166.063.38 bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88 /imágs.1-12) 55.- Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul. El Fideicomiso, dictó previo trámite de audiencia y objeción conferido a la Contratista, procedimiento de aplicación de Cláusula Penal, dictando el Acto Final del 28 de agosto de 2020 FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas con cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de dos mil veinte, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Código 24-1942, imponiéndosele el monto USD $95,457.70. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88 /imágs.1-33) 56.- El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 del tres de setiembre de dos mil veinte, justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 83/imágs.1-8) 57.- El Fideicomiso por oficio del 10 de setiembre de 2020 FID-3522-2020 RESOLUCIÓN N°36-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las doce horas con treinta minutos del diez de setiembre del dos mil veinte, resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 del tres de setiembre de dos mil veinte, confirmando el Acto Final número del 28 de agosto de 2020 FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas con cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de dos mil veinte, y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $95,457.70, bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver imágenes 865 a 874 de expediente judicial) DE LAS GARANTÍAS DE ANTICIPO.

58.- El 11 de noviembre del 2020, el Consorcio realizó solicitud para la devolución de garantías de anticipo asociadas a los proyectos de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017. El total de garantías de anticipo es por una suma de USD $535.604,15, desglosados: 1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: $168.235,19, 2. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Adenda): $45.690,57, 3. Escuela La Hermosa: $74.728,52, 4. Escuela Azul: $246.949,87. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 59.- Mediante oficio FID-4631-2020 Resolución N° 38-2020 de las trece horas con veinte minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil veinte, el Fideicomiso rechazó la solicitud de realizar la devolución de garantías de anticipo asociadas a los proyectos de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017. (hecho no controvertido por las partes) 60.- Mediante oficio del 26 de noviembre del 2020, el Consorcio interpone recurso de revocatoria en contra de la resolución de las trece horas con veinte minutos del veinticuatro de noviembre del dos mil veinte, en relación a la solicitud de realizar la devolución de garantías anticipadas de los proyectos de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 Lotes de (15) Centros Educativos y (10) canchas multiuso, indicándose: "1. El total de garantías de anticipo que pretende ejecutar el FIDEICOMISO es por una suma de $535.604,15 USD. No obstante, el FIDEICOMISO desconoce que el CONSORCIO ejecutó una serie de obras constructivas que no han sido pagadas. 2. En ese sentido, según prueba documental adjunta, existe una serie de montos pendientes de cancelar por avance de obra a favor del CONSORCIO, los cuales ascienden a la suma de $1.008.663,88 USD, dineros que deben rebajarse de los supuestos saldos de las garantías anticipadas (...) Actualmente, existe un saldo por $473.059,73 USD a favor del CONSORCIO, el cual se demuestra con informes de avance de obras de los proyectos, adjuntos." (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 a 4 y 5 a 31) 61.- Por oficio 23 de octubre del 2020/CG-2020-1139/AD-2020-0221/Referencia: Fideicomiso 1099 MEP- BNCR/Respuesta FID-4141-2020 se le indica a Dirección de Fideicomisos y Estructuraciones Banco Nacional de Costa Rica que: "según los registros contables en poder de la UEP, los saldos de anticipos por centro educativo de esta licitación son los siguientes: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: USD $168.235,19, Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Adenda): USD $45.690,57, Escuela La Hermosa: USD $74.728,52, Escuela Azul: USD $246.949,87." para un total de USD $535.604,15. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2) V.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS. Del acervo probatorio examinado y admitido en autos, se tienen por no acreditados los siguientes hechos de determinación pertinente para el dictado de sta resolución. Así, no hay probanza útil y pertinente que así lo acredite.

1.- Que el Fideicomiso provocara los retrasos en la aprobación final y definitiva de los planos constructivos en las obras adjudicadas contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, no solo ante el CFIA sino también para la obtención de los permisos municipales.

2.- Que el Fideicomiso provocara los retrasos en la aprobación final y definitiva de los planos constructivos y/o permisos municipales por la Orden de Modificación aprobada, con posterioridad a la adjudicación, no solo ante el CFIA sino también en la obtención de los permisos municipales correspondientes en relación a las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017.

3.- Que los plazos de suspensión mayores a los 338 días naturales en las obras en el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa fuera responsabilidad exclusiva del Fideicomiso y en perjuicio económico del Consorcio.

4.- Que la causa de suspensión de las obras en el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa por la existencia de terrenos no sólidos con posterioridad a la adjudicación del Contrato 88-2017, obedeciera a una situación de imprevisibilidad o de imposible apreciación de previo a la presentación de la oferta del Consorcio en relación a la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, y que no fuera razonablemente previsible a partir de las referencias informativas de los documentos del anteproyecto pertinente a esa obra y consecuentemente de la visita en situ por parte del Consorcio, ahondar diligente y previamente en estudios geológicos y de suelo adicionales correspondientes a la inclinación topográfica y contenido material que mostraba el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto.

5.- Que las causas sobrevenidas de mayor gravedad encontradas con posterioridad a la adjudicación del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y, los nuevos estudios de suelo y correspondientes para determinar el tratamiento a la inclinación topográfica que mostraba la composición material heterogénea que contenía el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto, fueran motivo de retrasos imputables al Fideicomiso.

6.- Que los retardos en la instrumentación efectiva de las Órdenes de Suspensión, Órdenes de Servicio y Orden de Modificación OM-1 para el tratamiento de taludes por la inclinación topográfica que mostraba el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa fueran responsabilidad imputable al Fideicomiso.

7.- Que durante ese lapso de tiempo suspendido de las obras superiores a los 338 días, el Consorcio soportara por responsabilidad del Fideicomiso, la existencia real de la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, alquiler de equipo y herramienta, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, no solo para la atención del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa, sino además, Escuela Hermosa y Escuela Azul.

8.- Que los hallazgos arqueológicos sobre un petroglifo existente en un área mínima de ejecución de las obras en el proyecto Escuela Azul, principalmente en la zona destinada a aparcamiento, y durante el tiempo en que el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica lo determinara así, y la suspensión de obra para ese reducto específico dispuesta por el Fideicomiso, detuvieran o impidieran justificadamente la ejecución para el resto del área del proyecto.

7.- Que la situación de vertido de aguas residuales provocada por los vecinos, por el lindero norte del área del terreno para la ejecución del Proyecto Escuela Azul y la distancia de este desfogue y el área de construcción, provocara distorsiones sensibles que impidieran realizar ejecución de las obras principales del mismo.

9.- Que el Fideicomiso incurriera en responsabilidad por perjuicio económico en contra del Consorcio, por indefiniciones relativas a la resolución de órdenes de servicio por ampliación y, que por esa causa provocara y agravara los atrasos en el desarrollo de las obras del Contrato 88-2017.

10.- Existencia, consistencia y nivel de impacto con ocasión a comunicaciones como instrucciones contractuales con respecto a la emisión de notificaciones, instrucciones, órdenes, certificados y aprobaciones, que impactaran y provocaran falta de ejecución, retardo de la misma o ejecución irregular o perjuicio económico en los proyectos del Contrato 88-2017, que fueran emanadas por el Fideicomiso o terceras personas durante la vigencia del contrato y hasta antes de la Rescisión dictada por éste.

11.- Que el Fideicomiso validara formalmente Órdenes de Servicio, Órdenes de Suspensión u Órdenes de Modificación provenientes de terceras personas ajenas a la Unidad de Supervisión -Gerente de Supervisión, Gerente de Obra (antes Director de Proyecto) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia, o el Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora y autorizados por el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 para el dictado de ellas, y con ello habilitara y justificara al Consorcio a modificar, alterar, reestructurar los diseños finales aprobados y autorizados o, solicitara diseños adicionales o sustitutos fuera de las Órdenes de Servicio u Órdenes de Modificación previamente aceptadas y autorizadas, durante el proceso constructivo, que afectaran o que difieran sustancialmente con el diseño aprobado en planos constructivos, alterando el plazo y costo susceptibles de liquidación y pago pertinente a favor del Consorcio.

12.- Que el Consorcio para realizar los cobros de los Hitos, fue obligado a invertir tiempo y dinero en trabajos que no estaban descritos en los Diseños Finales aprobados para mantener el flujo de dinero necesario para llevar los proyectos a cabo, existiendo un enriquecimiento indebido por el Fideicomiso al exigirse la ejecución de obras adicionales que no estaban en los Diseños Finales Aprobados, situación que causó una serie de daños materiales (al patrimonio) del Consorcio.

13.- Que los pagos al Consorcio de los hitos durante todo el proceso de ejecución de las obras, fueran condicionados a la ejecución de los trabajos adicionales que no se encontraban indicados en el Diseño Finales Aprobado.

14.- Que el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 o que el Fideicomiso estableciera o impusiera al Consorcio la ejecución conjunta y simultánea de los proyectos del Contrato 88-2017 Liceo Santa Rosa, Escuela Hermosa y Escuela Azul con órdenes de inicio en fecha igual o que la ejecución constructiva de los proyectos estaba sujeta y determinada a los resultados de cumplimiento de cada una de las obras, así como a los efectos económicos por la suspensión de labores ordenadas y dadas en estos proyectos como a la negativa de recepción de otros proyectos adjudicados en otras licitaciones por parte del Fideicomiso, que justificara y validara al Consorcio la suspensión de los trabajos en las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017.

15.- Que la falta de entrega en plazo de los trabajos en las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 por situaciones financieras del Consorcio haya sido con ocasión a conductas del Fideicomiso que le imputaran responsabilidad por ello.

16.- Existencia, consistencia y precisión de situaciones generadas por el Fideicomiso, que afectaran la eficiencia en la entrega de los trabajos en las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 provocando daño a la intangibilidad patrimonial del Consorcio y su desequilibrio financiero.

17.- Gerencia constructiva y financiera solvente y debida por parte del Consorcio en la ejecución de las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017, para la gestión efectiva de cada centro educativo en cuanto a todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, para la atención regular en la adecuación, planeamiento, ejecución, construcción y equipamiento con las particularidades singulares de cada proyecto para el plazo de entrega de ellos.

VI. PREÁMBULO. 1.- DEL RÉGIMEN DE CONTRATACIÓN ADMINISTRATIVA Y LA RESPONSABILIDAD

En virtud de las pretensiones y el objeto del presente proceso, es oportuno hacer alusión a las siguientes consideraciones para la aproximación del entorno del conflicto litigado: El proceso de contratación administrativa es esencial en el quehacer de las administraciones públicas; no puede darse una eficaz y eficiente prestación de servicios públicos, o un fiel cumplimiento de los objetivos del Estado, si no se acude a la realización de contrataciones públicas. Los procedimientos, entonces, se requieren para cumplir oportunamente con la satisfacción de intereses públicos o institucionales. Es así como El Estado, mediante todas sus instituciones, utiliza una serie de instrumentos o medios para poder realizar las tareas que le han sido encomendadas por el colectivo, tendientes a alcanzar fines de naturaleza pública, y por ende, muchas veces más allá de las actuaciones propias de la Administración, operadas desde el aparato administrativo, se hace necesario acudir a otros medios que le permitan alcanzar eficientemente los fines públicos que le han sido encomendados. En este sentido la contratación con terceros, bajo las reglas del régimen jurídico administrativo, permite a la administración una mejor realización de las obras públicas o la prestación de servicios públicos. Cuando la Administración recurre a un tercero particular para la realización de obra pública, o el otorgamiento de un servicio público, se hace con la intención de pactar el cumplimiento de un objeto con un contratista, como sujeto colaborador del logro del interés público buscado. En razón de lo anterior la contratación se basa sobre los principios que persigue ese objeto, o sea el fin público que busca la Administración y no versa únicamente sobre acuerdo de voluntades, por lo que el desarrollo del mismo y contenido debe estar orientado bajo esta lógica. Sobre el mismo señala la doctrina "... tenemos presente en la contratación administrativa el acto de voluntad, libre y soberano del contratista, como elemento vital de la figura del contrato en su amplia configuración jurídica y práctica. La carga obligacional de éste, y su escudo de protección, queda filtrado por el conjunto normativo, con incorporación del cartel o pliego de condiciones, que es la reglamentación entre las partes contratantes. A lo dicho debemos insistir en una verdad de perogrullo: hay libertad del oferente para participar en alguna modalidad de contratación administrativa y aspirar, sin dolo ni mala fe, a la singularización del acto adjudicatorio a su favor dentro del contexto normativo. Pero también existe otra verdad no menos patente: el contrato administrativo está condicionado en su origen, evolución y finalización a las exigencias o necesidades generales o públicas, lo cual es un elemento extrínseco a la libre determinación de las partes, como lo es el propio Ordenamiento jurídico y las condiciones cartelarias subordinadas a ambos..." (Manrique Jiménez Meza. Derecho Público. Editorial Jurídica Continental. 2001.)

Siguiendo el principio de que la contratación administrativa debe regirse por el derecho administrativo, es que la misma ley orienta y define las condiciones en que debe desarrollarse la conducta tanto de la Administración como del contratista frente al cumplimiento del objeto del contrato. Es así como, bajo el imperio de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa N° 7494, vigente al momento de la concertación de Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 y sus efectos (esta norma fue derogada por el artículo 135 inciso a) de la Ley General de Contratación Pública, N° 9986 del 27 de mayo de 2021), el otrora artículo 15 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa definía las obligaciones tanto de los entes contratantes como de las empresas contratistas, y el mismo expresaba en lo que interesa "La Administración está obligada a cumplir con todos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en forma idónea el objeto pactado". Y el artículo 20 establece la obligación de los contratistas dicho cuerpo normativa enuncia: "Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, cabalmente, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato". Dichas obligaciones encuentran su definición en el cartel del concurso, en tanto que en él se establecen las bases de éste, según las necesidades de la respectiva Administración Pública. Sobre el mismo define la doctrina" El pliego de bases es el documento público más importante al momento de establecerse los derechos y deberes de las partes negociantes. En las fases del pre-contrato como en la vida del convenio, el pliego de condiciones desempeña un papel capital. Se puede hablar de un reenvío que se hace, en materia de contratos administrativos, respecto del pliego de bases; ya que el cartel juega como norma interpretativa de tales convenios." (Romero Pérez Jorge Enrique. El Cartel de Licitación. Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas N. 55 Enero- abril. 1986.) A partir del mismo es que el oferente elabora su oferta, la cual tiene la característica de ser integral en todos sus componentes, sea, tanto en el contenido del escrito principal, como de los diseños, planos, muestras, catálogos que la acompañan. En materia de contratación administrativa, la determinación del cumplimiento efectivo de la obligación, se debe hacer haciendo referencia tanto al cartel como a la oferta considerada de manera integral, y siempre orientado al cumplimiento del principio de buena fe entre las partes suscribientes y en atención y acento al interés público que orientó la decisión de la Administración de realizar la respectiva contratación. En el caso específico de infraestructura educativa el Reglamento de la Contratación Administrativa establece que se adoptarán las disposiciones generales en las que se establezcan las medidas de control interno necesarias para garantizar las más eficaz y eficiente administración de los fondos públicos involucrados en estas contrataciones. No escapa a estas apreciaciones generales, la impronta, como seña o característica peculiar y distintiva, que reside en la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, instrumentada en su oportunidad por medio y a través de su "Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional / Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento 1099 de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional", suscrito el 10 de abril del año 2013, refrendado por la Contraloría General de la República en fecha 14 de julio del mismo año, y que establecieron las reglas específicas del mismo, como también se definieron los derechos y obligaciones de las partes contratantes.

Del cumplimiento contractual: La responsabilidad contractual que reclama el contratista tiene como fundamento el incumplimiento de una obligación contractual pactada en el citado Fideicomiso que a diferencia de la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, la cual nace del deber genérico de no dañar a otros, en el caso de la responsabilidad contractual, ésta parte de un vínculo obligacional previo. Así que, ante la responsabilidad contractual, u obligacional como la refiere alguna doctrina reciente, el damnificado no tiene la carga de probar que el incumplimiento se ha producido como consecuencia de una conducta culposa, principalmente en cuanto a las obligaciones de resultado. La mera constatación del incumplimiento, los daños producidos como consecuencia directa de éste, y la relación de causalidad entre ambos, hace surgir el deber de reparación. Si el deudor desea desvirtuar el nexo de causalidad por mediar hecho de la víctima, de un tercero, caso fortuito o fuerza mayor, necesariamente deberá probarlo. Únicamente tratándose de las obligaciones de medios, al no poder exigirse un determinado resultado concreto, no es viable invocarlo ante el juez como parámetro objetivo de incumplimiento, por lo cual es menester demostrar la culpa en la conducta exigida, probando que el deudor no hizo todo lo posible por alcanzar el resultado. Ergo, más que un resultado, se exige un deber de comportamiento. Respecto a la responsabilidad contractual se ha indicado: "El artículo 702 Código Civil exige la presencia de una "voluntad deliberadamente rebelde a la ejecución de lo pactado", esto es, establece el principio de que el mero hecho de que no se verifique la obligación estipulada, da lugar a la responsabilidad del deudor, salvo que el hecho del acreedor, la fuerza mayor o el caso fortuito, concurran como exonerantes de la responsabilidad. En consecuencia, para efectos de reconocimiento de los daños, en el caso de la responsabilidad civil contractual, se requiere necesaria y únicamente la prueba de dos elementos fundamentales, a saber, la existencia del daño y el nexo de causalidad entre éste y el incumplimiento contractual y de esa manera ha sido abordado en el voto 000904-F-2006 de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, que indicó al respecto lo siguiente: "debió probar la parte actora que la actuación de la entidad demandada la hizo incurrir en un esfuerzo o costos adicionales directos o indirectos, que alteraron la ecuación financiera del contrato. En otras palabras, era imperativo demostrarse que el atraso del Banco para promover los concursos en algunos proyectos, y en la fase de diseño en otros, causó daños y perjuicios a su contraparte, lo que aquí no se hizo. A falta de una normativa específica en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, corresponde una aplicación supletoria de los artículos 702 y 704 del Código Civil, que establecen por su orden: “El deudor que falte al cumplimiento de su obligación sea en la sustancia, sea en el modo, será responsable por el mismo hecho de los daños y perjuicios que ocasione a su acreedor, a no ser que la falta provenga de hecho de éste, fuerza mayor o caso fortuito ”, y “En la indemnización de daños y perjuicios sólo se comprenderán los que, como consecuencia inmediata y directa de la falta de cumplimiento de la obligación, se hayan causado o deban necesariamente causarse”. Entonces, como no se probó la existencia de daños y perjuicios, no puede tenerse al Banco de Costa Rica, como obligado al pago de honorarios adicionales, por lo que no resultan violados por falta de aplicación los numerales 15, 16, 17 y 18 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, los artículos de su Reglamento que desarrollan estos preceptos, ni los ordinales 36, apartado A, inciso a) del Reglamento para la Contratación de Consultoría en Ingeniería y Arquitectura o el número 5 inciso A) del Arancel de Servicios Profesionales de Consultoría para Edificaciones". En este sentido y a manera de colofón, en materia de responsabilidad contractual debe comprobar la efectiva existencia de éste y su conexión inmediata y directa con el incumplimiento contractual.

De los efectos del incumplimiento contractual: “La Sala de Casación ha considerado reiteradamente que no es cualquier incumplimiento el que autoriza la resolución del contrato, ya que ésta sólo puede tener lugar en presencia de un incumplimiento grave (entre otras, resolución No. 53 de las 15,15 horas del 31 de mayo de 1972). No es procedente la resolución, aunque fuere demostrado el incumplimiento, si éste no reviste tal importancia que amerite realmente la sanción más grave que existe en el ordenamiento civil frente a una relación contractual nacida válida y eficaz, cuál es su aniquilamiento definitivo con efectos retroactivos y sus lógicas consecuencias restitutorias y de resarcimiento. Hay ocasiones en que por no ser suficientemente grave el incumplimiento operado por una de las partes en un contrato, lo procedente es solicitar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones contraídas y exigir el pago de daños y perjuicios, conforme lo autoriza la ley civil (…) De manera que, para que sea procedente la declaratoria de resolución de un contrato, no basta con probar en juicio el incumplimiento por parte de uno de los contratantes, sino que se debe demostrar además su gravedad, que debe ser tal que determine la extinción definitiva del contrato, según se ha dicho”. En razón de estas consideraciones, el incumplimiento generador de la resolución contractual será aquel que reviste suficiente gravedad, para así poder dar por terminado un contrato de manera unilateral y suspender de manera automática el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones contractuales. De hecho, de conformidad con el artículo 11 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, la única que tendría potestades de resolución contractual de manera unilateral, sería la Administración, en tanto señala lo siguiente: "Derecho de rescisión y resolución unilateral. Unilateralmente, la Administración podrá rescindir o resolver, según corresponda, sus relaciones contractuales, por motivo de incumplimiento, por causa de fuerza mayor, caso fortuito o cuando así convenga al interés público, todo con apego al debido proceso. Cuando se ponga término al contrato, por causas que no se le imputen al contratista, la Administración deberá liquidarle la parte que haya sido efectivamente ejecutada y resarcirle los daños y perjuicios ocasionados. En los supuestos de caso fortuito o fuerza mayor, se liquidará en forma exclusiva la parte efectivamente ejecutada y los gastos en que haya incurrido razonablemente el contratista en previsión de la ejecución total del contrato. La Administración podrá reconocer, en sede administrativa, los extremos indicados en los incisos anteriores. Para hacer efectiva la resolución deberá contar con la aprobación de la Contraloría General de la República".

Dicho de otra manera, con ocasión de ese incumplimiento, para Alberto Brenes Córdoba (Tratado de los Contratos. Editorial Juricentro, Cuarta Edición, revisada y actualizada por Gerardo Trejos y Marina Ramírez. San José, Costa Rica. 1992. pp. 107 y 108), el fundamento de esta obligación tiene sustento en las reglas de la responsabilidad contractual, que tiene como condiciones la falta contractual; que explica de la siguiente manera: “La falta contractual, supone una conducta antijurídica imputable al deudor. Esta conducta antijurídica consiste precisamente en la ausencia de ejecución voluntaria de las obligaciones contractuales. El incumplimiento contractual debe ser grave, esto es, debe consistir en una voluntad deliberadamente rebelde a la ejecución de lo pactado”; y la relación de causalidad de esa falta con el daño reclamado, esto es, que el daño causado se origine en ese incumplimiento”.

De los criterios de imputación en materia de responsabilidad contractual: Sobre el tema de la responsabilidad contractual, el Tribunal Contencioso, por medio de la Sección Sétima, criterio en voto Nº 12-2009 de las 15:20 horas del 23 de enero de 2009, del cual esta Sección II comparte en un todo, señala: "(...) La obligación de la parte demandante de demostrar el nexo de causalidad y los daños cuya indemnización se pretenda, ha sido recientemente desarrollada con amplitud por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. El artículo 15 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, como marco general regulador de las obligaciones tanto de los entes contratantes como de las empresas contratistas, señala como obligación de toda Administración contratante, que: "La Administración está obligada a cumplir con todos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en forma idónea el objeto pactado". Igualmente, en correlación con tal obligación, el artículo 20 de la misma ley, también establece la siguiente: "Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, cabalmente, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato". Las citas anteriores reflejan un deber de cumplimiento de lo pactado para cada parte, tanto como resalta el de colaboración mutua; ambos surgen del principio de buena fe en la contratación, no obstante, en la Contratación Administrativa, además de ellas se contempla para las partes otras diversas obligaciones, es así como en el caso de los contratantes con la administración, el artículo 23 del decreto ejecutivo Nº 25038-H, Reglamento General de Contratación Administrativa, dispone: "23.1 El contratista está obligado a verificar la legalidad y corrección del procedimiento de contratación administrativa seguido para la adjudicación a su favor del contrato, así como en la ejecución de éste (...)". Así, debe la parte pretendiente, no solo considerar los criterios normativos para la imputación de responsabilidad contractual en materia de contratación administrativa, que se derivan de la aplicación de los Principios de Legalidad, Buena Fe y Reciprocidad de las prestaciones sino además acreditarlos.

Sobre la sujeción a la legalidad en los procedimientos de contratación administrativa. La actividad de la contratación administrativa, como cualquier manifestación de las potestades públicas, se encuentra sujeta al bloque de legalidad en sentido amplio, debiendo sujetar su funcionamiento al contenido y alcance de las normas jurídicas que regulan determinado procedimiento. Esta sujeción se concreta en el denominado principio de legalidad (sea en su versión positiva, como la clásica versión negativa), cuyo sustento normativo se afinca en los preceptos 11 de la Carta Magna, 11, 12, 13, 59 y 66 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. De ahí que la actividad contractual pública solo pueda entenderse válida cuando sea sustancialmente conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico (numeral 128 ibidem), ergo, en tanto se desapegue de esos criterios normativos que delimitan y precisan el proceder dentro del procedimiento, en tesis de principio, se producen nulidades que pueden llevar a suprimir la contratación, según se colige del ordinal 3 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa (...)". En el mismo sentido, el artículo 10 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, establece: "Artículo 10.- Sumisión a la normativa administrativa. En cualquier procedimiento de contratación administrativa, el oferente queda plenamente sometido al ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, en especial a los postulados de esta Ley, su Reglamento Ejecutivo, el reglamento institucional correspondiente, el cartel del respectivo procedimiento y, en general, a cualquier otra regulación administrativa relacionada con el procedimiento de contratación de que se trate". Se destaca que el cartel de la licitación tiene un valor preponderante en materia de contratación que obliga a ambas partes contratantes, según lo ha indicado la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el voto Nº 448-F-S1-2009 de las 11:12 horas del 30 de abril de 2009: "(...) En lo que a la materia de contratación administrativa se refiere, el precepto 51 del Reglamento a la Ley, dispone: “El cartel, constituye el reglamento específico de la contratación que se promueve y se entienden incorporadas a su clausulado todas las normas jurídicas y principios constitucionales aplicable (sic) al respectivo procedimiento…”. Y, en el canon 4 ibídem, al enumerar la jerarquía de las normas, en los incisos h) e i), respectivamente, señala al cartel o pliego de condiciones y al contrato administrativo (...)".

En lo que se refiere al Principio de Buena Fe, este ha sido rescatado por la Sala Constitucional en el voto Nº 998-98 de las 11:30 horas del 16 de febrero de 1998, al considerarlo como un postulado fundamental de la contratación administrativa que tiene arraigo en el artículo 39 de la Constitución Política y que parte de la “presunción de cumplimiento de la oferta”, señalando que “en cuanto en los trámites de las licitaciones y en general, en todo lo concerniente a la contratación administrativa, se considera como un principio moral básico que la administración y oferentes actúen de buena fe, en donde las actuaciones de ambas partes estén caracterizadas por normas éticas claras, donde prevalezca el interés público sobre cualquier otro”. Se destaca que el Principio elemental de Buena Fe, obliga a las partes contratantes a someterse a las reglas del cartel a la hora de presentar su oferta en el concurso, como derivación de las obligaciones establecidas en el artículo 21 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, cuando señala como una “responsabilidad del contratista verificar la corrección del procedimiento de contratación administrativa (...)".

Por último, el tema de la reciprocidad de las prestaciones y de la equivalencia económica del contrato ha sido desarrollado por la Sala Constitucional en el voto 6432-98, debiendo entenderse como la equivalencia de las prestaciones que debe cumplir cada parte involucrada en el contrato. En esta línea de ideas, el mencionado voto indica: "(...) del concepto mismo de contrato se deriva la idea de equilibrio de los intereses contrapuestos, por lo que es natural pensar que el vínculo que une a las partes se nutre del principio de justicia conmutativa en cuanto se recibe alguna prestación que debe compensarse con cierta igualdad, o lo que es lo mismo, debe existir reciprocidad de intereses; por ello, y como regla general, el contrato administrativo responde al tipo de los contratos que son onerosos (concepto de financiamiento por medio del gasto público), pero a la vez conmutativos (contraprestaciones equivalentes)". Así las cosas, la infracción de los principios de legalidad, buena fe o reciprocidad conllevaría la existencia de responsabilidad contractual. Teniendo claridad de los indicados aspectos, se continúa con el análisis de los argumentos esbozados en el presente proceso.

2.- CONTINUACIÓN. Del Contrato Administrativo. Efectos jurídicos del incumplimiento. Resulta en autos, el acuse de disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico del acto de rescisión ordenado por el Fideicomiso. A este respecto, la Sala Constitucional ha establecido en los votos 6432-98 de las 10:30 horas del 4 de setiembre de 1998, y número 998-98 de las 11:30 del 16 de febrero de 1998, que del propio contrato administrativo, surgen características de interés, que pueden dar sustento al efecto de la rescisión. Así, indica qie el contrato se caracteriza por ser conmutativo, oneroso y bilateral, teniendo por objeto la prestación de un servicio o la realización de una obra pública y que se diferencia de los contratos privados, por ejercer en este la Administración prerrogativas, poderes o cláusulas exorbitantes fundadas en el fin y el interés público que debe proteger y realizar, tales como la dirección, modificación, resolución, y ejecución, principio denominado de la mutabilidad del contrato. Su fundamento se encuentra a nivel constitucional en el ordinal 182, en el cual se estatuye el procedimiento de la licitación para la celebración de convenios con la Administración Pública, los cuales se definen como "el acuerdo de voluntades, generador de obligaciones y por ello sinalagmático, celebrado entre un órgano del estado, en ejercicio de las funciones administrativas que le competen, con otro órgano administrativo o con un particular o administrado, para satisfacer finalidades públicas." (Voto de la Sala Constitucional 1205-96). Así las cosas, por su carácter conmutativo, en el contrato administrativo hay derechos y obligaciones recíprocas, "que se sintetizan en los siguientes: a) el contratista tiene derecho a la realización del objeto que fue contratado y al reconocimiento de los precios pactados; a la vez que a él se le debe no sólo un trato justo y adecuado, sino también el respeto del plazo de ejecución convenido en el contrato; y b) la Administración contratante puede, dentro del marco de la contratación, fiscalizar, impartir instrucciones, realizar ciertas modificaciones, ejecutar administrativamente las garantías o bien, resolver o rescindir el contrato." (Voto de la Sala Constitucional 1205-96). Al respecto, dispone la Ley de Contratación Administrativa 7494 del dos de mayo de 1995 (vigente al momento de la firma del Contrato 88-2017), en sus capítulos tercero y cuarto que la Administración tiene los derechos de rescisión y resolución unilateral por motivos de incumplimiento, fuerza mayor, caso fortuito o cuando convenga al interés público, con apego al debido proceso (artículo 11). En ese sentido de optarse por la rescisión contractual, deberá de adecuarse la Administración al procedimiento y trámite que estipulan los artículos 206 al 208 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, número 33411 del 27 de setiembre del 2006, que rigió a partir del cuatro de enero del año 2007. Respecto a la resolución contractual, establece el numeral 204 que "La Administración, podrá resolver unilateralmente los contratos por motivo de incumplimiento imputable al contratista. Una vez firme la resolución contractual se procederá a ejecutar la garantía de cumplimiento y cualesquiera otras multas, si ello resulta pertinente, sin ningún procedimiento adicional. En el evento de que la Administración haya previsto en el cartel cláusulas de retención, se podrán aplicar esos montos al pago de los daños y perjuicios reconocidos. De ser las garantías y retenciones insuficientes, se adoptarán las medidas en sede administrativa y judicial necesarias para obtener la plena indemnización.". Sobre este particular se debe indicar, que esa misma Ley de Contratación Administrativa, en sus artículos 11 y 14, ratifica la potestad de la Administración contratante de poder resolver unilateralmente el contrato administrativo por motivo de incumplimiento o causas imputables a la contratista, pero con apego al debido proceso, con decisión motivada y previa audiencia al interesado. En ese sentido como expusiera la Sala Constitucional en el voto número 2011-4431 de las 10:32 horas del primero de abril del 2011, al anular el ordinal 205 del Reglamento a la Ley Contratación Administrativa que estipulaba un procedimiento especial, mientras no se reforme la Ley de Contratación Administrativa a efecto de contemplar un procedimiento administrativo que evite arbitrariedades en materia del ejercicio de la potestad de resolución unilateral de las administraciones públicas contratantes, éstas deberán observar y atenerse al procedimiento administrativo ordinario establecido en los numerales 308 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. No obstante, en posterior resolución dictada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en el voto número 18-F-TC-2011 de las nueve horas del cuatro de agosto del 2011, se dispuso que "tratándose de contratos bilaterales y ante su incumplimiento, existe la posibilidad de demandar su ejecución forzosa o su resolución. Lo anterior, surge como consecuencia, prevista por el ordenamiento jurídico, cuando se transgrede su vínculo obligacional con fuerza normativa para las partes. Es decir, se trata de acciones otorgadas a quién incumple lo pactado, en razón del incumplimiento de la contraparte, precisamente porque los contratos tienen fuerza de ley entre las partes, según lo estatuido por el artículo 1022 del Código Civil. Pero cabe señalar, en todo caso, que las acciones señaladas son otorgadas a quien ha cumplido el contrato, porque el incumpliente no puede exigir la ejecución forzosa ni la resolución contractual. Sin embargo, dos aspectos han de tenerse presente. En primer lugar, el cumpliente del contrato no está obligado a cumplir si la otra parte incumple. Es decir, si en la ejecución recíproca de prestaciones una de las partes incumple, la otra no tiene por que cumplir con la prestación correlativa y puede excepcionarse de ello mediante la conocida excepción de non adimpleti contractus. En tal caso, quien puede eximirse del cumplimiento sobre la base de la excepción de contrato no cumplido, es la parte que a su vez, puede ejercer las acciones tendientes a una eventual resolución contractual con daños y perjuicios, pues tal proceder se reputa como justificado ante el incumplimiento previo de la contraparte. (...) A criterio de este Órgano Decisor, y derivado de lo expuesto, vale adelantar de conformidad con la excepción non adimpleti contractus invocada, si el Consorcio no ejecutó la obligación que le correspondía en los términos contractuales, es decir, entregar en fecha cierta y a tracto único, la planta física y equipamiento, como objeto determinado mediante ley número 9124 denominada "AUTORIZACIÓN AL PODER EJECUTIVO PARA SUSCRIBIR UNA OPERACIÓN DE CRÉDITO PÚBLICO Y CONSTITUIR UN FIDEICOMISO CON CONTRATOS DE ARRENDAMIENTO, PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DEL PROYECTO CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EQUIPAMIENTO DE INFRAESTRUCTURA EDUCATIVA DEL MEP A NIVEL NACIONAL", que autorizó al Ministerio de Educación Pública, para constituir un Fideicomiso con contratos de arrendamiento financiero, y así financiar el Proyecto Construcción y Equipamiento de Infraestructura Educativa del MEP a Nivel Nacional, y que consistía en la construcción y el equipamiento de infraestructura física, tales como colegios, escuelas y canchas multiusos para el cumplimiento de sus fines encomendados, para lo cual, el Fideicomiso promovió, en lo que interesa a esta demanda, la Licitación Pública Internacional LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos -en adelante LPI-01-2017, y en donde, en lo que interesa a este expediente, las empresas IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A. CEMEX S.A. y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., conformaron el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, que participó en la referida Licitación, resultando adjudicatario en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); para un monto total contractual de USD $6,146,149.50 y sobre los cuales incialmente las órdenes de inicio efectivo de los trabajos de construcción y equipamientio en cada Proyecto del lote número 2 adjudicado, se dieron en diferentes fechas para ser entregados igualmente en fechas distintas por la singularidad de cada proyecto, lo que lo hace de tracto único por proyecto, ello ya señalaba el plazo de entrega bajo términos diferenciados, según así se desprende de: a) oficio del 18 de mayo de 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. "ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento del Centro Educativo: Centro Educativo 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 21 de mayo de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 21 de octubre del año en curso; b) oficio del 31 de julio de 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 06 de agosto de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 06 de enero del año 2019; y c) oficio del 13 de diciembre de 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. ORDEN DE INICIO -Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Cancha Multiuso Centro Educativo 024-1942 Escuela Azul: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 17 de diciembre de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (6 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 17 de junio del año 2019 y sobre los cuales ninguno se llegó a entregar en la forma y plazo pactado, esto es, completamente terminados, no le asiste el derecho de reclamar la falta al debido proceso, expresada bajo el latinazo opuesto. Pues se trata de un incumplimiento por el Consorcio, dada la no ejecución del objeto contractual pactado, pues claramente, de la prueba en autos, ningún proyecto se entregó cumplidamente. Al respecto, ha indicado la Sala Constitucional, que "En ese sentido, cuando la Administración suscribe un contrato con un "fin público", precisamente el de interés en este asunto, en caso de que desista racionalmente de perseguir ese fin a que estaba destinado, trátese de obras públicas, puede rescindir el contrato, cesando con ello la razón jurídica de la persistencia del contrato para la prosecución de aquél, rescisión que sería unilateral constiituyéndose en una especie de acto final, por los efectos terminales que produce. El Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, número 33411 del 17 de setiembre del 2006, que entró a regir el cuatro de enero del 2007 (vigente al momento de la rescisión), dispuso en cuanto a los derechos y deberes de las partes contratantes, que podrán reajustar o revisar el precio pactado (ibídem 31), ostentando la Administración la facultad de fijar en el cartel el plazo máximo para pagar, el cual no podrá ser superior a 30 días hábiles o de 45 días hábiles para la Administración Central (artículo 34) reconociéndose intereses al contratista únicamente si los reclama (34 citado). Además, agrega que el contratista debe dar seguimiento a la contratación, ejecutando las acciones correspondientes con el objeto de garantizarse una correcta ejecución de lo pactado (art. 35), disponer el pago de multas por defectos en la ejecución del contrato (art. 47) o ejecutar la garantía de cumplimiento en el caso de incumplimiento total (art. 48), suspender el plazo del pacto por fuerza mayor o caso fortuito (art. 199), modificar unilateralmente el pacto (art. 200), realizar contratos adicionales ante nuevos requerimientos (art. 201), suspender la ejecución del mismo por seis meses (art. 202), resolverlo por incumplimiento (art. 204), rescindir la convención (art. 206) y se le obliga a tramitar las gestiones en procura de continuarse con la ejecución contractual. Por su parte, respecto al contratista indica que tendrá derecho a obtener el pago una vez recibido a satisfacción el bien o servicio (art. 35), facultad de ceder los derechos de pago (art. 36), y derecho a subcontratar hasta en un 50% del monto adjudicado (art. 69). En consecuencia, debe indicarse siguiendo al tratadista argentino José Roberto Dromi, que "es un derecho primario y básico de la Administración Pública el exigir la prestación debida y la ejecución en término. Tiene además otras prerrogativas y derechos que son las competencias de dirección, control, rescisión y sanción contractual. Las mismas se presentan en los contratos con mayor o menor intensidad, sin perjuicio de las peculiaridades contractuales concretas y se fundan en la necesidad de asegurar el interés público. Sin embargo, en virtud de que el contrato administrativo obliga también a la Administración Pública, a esta le corresponde cumplir una serie de deberes y exigencias que se convierten, a su vez, en derechos del contratista." (citado por Méndez Alvarado, Ana Beatriz. Elementos fundamentales de la contratación administrativa. San José, Costa Rica, Departamento de Publicaciones e impresos del Poder Judicial, 1999, página 41). Sirve lo indicado, para estimar necesario, establecer pautas resolutivas que se derivan de los propios hechos probados por este Tribunal y así determinar el resultado de la litis; aspectos que seguidamente se manifestarán.

VII.- DETERMINACIONES PREVIAS Y DE APLICACIÓN PRECEPTIVAS SOBRE EL CASO EN CONCRETO. A partir de las consideraciones de las partes, la prueba admitida en estos autos y los hechos elencados -acreditados y no acreditados-, como además de la exposición de las conclusiones, pero particularmente de la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017 y su génesis normativa, y el preámbulo ut supra manifestado, en los puntos precedentes, el Tribunal decide, como criterio vinculante a aplicar para la solución de este asunto, proceder a determinar y fijar los siguientes criterios que bajo el análisis del objeto del conflicto y que derivadas de la relación jurídica-contractual entre las partes, se estiman vinculantes, emparentados o conectados para dar la solución acordada por unanimidad por esta Cámara, en cuanto a la declaratoria de improcedencia o sin lugar de la presente demanda en los alcances siguientes, cuando así sea declarado.

• A)Presupuesto Primero/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Normativa particular y excepcional vinculante para las partes contratantes. 1.1.- Naturaleza Pública de la Licitación. De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. Los recursos provenientes de créditos de organismos multilaterales -como el BID-, entran al Presupuesto Nacional y en consecuencia están sujetos al Presupuesto Público y sus regulaciones de orden administrativo, por ello, no obsta que el BNCR se haya instalado como Fiduciario para la atención del compromiso proveniente del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017. En consecuencia, estos recursos deben ser objeto de la respectiva apropiación presupuestal, con base en las cuales las entidades públicas atenderán los compromisos adquiridos con el propósito de dar certeza sobre los recursos con que cuenta la Administración para atender de manera cumplida sus obligaciones, configurándose así impuesta la expresión del principio de legalidad del gasto público. Esto es, la concreción en el campo fiscal del principio de legalidad de la actuación pública y fundamento del Estado de Derecho, el cual encuentra sus bases constitucionales, entre otros, en los artículos 121.15, 176 y siguientes y 182 de la Carta Política. De manera adicional, y a partir del concepto de disponibilidad presupuestal -por el ingreso de esos recursos- se constituye en un instrumento protector del principio constitucional de la legalidad del gasto público, que se enmarca en el mandato constitucional de legalidad de las actuaciones públicas (Art. 11 CP y art. 11 LGAP). La aplicación de la génesis del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, le concede una naturaleza excepcional y restrictiva, y así, los contratos de obra pública y financiados con recursos provenientes de organismos multilaterales de crédito pueden someterse a los reglamentos e incluso a los contrato modelo de tales organismos, tal y como se instrumenta en la Ley 9124, que estatuye en su artículo 2 lo siguiente: "ARTÍCULO 2.- Autorización al Ministerio de Educación Pública para constituir un fideicomiso con contratos de arrendamiento financiero. Para el financiamiento de estas obras, el fideicomiso podrá obtener los recursos financieros mediante la contratación de crédito con el sistema bancario nacional o la banca internacional, la emisión de títulos valores o la utilización de cualquier otro mecanismo financiero que sea legal y técnicamente viable. Para este fin, se exceptúan a los bancos del Estado del límite de crédito establecido en la disposición contenida en el numeral 5, artículo 61, de la Ley N.º 1644, Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional. Asimismo, considerando el fin público de esta ley, se autoriza al fiduciario y a las subsidiarias del conglomerado financiero de este para otorgar créditos, avales o garantías al fideicomiso, así como para adquirir instrumentos financieros emitidos por el fideicomiso (...)". De ser así, la Contratación Pública no será aplicable a los procesos de selección, a la celebración y a la ejecución de estos contratos, a menos que los reglamentos de tales organismos se remitan a las normas de contratación pública nacional, o guarden silencio respecto a determinados aspectos del proceso contractual o de su ejecución. En este último caso, la Contratación Pública ordinaria será aplicable de manera supletiva. Es importante destacar que la posibilidad de inaplicar las normas nacionales de contratación pública a los contratos financiados con recursos provenientes de organismos multilaterales de crédito es de naturaleza excepcional y, por lo tanto, de aplicación restrictiva. Este régimen es diferente del consagrado para los contratos estatales regulados por la Ley 7494 (vigente al momento) o por los reglamentos de los organismos multilaterales de crédito, aunque se encuentren relacionados e incluso en condición de complementariedad. Por lo tanto, si bien los contratos financiados con recursos provenientes de organismos multilaterales de crédito pueden someterse a los reglamentos de tales entidades, permanecen sujetos a los principios y reglas del régimen presupuestal nacional y obviamente a los de la contratación administrativa. De conformidad con lo expuesto, al procedimiento administrativo contractual y al respectivo contrato financiado con recursos provenientes de organismos multilaterales de crédito, y sometidos a los reglamentos de tales organismos, les resulta inaplicable por regla general la Contratación Pública. De esta manera, a los contratos celebrados por las entidades estatales con organismos de cooperación, ayuda o asistencia, incluso con organismos de derecho público internacional, se les aplica el derecho público y con ello, el juez de las controversias de esos contratos excepcionales, salvo pacto en contrario que incorpore un mecanismo alternativo de solución de conflictos, es la jurisdicción de lo contencioso administrativo.

El Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (que en esencia, significa, que los contratos son obligatorios y tienen fuerza de ley entre las partes) la sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada, según y de acuerdo a la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, instrumentada en su oportunidad por medio y a través de su "Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional / Contrato de Fideicomiso para el Financiamiento del Proyecto de Construcción y Equipamiento 1099 de Infraestructura Educativa del Ministerio de Educación Pública a Nivel Nacional", suscrito el 10 de abril del año 2013, que refrendado por la Contraloría General de la República en fecha 14 de julio del mismo año, establecieron las reglas específicas del mismo, como también se definieron los derechos y obligaciones de las partes contratantes. Dicha práctica contractual obedece a las reglas de excepción como consecuencia de un procedimiento de contratación excepcionado de los procedimientos estipulados en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, N° 7494, según lo estipulado en el artículo 2 inciso g), que señala (vigente al momento de la instrumentación de la excepción): “Artículo 2.-Excepciones. Se excluyen de los procedimientos de concursos establecidos en esta Ley las siguientes actividades: (...) g) Las actividades que resulten excluidas, de acuerdo con la ley o los instrumentos internacionales vigentes en Costa Rica.” Se trata, por tanto, de un contrato suscrito como consecuencia de un mecanismo de adquisición regulado expresamente en la normativa emitida por el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) y así, de una regulación especial provista por el órgano prestatario de los recursos (BID), que se encuentra complementada en la normativa nacional con las previsiones de los artículos 2, inciso g), de la LCA y 143 del RLCA (vigente al momento), que refieren a los casos de contrataciones excluidas de los procedimientos ordinarios de concurso por ley especial, al señalar respectivamente: “Artículo 143.- Exclusión por instrumentos internacionales. Las contrataciones excluidas de los procedimientos ordinarios de contratación por ley especial o por instrumento internacional vigente en Costa Rica, se regirán por dichas normas y los respectivos reglamentos. Los procedimientos ordinarios de contratación administrativa no se aplicarán cuando en los instrumentos de empréstito aprobados por la Asamblea Legislativa se establezca la utilización de procedimientos de contratación especiales, o se haga remisión a cuerpos normativos elaborados por el organismo internacional de crédito que suministra los recursos. En estos casos, serán de plena aplicación y vigencia los principios constitucionales de la contratación administrativa y tendrán los recursos respectivos.” Así, se trata de un proceso de contratación excepcionado del régimen ordinario, por disposición de la Ley N° 9124, que autorizó al Poder Ejecutivo para suscribir una Operación de crédito público y constituir un Fideicomiso con Contratos de arrendamiento, para el financiamiento del proyecto Construcción y equipamiento de infraestructura educativa del MEP a nivel nacional, la cual en al artículo 8, reiteró la obligación de sujetar las contrataciones derivadas de tales operaciones y Fideicomiso, a los principios generales de contratación, al indicar: “ARTÍCULO 8.- Obligación de utilizar los principios de contratación administrativa. Todos los procesos licitatorios que promueva la Administración en la constitución del fideicomiso objeto de esta ley, deben aplicar y cumplir los principios de contratación administrativa, a saber: eficacia y eficiencia, igualdad y libre competencia, publicidad, libre concurrencia, igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos, seguridad jurídica, formalismo en los procedimientos licitatorios, equilibrio de intereses, buena fe, mutabilidad del contrato, intangibilidad patrimonial y el control de los procedimientos.” En virtud de ello, el contrato mediante el cual se constituye el Fideicomiso de referencia fue refrendado por el órgano contralor, según oficio No. 07609 (DCA-1735) del 24 de julio de 2013, mediante el cual destaca el señalamiento a que en relación con la actividad contractual que se realice por parte del fiduciario, “no se encuentran sujetos a los procedimientos ordinarios de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, pero sí deben observar en las contrataciones que se promuevan con cargo al patrimonio fideicometido, los principios generales que rigen la contratacio´n administrativa”, principios derivados del artículo 182 de la Constitución Política y definidos por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en la sentencia número 998-98 de las 11:30 hrs. del 16 de febrero de 1998.

• B)Presupuesto Segundo/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- "Contrato tipo Suma Global". De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. Por la anterior premisa, el Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (así definido), que resulta de sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada, a la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, que refiere vinculantemente para las partes, la naturaleza económica de las ofertas, bajo el denominado "Contrato de Tipo Suma Global". Así fue licitado, ofertado y adjudicado, de acuerdo a los lineamientos constitutivos contenidos en la referencia cartelaria, dispuesta en: Primera parte: Procedimientos de Licitación, Sección II. Datos de la Licitación/H.Preparación de las Ofertas, Apartes IAO 15.1/Tabla No.3/Lote 2, IAO 16.2, 16.3 y IAO 16.5, y que dispuso, bajo el conocimiento aceptado del Consorcio, los siguientes alcances de interés: "IAO 16.2, 16.3:/ El Oferente indicará los precios totales para todas las actividades del diseño, construcción y equipamiento de cada una de las obras definidas en el presente pliego de licitación. El Oferente podrá presentar oferta por uno o más lotes completos. Los precios totales deberán ser indicados como una “Suma Alzada” para cada lote, pero desagregando el monto para cada Centro Educativo dentro del lote con fines de seguimiento contractual. El Contratista asumirá los costos de las instalaciones provisionales y definitivas para el desarrollo de las obras y el pago de los servicios de agua y electricidad necesarios para el desarrollo de la obra. Será responsabilidad del Contratista, cumplir con todos los requisitos que las Instituciones Públicas soliciten para la completa conexión de los Servicios Públicos (...) Al tratarse de un proyecto de Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento, el Oferente hará su mejor propuesta técnica en estricto apego y cumplimiento a los documentos técnicos disponibles tales como: estudios de suelos, requisitos e indicaciones de planos, y en cumplimiento de las especificaciones técnicas sanitarias incluidas en la SECCION_VI._B._ESP_TECNICAS_MINIMAS, así como de las normativas nacionales vigentes y las buenas prácticas constructivas que aseguren un adecuado funcionamiento de todo el sistema (...) Se les recuerda a los oferentes lo indicado en “Segunda parte. Requisitos del Diseño, la Obra y el Equipamiento”: “…Cualquier trabajo adicional, ampliación y/o elaboración de estudios que el Oferente considere necesario para la correcta ejecución del contrato, será exclusiva y única responsabilidad del Contratista y no dará lugar a ningún pago ni reclamo adicional al precio cotizado. El contrato será de tipo suma global, por lo que todos los riesgos constructivos serán de cuenta del contratista. En este sentido debe quedar claro que el Contratista debe garantizar que cada obra posea todos los componentes y características necesarios para un funcionamiento integralmente eficaz, según los mejores estándares de calidad que rigen la construcción y según dictan las mejores prácticas de ingeniería y las leyes aplicables. Se entenderá que los costos asociados a todas las actividades y tareas que deberán ejecutarse para el Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento deben ser incluidos y detallados en el precio de cada oferta. Los costos estimados, incluyendo el depósito de la garantía ambiental, realización y costeo de los estudios necesarios para el diseño y la construcción, inscripción y visado de planos ante el CFIA y cualquier otra institución como Bomberos, Municipalidad, Aviación Civil, Ministerio de Salud y cualquier otra entidad, deben ser incluidos y detallados en el precio de cada oferta. El Contratista deberá incluir en su oferta el desglose de todos los montos correspondientes a tasas y cargos necesarios para realizar los trámites y obtención del visado y permisos de todo tipo para realizar la construcción. Por la naturaleza del Programa, puede darse el caso de que el Contratante se encuentre exonerado del pago de algunos de ellos, en cuyo caso esos montos que se logren exonerar serán deducidos de los pagos al Adjudicatario.” Aquellos cargos que no aparezcan en el desglose no serán reconocidos al Contratista, ya que se presumirán incluidos en alguno de los otros rubros del precio. Corre por cuenta del Contratista asumir los costos asociados que deriven de la implementación del plan de gestión ambiental y social, Supervisión, Movilización, Construcción de las Obras y Equipamiento, de acuerdo con los alcances definidos en el presente pliego de licitación, están incluidos en los precios totales ofertados (Suma Alzada). El Contratante no pagará sumas adicionales a las ofertadas por ninguna tarea relacionada con la ejecución del contrato que se llegue a suscribir (...) Los precios de cada uno de los Centros Educativos son fijos e invariables y no estarán sujetos a reajustes de precios. Los Oferentes deberán hacer una proyección de los aumentos que pueden sufrir todos los elementos y componentes de las obras, durante todo el proceso constructivo y considerarlo en la suma cotizada para cada Colegio y, consecuentemente, en el monto total de su oferta. En este sentido debe quedar meridianamente claro que el Contratante espera que cada obra posea todos los componentes y características necesarios para un funcionamiento integralmente eficaz, según los mejores estándares de calidad que rigen la construcción y según dictan las mejores prácticas de ingeniería y las leyes aplicables (...). IAO 16.5 El Contratante realizará el pago de las Obras sobre un monto global, fijo (Suma Alzada, no sujeta a ajustes), correspondiendo al Oferente el deber de considerar en su Oferta todos los componentes e insumos que podrían ser susceptibles de variación en el mercado, hasta la finalización del contrato; de manera tal que al momento de ofertar el Precio Total del Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento, el Oferente debe considerar dentro de su precio ofertado la previsión de escalamiento de precios a futuro, durante todo el periodo de construcción y equipamiento (incluida la instalación y puesta en operación), definido a partir del comportamiento de esos insumos en el mercado, pues estos incrementos no podrán reclamarse por aparte." C) Presupuesto Tercero/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- "Contrato tipo Suma Global (precio) y plazo puede variar por Órdenes de Modificación OM". De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. El Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (así definido), que la sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada, a la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, que refiere vinculantemente para las partes, la naturaleza modificativa a los alcances esenciales del contrato por medio de las Órdenes de Modificación, cuales podrán variar el plazo y el precio ofertado según corresponda, entendiéndose que la solicitud de éstas puede ser por cuenta del contratante o bien del contratista, según así se regula en "SECCIÓN VII. CONDICIONES GENERALES (CG)"/C. Pagos y H. Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato" que al respecto estipula: 11. Precio del Contrato. 11.1 El precio del Contrato será el que se indique en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato y Condiciones de Pago) del Convenio. 11.2 A menos que se incorpore en las CE una Cláusula de ajuste, el precio del Contrato será una suma alzada fija, que no podrá modificarse, salvo en caso de una modificación de las Obras o si se dispone otra cosa en el Contrato (...). H. Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato" 39. Modificación de las Obras. 39.1 Introducción de una Modificación. 39.1.1 Con sujeción a las Subcláusulas 39.2.5 y 39.2.7 de las CG, el Contratante tendrá derecho a proponer y posteriormente a requerir que el Gerente de Proyecto ordene ocasionalmente al Contratista que haga durante el cumplimiento del Contrato cualquier modificación, cambio, adición o supresión en las Obras (en adelante denominada “modificación”), siempre que esa modificación se inscriba dentro del alcance general de las Obras y no constituya un trabajo no relacionado, y que sea técnicamente viable, teniendo en cuenta el estado de adelanto de las Obras y la compatibilidad técnica de la modificación prevista con la naturaleza de las Obras según se especifica en el Contrato. 39.1.2 El Contratista podrá ocasionalmente, durante la ejecución del Contrato proponer al Contratante (con copia al Gerente de Proyecto) cualquier modificación que el Contratista considere necesaria o conveniente para mejorar la calidad, eficiencia o seguridad de las Obras. El Contratante podrá, a su discreción, aprobar o rechazar cualquier modificación propuesta por el Contratista, pero aprobará toda modificación propuesta por el Contratista que tenga por finalidad garantizar la seguridad de las Obras. 39.1.3 No obstante lo dispuesto en las Subcláusulas 39.1.1 y 39.1.2 de las CG, ningún cambio que resulte necesario a causa de un incumplimiento por el Contratista de sus obligaciones contractuales se considerará como una modificación, y ese cambio no dará lugar a ningún ajuste del precio del Contrato ni del plazo de terminación de las Obras (...) 39.2 Modificaciones Originadas por el Contratante. 39.2.1 Si el Contratante propone una modificación de conformidad con la Subcláusula 39.1.1 de las CG, enviará al Contratista una “Solicitud de propuesta de modificación”, en la que solicitará al Contratista que prepare y proporcione al Gerente de Proyecto en el menor plazo razonablemente factible una “Propuesta de modificación” que incluirá lo siguiente: (a) una breve descripción de la modificación; (b) el efecto de la modificación en el plazo de terminación; (c) el costo estimado de la modificación; (d) el efecto del cumplimiento definido en las Especificaciones (de haberlo); (e) el efecto de la modificación en las Obras; (f) el efecto de la modificación en cualquier otra disposición del Contrato. 39.2.2 Antes de preparar y entregar la propuesta de modificación, el Contratista presentará al Gerente de Proyecto una “Estimación de la propuesta de modificación”, en la que se estimará el costo de preparar y presentar la propuesta de modificación (...) 39.2.5 Si antes o durante la preparación de la propuesta de modificación resulta evidente que el efecto agregado de ejecutar ésta y cualesquiera otras órdenes de modificación que hayan pasado a ser obligatorias para el Contratista conforme a la presente Cláusula 39 de las CG sería aumentar o reducir el precio del Contrato originalmente establecido en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato) del Contrato en más de quince por ciento (15%), el Contratista podrá notificar por escrito sus objeciones al respecto antes de presentar la propuesta de modificación en la forma antes indicada. Si el Contratante acepta las objeciones del Contratista, retirará la propuesta de modificación y notificará por escrito al Contratista. El hecho de no presentar objeciones no menoscabará el derecho del Contratista a presentar objeciones a cualesquiera solicitudes de modificación u órdenes de modificación posteriores, ni su derecho a tener en cuenta, cuando presente esas objeciones posteriores, el aumento o la reducción porcentual del precio del Contrato que represente cualquier modificación no objetada por el Contratista (...) 39.3 Modificaciones Originadas por el Contratista. 39.3.1 Si el Contratista propone una modificación de conformidad con la Subcláusula 39.1.2 de las CG, el Contratista presentará por escrito al Gerente de Proyecto una “Solicitud de propuesta de modificación”, en la que se indicarán las razones para efectuar la modificación propuesta y se incluirá la información especificada en la Subcláusula 39.2.1 de las CG. 39.3.2 Al recibirse la solicitud de propuesta de modificación, las Partes seguirán los procedimientos que se indican en las Subcláusulas 39.2.6 y 39.2.7 de las CG. Sin embargo, si el Contratante decide no efectuar las modificaciones, el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recuperar los costos de preparación de la solicitud de propuesta de modificación. 40. Prórroga del Plazo de Terminación de las Obras. 40.1 El plazo o los plazos de terminación que se especifican en las CE conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 de las CG se prorrogarán si el Contratista se ve retrasado u obstaculizado en el cumplimiento de cualquiera de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato por causa de: (a) una modificación de las Obras según lo previsto en la Cláusula 39 de las CG; (b) un evento de fuerza mayor según se dispone en la Cláusula 37 de las CG, condiciones imprevistas según se dispone en la Cláusula 35 de las CG, o cualquier otra circunstancia de las que se especifican o se mencionan en los apartados (a), (b) y (c) de la Subcláusula 32.2 de las CG; (c) una orden de suspensión emitida por el Contratante conforme a la Cláusula 41 de las CG o una reducción del ritmo de avance de conformidad con la Subcláusula 41.2 de las CG, o (d) un cambio en las leyes y regulaciones según se dispone en la Cláusula 36 de las CG, o (e) cualquier incumplimiento o violación del Contrato por parte del Contratante, específicamente incluido el suministro de los ítems que figuran en el correspondiente apéndice del Acuerdo del Contrato, titulado Alcance de las Obras y Suministro por parte del Contratante, o cualquier actividad, acto u omisión del Contratante, o el Gerente de Proyecto, o cualquier otro Contratista empleado por el Contratante, o (f) cualquier retraso por parte de un Subcontratista, siempre y cuando dicho retraso obedezca a una causa por la que el propio Contratista habría tenido derecho a una prórroga del plazo de terminación en virtud de la presente Subcláusula, o (g) retrasos atribuibles al Contratante u ocasionados por los trámites aduaneros, o (h) cualquier otro asunto mencionado específicamente en el Contrato, por un período que sea justo y razonable en todas las circunstancias y que refleje cabalmente la demora o el impedimento sufridos por el Contratista." D) Presupuesto Cuarto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Los presupuestos de la rescisión son tasados, y las reglas vinculantes definidas en la licitación someten a las partes contratantes para este tipo de terminación anticipada del contrato. De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. El contrato administrativo puede terminar por vías ordinarias o anticipadas. En la normativa general u ordinaria al respecto, la regulación que de la materia se realiza se hace por medio del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33411-H (RLCA -vigente en su momento), que utiliza la denominación de formas normales y anormales de extinción de los contratos. En la primer categoría, precisa que los contratos fenecen por el acaecimiento del plazo pactado o bien, por la ejecución del objeto contractual. En cuanto a las modalidades anormales (anticipadas), señala tres presupuestos: la resolución, la rescisión o la declaratoria de nulidad. Cada uno de esas alternativas cuenta con supuestos de hecho o de derecho concretos que les dan cabida y pertinencia, de suerte que la utilización inadecuada de una figura, puede llegar a producir la invalidez del acto final dictado en ese ejercicio. En esa línea, el precepto 11 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa regula la potestad de imperio de las Administraciones Públicas licitantes (cláusula exorbitante) de resolver o rescindir unilateralmente el contrato. En ese sentido expresa esa norma en su rigor literal: "Artículo 11.- Derecho de rescisión y resolución unilateral. Unilateralmente, la Administración podrá rescindir o resolver, según corresponda, sus relaciones contractuales, por motivo de incumplimiento, por causa de fuerza mayor, caso fortuito o cuando así convenga al interés público, todo con apego al debido proceso. / Cuando se ponga término al contrato, por causas que no se le imputen al contratista, la Administración deberá liquidarle la parte que haya sido efectivamente ejecutada y resarcirle los daños y perjuicios ocasionados. / En los supuestos de caso fortuito o fuerza mayor, se liquidará en forma exclusiva la parte efectivamente ejecutada y los gastos en que haya incurrido razonablemente el contratista en previsión de la ejecución total del contrato. / La Administración podrá reconocer, en sede administrativa, los extremos indicados en los incisos anteriores. Para hacer efectiva la resolución deberá contar con la aprobación de la Contraloría General de la República." La norma no hace precisión entre los supuestos de hecho que dan cabida a cada una de las figuras, sin embargo, el RLCA precisa el contenido conceptual y presupuestos de cada una de las figuras. En ese sentido, el ordinal 204 de esa fuente infra legal señala que la Administración "...podrá resolver unilateralmente los contratos por motivo de incumplimiento imputable al contratista." Tratándose de un incumplimiento del contratista, una vez dispuesta la resolución contractual, es factible que la Administración ejecute la garantía de cumplimiento y cualesquiera otras multas, si ello resulta pertinente, caso de que se hayan producido daños y perjuicios a raíz del incumplimiento sustancial que dio cabida a esa modalidad. Por ende, es claro que la resolución trata de una forma anticipada que tiene como presupuesto legitimante la demostración de un incumplimiento grave o sustancial del contratista. Por contraste, y para lo que interesa en esta cuestión litigiosa, la rescisión contractual constituye una modalidad que resulta aplicable no por la desatención de obligaciones asumidas por el contratista, sino por causales que pretenden reaccionar a modificaciones del equilibrio contractual que hacen inconveniente mantener el contrato. Esto es, el artículo 206 del RLCA sobre ese particular, fija de manera diáfana las causas que permiten esta figura. Señala esa norma: "206.—Rescisión. La Administración podrá rescindir unilateralmente sus contratos, no iniciados o en curso de ejecución, por razones de interés público, caso fortuito o fuerza mayor, debidamente acreditadas. Para ello deberá emitir una resolución razonada en donde señale la causal existente y la prueba en que se apoya, la cual será puesta en conocimiento del contratista por el plazo de quince días hábiles./ La entidad deberá cancelar al contratista la parte efectivamente ejecutada del contrato, en el evento de que no lo hubiera hecho con anterioridad y los gastos en que ese contratista haya incurrido para la completa ejecución, siempre que estén debidamente probados./ Cuando la rescisión se origine por motivos de interés público, además se podrá reconocer al contratista cualquier daño o perjuicio que la terminación del contrato le causare, previa invocación y comprobación. / El lucro cesante correspondiente a la parte no ejecutada podrá reconocerse siempre dentro de criterios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, valorando aspectos tales como el plazo de ejecución en descubierto, grado de avance de la ejecución del contrato, complejidad del objeto. Cuando la utilidad no haya sido declarada se considerará que es un 10% del monto total cotizado.". Se trata del ejercicio de una potestad de imperio que le habilita, en esas causas taxativamente fijadas (y sólo en esas), extinguir unilateralmente el vínculo. Empero, de seguido, la norma impone que en esos casos, como contraprestación legal, que la Administración indemnice al contratista respecto de los daños debidamente comprobados. Cuando la causa sea un interés público, además, debe reconocer otros daños y perjuicios ocasionados con la rescisión, indemnización que se encuentra sujeta a un principio rogatorio y a la efectividad de las lesiones patrimoniales, lo que implica que han de ser probados por quien los reclama, siguiendo en exclusiva la carga de la prueba para quien afirme el daño, su cuantum y su relación con la obra cesada por rescisión. Finalmente la norma impone reglas o pautas para analizar la temática del lucro cesante. Con todo, la rescisión puede producirse por mutuo acuerdo, sin embargo, esta modalidad será procedente únicamente en el supuesto de existencia de razones de interés público, y siempre que no concurra en la relación, causal de resolución imputable al contratista. Esta modalidad se encuentra regulada en el mandato 207 del RLCA.

Allende a lo expuesto, y por la vía excepcional, de acuerdo al Presupuesto Primero/Premisa aplicable. 1.- Normativa particular y excepcional vinculante para las partes contratantes, las causas de rescisión tratándose del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, se instrumentan particularmente para las partes, estableciéndose lo siguiente:

42. Rescisión 42.1 Rescisión por Conveniencia del Contratante.

42.1.1 El Contratante podrá rescindir el Contrato en cualquier momento y por cualquier razón mediante el envío de una notificación de rescisión al Contratista con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.1 de las CG.

42.1.2 Al recibir la notificación de rescisión conforme a la Subcláusula 42.1.1 de las CG, el Contratista, inmediatamente o en la fecha especificada en la notificación de rescisión, (a) suspenderá todos los trabajos, con excepción de aquellos que pueda especificar el Contratante en la notificación de rescisión con el único propósito de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o cualquier trabajo requerido para dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; (b) rescindirá todos los subcontratos, excepto los que hayan de cederse al Contratante de conformidad con el apartado (d) (ii) de la presente Subcláusula; (c) retirará todos los equipos del Contratista del sitio, repatriará al personal del Contratista y de sus Subcontratistas, retirará del sitio los escombros, desechos y residuos de cualquier tipo y dejará el sitio y las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad, y (d) con sujeción al pago especificado en la Subcláusula 42.1.3 de las CG, (i) entregará al Contratante las partes de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista hasta la fecha de la rescisión; (ii) en la medida legalmente posible, cederá al Contratante todos los derechos, títulos y beneficios del Contratista respecto de las Obras y la planta a partir de la fecha de la rescisión y, a requerimiento del Contratante, respecto de cualesquiera subcontratos formalizados entre el Contratista y sus Subcontratistas, y (iii) entregará al Contratante todos los planos, especificaciones y otros documentos no registrados preparados por el Contratista o sus Subcontratistas a la fecha de la rescisión en relación con las Obras.

42.1.3 En caso de rescisión del Contrato conforme a la Subcláusula 42.1.1 de las CG, el Contratante pagará al Contratista las sumas siguientes:

(a) el precio del Contrato efectivamente imputable a las partes de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista a la fecha de la rescisión; (b) los costos que razonablemente haya pagado el Contratista para retirar los equipos del Contratista del sitio de las Obras y para repatriar al personal del Contratista y de sus Subcontratistas; (c) todas las sumas pagaderas por el Contratista a sus Subcontratistas en relación con la rescisión de los subcontratos, incluidos los cargos por cancelación; (d) los costos que haya pagado el Contratista para proteger las Obras y dejar la zona de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad de conformidad con el apartado (a) de la Subcláusula 42.1.2 de las CG; (e) el costo de satisfacer todas las demás obligaciones, compromisos y reclamaciones que de buena fe haya asumido el Contratista con terceros en relación con el Contrato y que no estén cubiertos por los apartados (a), (b), (c) y (d) precedentes.

42.2 Rescisión por Incumplimiento del Contratista 42.2.1 El Contratante, sin perjuicio de cualesquiera otros derechos o recursos de que pueda disponer, podrá rescindir inmediatamente el Contrato en las siguientes circunstancias mediante notificación de la rescisión y de sus razones al Contratista, con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.2 de las CG:

(a) si el Contratista se declara en quiebra o en concurso de acreedores, se ponen sus bienes bajo administración judicial, llega a un compromiso con sus acreedores o, cuando el Contratista es una persona jurídica, si se ha aprobado una resolución o una ordenanza disponiendo su liquidación (que no sea una liquidación voluntaria con fines de fusión o de reorganización), se ha designado un síndico para cualquier parte de sus empresas o activos, o si el Contratista realiza o es objeto de cualquier otra acción análoga como consecuencia de sus deudas; (b) si el Contratista cede o transfiere el Contrato o cualquier derecho o interés en virtud del Contrato en violación de las disposiciones de la Cláusula 43 de las CG; (c) si el Contratista, en opinión del Contratante, ha incurrido en prácticas corruptas, colusivas, coercitivas, fraudulentas u Obstructivas, según se definen en la Cláusula 6 de las CG, al competir por el Contrato o durante su ejecución.

42.2.2 Si el Contratista:

(a) ha denunciado el Contrato o desistido de él, (b) sin razón válida, no ha dado pronto inicio a los trabajos en las Obras, o ha suspendido por razones distintas de las previstas en la Subcláusula 41.2 de las CG el avance del cumplimiento del Contrato durante más de veintiocho (28) días después de recibir una orden escrita del Contratante de seguir adelante, (c) omite en forma persistente ejecutar el Contrato de acuerdo a los términos contractuales o descuida en forma persistente y sin justa causa el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato, (d) rehúsa o no puede proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada en el programa presentado conforme a la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG a un ritmo que dé al Contratante una seguridad razonable de que el Contratista puede completar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación prorrogado, el Contratante podrá, sin perjuicio de cualquier otro derecho que pueda tener en virtud del Contrato, enviar una notificación al Contratista indicando la naturaleza del incumplimiento y pidiendo al Contratista que lo subsane. Si el Contratista no lo subsana o no toma medidas para subsanarlo dentro de los catorce (14) días siguientes al recibo de esa notificación, el Contratante podrá rescindir inmediatamente el Contrato mediante notificación de rescisión al Contratista con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.2 de las CG.

42.2.3 Al recibir la notificación de rescisión conforme a las Subcláusulas 42.2.1 o 42.2.2 de las CG, el Contratista, inmediatamente o en la fecha que se especifique en la notificación de rescisión:

(a) suspenderá todos los trabajos, con excepción de aquellos que pueda especificar el Contratante en la notificación de rescisión con el único propósito de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o cualquier trabajo requerido para dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; (b) rescindirá todos los subcontratos, excepto los que hayan de cederse al Contratante de conformidad con lo dispuesto más adelante en el apartado (d); (c) entregará al Contratante las partes de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista hasta la fecha de la rescisión; (d) en la medida legalmente posible, cederá al Contratante todos los derechos, títulos y beneficios del Contratista respecto de las Obras y la planta a partir de la fecha de la rescisión y, a requerimiento del Contratante, respecto de todos los subcontratos formalizados entre el Contratista y sus Subcontratistas; (e) entregará al Contratante todos los planos, especificaciones y otros documentos preparados por el Contratista o sus Subcontratistas hasta la fecha de la rescisión en conexión con las Obras.

42.2.4 El Contratante podrá ingresar al sitio de las Obras, expulsar al Contratista y terminar las Obras por sí mismo o mediante el empleo de un tercero. El Contratante podrá, independientemente de los derechos del Contratista al respecto, tomar y utilizar mediante el pago de un alquiler equitativo al Contratista, los equipos de propiedad del Contratista que se encuentren en el sitio en conexión con las Obras durante un período razonable que el Contratante considere apropiado para el suministro y el montaje de las Obras; en tal caso, el Contratante correrá con todos los gastos de mantenimiento de dichos equipos y pagará las debidas indemnizaciones por toda responsabilidad que signifique daños o perjuicios a las personas como consecuencia del uso de dichos equipos por el Contratante. A la terminación de las Obras o en una fecha anterior que el Contratante considere apropiada, el Contratante notificará al Contratista que los equipos del Contratista serán devueltos a este último en el sitio de las Obras o a proximidad del mismo y devolverá esos equipos al Contratista de conformidad con esa notificación. El Contratista retirará seguidamente o hará que se retiren sin demora y a su costa esos equipos del sitio.

42.2.5 Con sujeción a la Subcláusula 42.2.6 de las CG, el Contratista tendrá derecho a que se le pague el precio del Contrato que corresponda a las Obras ejecutadas hasta la fecha de la rescisión, el valor de la planta no utilizada o parcialmente utilizada en el sitio de las Obras, y los gastos (de haberlos) que haya efectuado el Contratista para proteger las Obras y para dejar el sitio en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad de conformidad con el apartado (a) de la Subcláusula 42.2.3 de las CG. Todas las sumas debidas al Contratante por el Contratista que se hayan acumulado antes de la fecha de la terminación se deducirán del monto que deba pagarse al Contratista de acuerdo al presente Contrato.

42.2.6 Si el Contratante termina las Obras, se determinará el costo de la terminación de las Obras por el Contratante. Si la suma a cuyo pago tiene derecho el Contratista de conformidad con la Subcláusula 42.2.5 de las CG, más los costos razonables que haya debido cubrir el Contratante para terminar las Obras, excede del precio del Contrato, el Contratista será responsable de ese exceso. Si ese monto en exceso es mayor que las sumas adeudadas al Contratista conforme a la Subcláusula 42.2.5 de las CG, el Contratista pagará el saldo al Contratante, y si el exceso es inferior a las sumas adeudadas al Contratista conforme a la Subcláusula 42.2.5 de las CG, el Contratante pagará el saldo al Contratista. El Contratante y el Contratista convendrán por escrito en el cálculo descrito anteriormente y en las modalidades de pago de cualquier saldo.

42.3 Rescisión por el Contratista 42.3.1 Si: (a) el Contratante ha omitido pagar al Contratista las sumas debidas en virtud del Contrato dentro del plazo especificado, ha rehusado aprobar facturas o documentos justificativos sin razón válida de conformidad con el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago” o ha incurrido en incumplimiento sustancial del Contrato, el Contratista podrá enviar una notificación al Contratante exigiendo el pago de esas sumas con intereses según se estipula en la Subcláusula 12.3 de las CG, requiriendo la aprobación de esas facturas o documentos justificativos, o especificando el incumplimiento y exigiendo que el Contratante lo subsane, según sea el caso. Si el Contratante no paga esas sumas con los correspondientes intereses, no aprueba esas facturas o documentos justificativos ni da sus razones para negar esa aprobación, o no subsana el incumplimiento ni toma medidas para subsanarlo dentro de los catorce (14) días siguientes al recibo de la notificación del Contratista, o (b) el Contratista no puede desempeñar cualquiera de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato por razones atribuibles al Contratante, lo que incluye, entre otras cosas, el hecho de que el Contratante no haya dado posesión o acceso el sitio de las Obras o a otros lugares, o no haya obtenido un permiso gubernamental necesario para la ejecución y/o la terminación de las Obras, el Contratista podrá enviar una notificación al Contratante, y si el Contratante no ha pagado las sumas pendientes, aprobado las facturas o documentos justificativos, dado sus razones para negar esa aprobación, o subsanado el incumplimiento dentro de los veintiocho (28) días siguientes a la notificación, o si el Contratista no puede todavía cumplir alguna de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato por cualquier razón atribuible al Contratante dentro de los veintiocho (28) días posteriores a la notificación, el Contratista podrá, mediante nueva notificación al Contratante con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.3.1 de las CG, rescindir inmediatamente el Contrato.

42.3.2 El Contratista podrá rescindir inmediatamente el Contrato mediante notificación en ese sentido al Contratante, con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.3.2 de las CG, si el Contratante se declara en quiebra o en concurso de acreedores, se ponen sus bienes bajo administración judicial, llega a un compromiso con sus acreedores o, cuando el Contratante es una persona jurídica, si se ha aprobado una resolución o una ordenanza disponiendo su liquidación (que no sea una liquidación voluntaria con fines de fusión o reorganización), se ha designado un síndico para cualquier parte de sus empresas o activos, o si el Contratante realiza o es objeto de cualquier otra acción análoga como consecuencia de sus deudas.

42.3.3 Si el Contrato se rescinde conforme a las Subcláusulas 42.3.1 o 42.3.2 de las CG, el Contratista inmediatamente (a) suspenderá todos los trabajos, con excepción de los que sean necesarios con el fin de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o que tengan por objeto dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; (b) rescindirá todos los subcontratos, excepto los que hayan de asignarse al Contratante de conformidad con lo dispuesto más adelante en el apartado (d) (ii); (c) retirará todos los equipos del Contratista del sitio de las Obras y repatriará al personal del Contratista y de sus Subcontratistas, y (d) con sujeción al pago especificado en la Subcláusula 42.3.4 de las CG, (i) entregará al Contratante las partes de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista a la fecha de la rescisión; (ii) en la medida legalmente posible, cederá al Contratante todos los derechos, títulos y beneficios del Contratista respecto de las Obras y la planta a partir de la fecha de la rescisión y, a requerimiento del Contratante, respecto de cualesquiera subcontratos formalizados entre el Contratista y sus Subcontratistas, y (iii) entregará al Contratante todos los planos, especificaciones y otros documentos preparados por el Contratista o sus Subcontratistas a la fecha de la rescisión en relación con las Obras.

42.3.4 Si el Contrato se rescinde conforme a las Subcláusulas 42.3.1. o 42.3.2 de las CG, el Contratante pagará al Contratista todas las sumas que se especifican en la Subcláusula 42.1.3 de las CG, junto con una indemnización razonable por todas las pérdidas (excepto el lucro cesante) o daños sufridos por el Contratista que sean resultado o consecuencia de esa rescisión o guarden relación con ella.

42.3.5 La rescisión por el Contratista conforme a la presente Subcláusula 42.3 de las CG se hará sin perjuicio de cualquier otro derecho o recurso que pueda ejercer el Contratista en lugar o además de los derechos conferidos en virtud de la Subcláusula 42.3 de las CG.

42.4 En la presente Cláusula 42 de las CG, la expresión “Obras ejecutadas” incluirá todos los trabajos ejecutados, los servicios de instalación prestados y todos los elementos de planta adquiridos (o sujetos a una obligación jurídicamente vinculante de compra) por el Contratista y utilizados o destinados a ser utilizados para los fines de las Obras, hasta la fecha de la rescisión, inclusive.

42.5 En la presente Cláusula 42 de las CG, al calcular las sumas adeudadas por el Contratante al Contratista, se tendrán en cuenta todas las sumas pagadas anteriormente por el Contratante al Contratista en virtud del Contrato, incluidos los anticipos pagados de acuerdo al apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago”.

• E)Presupuesto Quinto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Las obras son de ejecución independiente. De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. El Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (así definido), que resulta de sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada, a la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, que refiere implícitamente pero vinculante para las partes que el modo de ejecución y construcción de las obras adjudicadas -en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 denominada Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 denominada Escuela Azul. 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 denominada Escuela La Hermosa, obedecen a ejecuciones completamente independientes entre sí, y la contratista tiene plena discrecionalidad en su gerenciamiento, planeamiento y ejecución, aun y cuando sean parte de un mismo contrato o lote adjudicado, según se indica en: "18. Programa de Trabajo. 18.1 Organización del Contratista. El Contratista proporcionará al Contratante y al Gerente de Proyecto, en un plazo de veintiún (21) días a partir de la fecha efectiva, el organigrama que propone para llevar a cabo las actividades en las Obras. Se adjuntará al organigrama la identidad del personal clave que se propone emplear, junto con los antecedentes profesionales de dicho personal. El Contratista informará prontamente por escrito al Contratante y al Gerente de Proyecto de toda rectificación o modificación de dicho organigrama. 18.2 Programa de ejecución. Dentro de los veintiocho (28) días siguientes a la fecha efectiva, el Contratista presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un programa detallado de ejecución del Contrato, el cual se preparará en forma aceptable para el Gerente de Proyecto e indicará la secuencia que se propone para diseñar, y construir las Obras, así como la fecha para la cual el Contratista exige razonablemente que el Contratante haya cumplido sus obligaciones en virtud del Convenio a fin de permitir al Contratista ejecutar el Contrato de conformidad con el programa y alcanzar la terminación, la puesta en servicio y la aceptación de las Obras de conformidad con el Contrato. El programa que presente el Contratista deberá ajustarse al Plan de Ejecución que se incluye en el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Plan de Ejecución” y a cualesquiera otros plazos y fechas especificados en el Contrato. El Contratista actualizará y rectificará el programa según sea apropiado y cuando así lo solicite el Gerente de Proyecto, pero sin modificar los plazos para la terminación de las Obras establecidos en las CE conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 ni las prórrogas concedidas conforme a la Cláusula 40 de las CG, y presentará todas esas rectificaciones al Gerente de Proyecto. 18.3 Informe sobre el progreso. El Contratista vigilará el progreso de todas las actividades especificadas en el programa a que hace referencia la Subcláusula 18.2 precedente y presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un informe mensual sobre el progreso de los trabajos. El informe sobre el progreso de los trabajos se presentará en una forma que el Gerente de Proyecto considere aceptable. En dicho informe (a) se indicará el porcentaje de terminación alcanzado en comparación con el porcentaje de terminación previsto para cada actividad, y (b) cuando una actividad esté atrasada con respecto al programa, se incluirán observaciones, se explicarán las consecuencias probables y se señalarán las medidas de corrección que se estén adoptando. 18.4 Progreso en el cumplimiento del programa. Si en algún momento el progreso real del Contratista acusa un atraso con respecto al programa que se menciona en la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG, o si resulta evidente que dicho atraso se producirá, el Contratista, a petición del Contratante o del Gerente de Proyecto, preparará y presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un programa modificado, teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias imperantes, e informará al Gerente de Proyecto de las medidas adoptadas para acelerar las actividades a fin de terminar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación estipulado conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 de las CG, de las prórrogas de dicho plazo concedidas conforme a la Subcláusula 40.1 de las CG o de cualquier prórroga en que pudieran convenir el Contratante y el Contratista. 18.5 Procedimientos. El Contrato se ejecutará de conformidad con los documentos del Contrato y los procedimientos establecidos en la sección de los Requisitos del Diseño y las Obras titulada Formularios y Procedimientos. El Contratista podrá ejecutar el Contrato de conformidad con sus propios planes y procedimientos estándar de ejecución de proyectos, siempre y cuando éstos no entren en contradicción con las disposiciones contenidas en el Contrato ...". Igualmente, debe considerarse acreditado en el Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 y que rige las reglas del contrato y por ende, de los proyectos a realizar, de que no puede interpretarse la existencia de correspondencia y vinculación para la ejecución de las obras de manera conjunta, sino por el contrario, se encuentran determinadas singularmente las órdenes de inicio de cada proyecto, esto se verifica de acuerdo a la Subcláusula 2.1 inciso 3), párrafo cuarto de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación, en donde la gestión de cada centro educativo se debe realizar de forma individual. Todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, deben adecuarse a las particularidades de cada proyecto. Esto es, las emisiones de las órdenes de inicio se convinieron de manera individual, por lo que constituye un proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento, en el que devienen particularidades ajenas a los otros centros educativos entre sí, dando como conclusión lógica que la ejecución de todas y cada de una de las etapas de las obras se definía de acuerdo a la estrategia y responsabilidad empresarial de la gerencia de las mismas por parte del Consorcio adjudicatario.
• F)Presupuesto Sexto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Pago por hito concluido (100%). De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. El Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (así definido), que resulta de sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada que de acuerdo a los términos establecidos en el Cartel y el contrato, y de conformidad con la naturaleza propia del "Contrato de Tipo Suma Global, los hitos de pago convenidos se hacen efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento (Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 -"12. Condiciones de Pago. 12.1 El Precio del Contrato se pagará según se especifica en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato y Condiciones de Pago) del Formulario del Convenio y en el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago”, en el cual se describen también los procedimientos que han de seguirse para solicitar y tramitar los pagos"-, /C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago -"Solicitud de pago por hito concluido Una vez concluido cada hito, el Contratista deberá entregar al Gerente de Obra una factura acompañada de una declaración con seis copias en un formato previamente aprobado por el Gerente de Obra, que incluya en detalle los montos a que el Contratista considera que tenga derecho, junto con los documentos de soporte, los cuales incluirán el informe de progreso del hito en cuestión de acuerdo con la Cláusula 18.3 de las CG. Esta solicitud de pago por hito concluido se corresponderá con el desglose que se explica seguidamente...".
• G)Presupuesto Sétimo/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- El anticipo de fondos debe ser garantizado y constituye adelanto al precio global una vez entregada la obra y compensable con el valor resultante de obras inconclusas. De su fundamento para así acreditarlo. El Tribunal considera aplicable y en toda su extensión, para lo que se resolverá de seguido, y en virtud del principio "Pacta sunt servanda" (así definido), que resulta de sujeción y sometimiento de las partes del proceso para la obra pública contratada, y la presente controversia planteada que de acuerdo a los términos establecidos en el Cartel y el contrato, que la contratista puede solicitar anticipo limitado pero garantizado (C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017/Art. 13. de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017/"Anticipo. 1. El Contratista podrá solicitar un anticipo de hasta un 15% del monto del monto total del contrato adjudicado, en calidad de préstamo sin intereses y por concepto de movilización y flujo de caja, siempre y cuando a cambio entregue una garantía de anticipo por el mismo monto de acuerdo con la Subcláusula 11.2 de las CG. 2. El Anticipo será amortizado mediante deducciones del mismo porcentaje solicitado, de todos los pagos del contrato hasta su completa devolución. (excluidos los respectivos al propio Anticipo). Si el anticipo no ha sido amortizado antes del Certificado de Terminación de las Obras o antes de la terminación según la Cláusula 42 de las CG, entonces todo el saldo que se encuentre pendiente en ese momento será pagado inmediatamente por el Contratista al Contratante. Dicho pago podrá ser realizado de acuerdo al siguiente detalle: a. Se rebajará de los saldos pendiente de obra por facturar o de cualquier pago adeuda por el Contratante; o b. Mediante depósito bancario a favor del Contratante. En caso de que el Contratista no devolviera el saldo pendiente del anticipo, el Contratante procederá con la ejecución de la garantía de anticipo.". /13. Garantías 13.1 Suministro de Garantías. El Contratista suministrará al Contratante las garantías que se especifican a continuación en el plazo, por el monto y en la forma que se especifica a continuación. 13.2 Garantía por Anticipo 13.2.1 El Contratista proporcionará, dentro de los veintiocho (28) días posteriores a la notificación de la adjudicación del Contrato, una garantía por un monto igual al del anticipo calculado de conformidad con el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago” y en la misma moneda o monedas. 13.2.2 La garantía se suministrará en la forma prevista en los documentos de licitación o en otra forma que el Contratante considere aceptable. El monto de la garantía se reducirá en proporción al valor de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista y pagadas periódicamente a éste, y se anulará automáticamente cuando el Contratante haya recuperado la totalidad del monto del anticipo. La garantía se devolverá al Contratista inmediatamente después de su expiración." VIII.- ALEGACIONES DEBIDAMENTE SUSTENTADAS.

Debe establecerse de una vez que, en la vía contencioso administrativa las demandas deben cumplir rigores mínimos, básicos y necesarios para impugnar la actividad formal de la Administración. En el caso específico de los actos administrativos, ya sean finales, definitivos o de trámite con efecto propio (artículo 36 inciso c del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), cuando se pretende su nulidad ante esta jurisdicción, se requiere que la parte actora, como mínimo, se preocupe por explicar cuál es el vicio o los vicios que concurren en la conducta administrativa formal cuestionada y el elemento o elementos de esa conducta que se ven afectados por los vicios que se acusan, así como la magnitud de incidencia para determinar la potencia del vicio, sea esta relativa o absoluta y su afectación dentro de la estructura del acto administrativo. Es decir, se debe indicar y desarrollar, ya sea el error o la omisión que contiene la conducta impugnada y luego establecer en qué grado o medida esos aparentes vicios afectan a los elementos formales (forma de expresión, motivación y procedimiento) o materiales de la misma (competencia, investidura, legitimación, voluntad, motivo, contenido y fin) de conformidad con las reglas de la teoría del acto administrativo, suficientemente desarrollada en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la jurisprudencia y la doctrina. Todos estos rigores que son muy básicos y no implican mayor complejidad, son necesarios para que el Juez pueda entrar a revisar la conducta formal cuestionada desde el punto de vista de lo reprochado como límite del control de legalidad requerido. Debiendo recordarse que esa revisión de la legalidad de la actividad administrativa no es oficiosa, dado que en esta jurisdicción rige con toda plenitud el principio dispositivo y el principio de congruencia, principios procesales que deben ser respetados por las partes y que constituyen el límite de acción de los Jueces, dada la carga de la prueba en resorte del reprochante para desvirtuar la presunción de validez de esas conductas formales de la administración. Es así, le corresponde a la parte promovente explicar técnicamente, en la pieza de la demanda, cuáles son los motivos de ilegalidad que padece el acto o actos impugnados y que se acusan son disconformes con el ordenamiento, tal y como se aprecia del pedido en las pretensiones de la demanda y, en consecuencia con ello, hacer su debida demostración, no siendo deber de los Jueces adivinar o especular dentro de la universalidad de disconformidades que reprocha y la universalidad de oficios que invoca, cuál es el razonamiento del litigante, ni mucho menos debe forzar su sentencia en ese intento, so pena de incurrir en arbitrariedades o excesos no permitidos por el ordenamiento jurídico, como lo sería el desequilibrio procesal. En este caso, se procurará a partir de las manifestaciones del actor, sintetizar los reproches mayúsculos para así desentrañar la cuestión en litigio.

IX.- DEL REPROCHE SOBRE LA RESCISIÓN CONTRACTUAL Y SITUACIONES CONEXAS.- 1.- ACUSE DE DISCONFORMIDAD Y NULIDAD.

Así, en lo puntual, y de lo expuesto en los hechos 45 y 46 de la demanda y su oposición por parte del Fideicomiso, se acusa la disconformidad y nulidad de la rescisión unilateral por parte del contratante sobre contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, y que empezó a regir a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, fecha en que el Consorcio fue notificado a través de oficio FID-2692-2020 y, la rescisión unilateral del contrato N°88-2017 respecto a proyecto 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa y que empezó a regir a partir del 26 de junio de 2020, fecha en que el Consorcio fue notificado a través del oficio FID-2493-2020, con ocasión a los recursos de revocatoria enviados en oficios: GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-557, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-558, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-O1-2017-560, sobre las respuestas emitidas por el Fideicomiso a dichos oficios que fueron recibidas el día 27 de agosto de 2020 a través de FID-3278-2020 para Escuela La Hermosa, el día 9 de setiembre de 2020 para Liceo Rural Santa Rosa en oficio FID-3468-2020 y el 11 de setiembre de 2020 Escuela Azul a través de FID-3522-2020.

2.- OBJETO DE DISCONFORMIDAD. Al respecto, versa la discusión de la rescisión sobre el objeto de la adjudicación dada en Lote 2 al Consorcio y correspondiente al Contrato No. 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los siguientes centros educativos:

? Nº 058-0870 Escuela Hermosa, a realizar en inmueble con plano catastro 1-1527823-2011, con Plazo estimado de construcción (meses) = 5, Área de construcción según anteproyectos = 2031.88 y Costo estimado $ = 1,193,934.96.

? Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul, a realizar en inmueble con plano catastro C-1747232-2012, con Plazo estimado de construcción (meses) = 6, Área de construcción según anteproyectos = 5289.88 y Costo estimado $ = 3,142,305.16.

? Nº 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, a realizar en inmueble con plano catastro C-1213011-2008, con Plazo estimado de construcción (meses) = 5, Área de construcción según anteproyectos = 1385.22 y Costo estimado $ = 1,116,204.09, 3.- PUNTUALIZACIONES SOBRE LA RESCISIÓN. Dado el marco normativo anterior, y en consideración de los criterios expuestos en Considerando anterior VII, Apartes A hasta G, el Tribunal tiene por comprobado que el Fideicomiso ordenó las resoluciones de rescisión sobre los contratos correspondientes a Centro Educativo 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa, Centro Educativo No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y Centro Educativo 24-1942 Escuela Azul así:

• 1)Oficio FID-2493-2020 de 29 de junio de 2020, mediante el cual se rechaza la solicitud de rescisión por conveniencia del contratista planteada por el Consorcio y se declara, a su vez, la rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato No. 88-2017 en lo que concierne al Centro Educativo 58-0970 Escuela Hermosa. Dicho oficio en lo que interesa basa el fundamento de la rescisión con el siguiente motivo: "El Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, debió ser entregado el 23 de enero de 2019. Al 8 de junio 2020, fecha en la que el Consorcio se retiró del proyecto, se registró un atraso de 502 días, respecto de la fecha en la que debió haberse entregado el proyecto. En reunión sostenida con el consorcio el día 10 de junio de 2020, usted nos informó que a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020 se habían retirado de los proyectos, incluyendo los servicios de vigilancia al haberse ya excedido sobradamente el tiempo de atraso necesario para alcanzar el 10% máximo de cobro permitido por este concepto, se constituye en una razón adicional para proceder con la rescisión del contrato por el incumplimiento grave del contratista, puesto que activa lo estipulado en la subcláusula 42.2.2, en los literales (c) y (d) que señalan respectivamente: “…omite en forma persistente ejecutar el Contrato de acuerdo a los términos contractuales o descuida en forma persistente y sin justa causa el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato…”, “…rehúsa o no puede proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada en el programa presentado conforme a la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG a un ritmo que dé al Contratante una seguridad razonable de que el Contratista puede completar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación prorrogado…”. Vistos y comprobados los incumplimientos mencionados, se procede a emitir la presente decisión de rescisión contractual y se le previene al Consorcio para que cumpla con lo establecido en la subcláusula 42.2.3 de la Condiciones Generales del cartel que forma parte del contrato. En relación con lo indicado en la anterior subcláusula, y dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto, se aclara lo siguiente: - En relación con el inciso (a), no procede que se continúe con trabajo alguno que tenga el propósito de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o cualquier otro trabajo para dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; - En relación con el inciso (b), no se requiere que el Contratista ceda ningún subcontrato al Contratante; - En cuanto al inciso (c), por el retiro unilateral y voluntario que el Contratista hizo del sitio de las obras, el mismo ya fue asumido por el Contratante, por lo que este inciso resulta inaplicable. - En cuanto a los incisos (d) y (e), se requiere la entrega de planos red lines, manuales, últimas facturas de los pagos de servicios básicos, due diligence, etc., por lo que se le previene proceder conforme a lo en ellos indicado, en un plazo máximo de 5 días hábiles. 3.- Por todo lo anterior y estando comprobadas las flagrantes violaciones por parte del Contratista Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO, a las disposiciones estipuladas en el contrato para proceder con la rescisión y comprobado también el incumplimiento en cuanto al plazo de entrega de las obras, amén de haber desistido del contrato, SE DISPONE: la Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017 en lo que concierne a al Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." 2) Oficio FID-2692-2020 de 13 de julio de 2020, mediante el cual se rechaza la solicitud de rescisión por conveniencia del contratista planteada por parte del Consorcio y se declara, a su vez, la rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante de los proyectos No. 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul. Dicho oficio en lo que interesa basa el fundamento de la rescisión con el siguiente motivo: "fue irrespetado por el Consorcio al haber hecho abandono de las obras, con lo cual claramente “desistió” del contrato y constituye una causal adicional para que el Contratante rescinda el contrato, al amparo de lo que disponen los numeral 42.2.2 y 40.2.2, incisos a), c) y d). 2.- Por otra parte, el Liceo de Santa Rosa debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, por lo que le aplican las multas señaladas en la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación, que forma parte de las condiciones contractuales y que indica lo siguiente: “La indemnización será de un 2.5 por mil, por día de atraso, del monto total del contrato... (h) Si la suma de sanciones alcanza el 10% del MCA, que se entenderá como deducción máxima, se considerará como incumplimiento grave y el Contratante estará facultado para resolver unilateralmente el contrato. En todo caso, la suma de multas aplicadas no excederá el 10% del MCA…” En el caso específico del Liceo de Santa Rosa, además, aplica el incumplimiento grave señalado en la subcláusula 26.2, dado que el presupuesto que contiene el inciso h) se alcanza a los 40 días de atraso en la entrega del centro, por lo que siendo que al día de hoy contabiliza 72 días de atraso registrado, con ello se supera el máximo establecido para dar lugar a la rescisión del contrato. Sobre la “Garantía del Plazo de Terminación”, indica la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones generales del cartel: “26.2 Si el Contratista no termina las Obras o una parte cualquiera de ellas dentro del plazo de terminación o la prórroga de ese plazo conforme a la Cláusula 40 de las CG, el Contratista pagará al Contratante una indemnización por daños y perjuicios por el monto especificado en las CE, equivalente a un porcentaje del precio del Contrato, o la parte pertinente de éste. El monto total de esa indemnización no excederá en ningún caso el monto especificado en las CE como “deducción máxima”. Una vez alcanzada la deducción máxima, el Contratante podrá considerar la posibilidad de rescindir el Contrato de conformidad con la Subcláusula 42.2.2 de las CG.” Por su parte, la Subcláusula 26.2 de las condiciones especiales del cartel señala: “... (h) Si la suma de sanciones alcanza el 10% del MCA, que se entenderá como deducción máxima, se considerará como incumplimiento grave y el Contratante estará facultado para resolver unilateralmente el contrato…” Por ende, al haberse ya excedido sobradamente el tiempo de atraso necesario para alcanzar el 10% máximo de cobro permitido por este concepto, se constituye en una razón adicional para proceder con la rescisión del contrato por el incumplimiento grave del contratista, puesto que se activa lo estipulado en la subcláusula 42.2.2. 3.- En reunión sostenida con el consorcio al que usted representa el día 10 de junio de 2020, usted nos informó que a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020, se habían retirado de los proyectos, aduciendo rescisión contractual. Consideramos que la rescisión unilateral realizada por el consorcio IDECORUCO-GCI, que incluyó el retiro de los vigilantes de las obras en construcción, carece de la formalidad procedimental y aplicación correcta de las condiciones contractuales. El abandono de las obras provocó la actuación inmediata del Fideicomiso para el debido resguardo de las inversiones; con la asignación de la vigilancia correspondiente y tomar posesión de los centros en construcción. Dado lo anterior, consideramos que al contratista le aplican los literales (c) y (d) de la subcláusula 42.2.2 del cartel de licitación LPI-01-2016 (sic) como causal adicional para rescindir el contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul: “…omite en forma persistente ejecutar el Contrato de acuerdo a los términos contractuales o descuida en forma persistente y sin justa causa el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato,…”, “…rehúsa o no puede proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada en el programa presentado conforme a la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG a un ritmo que dé al Contratante una seguridad razonable de que el Contratista puede completar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación prorrogado…” Vistos y comprobados los incumplimientos mencionados, se procede a emitir la presente decisión de rescisión contractual y se le previene al Consorcio para que cumpla con lo establecido en la subcláusula 42.2.3 de la Condiciones Generales del cartel que forma parte del contrato, la cual reza lo siguiente: “Al recibir la notificación de rescisión conforme a las Subcláusulas 42.2.1 o 42.2.2 de las CG, el Contratista, inmediatamente o en la fecha que se especifique en la notificación de rescisión: (a) suspenderá todos los trabajos, con excepción de aquellos que pueda especificar el Contratante en la notificación de rescisión con el único propósito de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o cualquier trabajo requerido para dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; (b) rescindirá todos los subcontratos, excepto los que hayan de cederse al Contratante de conformidad con lo dispuesto más adelante en el apartado (d); (c) entregará al Contratante las partes de las Obras ejecutadas por el Contratista hasta la fecha de la rescisión; (d) en la medida legalmente posible, cederá al Contratante todos los derechos, títulos y beneficios del Contratista respecto de las Obras y la planta a partir de la fecha de la rescisión y, a requerimiento del Contratante, respecto de todos los subcontratos formalizados entre el Contratista y sus SubContratistas; e) entregará al Contratante todos los planos, especificaciones y otros documentos preparados por el Contratista o sus SubContratistas hasta la fecha de la rescisión en conexión con las Obras.” En relación con lo indicado en la anterior subcláusula, y dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto, se aclara lo siguiente: - En relación con el inciso (a), no procede que se continúe con trabajo alguno que tenga el propósito de proteger la parte de las Obras ya ejecutada, o cualquier otro trabajo para dejar el sitio de las Obras en buenas condiciones de limpieza y seguridad; - En relación con el inciso (b), no se requiere que el Contratista ceda ningún subcontrato al Contratante; - En cuanto al inciso (c), por el retiro unilateral y voluntario que el Contratista hizo del sitio de las obras, el mismo ya fue asumido por el Contratante, por lo que este inciso resulta inaplicable. - En cuanto a los incisos (d) y (e), se requiere la entrega de planos red lines, manuales, últimas facturas de los pagos de servicios básicos, due diligence, etc., por lo que se le previene proceder conforme a lo en ellos indicado, en un plazo máximo de 5 días hábiles. 3.- Por todo lo anterior y estando comprobadas las flagrantes violaciones por parte del Contratista Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO, a las disposiciones estipuladas en el contrato para proceder con la rescisión y comprobado también el incumplimiento en cuanto al plazo de entrega de las obras, amén de haber desistido del contrato, SE DISPONE: la Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." 4.- PRESUPUESTOS COMUNES DE LA RESCISIÓN ORDENADA: Se extrae de esos oficios, las siguientes situaciones de interés, por las cuales se dictó la rescisión general para las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017:
• a)Falta de entrega oportuna del contrato: No hubo entrega en fecha acordada: del Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870 (debía ser entregado el 23 de enero de 2019 y al 8 de junio 2020, se registró un atraso de 502 días, respecto de la fecha en la que debió haberse entregado el proyecto). Centro Educativo Liceo de Santa Rosa 23-5969 (debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, contabilizando 72 días de atraso registrado respecto de la fecha en la que debió haberse entregado el proyecto). Centro Educativo Escuela Azul 24-1942 (debía ser entregado el 28 de mayo de 2020, pero al 08 de junio de 2020 se había retirado de la obra (numerales 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación) b) Abandono del contrato: el Consorcio se retiró de los proyectos en fecha 08 de junio de 2020, incluyendo los servicios de vigilancia, sin concluir las obras -numeral 42.2.2 y 40.2.2, incisos a), c) y d)-, razón por la cual, al darse esa circunstancia, se justificó la rescisión.
• c)Rehusar o no poder proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada: por excederse el tiempo de atraso necesario para alcanzar el 10% máximo de cobro permitido por este concepto, supuesto que activa lo estipulado en la subcláusula 42.2.2, en los literales (c) y (d) que señalan respectivamente: “…omite en forma persistente ejecutar el Contrato de acuerdo a los términos contractuales o descuida en forma persistente y sin justa causa el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato…”, “…rehúsa o no puede proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada en el programa presentado conforme a la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG a un ritmo que dé al Contratante una seguridad razonable de que el Contratista puede completar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación prorrogado…” 5.- LA RESCISIÓN NO CONTIENE MOTIVOS ACREDITADOS QUE IMPLIQUEN UN CRITERIO DE IMPUTACIÓN, BASE DE LA RESPONSABILIDAD PEDIDA Y SU DECLARATORIA DE DISCONFORMIDAD. IMPROCEDENCIA CONSECUENTE DE LA GESTIÓN DE RESCISIÓN POR PARTE DEL CONSORCIO. IMPROCEDENCIA PARA DECLARAR EL DERECHO SUBJETIVO DE LA ACTORA DE RESCINDIR POR CONVENIENCIA EL CONTRATO NO. 88-2017 EN LO QUE CONCIERNE AL CENTRO EDUCATIVO N° 058-070 ESCUELA HERMOSA, N° 23-5969 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA Y N° 24-1942 ESCUELA AZUL.

En la especie, según se comprobó, la normativa del cartel estableció, con vinculación para las partes, criterios de aplicación, entre otros:

• A)Presupuesto Primero/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Normativa particular y excepcional vinculante para las partes contratantes. 1.1.- Naturaleza Pública de la Licitación.
• B)Presupuesto Segundo/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- "Contrato tipo Suma Global".
• C)Presupuesto Tercero/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- "Contrato tipo Suma Global (precio) y plazo puede variar por Órdenes de Modificación OM".
• D)Presupuesto Cuarto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Los presupuestos de la rescisión son tasados, y las reglas vinculantes definidas en la licitación someten a las partes contratantes para este tipo de terminación anticipada del contrato.
• E)Presupuesto Quinto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Las obras son de ejecución independiente.
• F)Presupuesto Sexto/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- Pago por hito concluido (100%). G) Presupuesto Sétimo/Criterio aplicable al sub lite. 1.- El anticipo de fondos debe ser garantizado y constituye adelanto al precio global una vez entregada la obra y compensable con el valor resultante de obras inconclusas.

Así, el contrato administrativo, contenía claramente un objeto definido, un plazo cierto y determinado de duración, un precio global fijo y prestaciones de tracto único, que viene a identificarse con las entregas de cada uno de los proyectos, que a su vez, se iban cumpliendo con los avances de cada hito entregable al 100% de su ejecución. Consta en autos, que el actor no sólo aceptó al momento de presentar la oferta para participar en la Licitación Pública 01-2017, sino también, conocía los términos bajo los cuales se regularía el plazo de vigencia, la constitución de hitos para los pagos parciales (la entrega de obra por hitos es una forma de gestionar la entrega y los pagos, pero no cambia la naturaleza del contrato de obra como un contrato de tracto único, así, los hitos son puntos clave en el cronograma del proyecto que indican un avance importante o la finalización de una fase, que pueden ser utilizados para la gestión de pagos parciales, pero no modifican la naturaleza del contrato de tracto único, que se centra en la entrega final. La obra finalizada es la prestación única que se realiza en el tiempo, y los hitos son puntos de referencia para la gestión del proyecto), las posibles ampliaciones a través de las Órdenes de Servicio, Órdenes de Suspensión y las Órdenes de Modificación. Ahora, si vemos el acto de rescisión que produce efectos jurídicos directos, suspende los procedimientos y/o pone término al contrato mismo, entonces lo que se tiene, se puede afirmar, es un acto final ablatorio y eso, es precisamente lo que ocurrió en este caso, con lo cual, para invocar su invalidez, debía reprocharse el motivo de su dictado.

Como se desprende de lo que este Tribunal tiene por comprobado en los hechos probados 31 a 38, sucedió que el Consorcio, por oficio 22 de mayo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539, informó al Fideicomiso "Rescisión por incumplimiento sustancial del contrato por parte del Fideicomiso por haber incumplido con resguardar el principio de mantenimiento del equilibrio económico de los contratos asociados a las Licitaciones Públicas LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04, lo cual constituye un incumplimiento sustancial y su decisión unilateral y arbitraria de no acudir a la instauración del Comité de Resolución de Controversias, esto con respecto a los montos adeudados por ejecución de obras en los contratos constructivos de las Licitaciones LPI01, LPI02 y LP04, al no restablecerse el equilibrio económico contractual de todos nuestros contratos. Solicitamos proceder con el pago de la suma total de $5.404.235,98 (cinco millones cuatrocientos cuatro mil doscientos treinta y cinco dólares con noventa y ocho centavos), lo cual representa un veinte seis (coma) setenta y cinco (26,75) por ciento de la suma total de los montos de los contratos suscritos con su representada, con el fin de continuar ejecutando nuestras obligaciones. Caso contrario, se rescindirá automáticamente los contratos de las Licitaciones LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04". Ese era el motivo de su advertencia para imponer unilateralmente la rescisión. Posteriormente, dada el aviso anterior, el mismo Consorcio por oficio 24 de junio de 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548, comunica al Fideicomiso, aplicación de su parte y unilateral del numeral 42.3 Rescisión por el Contratista. 42.3.1 Si: (...) indicando que: "Por tanto, siendo que han pasado más de los veintiocho (28) días posteriores a la notificación realizada al Fideicomiso el día 22 de mayo del 2020, sin que el Fideicomiso subsanara el incumplimiento alegado, el Consorcio no puede continuar con las obligaciones de este Contrato, debido a razones que son atribuibles directamente al Contratante, por lo que este Contrato se da por rescindido unilateralmente y las obras pasan a ser responsabilidad exclusiva del Fideicomiso. Asimismo, siendo que el Contrato está rescindido solicito el pago de los siguientes hitos o extremos por un monto total de $2.225.335,11: 1. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: ? OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES por un monto de $31.667,80, ? Mejora de taludes -muros de tierra armada- por un monto de $274.142,53, 2. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Ventaneria y puertas por un monto de $63.104,08, ? Pintura por un monto de $31.552,05, ? Sistemas eléctricos -cableado y acometida- por un monto de $63.104,08, ? Sistema eléctricos -dispositivos y accesorios- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Sistemas mecánicos -exteriores- por un monto de $29.891,41, ? Obras complementarias y exteriores por un monto de $119.565,63, 3. Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 024-1942 Escuela Azul: ? Concretos estructurales de rampa: por un monto de $189.961 ? Sistemas eléctricos -canalización-: por un monto de $47.490,50, ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos-: por un monto de $31.660,00, ? Contrapisos -100% de avance colado-: por un monto de $31.660,00, 4. Además, debe procederse de forma inmediata con la devolución de las garantías de cumplimiento (Cumplimiento 21655 Promerica $88.849,28, Cumplimiento 21666 Promerica $288.849,26, Cumplimiento 24515 Promerica $251.534,61, Cumplimiento 211CAUC000043402 DESYFIN $50.000,00, Cumplimiento 4245422 BAC $36.916,41, Anticipo 23828 Promerica $246.949,87, Anticipo 23835 Promerica $168.235,19, Anticipo 23829 Promerica $74.728,52, Anticipo 25107 Promerica $45.690,57. Total $1.251.753,71.

Ante esa situación descrita, y en el interin de los oficios del Consorcio, el Fideicomiso por oficio del 11 de junio de 2020 FID-2213-2020, remite al BID "Solicitud de No Objeción" para resolver el contrato N° 88-2017, con el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, en lo que concierne al Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, justificándolo así: "Lo anterior, debido al atraso de 503 días registrado al 10 de junio de 2020, en la entrega del Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa, adjudicado al Consorcio. Este Centro, debió de ser entregado el 23 de enero del 2019 y así se le indicó al contratista según nota adjunta “19.01.24_SUP.RD.124_VENCIMIENTO DEL PLAZO DE EJECUCIÓN - ESCUELA LA HERMOSA”. La solicitud de no objeción para resolver el contrato se realiza al cumplirse lo indicado en la subcláusula 26.2 del cartel de licitación." Igualmente, por oficio del 29 de junio de 2020 FID-2495-2020 con esa misma intención, remite al BID Solicitud de no objeción para resolver el contrato N° 88-2017, con el consorcio Ruco-Ideco-GCI, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, pero en esta oportunidad, debido a los efectos del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548, señalándoles "que aplicaron la rescisión unilateral a partir del 8 de junio de 2020, en las obras aún en construcción que le fueron adjudicadas en los procesos LPI-02-2016, LPI-04-2016 y LPI-01-2017. La rescisión unilateral realizada por el consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, incluyó el retiro de los vigilantes de las obras en construcción. Consideramos que esa actuación del contratista carece de la formalidad procedimental y aplicación correcta de las condiciones contractuales. El abandono de las obras provocó la actuación inmediata del Fideicomiso para procurar vigilancia y tomar posesión de los centros en construcción. Dado lo anterior, consideramos que al contratista le aplica la cláusula 42.2.2 del cartel de licitación LPI-04-2016, como causal para rescindir el contrato indicado en la referencia en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul. (...) "el Liceo de Santa Rosa debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, por lo que le aplican las multas señaladas en la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación (...) "En el caso específico del Liceo de Santa Rosa, además, aplica el incumplimiento grave señalado en la subcláusula 26.2, dado que el presupuesto que contiene el inciso h) se alcanza a los 40 días de atraso en la entrega del centro, por lo que siendo que al día de hoy contabiliza 72 días de atraso registrado, con ello se supera el máximo establecido para dar lugar a la rescisión del contrato." Siguiéndose con el trámite normado en el Cartel de la licitación, el BID mediante oficio CID/CCR/736/2020 del ocho de julio de dos mil veinte autorizó la solicitud de rescisión, por lo que el Fideicomiso mediante oficio FID-2692-2020 de fecha 13 de julio de 2020, respondiendo a los oficios del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548; GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-591; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-917, rechaza la rescisión gestionada por éste y a su vez le comunica Rescisión del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, y por oficio FID-2493-2020 29 de junio de 2020 respondiendo a los oficios del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-539; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-04-2016-905; GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-582; rechaza la rescisión gestionada por éste y a su vez le comunica Rescisión del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela Hermosa. En esos oficios, estaba el motivo justificante de la rescisión. Esto es, y en relación a los dos primeros centros de enseñanza (Santa Rosa y Azul), se le justificó la rescisión al Consorcio indicando los motivos de la siguiente manera: "por fundarse en cláusulas que no prevén tal posibilidad, sino además por no haberse seguido el procedimiento que el cartel, como parte integrante del contrato", "el Consorcio al haber hecho abandono de las obras, con lo cual claramente “desistió” del contrato y constituye una causal adicional para que el Contratante rescinda el contrato, al amparo de lo que disponen los numeral 42.2.2 y 40.2.2, incisos a), c) y d).(...)", "el Liceo de Santa Rosa debió de ser entregado el 15 de abril del 2020, por lo que le aplican las multas señaladas en la subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del cartel de licitación, que forma parte de las condiciones contractuales (...) En el caso específico del Liceo de Santa Rosa, además, aplica el incumplimiento grave señalado en la subcláusula 26.2, dado que el presupuesto que contiene el inciso h) se alcanza a los 40 días de atraso en la entrega del centro, por lo que siendo que al día de hoy contabiliza 72 días de atraso registrado, con ello se supera el máximo establecido para dar lugar a la rescisión del contrato" (...) "a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020, se habían retirado de los proyectos, aduciendo rescisión contractual. Consideramos que la rescisión unilateral realizada por el consorcio IDECORUCO-GCI, que incluyó el retiro de los vigilantes de las obras en construcción, carece de la formalidad procedimental y aplicación correcta de las condiciones contractuales. El abandono de las obras provocó la actuación inmediata del Fideicomiso para el debido resguardo de las inversiones; con la asignación de la vigilancia correspondiente y tomar posesión de los centros en construcción. Dado lo anterior, consideramos que al contratista le aplican los literales (c) y (d) de la subcláusula 42.2.2 del cartel de licitación LPI-01-2016, como causal adicional para rescindir el contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul.", "y dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto y en su lugar declarar por su parte la rescisión", por lo que "SE DISPONE: La Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017, en lo que concierne a los centros 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." Y en relación al tercer centro de enseñanza (Hermosa) justifica lo ordenado al imputarle que "por fundarse en cláusulas que no prevén tal posibilidad, sino además por no haberse seguido el procedimiento que el cartel, como parte integrante del contrato (...) El Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, debió ser entregado el 23 de enero de 2019. Al 8 de junio 2020, fecha en la que el Consorcio se retiró del proyecto, se registró un atraso de 502 días, respecto de la fecha en la que debió haberse entregado el proyecto. En reunión sostenida con el consorcio el día 10 de junio de 2020, usted nos informó que a partir del día 8 de junio de 2020 se habían retirado de los proyectos, incluyendo los servicios de vigilancia. Por lo anterior y con el propósito de resguardar las inversiones realizadas, el fideicomiso se vio obligado a tomar las acciones necesarias para asignar vigilancia a la brevedad posible en el centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" (...) "Por ende, al haberse ya excedido sobradamente el tiempo de atraso necesario para alcanzar el 10% máximo de cobro permitido por este concepto, se constituye en una razón adicional para proceder con la rescisión del contrato por el incumplimiento grave del contratista, puesto que activa lo estipulado en la subcláusula 42.2.2, en los literales (c) y (d)"., y "dada la situación de retiro unilateral y voluntaria que hizo el Contratista del proyecto, y en su lugar declarar por su parte la rescisión", por lo que "SE DISPONE: la Rescisión unilateral por parte del Contratante del contrato N° 88-2017 en lo que concierne a al Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa, la cual rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión." De esa relación en detalle, se aprecia que la rescisión unilateral declarada por el Fideicomiso del contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a los proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, empezó a regir a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, y sobre la Escuela La Hermosa con rige a partir de la comunicación de esa decisión el día 26 de junio de 2020 a través de FID-2493-2020. No consta en autos hecho alguno acreditado en donde el Consorcio haya impugnado el acto final de Rescisión en la sede de origen.

A partir de esos hechos, el Tribunal descarta disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico o del acto reprochado basándose en lo siguiente:

5.1.- INEXISTENCIA DEL DESEQUILIBRIO ECONÓMICO PROVOCADO POR EL FIDEICOMISO DE ACUERDO A LOS ALCANCES Y EFECTOS PACTADOS SURGIDOS DEL CARTEL DE LA LICITACIÓN. 1.- CONTRATO TIPO SUMA GLOBAL". El Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, refiere vinculantemente para las partes, que la naturaleza económica de las ofertas, es bajo el denominado concepto "Contrato de Tipo Suma Global". Así fue licitado, ofertado y adjudicado, de acuerdo a los lineamientos constitutivos contenidos en la referencia cartelaria, dispuesta en: Primera parte: Procedimientos de Licitación, Sección II. Datos de la Licitación/H.Preparación de las Ofertas, Apartes IAO 15.1/Tabla No.3/Lote 2, IAO 16.2, 16.3 y IAO 16.5, y que dispuso, bajo el conocimiento aceptado del Consorcio, los siguientes alcances de interés: "IAO 16.2, 16.3:/ El Oferente indicará los precios totales para todas las actividades del diseño, construcción y equipamiento de cada una de las obras definidas en el presente pliego de licitación. El Oferente podrá presentar oferta por uno o más lotes completos. Los precios totales deberán ser indicados como una “Suma Alzada” para cada lote, pero desagregando el monto para cada Centro Educativo dentro del lote con fines de seguimiento contractual. El Contratista asumirá los costos de las instalaciones provisionales y definitivas para el desarrollo de las obras y el pago de los servicios de agua y electricidad necesarios para el desarrollo de la obra. Será responsabilidad del Contratista, cumplir con todos los requisitos que las Instituciones Públicas soliciten para la completa conexión de los Servicios Públicos (...) Al tratarse de un proyecto de Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento, el Oferente hará su mejor propuesta técnica en estricto apego y cumplimiento a los documentos técnicos disponibles tales como: estudios de suelos, requisitos e indicaciones de planos, y en cumplimiento de las especificaciones técnicas sanitarias incluidas en la SECCION_VI._B._ESP_TECNICAS_MINIMAS, así como de las normativas nacionales vigentes y las buenas prácticas constructivas que aseguren un adecuado funcionamiento de todo el sistema (...) Se les recuerda a los oferentes lo indicado en “Segunda parte. Requisitos del Diseño, la Obra y el Equipamiento”: “…Cualquier trabajo adicional, ampliación y/o elaboración de estudios que el Oferente considere necesario para la correcta ejecución del contrato, será exclusiva y única responsabilidad del Contratista y no dará lugar a ningún pago ni reclamo adicional al precio cotizado. El contrato será de tipo suma global, por lo que todos los riesgos constructivos serán de cuenta del contratista. En este sentido debe quedar claro que el Contratista debe garantizar que cada obra posea todos los componentes y características necesarios para un funcionamiento integralmente eficaz, según los mejores estándares de calidad que rigen la construcción y según dictan las mejores prácticas de ingeniería y las leyes aplicables. Se entenderá que los costos asociados a todas las actividades y tareas que deberán ejecutarse para el Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento deben ser incluidos y detallados en el precio de cada oferta. Los costos estimados, incluyendo el depósito de la garantía ambiental, realización y costeo de los estudios necesarios para el diseño y la construcción, inscripción y visado de planos ante el CFIA y cualquier otra institución como Bomberos, Municipalidad, Aviación Civil, Ministerio de Salud y cualquier otra entidad, deben ser incluidos y detallados en el precio de cada oferta. El Contratista deberá incluir en su oferta el desglose de todos los montos correspondientes a tasas y cargos necesarios para realizar los trámites y obtención del visado y permisos de todo tipo para realizar la construcción. Por la naturaleza del Programa, puede darse el caso de que el Contratante se encuentre exonerado del pago de algunos de ellos, en cuyo caso esos montos que se logren exonerar serán deducidos de los pagos al Adjudicatario.” Aquellos cargos que no aparezcan en el desglose no serán reconocidos al Contratista, ya que se presumirán incluidos en alguno de los otros rubros del precio. Corre por cuenta del Contratista asumir los costos asociados que deriven de la implementación del plan de gestión ambiental y social, Supervisión, Movilización, Construcción de las Obras y Equipamiento, de acuerdo con los alcances definidos en el presente pliego de licitación, están incluidos en los precios totales ofertados (Suma Alzada). El Contratante no pagará sumas adicionales a las ofertadas por ninguna tarea relacionada con la ejecución del contrato que se llegue a suscribir (...) Los precios de cada uno de los Centros Educativos son fijos e invariables y no estarán sujetos a reajustes de precios. Los Oferentes deberán hacer una proyección de los aumentos que pueden sufrir todos los elementos y componentes de las obras, durante todo el proceso constructivo y considerarlo en la suma cotizada para cada Colegio y, consecuentemente, en el monto total de su oferta. En este sentido debe quedar meridianamente claro que el Contratante espera que cada obra posea todos los componentes y características necesarios para un funcionamiento integralmente eficaz, según los mejores estándares de calidad que rigen la construcción y según dictan las mejores prácticas de ingeniería y las leyes aplicables (...). IAO 16.5 El Contratante realizará el pago de las Obras sobre un monto global, fijo (Suma Alzada, no sujeta a ajustes), correspondiendo al Oferente el deber de considerar en su Oferta todos los componentes e insumos que podrían ser susceptibles de variación en el mercado, hasta la finalización del contrato; de manera tal que al momento de ofertar el Precio Total del Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento, el Oferente debe considerar dentro de su precio ofertado la previsión de escalamiento de precios a futuro, durante todo el periodo de construcción y equipamiento (incluida la instalación y puesta en operación), definido a partir del comportamiento de esos insumos en el mercado, pues estos incrementos no podrán reclamarse por aparte." 5.2.- DE LA MISMA MANERA ACORDADA, EL CARTEL DE LICITACIÓN LPI-01-2017, DETERMINÓ QUE EL CONTRATO TIPO SUMA GLOBAL (PRECIO) Y PLAZO PODÍA VARIAR POR ÓRDENES DE MODIFICACIÓN OM". Dicho compromiso surge a partir del principio "Pacta sunt servanda", en donde la sujeción y sometimiento de las partes al proceso constructivo y equipamiento para la obra pública contratada, deriva de la estipulación normativa del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, que refiere vinculantemente para las partes, la naturaleza modificativa a los alcances esenciales del contrato por medio de las Órdenes de Modificación, cuales podrán variar el plazo y el precio ofertado según corresponda, entendiéndose que la solicitud de éstas puede ser por cuenta del contratante o bien del contratista, tal y como sucedió en autos y según así se regula en "SECCIÓN VII. CONDICIONES GENERALES (CG)"/C. Pagos y H. Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato" que al respecto estipula: 11. Precio del Contrato. 11.1 El precio del Contrato será el que se indique en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato y Condiciones de Pago) del Convenio. 11.2 A menos que se incorpore en las CE una Cláusula de ajuste, el precio del Contrato será una suma alzada fija, que no podrá modificarse, salvo en caso de una modificación de las Obras o si se dispone otra cosa en el Contrato (...). H. Modificación de los Elementos del Contrato" 39. Modificación de las Obras. 39.1 Introducción de una Modificación. 39.1.1 Con sujeción a las Subcláusulas 39.2.5 y 39.2.7 de las CG, el Contratante tendrá derecho a proponer y posteriormente a requerir que el Gerente de Proyecto ordene ocasionalmente al Contratista que haga durante el cumplimiento del Contrato cualquier modificación, cambio, adición o supresión en las Obras (en adelante denominada “modificación”), siempre que esa modificación se inscriba dentro del alcance general de las Obras y no constituya un trabajo no relacionado, y que sea técnicamente viable, teniendo en cuenta el estado de adelanto de las Obras y la compatibilidad técnica de la modificación prevista con la naturaleza de las Obras según se especifica en el Contrato. 39.1.2 El Contratista podrá ocasionalmente, durante la ejecución del Contrato proponer al Contratante (con copia al Gerente de Proyecto) cualquier modificación que el Contratista considere necesaria o conveniente para mejorar la calidad, eficiencia o seguridad de las Obras. El Contratante podrá, a su discreción, aprobar o rechazar cualquier modificación propuesta por el Contratista, pero aprobará toda modificación propuesta por el Contratista que tenga por finalidad garantizar la seguridad de las Obras. 39.1.3 No obstante lo dispuesto en las Subcláusulas 39.1.1 y 39.1.2 de las CG, ningún cambio que resulte necesario a causa de un incumplimiento por el Contratista de sus obligaciones contractuales se considerará como una modificación, y ese cambio no dará lugar a ningún ajuste del precio del Contrato ni del plazo de terminación de las Obras (...) (resaltado intencional); 39.2 Modificaciones Originadas por el Contratante. 39.2.1 Si el Contratante propone una modificación de conformidad con la Subcláusula 39.1.1 de las CG, enviará al Contratista una “Solicitud de propuesta de modificación”, en la que solicitará al Contratista que prepare y proporcione al Gerente de Proyecto en el menor plazo razonablemente factible una “Propuesta de modificación” que incluirá lo siguiente: (a) una breve descripción de la modificación; (b) el efecto de la modificación en el plazo de terminación; (c) el costo estimado de la modificación; (d) el efecto del cumplimiento definido en las Especificaciones (de haberlo); (e) el efecto de la modificación en las Obras; (f) el efecto de la modificación en cualquier otra disposición del Contrato. 39.2.2 Antes de preparar y entregar la propuesta de modificación, el Contratista presentará al Gerente de Proyecto una “Estimación de la propuesta de modificación”, en la que se estimará el costo de preparar y presentar la propuesta de modificación (...) 39.2.5 Si antes o durante la preparación de la propuesta de modificación resulta evidente que el efecto agregado de ejecutar ésta y cualesquiera otras órdenes de modificación que hayan pasado a ser obligatorias para el Contratista conforme a la presente Cláusula 39 de las CG sería aumentar o reducir el precio del Contrato originalmente establecido en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato) del Contrato en más de quince por ciento (15%), el Contratista podrá notificar por escrito sus objeciones al respecto antes de presentar la propuesta de modificación en la forma antes indicada. Si el Contratante acepta las objeciones del Contratista, retirará la propuesta de modificación y notificará por escrito al Contratista. El hecho de no presentar objeciones no menoscabará el derecho del Contratista a presentar objeciones a cualesquiera solicitudes de modificación u órdenes de modificación posteriores, ni su derecho a tener en cuenta, cuando presente esas objeciones posteriores, el aumento o la reducción porcentual del precio del Contrato que represente cualquier modificación no objetada por el Contratista (...) 39.3 Modificaciones Originadas por el Contratista. 39.3.1 Si el Contratista propone una modificación de conformidad con la Subcláusula 39.1.2 de las CG, el Contratista presentará por escrito al Gerente de Proyecto una “Solicitud de propuesta de modificación”, en la que se indicarán las razones para efectuar la modificación propuesta y se incluirá la información especificada en la Subcláusula 39.2.1 de las CG. 39.3.2 Al recibirse la solicitud de propuesta de modificación, las Partes seguirán los procedimientos que se indican en las Subcláusulas 39.2.6 y 39.2.7 de las CG. Sin embargo, si el Contratante decide no efectuar las modificaciones, el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recuperar los costos de preparación de la solicitud de propuesta de modificación. 40. Prórroga del Plazo de Terminación de las Obras. 40.1 El plazo o los plazos de terminación que se especifican en las CE conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 de las CG se prorrogarán si el Contratista se ve retrasado u obstaculizado en el cumplimiento de cualquiera de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato por causa de: (a) una modificación de las Obras según lo previsto en la Cláusula 39 de las CG; (b) un evento de fuerza mayor según se dispone en la Cláusula 37 de las CG, condiciones imprevistas según se dispone en la Cláusula 35 de las CG, o cualquier otra circunstancia de las que se especifican o se mencionan en los apartados (a), (b) y (c) de la Subcláusula 32.2 de las CG; (resaltado intencional) (c) una orden de suspensión emitida por el Contratante conforme a la Cláusula 41 de las CG o una reducción del ritmo de avance de conformidad con la Subcláusula 41.2 de las CG, o (d) un cambio en las leyes y regulaciones según se dispone en la Cláusula 36 de las CG, o (e) cualquier incumplimiento o violación del Contrato por parte del Contratante, específicamente incluido el suministro de los ítems que figuran en el correspondiente apéndice del Acuerdo del Contrato, titulado Alcance de las Obras y Suministro por parte del Contratante, o cualquier actividad, acto u omisión del Contratante, o el Gerente de Proyecto, o cualquier otro Contratista empleado por el Contratante, o (f) cualquier retraso por parte de un Subcontratista, siempre y cuando dicho retraso obedezca a una causa por la que el propio Contratista habría tenido derecho a una prórroga del plazo de terminación en virtud de la presente Subcláusula, o (g) retrasos atribuibles al Contratante u ocasionados por los trámites aduaneros, o (h) cualquier otro asunto mencionado específicamente en el Contrato, por un período que sea justo y razonable en todas las circunstancias y que refleje cabalmente la demora o el impedimento sufridos por el Contratista." Ahora, visto el asunto desde la cosa regulada, de alguna manera, la opción de las Órdenes de Modificación, cuando así han sido aceptadas y aprobadas en donde se varía el objeto, aún en parte en cuanto el plazo y el precio, viene a significar implícitamente la instrumentación de la conocida cláusula "rebus sic stantibus", que como salvaguarda por una situación extraordinaria, permite en el tránsito de la ejecución del contrato, el revisar o modificar los elementos esenciales del pacto, si las circunstancias bajo las cuales se realizó han cambiado de forma sustancial e imprevisible, es decir, creando un desequilibrio en las obligaciones de las partes, debiendo ser que esas condiciones o circunstancias que estaban presentes al momento de su creación han cambiado de manera fundamental. Por lo que se debe entender, que para que la rebus sic stantibus sea aplicable, es necesario plantear que la alteración sea extraordinaria a las circunstancias pactadas, esto es, el cambio debe ser significativo y no contemplado al momento de la celebración del contrato, como en efecto podría indicarse en relación con la OM-1 surgida con posterioridad a la adjudicación y que perseguía con esa modificación tratar en el Liceo Santa Rosa, el detalle de los taludes, aumentando el precio de la obra para la atención de las mismas actividades constructivas adicionales requeridas a ese efecto. Además, debe existir un desequilibrio prestacional, es decir, que la modificación de las circunstancias debe generar un desequilibrio en las obligaciones de las partes, haciendo que una de ellas se vea en una situación de excesiva onerosidad, imposibilidad o excesiva dificultad de cumplimiento, así la parte afectada debe demostrar que el cumplimiento del contrato en las nuevas condiciones resulta imposible o extremadamente difícil, de allí la orden de modificación.

Por ello, en los contratos a suma global, como el de la especie, el contratista no solo se compromete a completar un proyecto por un precio total predeterminado, sin importar los costos reales que pueda incurrir, resultando en el responsable de completar el proyecto según los términos del contrato, incluso si los costos reales exceden el precio acordado, asumiendo la mayor parte del riesgo financiero, al recibir a cambio de las prestaciones a que se compromete, una remuneración de una suma fija y por lo tanto incluye todos los costos directos e indirectos en que incurrirá para la ejecución de la obra. Con esta razón, y en principio, no se hace el reconocimiento de obras adicionales o mayores cantidades de obra no previstas, pues el contratista asume el deber de terminar la obra, bajo su porpia eficiencia o no, sin perjuicio de que demuestre la ocurrencia del desequilibrio económico. No se puede ignorar, o soslayar la realidad de la ejecución del Contrato 88-2017, que si bien el lote adjudicado sobre los tres centros de enseñanza estaban tasados a suma global por los siguientes precios: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); para un monto total contractual de USD $6,146,149.50, el proyecto del Liceo Santa Rosa, tuvo inconveniencias desde su arranque por el tema de los taludes. De los hechos 10 a 17 que este Tribunal ha tenido por demostrado, si bien el proyecto inició su construcción en tiempo y forma, ya para el 16 de julio de 2018, el Consorcio gestó ante el Gerente de Supervisión Consorcio CSI-CACISA el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-044, mediante el cual se planteaba solicitud de suspensión temporal de plazo de obras de cuatro semanas para poder realizar los estudios de suelo y estabilidad complementarios, con el fin de plantear las modificaciones al diseño actual requeridas y coordinar la ejecución de los estudios de suelos, elaboración de los informes, análisis de la información y rediseño de planos de movimiento de tierras, en razón de encontrarse durante el inicio de las labores de movimiento de tierras del proyecto, y que al realizar el corte de los taludes, aparecieron “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura, surgiendo rellenos de materiales no consolidados, que se encontraron por debajo de otras capas de suelo, que no fueron detectados por las pruebas puntuales ni era fácilmente detectables de manera cualitativa mediante observación directa dada la cobertura vegetal que existía, razón por la cual se consideró una situación no previsible en la condición de los suelos, durante la actividad de movimiento de tierras. Esa gestión fue resuelta, aceptada y aprobada, en fecha 20 de julio de 2018, según se aprecia en oficio "Heredia, 26 de julio de 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018", y del mismo se desprende que el Fideicomiso conoció como Asunto: OS-01, la SUSPENSION PLAZO DE EJECUCION - Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, señalándose que rige desde el 21 de julio y hasta el 11 de agosto de 2018 y por ello, y dado que la fecha efectiva e inicio de la etapa de construcción y equipamiento del centro educativo en referencia fue el 21 de mayo de 2018 y la fecha original de entrega el 21 de octubre "(...) la presente Orden de Servicio 1 (...) establece el inicio de los 22 días naturales de suspensión el sábado 21 de julio de 2018 finalizado el día 11 de agosto de 2018 lo cual traslada la fecha de entrega de las obras al 12 de noviembre de 2018." Luego, el Consorcio por medio de oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCOLPI-2017-088 del primero de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho, realizó otra solicitud adicional de ampliación de suspensión de plazo por 15 días naturales para preparar una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas de la OM-1, sin embargo, dicha gestión fue rechazada por la Unidad de Supervisión mediante el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho, por no ser económicamente viable, como además porque no se había aportado la propuesta con mejoras técnicas y económicas que se había comprometido a presentar y por la circunstancia de que a pesar de que en ese momento las obras se encontraban con orden de suspensión a solicitud del propio Consorcio, se estaban ejecutando obras que no fueron supervisadas y avaladas por el contratante, por lo que las obras se debían reiniciar a partir del 03 de noviembre de 2018, solicitándose indicar la fecha en que entregaran la propuesta de estabilización de los taludes con mejoras técnicas y económicas, concediéndose tres días hábiles a partir de esta notificación, para presenten un programa de trabajo actualizado para la ejecución de las obras. Ante esto, el Consorcio por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 del seis de noviembre de dos mil dieciocho respondió a los puntos señalados en el oficio SUP-RD-670-2018 del dos de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho y es por gestión del mismo Consorcio en oficio precedente GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-075 del doce de octubre de dos mil dieciocho (Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa) que se dio con el inicio a la OS-1. Ahora bien, la situación de hecho de la inestabilidad del terreno para la obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa resultaba ser un hecho notorio en situ del proyecto, precisamente por la inclinación topográfica del terreno y así lo relatan los testigos deponentes en la Audiencia Complementaria, por lo que el Consorcio a partir de la información referencial del anteproyecto y los estudios de suelo informativos, debía realizar mayores estudios desde el inicio e incluso desde la presentación de su oferta si así era de su interés, ya que a los oferentes se les había invitado a ir al sitio a revisar las condiciones topográficas físicas del terreno, y también se les habilitaba a realizar las consultas que deseaban, utilizar o no el anteproyecto general, esto para decidir si participaban o no, o realizar las consultas necesarias. El contratista podía ir al sitio y comprobar las condiciones del terrero. De manera tal que si el contratista es responsable de hacer los planos constructivos, tiene la obligación de hacer todos los estudios necesarios y hacer un diseño estructural que soportara el talud. Resultaba previsible que debía hacerse un estudio adicional para cumplir con los requisitos desde el inicio, lo que generó, por esa omisión del Contratista, que estuvo la posibilidad razonable para preveer desde antes de la presentación de su oferta, y haber decidido si ofertaba o no, siendo que a pesar de ello, el Consorcio, una vez adjudicado, se vio en la necesidad de realizar posteriormente una orden de modificación que contemplaban obras mayores de estabilización de suelos, y que por el monto elevado de la propuesta, incluso se tuvo que llevar a consulta y aprobación del BID y así lo afirma la deposición del testigo en Audiencia Complementaria Guillermo Rojas Chaves: grabación min 1:53:14 a 2:02:30, 1:32:35 a 1:32:45, de la cual el Tribunal le da credibilidad por ser esta persona, representante de la Unidad de Supervisión, por ende del Fideicomiso y por resultado, encargado en sitio de proyecto con conocimiento de esa problemática. Una vez finalizado el plazo correspondiente a la Orden de servicio OS-1, informada por el oficio del 26 de julio de 2018/SUP-RD-370-2018, por gestión del Consorcio, nuevamente se solicitó una suspensión de plazo adicional por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-054 del veinticuatro de agosto de dos mil dieciocho, para la aprobación de la Orden de Servicio OS-2, debido a que durante el proceso constructivo de movimiento de tierras aparecieron otras “bolsas” de material rocoso suelto y un relleno de material suelto contaminado con basura, misma que quedó debidamente aprobada el 13 de setiembre de 2018, suspendiéndose 35 días naturales adicionales más, para lo cual traslada la fecha de entrega de las obras al 15 de diciembre de 2018. Nuevamente, el Consorcio, por oficio datado 6 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-086 solicitó una nueva suspensión de plazo a partir del 3 de noviembre del 2018 y hasta que se defina una solución al problema de la inestabilidad del talud, aceptándose la OS-3 por la contratante el 17 de octubre de 2018 por oficio remitido del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-2017-078 del diecisiete de octubre de dos mil dieciocho, aumentando el plazo 15 días naturales para un plazo autorizado al 01 de enero de 2019. E igualmente a lo anterior, por oficio del 01 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, solicitó la OS-04, para la presentación de una oferta actualizada con mejoras técnicas y económicas a la entregada por la OM-1, siendo la OS-04 aceptada por la contratante el 14 de diciembre de 2018, aumentando el plazo 22 días naturales para un plazo autorizado al 23 de enero de 2019. Sucesiva y posteriormente, por esa misma situación dada, se requirieron las prórrogas a los efectos pedidos en oficio del 01 de noviembre de 2018 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-088, aceptándose las Órdenes de suspensión de Plazo de Ejecución OS-5, OS-6, OS-7, OS-8, OS-9, OS-10, OS-11, OS-12, en consideración de que no se había firmado la Addenda correspondiente con la Orden de Modificación OM-1, indicándose en la última OS-12 "que la suspensión del plazo de ejecución de las obras estará vigente hasta que la Administración le comunicara al contratista la Orden de Reanudación de las Obras, una vez que la Addenda de la OM-1 haya sido firmada por las partes y el contratista haya entregado la respectiva Garantía de Cumplimiento y cancelado las especies fiscales correspondientes.", resultando que se habían autorizado aumentar más el plazo por 239 días naturales para un plazo último autorizado al 28 de agosto de 2019. En ese orden, mediante la Orden de Servicio N°13, aceptada por todas las partes hasta el 02 de setiembre de 2019 (Gerente de obra y Contratista el 28/08/19, Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora el 02/09/19) se firmó la Orden de Servicio Nº13 con la Orden de Modificación N°1 (OM-1), correspondiente a Reanudación de las obras en el proyecto 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa a partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, otorgándose una extensión de plazo de 200 días naturales (150 días de la OM-01 y 50 días de remanente del contrato original) en la ejecución del proyecto, ocasionándose por ello, una aprobación de esa modificación por un monto de $1.015.346.08, que implicaba una variación acumulada correspondiente a un aumento del 76.95% del monto original pactado, para un costo final total de $2.334.837.78, y ya, para ese momento habían transcurriendo 465 días naturales desde la fecha original de inicio de obras hasta la fecha de aceptación de la OS-13 -28/08/2019. Así entonces, la OM-I y ese precio de la modificación y el plazo de entrega debía contener los gastos ordinarios, directos y hasta indirectos del coste adicional dado por el tema del talud. O, lo que es lo mismo, cubriendo con el precio autorizado la propuesta del Contratista con la OM-1, no solo el costo del proyecto del centro de enseñanza y su equipamiento, sino además, las obras adicionales para el tratamiento del talud, a la suma global reformada de $2.334.837.78, situación en particular, que no se expresa acredita en este litigio, esto es, la existencia de un desequilibrio económico al tenor del principio rebus sic standibus, con sus connotaciones características arriba enlistadas, para advertir y justificar el retiro del Consorcio del proyecto, como en realidad lo hizo, lo cual así lo considera el Tribunal.

A ese efecto, la importancia del cartel de licitación, resulta ser considerada de manera más reforzada para el caso específico que nos ocupa, si se toma en cuenta que particularmente para el caso de los contratos que tienen por objeto la construcción de obra pública -conforme el artículo 60 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa, vigente al momento del contrato -, como norma que suple a través de sus principios el contenido de la licitación pública 01-2017, que "La ejecución del contrato de obra se realizará por cuenta y riesgo del contratista y la Administración no asumirá ante él más responsabilidades que las previstas en la contratación"; (en adición puede observarse el artículo 150 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, vigente al momento de la ocurrencia de los hechos). Véase que lo que se dice en el cartel, habría de servir como instrumento de comunicación o lenguaje común, y que por esa razón debiera de resultar como fruto del proceso de su elaboración, objetivo, claro, transparente y diseñado con corrección en la ciencia y técnica aplicable, todo con el fin de proveer de seguridad a los participantes en el procedimiento y a la propia Administración, de una eficaz y eficiente herramienta para la consecución del interés público. Es por eso, que para la elaboración de un cartel que tenga por objeto la construcción de obra pública, deben, como condición insalvable, haberse dado los estudios técnicos previos que exige un arte o ciencia, que le den fundamento y viabilidad al proyecto con orientación a la satisfacción de aquella necesidad pública. La Ley de la Contratación Administrativa en el primer párrafo de su artículo 4 reza: “Principios de eficacia y eficiencia. Todos los actos relativos a la actividad de contratación administrativa deberán estar orientados al cumplimiento de los fines, las metas y los objetivos de la administración, con el propósito de garantizar la efectiva satisfacción del interés general, a partir de un uso eficiente de los recursos institucionales”. Esto no se logró con el retiro del Consorcio de las obras del proyecto. Así, si es que del diseño de una obra pública se trata, se esperaría que en todos los casos, de él se desprendan con un mínimo de rigor al menos, el detalle de los términos de referencia, la información técnica y todos los datos necesarios para el éxito del proceso constructivo. Aspecto que al tenor del hecho probado 7 y 8, se tuvo por comprobado que el Fideicomiso entregó al Consorcio los anteproyectos técnicos, estudios de suelo, e información brindada a los oferentes, incluyendo al Consorcio, como además los planos topográficos, estudios de suelo básico- general, catastro, planos de anteproyecto, documentos de Setena, copia de órdenes de modificación y de servicios y algunas notas de particularidades del proyecto, los cuales son de mera referencia, para la realización de los planos correspondientes, y a quien le correspondía realizar y establecer las especificaciones técnicas que deberían ser iguales o superiores a las establecidas en los documentos de licitación, incluido el anteproyecto de naturaleza referencial, siendo que el diseño resultaba obligación del contratista, que además debía incluir planos constructivos finales, sellados y visados por el CFIA, la municipalidad correspondiente y en general por todas aquellas instituciones competentes, para facilitar la ejecución de las obras por parte del Contratista y su inspección por parte del Contratante. Debiéndose entender por anteproyecto como el documento con un medio gráfico digital o impreso, en donde el profesional prepara una planimetría general en donde se especifica dónde van ubicados cada uno de los aposentos, el arquitecto de cumplir con el contenido establecido por el CFIA; de allí que planos de anteproyecto, no es un documento que defina la ingeniería estructural, eléctricos, civiles ni otros, es meramente arquitectónico y referencial, de allí que los arquitectos debían utilizar los planos típicos establecidos por el MEP y a los oferentes se les permitía o daba la libertad de hacer su anteproyecto y estudios de suelo, siempre y cuando la oferta se presentara el día y la hora establecida. Igualmente se entregaron las listas de hitos junto con los documentos de la licitación, resultando que uno de los primeros hitos es la entrega de los planos constructivos, basados en el anteproyecto, así, los contratistas debían generar las especificaciones técnicas junto con los planos constructivos y además, ello se evidencia de la propia deposición del testigo en Audiencia Complementaria Guillermo Rojas Chaves: 1:24:00 – 1:25:15, como del Contrato de préstamo 2824/OC-CR, LEY 9124/Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017/Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 Lotes de (15) Centros Educativos y (10) Canchas Multiuso/SEGUNDA PARTE. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/SECCIÓN VI. REQUISITOS DEL DISEÑO, LA OBRA Y EL EQUIPAMIENTO/K. Definiciones, conceptos y especificaciones técnicas generales de aplicación a cada uno de los lotes a licitar. Especificaciones técnicas generales.1.19 Diseño final y “tal como se construyó” (“As Built”) 1.20 Planos constructivos. No en balde, el Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa en su artículo 8, b), dispone que para la adopción de la decisión inicial de promover un proceso de contratación administrativa, que medie: "La descripción del objeto, las especificaciones técnicas y características de los bienes, obras o servicios que se requieran, en caso de que puedan existir diferentes opciones técnicas para satisfacer la necesidad, acreditar las razones por las cuales se escoge una determinada solución". Lo anterior habla del necesario y claro conocimiento de lo que se quiere, lo que de forma previa impone a la Administración el deber de estudiar e informarse sobre el bien o servicio que requiere, como lo haría cualquier consumidor en este caso, por el hecho de manejar recursos públicos que no pertenecen a otro que al Estado en nombre de la población a la que debe responder. Esto es, al menos se deben tener claras las especificaciones técnicas que garanticen calidad en la obra por la vía de la definición de patrones y estándares mínimos. Las especificaciones técnicas referenciales comprenden entonces la descripción de la naturaleza, atributos y características técnicas de los bienes y servicios que se desea adquirir y en el cartel, estas especificaciones deben encontrarse acorde con la finalidad que se persigue, de modo que debe describirse con claridad la función del objeto, sus características de calidad, el procedimiento para verificar esa calidad del bien y los indicadores de medición aplicables. De esta manera, el norte del contratista en este sentido, será siempre el proveer un producto que satisfaga la necesidad previamente detectada por la administración que es o podría resultar ser su cliente, pues de lo contrario, en más que menos de los casos se requerirá tramitar una nueva compra que logre el fallido intento, lo que generalmente ocasiona pérdidas importantes en afectación de intereses públicos, tanto en términos de dinero, como de tiempo. El abandonar las obras por el Consorcio, solo dice de una Gerencia constructiva y financiera que no fue solvente ni debida, tampoco practicante de la eficacia y la eficiencia, ddando al traste en la ejecución de las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017, ya que se ha evidenciado retrocesos inimputables al Fideicomiso que le ameriten responsabilidad comprobada antes y durante la gestión efectiva de cada centro educativo en cuanto a todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, para la atención regular en la adecuación, planeamiento, ejecución, construcción y equipamiento con las particularidades singulares que presentó cada proyecto para el plazo de entrega de ellos y por mayoría de razón para el caso del Liceo Santa Rosa.

Bajo este predicado, y con la instrumentación de la OM-1, se restituiría económicamente el contrato, por lo que no se podría hablar de la procedencia de un desequilibrio económico, pues como se ha dicho, para poder hablar de ese instituto, se tendría que desconocer la base misma de todo el acuerdo entre las partes (LP-01-2017), el cual surge del conocimiento de los contrayentes de las condiciones generales que determinaron el convenio, así como de la aceptación de una serie de factores más o menos previsibles de los escenarios que podrían darse en el cumplimiento de la obligación. Si surgió el problema de los retrasos hasta la ejecución de la OM-1 y que por ello se generó una afectación económica (directa o indirecta) relevante, la circunstancia detonante, debió ser imprevisible desde el plano de lo razonable, máxime que al Consorcio en el tratamiento de la OM-1 se le debió devolver por parte del Fideicomiso para su debida justificación. De este modo, para establecer un desequilibrio como el acusado, es imperativa la existencia de un acontecimiento extraordinario, o lo que es lo mismo "el que no es normal que se verifique y en el que las partes no pueden haber pensado porque está fuera de su imaginación". Decir que el acontecimiento deba ser imprevisible, es decir que aun cuando las partes obren con el "cuidado y previsión" debidas, no hayan podido haberlo proyectado para ser tomado en cuenta en orden al rol que cada una posee en el marco de su situación jurídica a partir de la relación contractual de que se trate, por ser desacostumbrado, no significando que deba ser insólito. El hecho sobreviniente a la formación del contrato, calificado como extraordinario e imprevisible, debe además tornar excesivamente onerosa la prestación, a diferencia de lo que ocurre con el caso fortuito y la fuerza mayor, que hacen a la obligación de cumplimiento imposible. De lo dicho, se impone que exista un nexo de causalidad acreditado entre el acontecimiento extraordinario y el desequilibrio, aspecto que a consideración del Tribunal no se ha acreditado por el Consorcio. Nótese, no está probado en autos, que la causa de suspensión de las obras en el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa por la existencia de terrenos no sólidos con posterioridad a la adjudicación del Contrato 88-2017, obedeciera a una situación de imprevisibilidad o de imposible apreciación de previo a la presentación de la oferta del Consorcio en relación a la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, y que no fuera razonablemente previsible a partir de las referencias informativas de los documentos del anteproyecto pertinente a esa obra y consecuentemente de la visita en situ por parte del Consorcio, por lo que ahondar diligente y previamente en estudios geológicos y de suelo adicionales correspondientes a la inclinación topográfica y contenido material que mostraba el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto resultaba ser una diligencia debida (due diligence). Sin embargo, y a pesar del aumento muy considerable del costo de la obra del Liceo Santa Rosa, que hasta deja pensar de una inconveniencia para el uso del terreno por el problema del talud, el Fideicomiso aceptó y autorizó la OM-1 con la adecuación del precio final de la obra.

Tampoco se acreditó que las causas sobrevenidas de mayor gravedad encontradas con posterioridad a la adjudicación del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, de lo cual podría apuntar a una imprevisibilidad dentro de lo previsible a priori y, los nuevos estudios de suelo y correspondientes para determinar el tratamiento a la inclinación topográfica que mostraba la composición material heterogénea que contenía el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto, fueran motivo de retrasos imputables al Fideicomiso. Menos se demostró que los retardos en la instrumentación efectiva de las Órdenes de Suspensión, Órdenes de Servicio y Orden de Modificación OM-1 para el tratamiento de taludes por la inclinación topográfica que mostraba el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa fueran responsabilidad única y exclusiva e imputable al Fideicomiso. Nótese, que además el Tribunal tuvo por no acreditado que el Fideicomiso provocara los retrasos en la aprobación final y definitiva de los planos constructivos en las obras adjudicadas contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, no solo ante el CFIA sino también para la obtención de los permisos municipales, como tampoco que el Fideicomiso provocara los retrasos en la aprobación final y definitiva de los planos constructivos y/o permisos municipales por la Orden de Modificación aprobada, con posterioridad a la adjudicación, no solo ante el CFIA sino también en la obtención de los permisos municipales correspondientes en relación a las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 y que por ello, los plazos de suspensión mayores a los 338 días naturales en las obras en el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, por el trámite de la OS-1 a OS-12 fuera responsabilidad exclusiva del Fideicomiso y en perjuicio económico del Consorcio, aspecto vital que determina que los incumplimientos contractuales implorados por el Consorcio, estuvieran ayunos de comprobación suficiente e indubitable.

Este Tribunal no desconoce lo expuesto en el voto número 6432-1998 de la Sala Constitucional, cuando señala que en todo contrato administrativo va implícita la garantía de percibir el beneficio esperado o la utilidad proyectada, máxime que al surgir variación introducida en un contrato administrativo, debe respetarse siempre el equilibrio de la ecuación financiera del contrato, no obstante, para ello, si bien el interesado tiene derecho de impugnar una disposición contractual introducida en sentido contrario, ya sea en el cartel ya sea en el contrato mismo, dichas acciones están omisas en el presente asunto, debiéndose respetar el indicado contrato a suma global y sus alcances, como igualmente los efectos de contenido en la OM-1, que al menos se entiende, estimó y contempló los gastos directos e indirectos del proyecto y/o la addenda al contrato, al incluirse el tema del tratamiento del talud y que a contrario sentido, el Consorcio no demostró que no fuera así. De ahí la evidente diferencia que en ocasiones se pierde de vista, entre el ejercicio de este derecho al restablecimiento del equilibrio financiero de un contrato por la vía del reajuste de precios de un contrato a precio variable o costo unitario, y un reclamo en un contrato a suma global, último éste, que erigido sobre el presupuesto de que durante la ejecución del contrato, porque su objeto lo exigió, el contratista debió incurrir en mayores costos a los que incorporó en la estructura del precio ofertado (la discusión gira en torno al reconocimiento o no de esos costos adicionales y no en torno a un reajuste del precio, que se mantendría incólume) o en su caso, el simple reconocimiento de los costos asociados a una modificación del objeto contractual, por ejemplo de darse en aumento del mismo, cuando durante la ejecución del contrato el contratista debe incurrir en mayores costos a los que incorporó en el precio ofertado como derivación de la mutación contractual. No obstante y en todo caso incluyendo los anteriores, el equilibrio de la ecuación financiera del contrato como desarrollo de principio constitucional, no permite ni el extremo perjuicio injustificado a cargo del contratista, ni el enriquecimiento ilícito para ninguna de las partes si concurren los presupuestos necesarios para ello conforme el ordenamiento jurídico, que a consideración del Tribunal, no se comprobó la existencia de la base jurídica para declarar que la rescisión es disconforme al ordenamiento jurídico y menos que menos, que surja para el Consorcio, la declaración de un derecho subjetivo para no solo invalidar la rescisión del Fideicomiso, sino para que pueda ser considerada en cuanto a la gestionada por el propio Consocio, según se pidió en la pretensión, por lo que por demás, invocar la excepción de contrato no cumplido, resultaba improcedente como defensa para enervar la rescisión decidida, ya que el Consorcio, no se ubicó habilitada bajo los presupuestos de la esfera conceptual jurídica de esa estructura defensiva para oponerla legítima y válida contra el Fideicomiso y así bloquear lo rescindido.

Este Tribunal es del criterio, además, de que medie o no un contrato en la modalidad por suma global fija, la regla o reglas que se derivan de esta modalidad contractual en el sentido de que el oferente y posterior contratista debe enfrentar por su cuenta todos los riesgos asociados en el contrato asociados, incluyendo la posibilidad de que para dar cabal cumplimiento el objeto contractual haya debido ejecutar, según su dicho, de mayores cantidades, de esfuerzo, tiempo y obras, por lo que no podría formular reclamo alguno frente a mayores cantidades de obra, pende claro está, de que esas diferencias le hayan resultado previsibles al momento de ofertar, y en esa medida, imputables sólo a quien oferta un precio por suma global fija, no obstante, el quid no radica en ese pensar, sino tener como antijurídica la rescisión por imputar al Fideicomiso la provocación de un desequilibrio económico, que ni siquiera explicaría, la razón o razones por las cuales, los proyectos Hermosa y Azul serían irradiados de esa problemática que tuvo Santa Rosa, cuando verdaderamente, como lo es, se tratan de esquemas constructivos diferenciados, singulares e independientes y cada uno bajo la misma consideración al precio, a suma global, como común denominador. En este sentido, es la opinión de esta Cámara que, aún y cuando esta modalidad contractual no supone que el precio se constituya sobre la base de precios unitarios, si las cantidades de obra adicional sobre las que se erigió un precio global, en principio sufre variaciones en las cantidades con causa en razones imputables a la Administración, porque para la ejecución adecuada de la obra, éstas excedieron lo previsto en el acuerdo inicial, sea, cuando se deben realizar obras adicionales, que son aquellas que no han sido previstas en el contrato, si la causa de esa diferencia entre lo ofertado y ejecutado tiene una causa imputable a la Administración, ésta deberá hacerse responsable patrimonialmente ante su contratista por las mismas, si la diferencia entre las cantidades ofertadas y las ejecutadas, son sustancialmente distintas en aumento. No obstante, ello conlleva a estimar que debió haberse acreditado la ejecución de obras adicionales a través de las Órdenes de Servicio, y más áun, y ajena a la Orden de Modificación OM-1, que varió el objeto, el plazo y el precio, sin embargo, nuevamente, esto quedó sin demostración. No se acreditó, que el Fideicomiso validara formalmente Órdenes de Servicio, Órdenes de Suspensión u Órdenes de Modificación provenientes de terceras personas ajenas a la Unidad de Supervisión -Gerente de Supervisión, Gerente de Obra (antes Director de Proyecto) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia, o el Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora y autorizados por el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 para el dictado de ellas, y menos demostrado está, que con ello habilitara y justificara al Consorcio a modificar, alterar, reestructurar los diseños finales aprobados y autorizados o, solicitara diseños adicionales o sustitutos fuera de las Órdenes de Servicio u Órdenes de Modificación previamente aceptadas y autorizadas, durante el proceso constructivo, que afectaran o que difieran sustancialmente con el diseño aprobado en planos constructivos, alterando el plazo y costo susceptibles de liquidación y pago pertinente a favor del Consorcio. Se extraña, igual probanza que determinara que los pagos de los hitos durante todo el proceso fueron condicionados a la ejecución de los trabajos adicionales que no se encontraban indicados en el Diseño Finales Aprobado, negándose a acatar lo pactado contractualmente en el artículo 1.1.2 del contrato, referente a cómo proceder en caso de ambigüedad o conflicto, exponiendo al Consorcio a un escenario de inseguridad, tampoco que al Consorcio, para realizar los cobros de los Hitos, fuera obligado a invertir tiempo y dinero en trabajos que no estaban descritos en los Diseños Finales aprobados para mantener el flujo de dinero necesario para llevar los proyectos a cabo, habiendo un enriquecimiento indebido por el Fideicomiso al exigirse la ejecución de obras adicionales que no estaban en los Diseños Finales Aprobados, situación, según el mero dicho del Consorcio, le causó una serie de daños materiales a su patrimonio.

En consecuencia, no es dable afirmar que de darse la necesidad de ejecutar mayor cantidad de obra, por decisiones de terceros, resulta imperioso remunerarla como componente del desequilibrio económico, si ello no fue autorizado o especificado en la OS como en la OM, de allí, que no resulta procedente un pago diferenciado por el precio de lo ejecutado, pues eso no iría conforme previamente se convino sin alterar su objeto, es decir, el pago integral del precio para la cantidad de obra que se traduce en el objeto convenido con la Administración, por lo que, a criterio del Tribunal, no hay inobservancia acreditada del principio derivado de la Constitución de intangibilidad patrimonial, ni de un enriquecimiento indebido de parte del Estado, sobre la situación reprochada, cuando en adición, en su alegato involucra circunstancias del desequilibrio económico contractual, involucrando a otras líneas adjudicadas con semejantes problemas acusados, como la LPI 02 y LPI 04, que no podrían ser sopesadas en esta instancia ni en esta oportunidad, para incorporar esa realidad a la presente discusión, por no ser parte de la cuestión.

5.3.- Continuación. No menos importante, resulta el señalar de las vicisitudes de los proyectos Hermosa y Azul. Se tiene por comprobado en relación a la primera, que el proyecto inició su proceso constructivo en tiempo y forma el día 6 de agosto de 2018 acorde con la orden de inicio del proyecto, según lo notificado por el Consorcio a la Municipalidad de Pérez Zeledón en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-05, sin embargo, interrumpió con la continuación de las obras el día 24 de junio de 2020, y notificado al FIDEICOMISO mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-548 del 24 de junio de 2020, solicitándose al Fideicomiso el pago de los hitos relacionados con ese centro educativo por haberse rescindido el contrato, señalando Hitos pendientes de pago para finiquito de proyecto 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: ? Ventanería y puertas por un monto de $63.104,08 ? Pintura por un monto de $31.552,05 ? Sistemas eléctricos -cableado y acometida- por un monto de $63.104,08 ? Sistema eléctricos -dispositivos y accesorios- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Sistemas mecánicos -módulos- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Sistemas mecánicos -exteriores- por un monto de $29.891,41 ? Obras complementarias y exteriores por un monto de $119.565,63, como además la devolución de las garantías de cumplimiento, justificándose en principio de mantenimiento del equilibrio económico de los contratos asociados a las Licitaciones Públicas número LPI 01, LPI 02 y LPI 04, lo cual es un incumplimiento sustancial a esos contratos. El Consorcio por medio de oficio de 8 de abril de 2020, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-508 informó del avance con reporte mensual marzo 2020: 8.1. Estructura Metálica 100%, 8.2. Cubierta 100%, 8.3. Hojalatería y precintas 100%, 9 Pisos y enchapes 100%, 10.1 Acabados - repellos 100%, 10.2 Acabados -Cielos - y Paredes liviana 100%, 10.3 Ventaneria y puertas 85%, 11 Pintura 95%, 12 Sistemas eléctricos (canaliz) 91%, 13 Sistemas mecánicos (Módulos) 96%, 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 92%. No obstante, y de acuerdo al Fideicomiso el "Informe Técnico Sobre Estado de Avance Fisico-Financiero y Proyección de Costo de la Obra Faltante Proyecto N° 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa" y realizado el 12 de mayo de 2020 por la Unidad de Supervisión, se establece que el avance real de la obra al momento de abandono de la obra por parte del Consorcio actor, era de un 73.40%. Dicho avance se calculó sobre los faltantes de obras que el actor dejó en proceso, complementos y los reprocesos que acontecieron por el período en el que el proyecto no tuvo ningún avance, que abarcó desde el 06 de junio de 2019 hasta el 06 de diciembre de 2019. Y con respecto a la Escuela Azul, aquí se inició su proceso constructivo el 17 de diciembre de 2018, alrededor de cuatro meses después del inicio de los restantes proyectos adjudicados al Consorcio, para un plazo original de 183 días naturales, siendo que la fecha de entrega original estaba programada para el 17 de junio de 2019, sin embargo, por prórrogas, ampliaciones y compensaciones de plazo otorgadas, se trasladó la fecha para el 28 de mayo de 2020. También se dio cuenta acreditada, que en el curso de las obras de este proyecto, hubo hallazgos arqueológicos sobre un petroglifo existente, por lo que el Consorcio informó al Fideicomiso a través de oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-289,GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-290,GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-293 sobre éste, por lo que la Administración agendó una cita con el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica 10 días después de esa primera comunicación. Dicho petroglifo fue ubicado en una área parcial y mínima del proyecto, principalmente en la zona destinada a aparcamiento, sin afectación para el resto de ejecución del área del proyecto. El Museo Nacional, de conformidad con los resultados de su visita in situ el 17 de setiembre de 2019, dispuso realizar un cerramiento únicamente en la ubicación física de la piedra, provocando con ello que en un sector mínimo del proyecto Escuela Azul, no se pudieran realizar trabajos durante doce días naturales, dándose una suspensión parcial, por lo que no impedía o imposibilitaba al Consorcio con la ejecución de la obra en el área restante. Además, la existencia por el lindero norte del inmueble a desarrollar el proyecto, hubo problemas con aguas vertidas por los vecinos, por lo que al contratista se le requirió realizar obras para desviar las aguas, y por la distancia entre éste y el área del proyecto, no se interfería en la ejecución de las obras principales (al menos no hubo demostración en contrario), optando el Contratante por indicarle al Consorcio que construyera la tapia a 1,5 metros de distancia, tramitándose la Orden de Modificación OM-04, sin embargo, no fue firmada por el Consorcio, dejándose sin efectos dichos cambios, según así consta con la deposición testigo Grabación/ Guillermo Rojas Chaves grabación min 1:38:00 al 1:39:30, y en el expediente de cobro de multas de EA folio 115 y 118. Ahora, solventados esos temas, al momento en que el Consorcio decide rescindir el contrato, por las razones arriba dichas, informa para el proyecto Azul, un avance superior al 60% al momento de la suspensión de las labores según último informe de avance de obra mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-466 con fecha del 17 de marzo de 2020. No obstante, el Contratante indica menor avance de acuerdo al "Informe Especial- Obras Inconclusas Proyecto N° 024-1942 Escuela Azul", realizado en el mes de marzo de 2021 por la Unidad Supervisora, en donde se verifica que las obras en el momento de la suspensión de las labores tenían un avance nominal de un 56%. En ambos proyectos, el Consorcio se retiró de los mismos, dejando sin recursos ni ejecución para el buen término del Contrato 88-2107, a pesar de que tenían las opciones viables para la entrega de los hitos, cuando desde el inicio de la ejecución gozó de los adelantos de dinero por concepto de anticipos para la ejecución inicial de las obras, para con ello ir cumpliendo con los hitos debidamente finalizados y así ir poniendo el negocio en marcha, y que al final, lograra la entrega definitiva de esos proyectos. Cada proyecto tenía su propio presupuesto de pago con hitos diferenciados. De esto da cuenta, el oficio 23 de octubre del 2020/CG-2020-1139/AD-2020-0221/Referencia: Fideicomiso 1099 MEP- BNCR/Respuesta FID-4141-2020, en donde se le indica a Dirección de Fideicomisos y Estructuraciones Banco Nacional de Costa Rica que: "según los registros contables en poder de la UEP, los saldos de anticipos por centro educativo de esta licitación son los siguientes: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: USD $168.235,19, Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Adenda): USD $45.690,57, Escuela La Hermosa: USD $74.728,52, Escuela Azul: USD $246.949,87." para un total de USD $535.604,15, apreciándose que si no se logró la meta, no fue por causa de las vicisitudes dadas en la obra del Liceo Santa Rosa, sino por el contrario, al deducirse que no hubo una Gerencia constructiva y financiera solvente y debida por parte del Consorcio en la ejecución de las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017, para la gestión efectiva de cada centro educativo en cuanto a todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, para la atención regular en la adecuación, planeamiento, ejecución, construcción y equipamiento con las particularidades singulares de cada proyecto para el plazo de entrega de ellos, pues es claro, incluso, que los avances de los entregables no llegaron a calificar con el 100% de su cumplimiento para el pago de lo dejado como obras inconclusas.

A pesar de ello, el Tribunal está convencido absolutamente, que al Consorcio se le complicó la entrega de estos dos proyectos por haber pasado por las situaciones reprochadas y dadas en el proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa, no obstante, y como quedó acreditado normativamente, según lo pactado: 1.- Las obras fueron pactadas con ejecución independiente, cosa distinta, que el Consorcio las manejara bajo una misma estrategia constructiva interactiva y fusionada con los recursos globales del proyecto, ya que la estipulación normativa derivada del Cartel de licitación LPI-01-2017, refería implícitamente pero vinculante para las partes que el modo de ejecución y construcción de las obras adjudicadas -en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 denominada Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 denominada Escuela Azul. 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 denominada Escuela La Hermosa-, obedecían a ejecuciones completamente independientes entre sí, y la contratista tenía plena discrecionalidad en su gerenciamiento, planeamiento y ejecución, aun y cuando fueran parte de un mismo contrato o lote adjudicado, según se indica en: "18. Programa de Trabajo. 18.1 Organización del Contratista. El Contratista proporcionará al Contratante y al Gerente de Proyecto, en un plazo de veintiún (21) días a partir de la fecha efectiva, el organigrama que propone para llevar a cabo las actividades en las Obras. Se adjuntará al organigrama la identidad del personal clave que se propone emplear, junto con los antecedentes profesionales de dicho personal. El Contratista informará prontamente por escrito al Contratante y al Gerente de Proyecto de toda rectificación o modificación de dicho organigrama. 18.2 Programa de ejecución. Dentro de los veintiocho (28) días siguientes a la fecha efectiva, el Contratista presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un programa detallado de ejecución del Contrato, el cual se preparará en forma aceptable para el Gerente de Proyecto e indicará la secuencia que se propone para diseñar, y construir las Obras, así como la fecha para la cual el Contratista exige razonablemente que el Contratante haya cumplido sus obligaciones en virtud del Convenio a fin de permitir al Contratista ejecutar el Contrato de conformidad con el programa y alcanzar la terminación, la puesta en servicio y la aceptación de las Obras de conformidad con el Contrato. El programa que presente el Contratista deberá ajustarse al Plan de Ejecución que se incluye en el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Plan de Ejecución” y a cualesquiera otros plazos y fechas especificados en el Contrato. El Contratista actualizará y rectificará el programa según sea apropiado y cuando así lo solicite el Gerente de Proyecto, pero sin modificar los plazos para la terminación de las Obras establecidos en las CE conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 ni las prórrogas concedidas conforme a la Cláusula 40 de las CG, y presentará todas esas rectificaciones al Gerente de Proyecto. 18.3 Informe sobre el progreso. El Contratista vigilará el progreso de todas las actividades especificadas en el programa a que hace referencia la Subcláusula 18.2 precedente y presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un informe mensual sobre el progreso de los trabajos. El informe sobre el progreso de los trabajos se presentará en una forma que el Gerente de Proyecto considere aceptable. En dicho informe (a) se indicará el porcentaje de terminación alcanzado en comparación con el porcentaje de terminación previsto para cada actividad, y (b) cuando una actividad esté atrasada con respecto al programa, se incluirán observaciones, se explicarán las consecuencias probables y se señalarán las medidas de corrección que se estén adoptando. 18.4 Progreso en el cumplimiento del programa. Si en algún momento el progreso real del Contratista acusa un atraso con respecto al programa que se menciona en la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG, o si resulta evidente que dicho atraso se producirá, el Contratista, a petición del Contratante o del Gerente de Proyecto, preparará y presentará al Gerente de Proyecto un programa modificado, teniendo en cuenta las circunstancias imperantes, e informará al Gerente de Proyecto de las medidas adoptadas para acelerar las actividades a fin de terminar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación estipulado conforme a la Subcláusula 8.2 de las CG, de las prórrogas de dicho plazo concedidas conforme a la Subcláusula 40.1 de las CG o de cualquier prórroga en que pudieran convenir el Contratante y el Contratista. 18.5 Procedimientos. El Contrato se ejecutará de conformidad con los documentos del Contrato y los procedimientos establecidos en la sección de los Requisitos del Diseño y las Obras titulada Formularios y Procedimientos. El Contratista podrá ejecutar el Contrato de conformidad con sus propios planes y procedimientos estándar de ejecución de proyectos, siempre y cuando éstos no entren en contradicción con las disposiciones contenidas en el Contrato ...". Igualmente, debe considerarse acreditado en el Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 y que rige las reglas del contrato y por ende, de los proyectos a realizar, de que no puede interpretarse la existencia de correspondencia y vinculación para la ejecución de las obras de manera conjunta, sino por el contrario, se encuentran determinadas singularmente las órdenes de inicio de cada proyecto, por lo que resulta improcedente relacionar los problemas del Liceo Santa Rosa, con los otros dos proyectos, siendo inoponible ese discurso para deteminar el criterio de imputación de manera generalizada para hacer responsable al Fideicomiso de lo reprochado. Se insiste, invocar la excepción de contrato no cumplido, resultaba improcedente como defensa para enervar la rescisión decidida, ya que el Consorcio, no se ubicó habilitada bajo los presupuestos de la esfera conceptual jurídica de esa estructura defensiva, para oponerla legítima y válidamente contra el Fideicomiso y así bloquear lo rescindido.

Nótese, que esta independencia de ejecución se verifica de acuerdo a la Subcláusula 2.1 inciso 3), párrafo cuarto de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación, en donde la gestión de cada centro educativo se debe realizar de forma individual. Todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, deben adecuarse a las particularidades de cada proyecto. Esto es, las emisiones de las órdenes de inicio se convinieron de manera individual, por lo que constituye un proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento, en el que devienen particularidades ajenas a los otros centros educativos entre sí, dando como conclusión lógica que la ejecución de todas y cada de una de las etapas de las obras se definía de acuerdo a la estrategia y responsabilidad empresarial de la gerencia de las mismas por parte del Consorcio adjudicatario.

De igual manera, bajo el criterio aplicable al sub lite del "Pago por hito concluido (100%)", puede apreciarse que se contaba con la posibilidad de los adelantos parciales con hito finalizado y entregado, de acuerdo a los términos establecidos en el Cartel y el contrato, que de conformidad con la naturaleza propia del "Contrato de Tipo Suma Global, los hitos de pago convenidos se hacían efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento (Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 -"12. Condiciones de Pago. 12.1 El Precio del Contrato se pagará según se especifica en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato y Condiciones de Pago) del Formulario del Convenio y en el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago”, en el cual se describen también los procedimientos que han de seguirse para solicitar y tramitar los pagos"-, /C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago -"Solicitud de pago por hito concluido Una vez concluido cada hito, el Contratista deberá entregar al Gerente de Obra una factura acompañada de una declaración con seis copias en un formato previamente aprobado por el Gerente de Obra, que incluya en detalle los montos a que el Contratista considera que tenga derecho, junto con los documentos de soporte, los cuales incluirán el informe de progreso del hito en cuestión de acuerdo con la Cláusula 18.3 de las CG. Esta solicitud de pago por hito concluido se corresponderá con el desglose que se explica seguidamente..."; con lo cual, los proyectos se hacían autosuficientes de acuerdo con la idoneidad y capacidad financiera con que ofertó el Consorcio a la Licitación Pública 01-2017, por lo que por demás, no se acreditó que la falta de entrega en plazo de los trabajos en las obras contenidas en el Contrato 88-2017 por situaciones financieras del Consorcio haya sido con ocasión a conductas del Fideicomiso que le imputaran responsabilidad por ello. Cuanto menos, tampoco hubo demostración en relación a la existencia, consistencia y precisión de situaciones generadas por el Fideicomiso, que afectaran la eficiencia en la entrega de los trabajos en las obras y con ello, por su responsabilidad se haya provocado daño a la intangibilidad patrimonial del Consorcio y su desequilibrio financiero para el retiro de las obras. Tampoco se acreditó por el Consorcio, que durante el lapso de tiempo suspendido de las obras, el Consorcio soportara por responsabilidad del Fideicomiso, la existencia real de la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, alquiler de equipo y herramienta, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales), no solo para la atención del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa, sino además, Escuela Hermosa y Escuela Azul. Ni que los hallazgos arqueológicos sobre un petroglifo existente en un área mínima de ejecución de las obras en el proyecto Escuela Azul, principalmente en la zona destinada a aparcamiento, y durante el tiempo en que el Departamento de Antropología e Historia del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica lo determinara así, y la suspensión de obra para ese reducto específico dispuesta por el Fideicomiso, detuvieran o impidieran justificadamente la ejecución para el resto del área del proyecto. Tampoco, que la situación de vertido de aguas residuales provocada por los vecinos, por el lindero norte del área del terreno para la ejecución del Proyecto Escuela Azul y la distancia de este desfogue y el área de construcción, provocara distorsiones sensibles que impidieran realizar ejecución de las obras principales del mismo, o bien, que al respecto, el Fideicomiso incurriera en responsabilidad por perjuicio económico en contra del Consorcio, por indefiniciones relativas a la resolución de órdenes de servicio y, que por esa causa provocara y agravara los atrasos en el desarrollo de las obras del Contrato 88-2017. De allí que, falta acreditación de la existencia, consistencia y nivel de impacto y afectación con ocasión a comunicaciones, como instrucciones contractuales con respecto a la emisión de notificaciones, instrucciones, órdenes, certificados y aprobaciones, que impactaran y provocaran falta de ejecución, retardo de la misma o ejecución irregular o perjuicio económico en los proyectos del Contrato 88-2017, que fueran emanadas por el Fideicomiso o terceras personas durante la vigencia del contrato y hasta antes de la Rescisión dictada por éste. Tales nexos de causalidad para establecer la responsabilidad y el daño reclamado por medio del reproche de disconformidad no se justifican ni se comprueban en autos. Menos, en esa relación, que el Fideicomiso validara formalmente Órdenes de Servicio, Órdenes de Suspensión u Órdenes de Modificación provenientes de terceras personas ajenas a la Unidad de Supervisión -Gerente de Supervisión, Gerente de Obra (antes Director de Proyecto) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia, o el Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora y autorizados por el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 para el dictado de ellas, y con ello habilitara y justificara al Consorcio a modificar, alterar, reestructurar los diseños finales aprobados y autorizados o, solicitara diseños adicionales o sustitutos fuera de las Órdenes de Servicio u Órdenes de Modificación previamente aceptadas y autorizadas, durante el proceso constructivo, que afectaran o que difieran sustancialmente con el diseño aprobado en planos constructivos, alterando el plazo y costo susceptibles de liquidación y pago pertinente a favor del Consorcio. O bien, que para realizar los cobros de los Hitos, fuera obligado a invertir tiempo y dinero en trabajos que no estaban descritos en los Diseños Finales aprobados para mantener el flujo de dinero necesario para llevar los proyectos a cabo, existiendo un enriquecimiento indebido por el Fideicomiso al exigirse la ejecución de obras adicionales que no estaban en los Diseños Finales Aprobados, situación que causó una serie de daños materiales (al patrimonio) del Consorcio.

En colofón, el abandono de las obras por parte del Consorcio, producida por la propia responsabilidad del Consorcio, fue el detonante que justificó la rescisión del Contrato 88-2017 al tenor de lo pactado en las reglas del Cartel, cuando en la cláusula 42.2.2, se dispone, que ello se da, si el Contratista: "(a) ha denunciado el Contrato o desistido de él, (b) sin razón válida, no ha dado pronto inicio a los trabajos en las Obras, o ha suspendido por razones distintas de las previstas en la Subcláusula 41.2 de las CG el avance del cumplimiento del Contrato durante más de veintiocho (28) días después de recibir una orden escrita del Contratante de seguir adelante, (c) omite en forma persistente ejecutar el Contrato de acuerdo a los términos contractuales o descuida en forma persistente y sin justa causa el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones en virtud del Contrato, (d) rehúsa o no puede proporcionar materiales, servicios o mano de obra suficientes para ejecutar y completar las Obras de la manera especificada en el programa presentado conforme a la Subcláusula 18.2 de las CG a un ritmo que dé al Contratante una seguridad razonable de que el Contratista puede completar las Obras dentro del plazo de terminación prorrogado, el Contratante podrá, sin perjuicio de cualquier otro derecho que pueda tener en virtud del Contrato, enviar una notificación al Contratista indicando la naturaleza del incumplimiento y pidiendo al Contratista que lo subsane. Si el Contratista no lo subsana o no toma medidas para subsanarlo dentro de los catorce (14) días siguientes al recibo de esa notificación, el Contratante podrá rescindir inmediatamente el Contrato mediante notificación de rescisión al Contratista con referencia a la presente Subcláusula 42.2 de las CG., reiterándose una vez más, la inexistencia de la disconformidad con el ordenamiento y consecuente pedido de nulidad sobre los actos administrativos reprochados (pretensión 1, 5, principal) con lo cual lo pretendido bajo este acápite debe rechazarse y consecuentemente la pretensión subsidiaria primera, segunda y sexta al no tener sustento jurídico al respecto, según los términos y alcances en que fue abordado este tópico, so pena de incurrir en irazonabilidad e incongruencia, acogiéndose en colofón la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la parte demandada.

X.- 1.- DE LOS RECLAMOS ADMINISTRATIVOS. 2.- IMPROCEDENCIA PARA VARIAR RESULTADO DEL PRIMER RECLAMO ADMINISTRATIVO POR RETRASOS AJENOS A LA RESPONSABILIDAD DEL CONSORCIO Y, CONSECUENTEMENTE DE LOS DAÑOS REQUERIDOS EN EL SEGUNDO, TERCER Y CUARTO RECLAMO. INEXISTENCIA DE INCUMPLIMIENTO.

La base de este primer reclamo, fue la indicación del Consorcio de que el proyecto del Liceo de Santa Rosa existió un período de 478 días en los que por razones ajenas a la responsabilidad del consorcio, el mismo estuvo suspendido o no fue posible iniciar obras debido a la responsabilidad del Fideicomiso. Se dijo que durante 1 año, 3 meses y 18 días, el Consorcio soportó la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, entre otros), sin pago. Que debido a que el período de suspensión superó en determinado momento más de 180 días de suspensión, con el objetivo de restablecer el balance económico del contrato y así cumplir el principio de intangibilidad patrimonial, siendo que los trabajos y costos durante el período de suspensión, representaron un daño para el Consorcio, y que la inversión de los recursos sin una remuneración y utilidad asociada genera pérdida. Al respecto, este Tribunal en el hecho acreditado 22 señaló, que a pesar de que el Consorcio había ejercido el reclamo, éste devino inoportuno y consecuentemente extemporáneo. Cosa distinta es que lo resuelto por el Fideicomiso no fuera del agrado del Consorcio, porque si bien se mira, de las pruebas en relación, el reclamo sobre los gastos indirectos se determinó indiscriminadamente sobre partidas agrupadas generales, no segmentadas ni por proyecto, que bajo la premisa de la carga de la prueba, debió demostrar no solo una vinculación exacta del nexo de causalidad entre los montos, recursos y cada proyecto, y la oportunidad de acuerdo a lo normado en el Cartel de la Licitación debía hacerse, motivo por el cual el rechazo de los reclamos administrativos se mantendría. Agréguese, en los hechos no probados 3 y 7, con convicción en la prueba aportada, no hubo claridad ni precisión, menos certeza de que más allá de los plazos de suspensión dispuestos en esas órdenes de suspensión y mayores a los 338 días naturales en las obras en el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa fuera responsabilidad exclusiva del Fideicomiso y en perjuicio económico del Consorcio. Nótese, incluso, que la causa de suspensión de las obras en el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa por la existencia de terrenos no sólidos con posterioridad a la adjudicación del Contrato 88-2017, trajo en consecuencia, que el Consorcio debía no solo actualizar la ruta crítica constructiva y los planes de ejecución del proyecto ante la existencia notoria para tratar los taludes del terreno, pero además, dar pronto despacho a las medidas de retención del mismo a través de la instrumentación de la orden de modificación correspondiente, en orden para atender esa situación sobrevenida, mas según se aprecia, hasta los planos y su debida aprobación correspondiente, como la misma orden de modificación plantearon retos en el tiempo para el Consorcio, que obstaculizó el normal avance del proyecto. Dicho aspecto, a criterio del Tribunal, y como se ha hecho indicación ut supra, no debía por qué enturbiar, disminuir o retrasar la ejecución debida de los proyectos Hermosa ni Azul. De modo que los retardos en la instrumentación efectiva de las Órdenes de Suspensión OS-1 a OS-12 y la estructuración y planteamiento de la Orden de Modificación OM-1 por medio de la OS-13, para el tratamiento de taludes por la inclinación topográfica que mostraba el terreno en donde se iba a ejecutar las obras del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa no serían responsabilidad imputable al Fideicomiso. De allí que, más allá de lo comprobado con la suspensión de las obras a los 338 días, no hay probanza acertada, útil y pertinente que indique al Tribunal que el Consorcio soportara por responsabilidad del Fideicomiso, la existencia real de la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, alquiler de equipo y herramienta, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, no solo para la atención del proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa, sino además, Escuela Hermosa y Escuela Azul.

Con el mismo fundamento del reclamo anterior, aunado a los reproches del Consorcio en cuanto a las situaciones generadas por el fideicomiso y, que afectaron la eficiencia en la entrega del proyecto y daño a la intangibilidad patrimonial del consorcio por el desequilibrio financiero, al imputarse incumplimiento contractual, por darse una violación en todos los contratos, específicamente en relación a las comunicaciones generadas por terceros no autorizados, y esto con respecto a las comunicaciones (inexistentes) de los Gerentes de Obra (GO) en cada proyecto, quienes siendo representantes del Contratante, omitieron su obligación de mantener -en sentido estricto- comunicaciones con el Consorcio, quedó acreditado en los hechos demostrados, que en relación a los subsiguientes reclamos administrativos (2do, 3ter y 4to) del Consorcio para el reconocimiento y pago de gastos directos e indirectos relacionados a los proyectos contenidos en el Contrato 88-2017, todos fueron denegados. Véase que por oficio 24 de marzo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483 se indica: "Este es el principal hecho que motiva esta reclamación, ya que se reclama la existencia de un daño patrimonial causado por una responsabilidad administrativa omisa, anormal e ilícita, la cual según lo establece el artículo 196 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, corresponde a “... daño alegado habrá de ser efectivo, evaluable e individualizable en relación con una persona o grupo... A continuación, se explica brevemente, en una tabla resumen todos los montos de esta reclamación. Tabla N° 1 Descripción de las reclamaciones por número de LPI y Proyecto. 1 ESCUELA LA AZUL ¢171.008.746,80 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (1) ¢100.577.484,63 COLONES, 1 LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA (2) ¢120.322.757,00 COLONES, 1 ESCUELA LA HERMOSA ¢194.517.549,37 COLONES, TOTAL: ¢586.426.537,80 COLONES. El Fideicomiso por oficio 27 de abril de 2020/FID-1604-2020 responde rechazando reclamo administrativo gestionado por oficio 24 de marzo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, indicando "Damos respuesta a las notas GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-483, GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2016-563, y GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2016-874, todas de fecha 24 de marzo de 2020, en las cuales plantea diversos Reclamos Administrativos relativos a varios Proyectos relacionados con los procesos de licitación LPI-01-2017, LPI-02-2016 y LPI-04-2016... En los propios contratos suscritos con las distintas Contratistas para el proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento de las Obras, se advertía a éstos que el Contratante – Fideicomiso BANCO NACIONAL – MEP, podría delegar en profesionales en ingeniería ciertas funciones relativas a la gerencia de la Obra, así como contar con una empresa consultora y asesores independientes, quienes realizarían el proceso de supervisión técnica de los trabajos, tal como se consigna con absoluta nitidez, en las Sub-cláusulas 1 y 23.2 de las Condiciones Especiales... la suscripción de un contrato con una Firma Consultora para la Supervisión de Obras en Centros Educativos y Canchas Multiuso para el Fideicomiso N°1099 MEP-BNCR, asegura al Fideicomiso BNCR-MEP el contar con servicios profesionales y técnicos que apoyan la fiscalización de la contratación, mediante la vinculación de empresas y profesionales que le apoyen en la “supervisión” de las contrataciones para el diseño y construcción de las Obras requeridas... En el caso del Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, el contrato estableció la obligación de contar, entre otros, con la figura del Gerente de Obra, quien bajo los términos de dicha contratación, asume un papel de coordinación con el Contratante, o con quien este designó a efecto de sus labores, tal como se advierte de las Sub-cláusulas 8.1 y 8.2, cláusula 8. RECURSOS QUE SUMINISTRARÁ EL CONSULTOR, de los Términos de Referencia. Conforme a dichas estipulaciones, en ningún momento se indica que las recomendaciones, con sus respectivas justificaciones, deban ser realizadas únicamente por medio del Gerente de Obra del Consorcio Supervisor, por lo que bien podrían ser hechas también por otra figura que forma parte de la estructura de la Supervisión, o incluso podría hacerlas el mismo Contratante - Fideicomiso Banco Nacional – MEP – o quien este designe, para que ejerza su potestad de aplicar los términos contractuales para que los Contratistas corrijan cualquier desajuste respecto del cumplimiento exacto de las obligaciones pactadas, o aquellas instrucciones, criterios o actuaciones giradas a los contratistas con ocasión de las actividades contratadas al Consorcio Supervisor. Así tenemos que ni el Contrato lo dispone, ni tampoco lo ha expuesto el Consorcio CSI Ingenieros-CACISA Infraestructura Educativa, ni tampoco lo han entendido el Banco Nacional, ni el Consorcio CALVI+FSA, ni los Contratistas que han ejecutado y se encuentran ejecutando Obras... el contratista se encuentra obligado a presentar una relación fundamentada de cada “omisión, incumplimiento o violación del contrato” que acusa; del impacto de cada una de tales omisiones, incumplimientos o violaciones al contrato en el Programa de Trabajo, la afectación a las actividades en ruta crítica, el desplazamiento que ocasionaron sobre tales actividades, la relación de eso con los “mayores costos” respecto de aquellos estimados en la Oferta, su cuantificación, origen y naturaleza y su contraste con el equilibrio económico financiero de la oferta, y finalmente la fundamentación del quantum pretendido... el Contratista también ha incumplido con su deber de indicar y probar los supuestos daños y perjuicios que se reclaman, su estimación, su origen y naturaleza, específicamente lo estipulado en las Sub-cláusulas 44.4, y 44.5, así como lo dispuesto en el artículo 193 de la LFAP, pues una reclamación como la pretendida, que versa sobre unos supuestos mayores costos incurridos, necesariamente exige aportar toda la información complementaria relativa al fundamento del reclamo, debiendo acreditar mediante la prueba pertinente, conducente e idónea, tanto el quantum como la erogación correspondiente reclamada, todo lo cual se echa de menos en los reclamos presentados, pues tales mayores costos de ninguna forma se pueden “suponer o asumir”, a partir de una sumatoria de simples fotocopias sin ninguna fundamentación, relación, ni acreditación de su vinculación con las contrataciones y obras, la prueba que las mismas se originen en el evento alegado y no en la negligencia del contratista o en los riesgos asumidos al celebrar la contratación...". Nuevamente, el Consorcio presentó un reclamo administrativo por oficio 22 de mayo de 2020GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-538, con ocasión de documentar daños y perjuicios a partir del rechazo de solicitud de indemnización y con base en el inciso b) de la subcláusula 44.5 de las Condiciones Generales, solicitó el reconocimiento financiero por un periodo adicional, así como los costos indirectos. El Fideicomiso por oficio 04 de junio de 2020 FID-2100-2020, dispuso el rechazo de plano la gestión al no cumplir con los requerimientos mínimos que exige el régimen jurídico para su admisión y valoración. Otra vez, el Consorcio presentó reclamo administrativo por oficio 27 de mayo de 2020 GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-540 en ocasión de documentar daños y perjuicios a partir del rechazo de solicitud de indemnización y con base en el inciso b) de la subcláusula 44.5 de las Condiciones Generales, solicitó el reconocimiento financiero por un periodo adicional, así como los costos indirectos. Y, nuevamente, el Fideicomiso dispuso el rechazo de plano la gestión al no cumplir con los requerimientos mínimos que exige el régimen jurídico para su admisión y valoración.

En relación a ello, el Tribunal prohija las manifestaciones del representante del Banco Nacional cuando, en sus conclusiones señala que: "No es posible reconocer el pago de una suma si el reclamante no sustenta y fundamenta con claridad el nexo de causalidad sobre el incumplimiento acusado y sus lesiones conexas. Se realizan manifestaciones generales, incluso de otras licitaciones sin precisar a qué montos, recursos, horas hombre otros, deben supuestamente reconocerse, sin obviar el deber de comprobar que el origen de éste ha sido por un acto u omisión de la administración licitante, aspecto que en ninguno de los casos fue comprobado tampoco." De esa manera, no resulta disconforme con el ordenamiento que circunscribe a la Licitación 01-2017, cuando el Fideicomiso responde el oficio del Consorcio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-222, referido al reclamo administrativo, cuando por medio del oficio resolución FID-3566-2019 del Contratante, éste indica que por no haber cumplido formal y oportunamente el trámite en atención a lo pactado en el procedimiento estipulado en la Cláusula 44 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación de referencia, de la cual el Consorcio había aceptado, resulta improcedente la gestión, considerándose: "Nos referimos a las Sub-cláusulas 44.1 y 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales del Contrato, Sección VII. Condiciones Generales (CG), que a tal efecto estipulan: “...44.1 Si el Contratista considera que tiene derecho a cualquier prórroga del plazo de terminación o cualquier pago adicional en virtud de cualquier Cláusula de estas Condiciones o por otra consideración vinculada con el Contrato, el Contratista enviará una notificación al Gerente de Proyecto en la que describirá el hecho o circunstancia en que se origina la reclamación. La notificación se hará tan pronto como sea posible, a más tardar veintiocho (28) días después de que el Contratista se dé cuenta, o haya debido darse cuenta, de tal hecho o circunstancia. 44.2 Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación. De lo contrario, se aplicarán las siguientes disposiciones de esta Subcláusula.” Esta administración considera que dichas estipulaciones resultan aplicables al reclamo de la Contratista, incluso relativo a mayores costos o gastos derivados de las suspensiones contractuales, sobre todo por disposición de la Sub-cláusula 44.9 de las mismas Condiciones Generales, que señala: “...44.9 Los requisitos de esta Subcláusula son adicionales a los que se establece en cualquier otra Subcláusula que pueda aplicarse a una reclamación. Si, con respecto a cualquier reclamación, el Contratista incumple las disposiciones de esta u otra Subcláusula, se tomará en cuenta en toda prórroga del plazo o pago adicional la medida (de haberla) en que el incumplimiento haya impedido o perjudicado la investigación adecuada de la reclamación, salvo que la reclamación se haya excluido de acuerdo al segundo párrafo de esta Subcláusula.” Bajo tal entendimiento, y vista la documentación que consta en el expediente, se tiene la primera conclusión según la cual el Contratista incumplió su deber de notificar, dentro del plazo estipulado en el Contrato, sus reclamaciones al Gerente de Proyecto. Considerando que el primer periodo de suspensión contractual, dio inicio el 21/07/2018, el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días para notificar la reclamación, sobre todo a sabiendas que tal prerrogativa (Orden de Suspensión) le causaría mayores costos. Así mismo el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 21/07/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, y dado que el evento que origina el reclamo tiene efecto continuo, según afirma para el 1° periodo de suspensión que finalizó el 11/08/2018, contaba con 28 días luego de finalizado tal periodo para enviar su reclamación definitiva, obligaciones que evidentemente incumplió. Igual acontece con el segundo periodo de suspensión contractual, veamos. Según lo afirmado por el propio contratista, este período dio inicio el 14/09/2018 y finalizó el 02/11/2018, por lo cual el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días a partir de su inicio, para notificar la reclamación. Luego, el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 14/09/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, y dado que el evento que origina el reclamo tiene efecto continuo, según afirma, para el 2° periodo de suspensión finalizó el 02/11/2018, contaba con 28 días luego de finalizado tal periodo para enviar su reclamación definitiva, obligaciones que nuevamente incumplió. Y situación similar acontece con el tercer periodo de suspensión contractual, que corre del 11/12/2018 al 07/06/2019, por lo cual el Contratista contaba con un plazo de 28 días a partir de su inicio, para notificar la reclamación. Luego, el Contratista estaba obligado a enviar, dentro del plazo de 42 días posteriores al 11/12/2018, la reclamación completa y pormenorizada, la cual se consideraría temporal, estando obligado según aquella disposición, a remitir reclamaciones mensuales temporales adicionales, lo cual evidentemente no cumplió, limitándose a remitir una reclamación definitiva, con posterioridad a la terminación del tercer periodo de ejecución contractual. Bajo lo expuesto queda claro que el Contratista NO CUMPLIÓ con los deberes impuestos por las Sub-cláusulas citadas en esta respuesta, siendo en consecuencia aplicables los efectos previstos en la Sub-cláusula 44.2 de las Condiciones Generales, según la cual “...Si el Contratista no ha notificado una reclamación dentro de dicho plazo de veintiocho (28) días, no se prorrogará el plazo de terminación, y el Contratista no tendrá derecho a recibir los pagos adicionales y el Contratante quedará exento de toda responsabilidad vinculada con la reclamación.” (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 75/imágs.1-9). Tales afirmaciones del Fideicomiso, no fueron combatidas por el Consorcio en este litigio. No resulta por ello, menos cierto lo señalado por el representante del Banco Nacional en su conclusiones al afirmar entonces: "No existe razón de hecho ni de derecho para que le sean reconocida suma alguna al actor, pretenden un reconocimiento de los supuestos infundados y cuyos incumplimientos de entrega total, radica en la mala planificación de la ejecución de las obras, y mal manejo de los fondos o flujos de efectivo en la ejecución de cada uno de los proyectos. El actor insiste a lo largo del proceso, que las tres obras debían ejecutarse paralelamente y con los mismos recursos, mezclando los recursos de los proyectos sin éxito alguno. En este sentido, nótese que los tres proyectos son abandonados por el consorcio e irracionalmente, abandonan un proyecto que se encontraba en más de un 80% de su ejecución, sin motivo aparente alguno, justificando dicho abandono en el desequilibrio económico de todo el proyecto, aspecto que como se indicó anteriormente, corresponde al error administrativo evidente, grave que los coloca en la posición de incumplimiento al actor. Esto corresponde a una decisión de absoluta responsabilidad del administrador del proyecto, es decir IDECO, tal y como se desprende de las manifestaciones de su representante, ya que era éste quien administraba y orientaba los recursos de cada uno de los contratos adjudicados. En esta línea, no es posible endilgar ninguna responsabilidad al FIDEICOMISO, sino que se ha evidenciado que es propia del actor." Corolario de lo anterior, no merece atención para el Tribunal para desvirtuar lo señalado, ya sea por su poca o nula comprobación contraria a lo referenciado, el oficio SUP-RD-973-2019, que recibido por el Consorcio el 13 de mayo del 2019, el Fideicomiso le solicita atender una serie de observaciones generadas por el regente ambiental, oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-204, del 20 de mayo del 2019, en donde el Consorcio responde las observaciones del regente ambiental y que adicionalmente, le notifica a la administración que se presentará el reclamo administrativo amparado por el cartel para devolver equilibrio económico del contrato, menos entonces, la falta de respuesta que se acusa con respecto a la reunión solicitada para la definición de la Indemnización, en donde el Consorcio dio seguimiento a la solicitud, por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-263, dado que ello, no refleja, ni por inferencia, la veracidad de la situación comprometida con ocasión a los retardos ocurridos. Ni siquiera, con la deposición de los testigos de la parte actora, y que fueron rendidos durante la Audiencia Complementaria, se logró extraer la conclusión inversa, esto es, afirmar y reafirmar la situación de los retrasos acusados como base de los reclamos administrativos por el desequilibrio acusado. Nótese que los señores Álvaro E. Chavarría Chaves, Kristian Fallas, y del propio Fernando Castro Ramírez (quien dijo ser socio de una de las empresas reclamantes), logró referirse con detalle y de manera concreta y específica sobre los elementos materiales por los cuales devino el rechazo del reclamo. No se logra de sus testimonios, otra razón fundada por la cual deban anularse las resoluciones que rechazan los reclamos administrativos. El Tribunal, recapitula y adopta como parte de este contenido en discusión, lo ya dicho ut supra, en cuando a que la interpretación del Consorcio actor, para justificar la presente acción y darle algún contenido retórico a sus argumentaciones y pretensiones deben apreciarse a partir de la ejecución indisoluble, conjunta, mancomunada de los recursos (capital y trabajo) como si fuera una sola unidad a ejecutar. Ello no es lo correcto ni lo procedente, ya que no puede interpretarse la existencia de correspondencia y vinculación para la ejecución de las obras con efectos de manera conjunta, sino por el contrario, se encuentran determinadas singularmente las órdenes de inicio de cada proyecto, y sus detalles en anteproyecto, planos, etc, de acuerdo a la Subcláusula 2.1 inciso 3), párrafo cuarto de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación, en donde la gestión de cada centro educativo se debe realizar de forma individual. Todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, deben adecuarse a las particularidades de cada proyecto, sin que por la gerencia del proyecto en general y de esa manera realizada por parte del Consorcio, el trasladar vicisitudes materiales en la ejecución de una de las obras para que de tal manera se cause perjuicio sobre los otros. Ese sería aplicar un silogismo categórico sobre la base de una premisa inicial incorrecta, y por lo pedido, daría como resultado una conclusión equivocada. Esto es, las emisiones de las órdenes de inicio se convinieron de manera individual, por lo que constituye un proceso de efectos patrimoniales de diseño, construcción y equipamiento, en el que devienen particularidades ajenas a los otros centros educativos entre sí, dando como conclusión lógica que la ejecución de todas y cada de una de las etapas de las obras se definía de acuerdo a la estrategia y responsabilidad empresarial de la gerencia de las mismas por parte del Consorcio adjudicatario, asumiendo la responsabilidad de su propio éxito o fracaso. El Tribunal, no difiere ni contrasta la posibilidad para llevar a cabo las actividades del Contrato 88-2017, como si se tratare de una sola obra, pues eso sería entendible a partir de una economía de escala y planificada para el mayor rendimiento de los recursos, más ello no significa y es lo que no se avala, que si la gerencia constructiva y financiera y debida por parte del Consorcio en la ejecución de las obras contenidas en ese Contrato 88-2017, para la gestión efectiva de cada centro educativo en cuanto a todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, para la atención regular en la adecuación, planeamiento, ejecución, construcción y equipamiento con las particularidades singulares de cada proyecto para el plazo de entrega de ellos, no fuera lo suficientemente solvente, dándose con resultados de retardos y otros, que ello implique socializar las pérdidas en los tres proyectos por las inconveniencias singulares de uno de ellos, trasladándose discrecionalmente, las pérdidas y otros en la generalidad de la obra, sin asumir su propia responsabilidad. Véase que esas declaraciones rendidas, apuntan a indicar que las acusadas suspensiones ocurridas en el proyecto de Santa Rosa provocaron un efecto dominó en los demás proyectos, dejando de lado la realidad de que los proyectos son independientes patrimonialmente, con costos y eficiencias distintas, y con realidades particulares, que deben ejecutarse individualmente por corresponder a contrato de suma global, en donde los riesgos de construcción plena, corren a cargo del contratista, tal y como lo indicó el representante del Banco Nacional.

Más aún, debe tenerse en cuenta, que se ha acreditado en autos que los planos relacionados con la instrucción de la OM-1 no fueron efectivamente aprobados por el CFIA en el plazo de 30 días naturales posterior a la reanudación de la ejecución del proyecto, y siendo así, el Consorcio por oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-313 de 3 de octubre de 2019, solicitó suspensión temporal del plazo establecido en OM-01 hasta que se le aprobaran los planos constructivos ingresados en plataforma APC del CFIA, en razón de problemas de forma en la presentación previa de ellos ante esa institución, que ameritó su reingreso en más de una ocasión, como también, la circunstancia ocurrida en el gobierno local correspondiente, cuando por oficio del 10 de octubre de 2019/MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, la Municipalidad de Oreamuno de Cartago, indicó que el Consorcio incumplió el trámite del permiso de construcción que no había gestionado y finalizado de forma correcta, señalando que: "Como bien lo señalan los artículos 74 de la Ley de Construcciones, 6 y 7 del Código Municipal se deriva que los entes públicos no están obligados a solicitar permiso de construcción, debiendo comunicar a la Municipalidad con anticipación las obras que pretenden o requieran construir", toda vez, que previamente el Consorcio había ingresado la solicitud para ser revisado por Edificaciones Nacionales y que no se tramitó el curso del permiso de construcción ante la Municipalidad, imposibilitando la ejecución oportuna y normal de las obras, ocasionando que la Municipalidad de Oreamuno clausurara la ejecución del proyecto. Por lo que, posteriormente, ante aclaraciones del Fideicomiso y la Contratista ante ese gobierno local, éste remite correo electrónico: "From: María de la Cruz Calderón Moya <[email protected]> Date: November 7, 2019 at 16:01:05 CST. To: Luis Granados Figueroa <[email protected]>Cc: Luis Gómez Artavia <[email protected]>, Catalina Coghi Ulloa <[email protected]> Subject: SOBRE PERMISO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN LICEO DE SANTA ROSA-MUNICIPALIDAD DE OREAMUNO; indicando: "Buenas tardes, Referente al trámite de permiso de construcción iniciado en la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, para la construcción del Liceo de Santa Rosa, ingresado el 20 de junio del 2018, sobre el plano catastro C-1213011-2008, cuyo propietario es el Banco Nacional de C.R, permiso Nº 24046, dicho permiso ya se encuentra APROBADO por este departamento. Es necesario que la empresa contratista se acerque a la municipalidad a firmar y retirar el certificado correspondiente a la licencia municipal de construcción. Asimismo, debido a lo expuesto el día de hoy en horas de la mañana por su persona, este departamento autoriza el inicio de las obras constructivas para el desarrollo del proyecto, eso si con el compromiso de que se retire por parte de la empresa el correspondiente certificado así como los planos." Asunto que fue recordado por oficio Heredia, 30 de marzo del 2020, SUP-RD-0440-2020 del Gerente de Obra G03, Gerente de Supervisión -Consorcio CSI-CACISA- remitido al CONSORCIO IDECO-RUCO-GCI, en donde se le hace saber: "El 28 de octubre la Contratista remite oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-333, con solicitud de OS-14, por retrasos en el inicio de las obras, debido a los requisitos solicitados por la Municipalidad de Oreamuno en el oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, resultando que el 25 de marzo 2020, la Contratista remite oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-484, donde vuelve a referir a la cronología del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-426 y aporta permiso de Construcción # 24 046 de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, con fecha 22 de noviembre 2019. Y, al revisar el permiso otorgado por la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, se encuentra que el mismo se refiere a una obra 1332m2, la cual corresponde a la obra del contrato original y no tiene que ver con las obras de estabilización del talud norte del proyecto. De modo que la problemática de la Municipalidad, para el reinicio de los trabajos en el proyecto estaban relacionadas con trámites pendientes de la Contratista del Contrato Original y no por las nuevas obras. Y, si bien la Contratista indicó en el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, que el trámite de Permiso de Construcción Municipal no se realizó debido a que este proyecto fue ingresado para ser revisado por Edificaciones Nacionales y no por Municipalidades, según la Ley de Construcciones, artículo número 75, nunca aportó ni el permiso emitido por Edificaciones Nacionales ni la notificación del mismo a la Municipalidad de Oreamuno tal y como se le solicitó en el oficio SUP-RD-0375-2020. Por lo que, se infiere, con base en lo anterior, se establece que la negativa por parte de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno para el reinicio de las obras se debió a que no existía ningún trámite de permiso ante el Municipio del contrato original, ni tampoco se les había presentado el permiso emitido por Edificaciones Nacionales para su conocimiento, esto a pesar de que las obras se iniciaron desde el 21 de mayo 2018 y suspendida temporalmente a través de órdenes de servicio, en forma interrumpida mediante las OS-01, OS-02, OS-03 y OS-04 desde el 20 de julio de 2018 y en forma continua desde el 11 de diciembre de 2019 y hasta el 02 de setiembre de 2019, a través de las OS-05 y hasta la OS-12. Y no es hasta, a partir del 03 de setiembre de 2019, a través del OS-13 se notifica la Reanudación de las obras, de modo que el oficio MUOR-DCU-0358-2019, del 10 de octubre de 2019 es el resultado de la comunicación realizada por la Contratista mediante el oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-321, con respecto al reinicio de las obras, sin embargo se debe a que la Contratista en apariencia, no completó el permiso de construcción de las obras del contrato original, ni ante Edificaciones Nacionales como lo indicó, ni ante la Municipalidad de Oreamuno. Detectándose incluso, que por visita n°11 por parte de la Regencia Ambiental, el día lunes 22 de abril del 2019, reveló: 1- Actualmente dentro del AP, no reside nadie ni siquiera el oficial de seguridad. 2- Se observa crecimiento importante de vegetación principalmente en los alrededores del área de obras temporales (oficinas, bodegas y talleres). Se sugiere limpiar (chapear) lo antes posible. 3- Aún se observa una protección parcial de los taludes expuestos, con plástico (aproximadamente el 60% de la superficie del talud). El viento está removiendo parte de éstos, lo que genera potencial erosión. Aún no se observan desprendimientos, sin embargo, es inminente la entrada del invierno y ésta situación podría empeorar. 4- Persiste caído el portón principal de ingreso al AP, por ende, ya no hay paso restringido de personas ajenas al Proyecto, exponiendo las obras y materiales remanentes. Se sugiere restituir este portón lo antes posible. 5- Es imperativo que, pese a que las obras se mantiene suspendidas, el desarrollador del proyecto a través de la contratista, ejecute obras de mantenimiento principalmente de áreas verdes y protección de taludes.

No hubo testimonios de seria consideración, útiles y pertinentes para afirmar y sostener la existencia de los componentes de la responsabilidad para acreditar en cabeza del Fideicomiso el criterio de imputación, y con ello, evaluar el nexo de causalidad y determinar la existencia correspondiente de la lesión patrimonial reprochada, puesto que partió la declaración sobre la base de “meros supuestos”, ajenos por lo demás a las estipulaciones cartelarias. No otra consideración puede tener el Tribunal de lo señalado por el señor testigo Kristian Fallas al no establecer cuales lesiones derivan en daños y perjuicios, pues el peritaje omite considerar los hechos propios de la contratación, en especial las estipulaciones cartelarias, el mérito de las emisiones de las OS y de la OM y ajuste del contenido y condiciones de tiempo, modo y lugar a las previsiones cartelarias, así como la obligación de ejecutar los proyectos en forma individual, según fueron adjudicados y conforme las características circunstanciales de cada uno, por el contrario su análisis lo hace bajo el supuesto de “ejecución paralela” de las tres obras, pero omite sustentar tal supuesto en las condiciones contractuales pactadas entre las partes y omite considerar así mismo, la realidad de mercado que indica que las ejecución de 3 obras distintas tendría su propio flujo de ejecución. Ni tampoco le consta, ni realiza análisis real alguno de la planilla y recursos designados al proyecto dentro de los intervalos reales de ejecución, con una identificación cierta y clara de los nexos causales de cada supuesto daño que debía reconocerse a favor del actor, según así fue apreciada su declaración en la audiencia complementaria. Viene en consecuencia, el descarte de la teoría propuesta por el testigo, el señor Fernando Castro Ramírez, que fiel a su posición de socio de unas sociedades del Consorcio, admitió que plantearon su oferta sobre el supuesto de “ejecución paralela” de las tres obras, pero omitió sustentar tal supuesto en las condiciones contractuales pactadas entre las partes, con lo cual, era una mera afirmación no sustentada en las condiciones cartelarias. De hecho reconoció que esa fue una decisión de negocios y por ende un riesgo asumido de su empresa, sin que por ende quepa atribuir a la Administración las consecuencias de que tal decisión unilateral suya, no fuera real, con lo cual el reconocerse como experto de la materia de construcción, omitió aclarar por qué motivo si los imprevistos en las obras son “la regla”, por qué motivo no se consideró como riesgo de ejecución que las obras tuvieran atrasos por imprevistos e incluso, que su ejecución no fuera paralela, y omitió explicar el motivo por el cual, siendo ellos los responsables del estudio de suelos, no lograron determinar desde un inicio la inestabilidad del talud en la Escuela Santa Rosa; ni tampoco logró justificar, la suspensión de la obra para estabilizar el talud, y de qué manera se podría haber continuado con la obra en forma paralela a la estabilización, de manera que la decisión de suspensión resultaba innecesaria y desproporcionada. Aceptó que, en el caso de la Escuela Azul, el hallazgo arqueológico, por su ubicación, no afectó la ejecución de las obras, omitió informar que la orden sanitaria girada por las aguas residuales fue girada a la Municipalidad del lugar y a los vecinos y no al consorcio constructor, y que no dispuso suspender las obras, por lo que no les afectó. Si bien se quejó de las órdenes giradas por el MEP para la ejecución de la obra, omitió justificar por qué no se desatendieron tales instrucciones, como sostuvo, esos personeros no eran los competentes para girarlas, además no indicó a qué persona, tiempo y lugar, alcance de la instrucción, monto, daño provocado y otros elementos que comprobaran algún nexo causal o relación con algún hecho controvertido, dejando una manifestación indeterminada e incierta con la intención de respaldar sus intereses. Omite probar y explicar cuál fue la afectación de las órdenes que recibía fueran suscritas por personas distintas a las que ellos consideraban los competentes. Todas estas omisiones que replica el representante del demandado, no son otra cosa de la realidad de lo que informó el testigo en la audiencia complementaria, lo que dice sobre la escasez de utilidad y pertinencia para sustentar, convencer y justificar, no solo una tesis del litigio que es de su conveniencia, sino además, alejada de la realidad probatoria en autos, con lo cual, resulta más que razonable, a partir de las escuchas de los testimonios, empatar con las apreciaciones de las conclusiones del Banco Nacional y lo así percibido por el Tribunal con el contenido de esas deposiciones.

En ese orden, no resultan sustentables las apreciaciones de la parte actora para fundar un incumplimiento contractual, no solo acerca de los retrasos, sino además, para acreditar como situación jurídica relevante, la existencia, consistencia y nivel de impacto con ocasión a comunicaciones como instrucciones contractuales con respecto a la emisión de notificaciones, instrucciones, órdenes, certificados y aprobaciones, que se acusa impactaron y provocaron falta de ejecución, retardo de la misma o ejecución irregular o perjuicio económico en los proyectos del Contrato 88-2017, al advertirse que no fueron emanadas por el Fideicomiso o terceras personas durante la vigencia del contrato y hasta antes de la Rescisión dictada por éste y que al contrario de lo reprochado, no hay certeza material de que el Fideicomiso validara formalmente Órdenes de Servicio, Órdenes de Suspensión u Órdenes de Modificación provenientes de terceras personas ajenas a la Unidad de Supervisión -Gerente de Supervisión, Gerente de Obra (antes Director de Proyecto) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia, o el Coordinador General Unidad Ejecutora y autorizados por el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017 para el dictado de ellas, y con ello habilitara y justificara al Consorcio a modificar, alterar, reestructurar los diseños finales aprobados y autorizados o, solicitara diseños adicionales o sustitutos fuera de las Órdenes de Servicio u Órdenes de Modificación previamente aceptadas y autorizadas, durante el proceso constructivo, que afectaran o diferieran sustancialmente con el diseño aprobado en planos constructivos, alterando el plazo y costo susceptibles de liquidación y pago pertinente a favor del Consorcio.

En lo consecuente con lo expuesto, debe aceptarse la postura del representante del Banco Nacional cuando infiere en la contestación a la demanda, que el Gerente de Obra que nombra el Contratante, corresponde a la Unidad de Supervisión y a la Unidad Ejecutora (ambas unidades con funciones distintas) y que fueron estas dependencias, las responsables de mantener la comunicación del proyecto con el contratista y que si bien, por su parte, el Gerente de Obra nombrado por la Unidad de Supervisión, ostentaba la función de mantenerse en comunicación con el contratista, no es el único profesional que mantiene esta potestad, por lo que, durante todo el proceso de contratación, la Unidad de Supervisión mantuvo contacto con el Consorcio actor mediante tres profesionales Gerente de Supervisión (Adrián Ruilova Resca), Gerente de Obras (Para el proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Primero fue el señor Víctor Azofeifa Alvarado, posteriormente fue Juan Carlos Rodríguez Arce, luego ostentó el puesto Luis Fernando Quirós Alvarado y finalmente, Adrián Ruilova Reacia culminó como Gerente de Obra y que en el caso de los proyectos Escuela Azul y Escuela La Hermosa, primero estuvo Álvaro Quirós Rossi y luego lo sustituyó Gonzalo Muñoz Zeledón) y la Adjunta a la Gerencia (Fabiana Rego González, y que al Consorcio actor se le indicó que siempre dirigiera toda comunicación al Gerente de Obra designado por la Unidad de Supervisión, esto para mantener una claridad respecto a las comunicaciones. En todo caso, igualmente quedó indemostrado que existiera contradicciones o conflictos generados por el hecho de que una comunicación no estuviera suscrita por el Gerente de Obra, y menos que menos, el impacto y la afectación sustentiva en la ejecución de la obra pertinente al Contrato 88-2017. De lo expuesto, resulta ajeno a lo acreditado, el determinar la ausencia de responsabilidad del Consorcio en lo tocante a la revisión, aprobación y orden de inicio de OM-01, con los enunciados y contenidos de los oficios GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-090 (Solicitud de OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-093 (Aclaraciones sobre la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa), GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-102 (En respuesta a SUP-RD-789-2018 y SUP-RD-790-2018 (Observaciones sobre revisión OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, en los que se dio una respuesta extendida a las consultas que la Supervisión realizó en relación a la propuesta de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, presentada por concepto de la estabilización de talud en proyecto -versión dos); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-108 (se brindó la versión tres de OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, como respuesta al oficio SUP-RD-853-2018, donde se solicitaron modificaciones a la propuesta); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-112 (aporta respuesta a SUP-RD-865-2018 respecto a la solicitud de información adicional solicitada por la administración para la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, donde la administración solicitó información adicional); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-113 (se realizó la actualización de la tabla de hitos de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-127 (de manera complementaria el día 3 de enero 2019 se aportó el presente oficio con la tabla de hitos actualizada de la OM-01 - Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-129 (de manera complementaria se respondió oficio SUP-RD-005-2019 en el que se realizó la actualización con el desglose de los hitos correspondiente a la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145 (conocimiento de la Supervisión que al no haberse aprobado la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, al día 24 de enero de 2019, los costos indirectos contenidos en la oferta enviada en el mes de diciembre habían variado, por dicha razón la misma ya no poseía vigencia); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-157 (se solicitó la ampliación de suspensión de plazo de proyecto en el entendido de la no aprobación a esa fecha de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-161 (en atención a la reunión sostenida en la sección de Fideicomisos del Banco Nacional se realizó la entrega de información técnica para proceder con la revisión de una manera integral de nuestra propuesta); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-174 (se comunicó que la "OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa" enviada había perdido vigencia, esto debido a los atrasos en la aprobación el día 5 de marzo de 2019. Dicha situación fue reportada el día 28 de enero de 2019, oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-145, por tanto, garantizando la eficiencia del proceso, se recomendó a Supervisión realizar la solicitud de actualización de costos de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-178 (se procedió a aportar la información solicitada por parte de la supervisión en relación a realización de pruebas e informes referentes al diseño de la OM-01); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-186 (se procedió a aportar la quinta actualización OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, y se procedió a detallar que a partir de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, y las solicitudes de orden de suspensión de plazo OS-01, OS-02, OS-03, OS-04, OS-05 y OS-06 de proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, que se cumplían 248 días desde que se emitió la primera suspensión del proyecto); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-189 (para revisar la última versión de la OM-01 Obra de estabilización de los taludes del sector Norte del terreno del proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa); GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-190 (respuesta a SUP-RD-658-2019 (se presentaron las condiciones comerciales de la orden de modificación en cuanto a plazo, vigencia, diseño y construcción, tramitación de los permisos de construcción así como el costo de la misma); CG-2019-0931 (290 días después de la suspensión del proyecto se le notifica al Consorcio que la Orden de Modificación OM-01 está aprobada, se le solicita la revisión de la adenda al contrato y se indica que las obra no iniciarán hasta que haya una orden de inicio para este trabajo adicional, cual el día 28 de agosto del 2019 se firmó la Orden de Servicio N°13, donde se dá la orden de inicio de la Orden de Modificación OM-01. Es perceptible entonces, que con la prueba aportada no resulta evidente ni demostrado que el proyecto estuvo suspendido durante 1 año, 3 meses y 18 días, por situaciones propias de la responsabilidad del Fideicomiso, esto es, a contrario sentido, que fueran por conductas ajenas a la responsabilidad del Contratista y, por tanto, que durante todo este período el Consorcio de vio en obligación de soportar la carga financiera de los costos indirectos (seguridad, gastos de administración, dirección técnica, inspección, viáticos, organización, vigilancia, imprevistos, mantenimiento de instalaciones provisionales, servicios públicos, pólizas, gastos financieros por prórroga de garantías, gastos financieros por prórroga de líneas de crédito, comisiones bancarias, intereses moratorios de línea de capital de trabajo, alquileres de oficinas, salarios administrativos, cargas sociales, entre otros). De manera que, el actor no logró acreditar ningún elemento de nulidad, pertinente y útil, en las resoluciones que rechazaron los reclamos administrativos presentados, y menos que menos, la existencia de incumplimientos al contrato o que lo resuelto para declinar lo reclamado se hiciera en contra de las normas y principios aplicables a la materia. En orden a lo expuesto, y al no evidenciarse disconformidad con el ordenamiento, resulta inatendible la pretensión de procedencia sobre los reclamos administrativo por incumplimiento del contrato en lo considerado. Esto es, no logró comprobar el Consorcio la existencia de la base jurídica para declarar incumplimientos del Fideicomiso y así establecer la causalidad adecuada para declarar, que los reclamos denegados resultaban disconformes al ordenamiento jurídico y menos que menos, que surja para el Consorcio, la declaración de un derecho subjetivo para no solo invalidar lo resuelto, sino para que pueda ser considerada en cuanto a lo gestionado por el propio Consocio, como parte cumpliente, por lo que por demás, invocar la excepción de contrato no cumplido, resultaba improcedente como defensa para enervar lo resuelto, ya que esa parte contractual, no se ubicó habilitada bajo los presupuestos de la esfera conceptual jurídica de esa estructura defensiva para oponerla legítima y válida contra el Fideicomiso y así bloquear lo decidido. Se reitera una vez más, la inexistencia de la disconformidad con el ordenamiento y consecuente pedido de nulidad sobre los actos administrativos reprochados (pretensión 2 y 4 principal), con lo cual lo pretendido bajo este acápite debe rechazarse y consecuentemente la pretensión subsidiaria primera, segunda, en su relación al no tener sustento jurídico al respecto, según los términos y alcances en que fue abordado este tópico, so pena de incurrir en irazonabilidad e incongruencia, acogiéndose en colofón la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la parte demandada.

XI.- 1.- SOBRE LA LEGITIMIDAD Y EFECTOS DE LA CLÁUSULA PENAL. El Consorcio en relación a la definición de las cláusulas penales, realiza a modo de objetar lo resuelto, descripciones de su actuar dentro del procedimiento sumario y en atención a la resolución FID-2317-2020 específicamente (Proyecto Escuela Hermosa), informando que procedió a dar respuesta en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547 con indicación de que en ese memorial se apeló a la Defensa de contrato no cumplido (non adimpleti contractus) con sustento en el artículo 692 del Código Civil, que dijo ser aplicable supletoriamente conforme al artículo número 9.2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), pues advertía que no se evidenciaban circunstancias fácticas para la aplicación de la cláusula penal. Esa afirmación anterior, la basó en lo que de manera jurisprudencial se disponía en el voto número 6639-2013 de la Sala Constitucional, la cual considera que la Administración Pública siempre deberá demostrar que el incumplimiento del contratista le es efectivamente imputable, ya que (como sucede en este caso) puede haber causas eximentes de esa responsabilidad, e hizo transcripción parcial de la resolución: “…previo a la ejecución de una cláusula penal debe corroborarse a través de un debido proceso si el cumplimiento tardío o prematuro fue efectivamente responsabilidad del contratista o, por el contrario, existió alguna circunstancia eximente de responsabilidad… Ciertamente, la Administración contratante se encuentra llamada a resguardar el interés público en cada una de las contrataciones administrativas que convenga con los particulares, así como a garantizar la regularidad de los servicios públicos y, consecuentemente, evitar cualquier tipo de retrasos injustificados en la ejecución del objeto del contrato administrativo; empero, estos principios constitucionales no autorizan a la Administración a incurrir en arbitrariedades, como lo sería ejecutar de manera automática las cláusulas penales convenidas sin descartar de previo circunstancias eximentes de responsabilidad contractual”. Advirtió, en la especie, que en lo dado, es evidente que lo sucedido es una responsabilidad directa del Fideicomiso y, por consiguiente, no resulta justo ni es acorde con los postulados del Estado social y democrático de Derecho la aplicación de la cláusula penal contra el Consorcio, cuando quien incumplió fue el Fideicomiso, al no lograr buscar, garantizar, mantener el equilibro económico en la ejecución de este contrato; por lo que, concluye que el Consorcio fue afectada por el rechazo del primer cobro administrativo y siguientes realizados para el Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, así como la no respuesta a la solicitud de indemnización por más de 180 días en el mismo proyecto, y que por tal motivo no se logrará avanzar en este Proyecto desde el mes de enero de 2019. En el hecho 47 de la demanda, igualmente informa que el Fideicomiso emitió el Acto Final número 29-2020/FID-3278-2020 de las trece horas diez minutos del veinticinco de julio dos mil veinte, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa; además emitió Acto Final, que en Resolución número 26-2020/Oficio FID-3076-2020 concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para la aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa y, el Acto Final - Resolución número 31-2020/Oficio FID-3331-2020 que concluyó Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de cláusula penal Escuela Azul. En relación con el citado hecho descrito, vuelve a indicar a modo informativo, que se dio respuesta en oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-02-2017-547, con las mismas consideraciones arriba invocadas.

A lo manifestado por el Consorcio actor, el Tribunal estima necesario acentuar y replicar lo advertido en el Considerando VIII, para establecer por mayoría de razón, que lo dicho sobre las cláusulas penales en relación a las definiciones de las multas, no llegan tan siquiera a estimarse o calificarse de agravios, reproches o impugnaciones jurídico/técnicas debidamente sustentas en el silogismo categórico que se basa en la subsunción de la norma y el hecho determinante de la cuestión debatida. En el caso específico de los actos administrativos, con efectos ablatorios, como sucede con las resoluciones FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020, FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 y FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020, de acuerdo con el artículo 36 inciso c del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, cuando se pretende su nulidad y obviamente su disconformidad con el ordenamiento ante esta jurisdicción -tal y como se pretende-, se requiere ineludiblemente para instar a la Cámara a resolver al respecto, se aboque a explicar cuál es el vicio o los vicios que concurren en la conducta administrativa formal cuestionada y el elemento o elementos de esa conducta que se ven afectados por los vicios que se acusan, así como la magnitud de incidencia del vicio para determinar la potencia del desvío, sea esta relativa o absoluta y su afectación dentro de la estructura del acto administrativo y especificar la certeza de existencia del motivo expuesto en la resolución. Es decir, se debe indicar y desarrollar, ya sea el error o la omisión que contiene la conducta impugnada y luego establecer en qué grado o medida esos aparentes vicios afectan a los elementos formales (forma de expresión, motivación y procedimiento) o materiales de la misma (competencia, investidura, legitimación, voluntad, motivo, contenido y fin) de conformidad con las reglas de la teoría del acto administrativo, suficientemente desarrollada en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la jurisprudencia y la doctrina. Debiendo recordarse que esa revisión de la legalidad de la actividad administrativa no es oficiosa, dado que en esta jurisdicción rige con toda plenitud el principio dispositivo y el principio de congruencia, principios procesales que deben ser respetados por las partes y que constituyen el límite de acción de los Jueces, dada la carga de la prueba en resorte del reprochante para desvirtuar la presunción de validez de esas conductas formales de la administración. Así expuesto el asunto, resta al Tribunal a lo indicado por el Consorcio, indicar que se tuvo por demostrado en autos que en el Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, el Fideicomiso inició con Acto de Apertura de Procedimiento Sumario para la Aplicación de la Cláusula Penal de fecha 09 de julio de 2020-FID 2665-2020 al Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, trasladándole e informándole 25 hechos imputados, e imputándole Demora en la Terminación de Obras del Proyecto Liceo Rural Santa Rosa, implicándole una penalidad de $131.949.18 por cláusula penal contenida en el Pliego de Condiciones del Cartel Sección VIII Condiciones Especiales, Cláusula 26 y 26.2 Garantía Plazo de Terminación, y otorgándole tres días hábiles para el descargo correspondiente facilitándole el expediente administrativo respectivo. (ver folios 76 a 84 expediente físico Cláusula Penal). Ante esa audiencia, el Consorcio contestó la audiencia conferida por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 del 15 de julio de 2020, justificando la improcedencia del procedimiento y de aplicación de la cláusula penal basado en: I. Ausencia de unos de los presupuestos básicos para la imposición de la cláusula penal: Existe un incumplimiento del Contratante en el Contrato, II.- Defensa de contrato no cumplido con sustento en el artículo 692 del Código Civil, aplicable supletoriamente conforme al artículo 9.2 de la LGAP, III.- Acerca de la aprobación de los Planos Constructivos del Proyecto, IV.- Hallazgos de situación no previsible de la condición de los suelos presentes que generó una orden de modificación que tardó 10 meses en proceso de solicitud, revisión y aprobación por parte del Fideicomiso, V.- Incumplimiento del Contratante: Fideicomiso rechazó indemnización por más de 180 días de suspensión en el plazo por causa ajena del Contratista, VI.- Acerca de la base considerar para cálculo del monto de la cláusula penal. (ver folios 85 a 98 expediente físico Cláusula Penal). El Fideicomiso por Acto Final del 11 de agosto de 2020 FID-3076-2020, resolución N°26-2020, al respecto dispuso rechazar en todos sus extremos la pretensión expuesta por el Consorcio en sus alegatos de descargo y conclusiones presentados por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-553 del 15 de julio de 2020. (ver folios 158 a 195 expediente físico Cláusula Penal). El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 del 18 de agosto de 2020 justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver folios 196 a 209 expediente físico Cláusula Penal) y finalmente, el Fideicomiso por oficio del 08 de setiembre de 2020 FID-3468-2020 resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-558 del 18 de agosto de 2020, confirmando el Acto Final del 11 de agosto de 2020 FID-3076-2020 y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $131.949.18 bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver folios finales sin numerar en expediente físico Cláusula Penal). En relación al Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, el Fideicomiso, dictó previo trámite de audiencia y objeción conferido a la Contratista, procedimiento de aplicación de Cláusula Penal, dictando el Acto Final número 24-2020/FID-2879-2020 del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, imponiéndosele el monto USD $166,063.38.(ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 98 /imágs.1-31). El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 del tres de agosto de dos mil veinte justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 84/imágs.1-12). El Fideicomiso por oficio del 25 de agosto de 2020 FID-3278-2020 RESOLUCIÓN N°29-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las trece horas con diez minutos del veinticinco de agosto del dos mil veinte resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-557 del tres de agosto de dos mil veinte, confirmando el Acto Final número 24-2020/FID-2879-2020 del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte, y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $166.063.38 bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88 /imágs.1-12). Del Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, el Fideicomiso, dictó previo trámite de audiencia y objeción conferido a la Contratista, procedimiento de aplicación de Cláusula Penal, dictando el Acto Final del 28 de agosto de 2020 FID-3331-2020 ACTO FINAL RESOLUCIÓN N°31-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas con cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de dos mil veinte, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario para aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Cancha Multiuso Escuela Azul, Código 24-1942, imponiéndosele el monto USD $95,457.70. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 88/imágs.1-33). El Consorcio opuso Recurso de Revocatoria por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 del tres de setiembre de dos mil veinte, justificándolo básicamente con las mismas razones de su alegato de descargo y conclusiones. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo83/imágs.1-8); y el Fideicomiso por oficio del 10 de setiembre de 2020 FID-3522-2020 RESOLUCIÓN N°36-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las doce horas con treinta minutos del diez de setiembre del dos mil veinte, resuelve rechazar en todos sus extremos el recurso de revocatoria expuesto por medio del oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-560 del tres de setiembre de dos mil veinte, confirmando el Acto Final número del 28 de agosto de 2020 FID-3331-2020 ACTO FINAL RESOLUCIÓN N°31-2020 del Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, de las once horas con cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de agosto de dos mil veinte, y apercibiendo al Contratista por tres días hábiles para el pago del monto de USD $95,457.70, bajo advertencia de ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. (ver imágenes 865 a 874 de expediente judicial). Así, las resoluciones: FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 dispusieron el pago del monto de USD $131.949,18 (proyecto Santa Rosa), por el FID-2879-2020 N° 24-2020 el pago del monto de USD $166.063,38 y por el FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 el pago del monto de USD $95,457.70, para un total de USD $393.470,26, sobre lo cual se apercibió al Consorcio liquidar su pago por medio de la ejecución de las garantías de cumplimiento. Incluso, nótese que el Consorcio, en relación a lo resuelto para el proyecto Escuela Hermosa en la citada resolución de la claúsula penal, no combatió de ninguna manera los hechos allí acreditados, y con ello, menos podía desacreditar el motivo, mismos que se muestran a continuación:

"En consecuencia, se tienen como probados y relevantes para el dictado de la presente resolución administrativa, los siguientes:

• a)Consta a folios 01 al 06, en fecha 26 de octubre del 2017 el Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR (Contratante) y el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI (Contratista), suscribieron el Contrato N°88-2017, que incluye tres Proyectos distribuidos en el Lote 2, el cual se encuentra conformado por: Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); para un monto total contractual de USD $6,146,149.50.
• b)Consta a folio 07 que en fecha 31 de julio de 2018, el Contratante mediante oficio FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551 del treinta y uno de julio del dos mil dieciocho, giró a la Contratista la Orden de Inicio de la construcción para el Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, siendo la fecha efectiva de inicio el 06 de agosto del 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de contrucción y equipamiento, las obras debías ser entregadas el 06 de enero del 2019.
• c)Consta a folio 08 que en fecha 25 de setiembre de 2018, la Contratista mediante oficio GCIIDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-066 del veinticuatro de setiembre del dos mil dieciocho, presentó ante la Supervisión la última versión de la OS-1, en la cual con base en atrasos por concepto de lluvias, solicitó una compensación de plazo en la entrega de las obras.
• d)Consta a folios 09 y 10 que en fecha 09 de noviembre de 2018 la Supervisión mediante oficio SUP-RD-714-2018 del nueve de noviembre del dos mil dieciocho, comunicó a la Contratista la aprobación de la OS-1, la cual concedió una compensación de plazo de diez días naturales, quedando la fecha de terminación del Proyecto para el 16 de enero 2019.
• e)Consta a folios 12 y 13 que en fecha 27 de diciembre de 2018, la Contratista mediante oficio GCI-IDECO-RUCO-LPI-01-2017-124 del veintisiete de diciembre del dos mil dieciocho, presentó ante la Supervisión la OS-7, en la cual con base en un supuesto de fuerza mayor, solicitó una compensación de plazo en la entrega de las obras.
• f)Consta a folio 09 que en fecha 09 de enero de 2019 la Contratista mediante oficio GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-130 del nueve de enero del dos mil diecinueve, presentó ante la Supervisión la última versión de la OS-2, en la cual con base en atrasos por concepto de lluvias, solicitó una compensación de plazo de siete días naturales en la entrega de las obras.
• g)Consta a folio 14 que en fecha 15 de enero de 2019 la Supervisión mediante oficio SUP-RD-043-2019 del quince de enero del dos mil diecinueve, comunicó a la Contratista que según las últimas visitas realizadas por el equipo de supervisión, el Proyecto se encontraba con evidentes atrasos en el cronograma, por tal razón, se le otorgó el plazo de tres días hábiles para que presentara un plan remedial.
• h)Consta a folio 15 que en fecha 24 de enero de 2019 la Contratista mediante oficio GCI-IDECORUCO-LPI-01-2017-147 del veinticuatro de enero del dos mil diecinueve, con base en la OS-5 (ampliación de plazo por lluvias) y OS-7 (fuerza mayor), presentó ante la Supervisión una solicitud de compensacion de plazo de diecisiete días naturales.
• i)Consta a folios 16 y 17 que en fecha 24 de enero de 2019 la Supervisión mediante oficio SUPRD-124-2019 del veinticuatro de enero del dos mil diecinuve, le comunicó a la Contratista que el plazo de ejecución contractual, incluyendo las compensaciones de plazo otorgadas por la aprobación de la OS-1 y la OS-2, había vencido el 23 de enero del 2019. Además, le aclaró a la Contratista que el plazo solicitado en la OS-5, fue incluido en la compensación otorgada por medio de la aprobación de la OS-2 y que la OS-7, se le rechazaba por ser improcedente.
• j)Consta a folio 18 que en fecha 08 de noviembre de 2019, la Supervisión mediante oficio SUPRD-2634-2019 del ocho de noviembre del dos mil diecinueve, le reiteró la Contratista y dejóen constancia que a esa fecha las obras acumulaban 289 días naturales de atraso respecto al plazo contractual estipulado.
• k)Consta que en el expediente administrativo, no se encuentra a la fecha del 08 de junio del 2020, ninguna solicitud de la Contratista en la que requiera la recepción definitiva del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa." (FID-2879-2020/ACTO FINAL/RESOLUCIÓN N°24-2020/Comité Director del Proyecto del Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR, San José a las diez horas del veintiocho de julio de dos mil veinte) Consecuente, atendiendo a la normativa vigente al momento de los hechos, sea la citada LCA y su Reglamento (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33411) derogados al tenor de la promulgación de la Ley General de Contratación Pública del 27 de mayo del 2021, vigente a partir del primero de diciembre del 2022 y los estipulados bajo el Cartel de la Licitación Pública LPI-01-2017, es dable señalar que del artículo 34 de la LCA se infiere con claridad que la garantía de cumplimiento debía rendirse: "...para asegurar el resarcimiento de cualquier daño eventual o perjuicio ocasionado por el adjudicatario." Esa connotación reparadora se ratifica en el párrafo final de esa norma cuando señalaba: "La ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento no exime al contratista de indemnizar a la Administración por los daños y perjuicios que no cubre esa garantía.". A partir de lo expuesto, en este proceso se ha tenido igualmente por acreditado que el Consorcio, incumplió los términos pactados en la contratación 88-2017 derivado de los alcances citados de la licitación de estilo, todo lo cual encuentra sustento en los amplios razonamientos y consideraciones que al efecto el Tribunal resolvió en relación al tema sobre la Rescisión y las Reclamaciones Administrativas, según así se aprecia en el Considerando IX, apartes ,5, 5.1, 5.2 y 5.3 y Considerando X, apartes 1 y 2. También se demostró que en vía administrativa se dictaron las resoluciones sancionatorias a partir del efecto jurídico de la Rescisión declarada y los motivos por los cuales ésta se dictó, estableciéndose entonces la siguiente visualización, correspondiente y acorde por su incumplimiento contractual en relación a la no entrega de los proyectos contenidos en el Contrato 88-2017 dentro del plazo pactado y la inexistencia por responsabilidad del Fideicomiso de perjuicio por desequilibrio financiero:

Cláusula Penal (Por Proyecto) Multa definida Liceo Santa Rosa. Res.FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 $131.949.18 Escuela Hermosa. Res.FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 $166.063.38 Escuela Azul. Res.FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 $95,457.70 TOTAL CLÁUSULAS PENALES $393.470,26 En efecto, la dinámica propia de la contratación del Estado y sus instituciones y la necesaria flexibilidad de la regulación, permiten la posibilidad de que la Administración contemple dentro del cartel y luego, dentro del contrato, un sistema de sanciones tasadas, que atienden a incumplimientos específicos, como es el caso de la entrega tardía o anticipada del objeto del contrato, o bien, defectos en la ejecución de aquel. Cabe destacar según lo ha señalado la Sala Constitucional, en el fallo No. 6639-2013, la aplicación de estas figuras exige procedimientos previos que garanticen el debido proceso y derecho de defensa del contratista, debiendo instaurarse al menos, un procedimiento sumario: "V. (...) una de las principales obligaciones del contratista es precisamente la ejecución efectiva y eficiente del objeto de la contratación, en los términos y condiciones que fueron ofertados, adjudicados y luego formalizados en el respectivo contrato administrativo, lo que incluye desde luego, el conjunto de modificaciones que se hayan incorporado a ese vínculo como derivación del ejercicio de modificación unilateral de la Administración, dentro de los límites que consigna el ordinal 12 de la Ley No. 7494. Este deber de cumplimiento se encuentra positivizado en la letra del artículo 20 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa que establece la obligación de los contratistas de "... cumplir, cabalmente, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato." Este deber de cumplimiento es fundamental para la debida satisfacción del interés público que, en tesis de principio, constituye la base legitimante y finalidad misma del régimen contractualista público, en la medida en que el objeto de la contratación solo se verá satisfecho ante el cumplimiento debido de los aspectos cualitativos y cuantitativos que se han asignado al contratista y que son necesarios para obtener aquel bien o servicio que le ha sido confiado mediante este mecanismo negocial. Ahora, si bien en la dinámica de los contratos administrativos impera una máxima de buena fe y mutua colaboración en la ejecución contractual, dado el interés público de base presente en este régimen (elemento teleológico), es necesario que el contratista rinda caución para asegurar el debido cumplimiento del contrato, así como de los eventuales daños y perjuicios que pueda ocasionar un incumplimiento total o parcial de las cargas contractuales. Desde este plano, el numeral 34 de la Ley No. 7494 estatuye la figura de la garantía de cumplimiento, como mecanismo que busca asegurar que los posibles daños y/o perjuicios ocasionados por el contratista en la fase de ejecución contractual (o la ausencia de esta), puedan ser indemnizados a la Administración, mediante un respaldo que mantiene bajo su custodia y que ha sido previamente requerido en el procedimiento de contratación y rendido por el adjudicatario. Acorde a esa norma, el monto de la garantía debe definirse previamente en el cartel de la licitación, y oscila entre el 5 y el 10%, siendo que cuando se requiera y no se indique el porcentaje, aplica la alícuota menor (...) Cabe señalar, la naturaleza de esta garantía no es punitiva, sino indemnizatoria. Ergo, no basta la acreditación de incumplimiento de obligaciones para ejecutarla; resulta impostergable que la Administración acredite los daños y perjuicios ocasionados con esa desatención." Por ende, cuando el contrato termine por las vías denominadas "anormales", sea, rescisión, resolución o declaratoria de nulidad, es claro que en esos supuestos no puede hablarse de terminación del plazo o ejecución del objeto contractual, pues precisamente se trata de figuras que tiene por característica poner fin al vínculo negocial de previo a su culminación por esas sendas normales. De ahí que lo usual y debido es que al momento de instruir el procedimiento para terminar el contrato por alguna de esas tres causas señaladas, en la medida en que exista algún daño o perjuicio que deba ser indemnizado a la Administración como derivación de desatenciones de las obligaciones asumidas por el contratista, sea imperativo que el ente licitante dicte la apertura de los procedimientos de rigor para establecer la ocurrencia del incumplimiento y su proyección económica, de suerte que permita la ejecución de la citada caución de cumplimiento debido.

2.- CONTINUACIÓN. IMPROCEDENCIA DE INVALIDAR APLICACIÓN DE CLAÚSULA PENAL. IMPROCEDENCIA PARA DECLARAR DERECHO SUBJETIVO A FAVOR DEL CONSORCIO PARA SU INAPLICABILIDAD.

Como efecto derivado de la rescisión y su resultado instrínseco contractual, la estipulación contractual cartelaria LPI-01-2017, estipuló y facultó a la Administración contratante a liquida anticipadamente los daños y perjuicios derivados de una ejecución prematura, tardía o ninguna entrega de la obra por el contratista. Por ello, el fin de esta cláusula es que la administración contratante cuente con mecanismo ágil para obtener la reparación de los daños y perjuicios causados por el adelanto prematuro o atraso, al considerar que en determinados casos el plazo de ejecución resulta de vital importancia y, que dada su finalidad específica, debe ejecutarse ante el incumplimiento del plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones pactadas, siendo que por su medio se castiga cualquier desajuste-por prematuridad o atraso- en el plazo de ejecución contractual. Esto es, la fijación de la cláusula penal en el cartel constituye una suma, que cubrirá los posibles daños y perjuicios que le sean imputables al contratista ante el atraso o desajuste en el plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones, la cual es prefijada de antemano en sede administrativa la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían con un eventual atraso en el plazo establecido, o que es lo mismo, la conceptualización de "sistema de sanción administrativa alternativo", que pretende establecer de previo, cuáles van a ser los efectos económicos del incumplimiento, por lo que es contundente sostener que este tipo de sanciones pecuniarias se "constituyen en mecanismos que buscan asegurar la fiel observancia de lo pactado, o en su defecto, lograr una indemnización por el perjuicio sufrido. De ahí, que tengan dos funciones básicas, la compulsiva y la resarcitoria. Figuran en el contrato administrativo, como eventuales sanciones, que persiguen garantizar de mejor manera a la Administración, que el contratante cumplirá con la prestación dentro del plazo y con las condiciones pactadas, prefijando de antemano la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían ante un eventual atraso en el plazo señalado o un incumplimiento. A esa consideración, el Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, numeral 50, establece que la "cláusula penal procede por ejecución tardía o prematura de las obligaciones contractuales, los supuestos y montos deberán incluirse en el respectivo cartel y le serán aplicables las disposiciones indicadas en los artículos anteriores.". De modo que, para el cobro de la cláusula penal no será necesario demostrar la existencia del daño o perjuicio y el cobro podrá hacerse con cargo a las retenciones del precio que se hubieren practicado y los saldos pendientes de pago (artículo 48). Sin embargo, su aplicación no es automática, o simplemente basada en meras apreciaciones, conjeturas o suposiciones no acreditadas fehacientemente de haberse incurrido en una ejecución prematura o tardía en la ejecución de la obligación, ello sería abusivo, leonino e implicaría el ejercicio de potestades sancionatorias basadas en meras presunciones, indicios y no en prueba clara y contundente. De modo que, para la aplicación o ejecución de la cláusula penal debe haber un motivo claro y evidente que debe basarse en la constatación de haberse verificado un atraso en el plazo de entrega, es decir el acaecimiento de los presupuestos para los cuales fue creada. Los Juzgadores Constitucionales a partir del año 2018 y 2020, ante su ruta indefinida sobre el procedimiento para fijar estas cláusulas penales, al fin retomó la necesidad de instruir un procedimiento, al menos, sumario (sin necesidad del oordinario) para asegurar las garantías del debido proceso y el derecho de defensa, actos de procedimiento que se dieron cumplidos en los procedimientos citados para los proyectos Liceo Santa Rosa, Escuela Hermosa y Escuela Azul, no solo al otorgarse audiencia a la contratista, sino que también el Consorcio ejerció su derecho al contradictorio exponiendo sus oposiciones y, el Fideicomiso resolvió motivamente las razones para su imposición, aspectos que desde el plano procedimental, en el subjúdice no se ha lesionado los derechos de la empresa contratista, pues consta en autos que el Fideicomiso previo a aplicar la cláusula penal prevista en el contrato, conforme lo regulado en el Carte de la Licitación LPI-01-2017 y en concordancia en los artículos 320 y siguientes de la LGAP y el Reglamento de la Contratación Administrativa, dispuso la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo sumario, le otorgó audiencia -por tres días- a la empresa a fin de que ejerciera su derecho de defensa, el Consorciopresentó conclusiones e incluso; en razón de lo alegado por la contratista -en relación al inicio del procedimiento- el Fideicomiso emitió resolución final. Valga destacar, para que se estime ese procedimiento sumario y en concreto su resultado definitorio, el Consorcio actor debió haber reclamado y acreditado en que sentido se le causó una indefensión, porqué motivo arguye que se le impidió presentar adecuadamente su teoría del caso, cuál es la razón por la que considera que vio debilitado su derecho de defensa, cuáles garantías legales y constitucionales del debido proceso le fueron violentadas, cuál o cuáles pruebas no pudo ofrecer por el procedimiento empleado para ejecutar la cláusula penal, aspectos sobre los que resulta totalmente ayuno el reproche.

Aunado a lo anterior, no puede obviarse, dentro de un marco de razonabilidad y lógica, para la impugnación útil, que toda cláusula penal resulta lesiva a los intereses económicas de la parte a quien le es impuesta y ejecutada, pues su finalidad es sancionatoria, de manera que trae aparejada el pago de una suma de dinero a quien no cumple el contrato en los términos pactados, por ello, en cuanto al motivo de los actos finales fijados en las resoluciones: FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020, FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 y FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020, era deber preceptivo desacreditar el fundamento del mismo en los aspectos propios del reultado dado, esto es, en cuanto al retardo en la ejecución de la obra como en los desequilibrios financieros acusados, que por demás, como fue exhibido, no hubo para esta cuestión agravio sustentado, precisa y singularizado por cada acto dictado, reduciéndose a la mera descripción de lo que se hizo en esos procedimientos, que no es más que una disconformidad subjetiva inútil a efectos de enervar lo allí resuelto y con ello, su invalidez e ineficacia; cuando máxime, tales temas fueron abordados ut supra y rechazados en los Considerandos Considerando IX, apartes ,5, 5.1, 5.2 y 5.3 y Considerando X, apartes 1 y 2. Al entenderlo de esa forma el Tribunal, las censuras formuladas deberán ser desestimadas, y rechazar que lo ordenado y dispuesto resulta disconforme con el ordenamiento y deban anularse, como además de la improcedencia de restituir los derechos subjetivos del Consorcio en lo de su conveniencia según pretensiones de la demanda. En consecuencia, a criterio de este Órgano Decisor, y derivado de lo expuesto, y en relación con la excepción non adimpleti contractus invocada, si el Consorcio no ejecutó la obligación que le correspondía en los términos contractuales, es decir, entregar en fecha cierta y a tracto único, la planta física y equipamiento, como objeto determinado mediante ley número 9124 denominada "AUTORIZACIÓN AL PODER EJECUTIVO PARA SUSCRIBIR UNA OPERACIÓN DE CRÉDITO PÚBLICO Y CONSTITUIR UN FIDEICOMISO CON CONTRATOS DE ARRENDAMIENTO, PARA EL FINANCIAMIENTO DEL PROYECTO CONSTRUCCIÓN Y EQUIPAMIENTO DE INFRAESTRUCTURA EDUCATIVA DEL MEP A NIVEL NACIONAL", que autorizó al Ministerio de Educación Pública, para constituir un Fideicomiso con contratos de arrendamiento financiero, y así financiar el Proyecto Construcción y Equipamiento de Infraestructura Educativa del MEP a Nivel Nacional, y que consistía en la construcción y el equipamiento de infraestructura física, tales como colegios, escuelas y canchas multiusos para el cumplimiento de sus fines encomendados, para lo cual, el Fideicomiso promovió, en lo que interesa a esta demanda, la Licitación Pública Internacional LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos -en adelante LPI-01-2017, y en donde, en lo que interesa a este expediente, las empresas IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A. CEMEX S.A. y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A., conformaron el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, que participó en la referida Licitación, resultando adjudicatario en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (USD $1,319,491.70); 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 Escuela Azul (USD $3,166,024.02); 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 Escuela La Hermosa (USD $1,660,633.78); para un monto total contractual de USD $6,146,149.50 y sobre los cuales incialmente las órdenes de inicio efectivo de los trabajos de construcción y equipamientio en cada Proyecto del lote número 2 adjudicado, se dieron en diferentes fechas para ser entregados igualmente en fechas distintas por la singularidad de cada proyecto, lo que lo hace de tracto único por proyecto, ello ya señalaba el plazo de entrega bajo términos diferenciados, según así se desprende de: a) oficio del 18 de mayo de 2018 -FID-1361-2018-CG-2018-0883-ARQ-2018-0338. "ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento del Centro Educativo: Centro Educativo 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 21 de mayo de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 21 de octubre del año en curso; b) oficio del 31 de julio de 2018 -FID-2160-2018-CG-2018-1463-ARQ-2018-0551. ORDEN DE INICIO - Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Centro Educativo 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 06 de agosto de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (5 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 06 de enero del año 2019; y c) oficio del 13 de diciembre de 2018 -FID-3895-2018-CG-2018-2526-ARQ-2018-0920. ORDEN DE INICIO -Licitación Pública Internacional LPI-01-2017 Construcción y Equipamiento Cancha Multiuso Centro Educativo 024-1942 Escuela Azul: Los trabajos en sitio deberán tener inicio efectivo el próximo lunes 17 de diciembre de 2018 y en cumplimiento del plazo de Construcción y Equipamiento detallados en contrato (6 meses), las obras deberán de ser entregadas el día 17 de junio del año 2019 y sobre los cuales ninguno se llegó a entregar en la forma y plazo pactado, esto es, completamente terminados, no le asiste el derecho de reclamar la falta al debido proceso, expresada bajo el latinazo opuesto. Pues se trata de un incumplimiento por el Consorcio, dada la no ejecución del objeto contractual pactado, pues claramente, de la prueba en autos, ningún proyecto se entregó cumplidamente, por lo que en lo que interesa, lo resuelto en relación a las cláusulas penales debe mantenerse incólume. Se reitera una vez más, la inexistencia de la disconformidad con el ordenamiento y consecuente pedido de nulidad sobre los actos administrativos reprochados (pretensión 2, 4 y 7 principal), con lo cual lo pretendido bajo este acápite debe rechazarse y consecuentemente la pretensión subsidiaria primera, tercera, quinta, en su relación, al no tener sustento jurídico al respecto, según los términos y alcances en que fue abordado este tópico, so pena de incurrir en irazonabilidad e incongruencia, acogiéndose en colofón la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la parte demandada.

XII.- DEL DERECHO SUBJETIVO DE LA ACTORA DE PERCIBIR EL PAGO POR CONCEPTO DE AVANCE DE OBRA U OBRA INCONCLUSA.

En el régimen general de las obligaciones, y no menos en el Cartel de la Licitación LPI-01-2017, como ordenamiento jurídico inmediato y aplicable, rige el surgimiento y extinción de las obligaciones, ofrecidas y ofertadas dentro de esta modalidad, por ello, igualmente ese cuerpo reglado y vinculante para las partes contratantes, estipula los remedios con los que cuenta el acreedor ante su incumplimiento, o bien, determina con ocasión a la rescisión ordenada en el Contrato 88-2017, los efectos jurídicos y económicos sobre las obras que no lograron concretarse para su previo pago. Como contrato con obligación de plazo, el cumplimiento estaba supeditado a la llegada de la fecha que se había establecido para ello. Es decir, en un contrato de obra pública, como el de este asunto, y en la regularidad esperada, es el término que se tiene para la construcción y equipamiento de la obra y para el pago de la correspondiente contraprestación. Así, el plazo tiene un carácter suspensivo y no extintivo: solo en el momento que se cumple el plazo es que se hacen exigibles los compromisos asumidos pero, en estricto sentido, no se extinguen todos los derechos que surgieron del contrato, puesto que el aceleramiento del vencimiento del plazo contractual por medio de la rescisión ordenada, cuyo efecto terminal, es la cesación contractual, no solo afectó la existencia de la obligación, sino que, determinó el momento en el cual se constituye en mora al deudor, para cualquier situación jurídica resarcitoria derivada del mismo contrato. La terminación de la relación contractual bajo ese concepto dado, es el primer efecto que se produce de inmediato, pero también se producen efectos económicos y se desencadenan otros eventos. Si la rescisión es imputable a la contratista, tal y como se acreditó en autos como ampliamente fue considerado en líneas previas (por lo que abundar más ello se caería en el absurdo de la reiteración), esta deberá hacer entrega de la parte de obra ejecutada, materiales y equipos ya pagados así como toda la información que le fue entregada al inicio del contrato, posteriormente se hará el finiquito del contrato, en el cual se establecerán los créditos a favor y en contra del contratista y contratante, en caso de haber saldos en contra del contratista esta deberá hacer la devolución inmediata de dicho saldo resultante, si se niega, la contratante hará efectivas las garantías que tenga en su poder. Esto es lo usual o lo producido en la regularidad de esa situación. No obstante, en lo que interesa, el Consorcio objetó la rescisión al no admitirla y por contrario, la impugnó, de allí que si se aprecia desde esa arista hipotética (que no fue acreditada en autos), los efectos de la rescisión, desde su validez y eficacia, se estaría sujeta a lo que se resolviera en esta instancia judicial, pero al haberse substanciado esa situación jurídica previamente, no habría que determinar otra cosa que la resolución sobre las obras inconclusas, partiendo desde el montante liquidado. Obvio es, y como presupuesto de base y en las consideraciones de la carga de la prueba, para acreditar saldos de obra insolutos, para lograrlo, se debe tener perfectamente documentados y acreditados todos los reclamos que se hagan (falta de pago de estimaciones, intereses por falta de pago, solicitudes de ajuste de costos, de indirectos, gastos y daños, entre otros) más cuanto, como ya se ha venido resolviendo, la obra física en los proyectos contenidos en el Contrato 88-2017 no concluyeron, ni uno de ellos en su singularidad e integridad logró el hito con calificación de entregable al 100%, quedando los proyectos con obras inconclusas, no pagadas.

Para tales efectos indicados, el Tribunal estima volver a citar los criterios de rescisión aplicados sobre del Contrato 88-2017 y que así fueron expuestos en líneas precedentes, conjuntamente con la consideración de que las obras son de ejecución independiente, cada uno así: en tres proyectos que formaban parte del lote número 2: 1. Proyecto número código 023-5969 denominada Liceo Rural Santa Rosa. 2. Proyecto número código 024-1942 denominada Escuela Azul. 3. Proyecto código 058-0870 denominada Escuela La Hermosa, por lo que bajo el entendimiento de que obedecen a ejecuciones completamente independientes entre sí, más para sus efectos de pago. Igualmente, debe apreciarse, que de acuerdo a lo acreditado en el Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 y que rige las reglas del contrato y por ende, de los proyectos a realizar, no puede interpretarse la existencia de correspondencia y vinculación para la ejecución de las obras de manera conjunta, sino por el contrario, se encuentran determinadas singularmente las órdenes de inicio de cada proyecto, esto se verifica de acuerdo a la Subcláusula 2.1 inciso 3), párrafo cuarto de las Condiciones Especiales del Cartel de Licitación, en donde la gestión de cada centro educativo se debe realizar de forma individual. Todos los trámites, plazos de recepción y garantías, deben adecuarse a las particularidades de cada proyecto. Esto es, las emisiones de las órdenes de inicio se convinieron de manera individual, por lo que constituye un proceso de diseño, construcción y equipamiento, en el que devienen particularidades ajenas a los otros centros educativos entre sí, dando como conclusión lógica que la ejecución de todas y cada de una de las etapas de las obras se definía de acuerdo a la estrategia y responsabilidad empresarial de la gerencia de las mismas por parte del Consorcio adjudicatario. De igual suerte en su aplicación, debe estarse el sublitem al criterio del Pago por hito concluido (100%). Esto es, que de acuerdo a los términos establecidos en el Cartel y el contrato, y de conformidad con la naturaleza propia del "Contrato de Tipo Suma Global, los hitos de pago convenidos se hacen efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento (Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017 -"12. Condiciones de Pago. 12.1 El Precio del Contrato se pagará según se especifica en el artículo 2 (Precio del Contrato y Condiciones de Pago) del Formulario del Convenio y en el apéndice del Convenio titulado “Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago”, en el cual se describen también los procedimientos que han de seguirse para solicitar y tramitar los pagos"-, /C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago -"Solicitud de pago por hito concluido Una vez concluido cada hito, el Contratista deberá entregar al Gerente de Obra una factura acompañada de una declaración con seis copias en un formato previamente aprobado por el Gerente de Obra, que incluya en detalle los montos a que el Contratista considera que tenga derecho, junto con los documentos de soporte, los cuales incluirán el informe de progreso del hito en cuestión de acuerdo con la Cláusula 18.3 de las CG. Esta solicitud de pago por hito concluido se corresponderá con el desglose que se explica seguidamente...". Bajo este esquema, el Consorcio señala que existen montos adeudados por avance de obras, que no es más que lo mismo a la referencia sobre las obras inconclusas impagas a la terminación contractual por la rescisión. Así, entiende, que de conformidad con la cláusula 42.4 de las condiciones generales del cartel la expresión "Obras ejecutadas" incluirá todos los trabajos ejecutados, los servicios de instalación prestados, y todos los elementos de planta adquiridos (o sujetos a una obligación jurídicamente vinculante de compra) por el Contratista y utilizados o destinados a ser utilizados para los fines de las Obras, hasta la fecha de la rescisión inclusive.

Pues bien, bajo esa normativa, de la cual el Tribunal estima pertinente su vinculación para las partes, y así la considera aplicable, quedó acreditado que el Consorcio liquidó en el caso de la Licitación identificada como LPI-01-2017 Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 6 lotes de 15 Centros Educativos y 10 Canchas Multiuso, lote #2, que existen obras ejecutadas pendientes de pago, que en su conjunto determina un monto que asciende a $1.008.663,88 -UN MILLÓN OCHO MIL SEISCIENTOS SESENTA Y TRES DÓLARES CON OCHENTA Y OCHO CENTAVOS-, sin desconocer que, la rescisión unilateral declarada por el Fideicomiso del contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a los proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa y 24-1942 Escuela Azul, empezó a regir a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, fecha en que el Consorcio fue notificado a través de oficio FID-2692-2020; y la rescisión unilateral del contrato de proyecto 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa contrato N° 88-2017 rige a partir de la comunicación de esta decisión el día 26 de junio de 2020 a través de FID-2493-2020. Así, para la fecha de retiro del Contratista de los proyectos contenidos en el contrato N° 88-2017 en lo que concierne al Liceo Rural Santa Rosa 23-5969, Escuela Azul 24-1942 y Centro Educativo Escuela La Hermosa 58-0870, y del rige de las rescisiones ordenadas por el Fideicomiso en resoluciones oficio FID-2692-2020 de fecha 13 de julio de 2020 y FID-2493-2020 29 de junio de 2020, el Contratista dejó obras inconclusas no pagables por no superar con el entregable para calificar como hitos de pago según convenio Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017, que se hacen efectivos solamente con el 100% de su cumplimiento, resultando que el Consorcio las liquida de la siguiente manera: ESCUELA LA AZUL: $395.752,05, ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: $338.769,30, LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA: $274.142,53, TOTAL PENDIENTE DE PAGO: $1.008.663,88, desglosado:

• 1)ESCUELA LA HERMOSA: AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 15 VENTANERÍA Y PUERTAS $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 16 PINTURA $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 18 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CABLEADO Y ACOMETIDA) $66.425,35 90,00% $59.782,82 19 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (DISPOSITIVOS Y ACCESORIOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 21 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (EXTERIORES) $33.212,68 90,00% $29.891,41 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $132.850,70 75,00% $99.638,03 TOTALES: $338.769,30 2) LICEO RURAL SANTA ROSA AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO ITEM HITO MONTO AVANCE MONTO 25 Mejora de Taludes - MUROS DE TIERRA ARMADA $304.602,81 90,00% $274.142,53 TOTALES: $274.142,53 3) ESCUELA LA AZUL AVANCE PENDIENTE DE PAGO HITO DESCRIPCIÓN MONTO AVANCE MONTO 6 CONCRETOS ESTRUCTURALES DE RAMPAS $189.961,00 95,00% $180.462,95 8 CONTRAPISOS (100% DE AVANCE -COLADO) $63.320,00 95,00% $60.154,00 17 SISTEMAS ELÉCTRICOS (CANALIZACIÓN) $94.981,00 50,00% $47.490,50 20 SISTEMAS MECÁNICOS (MÓDULOS) $63.320,00 50,00% $31.660,00 23 OBRAS COMPLEMENTARIAS Y EXTERIORES $253.282,00 30,00% $75.984,60 TOTALES: $395.752,05 De ello da cuenta el contenido visible en CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78 y 97/imágs.1-4, 1-5, CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4).

No obstante, el Fideicomiso como contraparte, refuta ese montante detallado, con base en los Informes Especiales de Obras Inconclusas realizados por la Unidad Supervisora del Fideicomiso, e indica que la obra ejecutada efectivamente por el Consorcio pero que no alcanzaban el criterio del 100% de su cumplimiento y entregable para ser pagados de conformidad con la Cláusula 12 de las Condiciones Generales del Cartel de Licitación LPI-01-2017, es:

A. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa:

Hito Avance Precio total Precio de avance 16.2 Muros de tierra armada 80% $304.603,82 $243.683,06 TOTAL: $243.683,06 B. Escuela La Hermosa:

10.3 Acabados ventanerías y puertas 80% $66.425,35 $53.140,28 11 Pintura 65% $33.212,68 $21.588,24 12.2 Sistemas Eléctricos (Cableados y acometidas) 75% $66.425,35 $49.819,01 12.3 Sistemas Eléctricos (Dispositivos y Accesorios) 83% $33.212,68 $27.566,52 13 Sistemas Mecánicos (Módulos) 50% $33.212,68 $16.606,34 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos (Exteriores) 62% $33.212,68 $20.591,86 14.2 Equipamientos y Mobiliario 10% $99.638,03 $9.963,80 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 71% $132.850,68 $94.323,98 TOTAL: $293.600,03 C) Escuela Azul 6 Concretos estructurales de rampa 89% $189.961,00 $169.065,29 7.2 Contrapisos (100% de avance-colado) 25% $63.320,00 $15.830,00 12.1 Sistemas Eléctricos (Canalización) 6% $94.981,00 $5.698,86 13 Sistemas Mecánicos (Módulos) 20% $63.320,00 $12.664,00 14.1 Sistemas Mecánicos (Exteriores) 35% $63.320,00 $22.162,00 15 Obras complementarias y exteriores 40% $253.282,00 $101.312,80 TOTAL: $326.732,95 Sumatoria de avances de los proyectos: $864.016,04 Además, refiere, que en relación al proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, se corroboró en una valoración realizada posterior a la rescisión, que el Hito 10.2 Acabados cielos y paredes livianas Escuela Hermosa, a pesar de que tenía validación de pago por estar supuestamente al 100%, tenía un faltante del 60%. 10.2 Acabados de cielos y paredes livianas al 40%, esto es $49.819,01, por lo que habría que deducirlo en $19.927,60, para que de un efectivo real de $29.891,41. Así, el Fideicomiso admite que hay obras inconclusas, pero no por el monto de la liquidación, porque se debe restar a la sumatoria de avances de los proyectos $864.016,04 - $29.891,41 = $834.124,63 - Anticipos ($535.604.15) = SALDO $298.520,48 por obras inconclusas impagas. (ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 a 4 y 5 a 31, ver CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2) El Tribunal, a partir de esas manifestaciones de las partes, logra obtener sobre esas diferencias entre las partes, esto es, por lo informado por el Consorcio ($1.008.663,88) y lo indicado por el representante del demandado ($834.124,63) un neto sin restar otras partidas, la suma de $174.539,25. Dicha diferencia para constituirse acreditable dentro de la liquidación pedida, debía ser demostrada por el Consorcio, no solo para confrontación con la prueba que sustenta lo indicado por el Fideicomiso, ergo en el expediente del caso: ver contenido CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. LRSR Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, e informes mensuales de inspección, folios 919 al 1192, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 95/imágs.1-11, ver CD/prueba/carpeta1/Exp. EA Ampo C, folios 524.73 al 524.87, trigésimo “Informe Especial-Obras Inconclusas, Proyecto Nº 024-1942 Escuela Azul en CD/prueba/carpeta2/Informe Final status Escuela Azul folios 1-36, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 78/imágs.1-4, ver CD/prueba/carpeta4/Anexo 96 /imágs.1 a 4 y 5 a 31, ver CD/prueba/carpeta2/CG-2020-1139 /imágs.1-2, sino porque estaba en su deber procesal el llevar cabo esa diligencia fundamental. Las consecuencias de la omisión probatoria advertida en esta instancia obedece a lo dispuesto por el artículo 41.1 del Código Procesal Civil, de conformidad con el cual incumbe a las partes probar el supuesto de hecho de las normas que consagran el efecto jurídico que ellas persiguen, norma que consagra, en estos términos, el principio de la carga de la prueba que le indica a la Cámara Juzgadora, cuál debe ser su decisión cuando en el proceso no se acreditan los hechos que constituyen la causa petendi de la demanda o de la defensa, según el caso, cuando se dan situaciones parcialmente antagónicas, toda vez que habría interdicción, si de manera discrecional el Tribunal se decanta por una u otra posición sin mayor comprobación técnica/pericial. De allí, que la carga de la prueba sustentada, como ha precisado ésta Sección, en el principio de autoresponsabilidad de las partes, se constituye en requerimiento de conducta procesal facultativa exigible a quien le interesa sacar avante sus pretensiones y evitar una decisión desfavorable. Así, en el caso concreto resulta evidente que la carga de la prueba recae en quien pretende, de manera que es la parte actora la que debe soportar las consecuencias de su inobservancia o descuido, esto es, un fallo adverso a sus pretensiones relacionadas con las obras inconclusas y su liquidación inicial de su parte, pues ese es el efecto que se desprende del hecho de que no obre en el abanico probatorio, tan siquiera, de manera pericial, la información necesaria para complementar o uniformar la liquidación dada sobre la diferencia apuntada y su debida consistencia. La falencia de ésta prueba imparcial, provoca que la determinación del monto de las obras inconclusas sea fijado sobre el valor aceptado por el Fideicomiso, ello en razón de que quien solicite la indemnización de perjuicios como consecuencia del impago en obras dentro del contexto de un contrato estatal debe demostrar el incumplimiento en que incurrió la contraparte y el daño que ese evento le generó. En otras palabras más sencillas, quien acude ante la jurisdicción para solicitar una indemnización o compensación en su favor, tiene el deber procesal de demostrar de un lado, la materialización de los daños padecidos y su cuantía y, del otro, la ocurrencia de los hechos que lo ocasionaron. Sumado a lo anterior, la sola ocurrencia del montante de la liquidación por falta de pago no da lugar a una indemnización per sé, consecuentemente, al reconocimiento del monto divorciado de los $174.539,25 constituiría la diferencia que debía acreditar el Consorcio, circunstancia que no fue justificada o demostrada para asumir su liquidación completa. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, se debe destacar que el Fideicomiso reconoció el valor en obras inconclusas en el proyecto contenido en el Contrato 88-2017 la suma de $864.016,04 (valor íntegro obras inconclusas) - $29.891,41 (reducción por faltante del 60% en hito 10.2 Acabados de cielos y paredes livianas al 40% Escuela Hermosa) = $834.124,63, que estima, considera y determina el Tribunal fijar como la base de lo insoluto y sobre la cual se declara el valor de lo inconcluso para efectos de monto neto a reconocer inicialmente. Pero, no obstante esta precisión, se dieron por adelantos de obra ab initio, montos por anticipos garantizados, por un monto de $535.604,15., los cuales en resumen son:

PROYECTO MONTO DE ANTICIPO 1. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa $168.235,19 2. Liceo Rural Santa Rosa (Adenda) $45.690,57 3. Escuela La Hermosa $74.728.52 4. Escuela Azul $246.949,87 TOTAL: $535.604,15 Por tal razón, y en consideración a lo estipulado en Sección IX. Formularios del Contrato, apartado "C. Apéndice 1. Condiciones y Procedimientos de Pago", específicamente en la sección de Anticipo 2.a., el cual dice: 2. El Anticipo será amortizado mediante deducciones del mismo porcentaje solicitado, de todos los pagos del contrato hasta su completa devolución (excluidos los respectivos al propio Anticipo), si el anticipo no ha sido amortizado antes del Certificado de Terminación de las Obras o antes de la terminación según la Cláusula 42 de las CG, entonces todo el saldo que se encuentre pendiente en ese momento será pagado inmediatamente por el Contratista al Contratante. Dicho pago podrá ser realizado de acuerdo al siguiente detalle: a. Se rebajará de los saldos pendiente de obra por facturar o de cualquier pago adeudado por el Contratante; el monto que le correspondería en principio al Consorcio actor recibir del Fideicomiso producto de los avances de obra, estaría bajo la siguiente aritmética:

Valor obras inconclusas - Anticipos o adelantos no satisfechos = SALDO A RECONOCER AL CONSORCIO ($864.016,04 - $29.891,41) = $834.124,63 (valor obras inconclusas) - ($535.604.15 Anticipos) = SALDO $298.520,48 por obras inconclusas A PAGAR.

Proyecto Valor Obras inconclusas por proyecto Anticipo por proyecto Liceo Santa Rosa Addenda (taludes) $243.683,06 $168.235,19 $45.690,57 Escuela Hermosa $293.600,03 - $29.891,41 = $263.708,62 $74.728.52 Escuela Azul $326.732,95 $246.949,87 Totales $834.124,63 $535.604,15 (a rebajar) SALDO TOTAL A FAVOR CONSORCIO $298.520,48 **/*** **ÚNICAMENTE SE DECLARA CON LUGAR LO SIGUIENTE: SE LE RECONOCE A LA PARTE ACTORA percibir el pago de los siguientes montos correspondientes a pago por concepto de avance de obra, sumas que deberán ser traídas a valor presente en los términos del artículo 123 del CPCA: la suma única de USD $298.520,48 por concepto de Valor de Obras Inconclusas Impagas según detalle siguiente: Liceo Santa Rosa/Addenda (taludes) la suma de $29.757.3, Escuela Hermosa $188.980.10 y Escuela Azul $79.783.08. Temporalidad de la indexación: se hará comforme los riges de las resoluciones de Rescisión declaradas por el Fideicomiso del contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a los proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Resolución FID3076-2020 N°26-2020, proyecto 24-1942 Escuela Azul Resolución FID3331-2020 N°31-2020, ambos a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, y del proyecto 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa Resolución FID2879-2020 N°24-2020 dede el día 26 de junio de 2020 y hasta su efectivo pago.

*** Queda habilitada la parte demandada a liquidar con la firmeza de esta resolución y por medio de la ejecución de las garantías de anticipo rendidas por el Consorcio en la proporción de los giros efectuados en relación al valor de las Obras inconclusas determinadas para cada proyecto para su debida recuperación. Debe advertirse a partir de lo que consta en autos, que la medida cautelar ordenada en la especie, no abarcó la suspensión de ejecución de las garantías de anticipo.

Advertencia. No obstante lo indicado, debe aclararse que subsisten otras partidas a considerar y que eventualmente comprometerían al saldo anterior determinado con los efectos de firmeza de esta resolución:

Cláusula Penal (Por Proyecto) Multa definida Liceo Santa Rosa. Res.FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020 $131.949.18 Escuela Hermosa. Res.FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 $166.063.38 Escuela Azul. Res.FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020 $95,457.70 TOTAL CLÁUSULAS PENALES $393.470,26 Montos de las garantías de cumplimiento rendidas:

Garantías de Cumplimiento por Proyecto que responderían por las cláusulas penales fijadas:

Montos garantizados (10%) del valor suma Global de cada proyecto.

Liceo Santa Rosa + addenda (OM-1) $233.483,77 Escuela Hermosa $316.602,40 Escuela Azul $166.063,37 TOTAL GARANTÍAS $716.149,54 Así entonces, los montantes fijados en las resoluciones: FID-3076-2020 N°26-2020, FID-2879-2020 N°24-2020 y FID-3331-2020 N°31-2020, de no ser canceladas por el Consorcio voluntariamente, tendrían que ser servidas y satisfechas por medio de la liquidación por ejecución de las garantías de cumplimiento, a partir de la firmeza de esta resolución y en la parte correspondiente y proporcional a cada uno de los proyectos en donde se rindió la garantía; como además, todas aquellas partidas que el Fideicomiso acreedor logre acreditar, como intereses debidos y ello, se hará en la sede administrativa además sobre partidas específicas derivadas de los reprocesos y deterioros que sufrieron las obras y materiales producto del abandono sobre cada uno de los proyectos y cualesquiera otros ítems de su conveniencia, si así en derecho procediera, por lo que eventualmente daría lugar a una compensación entre créditos y débitos según se estimará por diligencia de las partes en esa oportunidad.

El Tribunal, si aclara, que se encuentra impedido o inhabilitado por falta de una contra acción (contrademanda) o réplica del Banco ante esta instancia y proceso, precisamente que tienda a dilucidar precisa y concretamente estos aspectos, que en el orden de lo discutido, no son meramente tangenciales, sino por el contrario, de especial atención, máxime que corren recursos públicos de por medio, de allí que no habrá indicación en el por tabto sobre lo señalado al respecto. Esa limitación debe entenderse en el tanto y cuanto, dichos pedimentos de carácter operativo y de instrumentación entre créditos y débitos, debieron haber sido invocados por la vía de la pretensión, que al no darse, inhibirían un pronunciamiento sobre esa circunstancia particular no menos importante. Entiende el Tribunal, que de hacerlo oficiosamente, de alguna manera se podría interpretar una falta de congruencia en lo considerado y resuelto, cuando, a partir de las petitorias principales y subsidiarias del Consorcio actor, se estaría limitando la esfera competencial de la Cámara y por consecuencia, evidenciarse una extralimitación resolutiva. Podría elucubrarse que los montantes de las cláusulas penales son tan compensables como los anticipos garantizados sobre la definición de las obras inconclusas pendientes de pago al Consorcio, sin embargo, de las resoluciones de recién cita, lo que se establece es que los apercibimientos al Contratista para el pago dentro de tercero día se definieron sobre los montos establecidos, que serían al recaudo de la ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento para el reembolso de la sanción o multa impuesta. Máxime, que la propia representación del Banco Nacional así lo señaló en la medida cautelar: "El cobro contra la garantía de cumplimiento se hará, únicamente en el caso de que el Consorcio no proceda a cancelar el monto de la respectiva cláusula penal tal y como lo permite el artículo 48. párrafo 3. del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, de aplicación supletoria en estos procesos, dado que no existen retenciones del precio." Suma a ello, también, lo que se indica en la Cláusula penal 26, Subcláusula 26.2 de las Condiciones Especiales del Pliego de Bases del Proceso de Licitación Pública Internacional N° LPI-01-2017: "La indemnización será de un 2.5 por mil, por día de atraso, del monto total del contrato: (h) Si la suma de sanciones alcanza el 10% del MCA, que se entenderá como deducción máxima, se considerará como incumplimiento grave y el Contratante estará facultado para resolver unilateralmente el contrato. En todo caso, la suma de multas aplicadas no excederá el 10% del MCA. (i) El Contratante rebajará el monto que corresponda por este concepto, de los pagos al Contratista. Deducción máxima por daños y perjuicios: 10%.…”, sobre la cual no operaría ipso facto y de oficio, sino a petición de parte pretendiente, que se repite, no sería atendible por la vía de la oposición a la demanda, el camino para establecerlo. Bastaría, con la firmeza de esta sentencia, la liquidación de las garantías de cumplimiento, de manera proporcional y parcial sobre los montos de las multas definidas y los montos de las garantías de cada proyecto hasta cubrirlas y para tal efecto, tendrían las partes que estarse a lo resuelto y considerado en la medida cautelar ordenada en autos y sobre la cual, debe mantenerse hasta la firmeza de esta resolución y que en su literalidad indicó:

N°596-2020 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO de las dieciséis horas veinte minutos del día veintiséis de Noviembre del año dos mil veinte que dispone: "Se ACOGE la solicitud de medida cautelar gestionada por la representación del CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA. Por lo anterior y conforme se dispuso en carácter de provisionalísima se ordena el mantener suspendidos los efectos y alcances de la Resolución número 29-2020 /FID-3278-2020 de las trece horas con diez minutos del veinticinco de de agosto dos mil veinte emitida por el Comité Director FID MEP-BNCR, mediante el cual se concluyó el Procedimiento Sumario de aplicación de la cláusula penal del Proyecto Escuela La Hermosa, en consecuencia, se ordena al demandado se abstenga de ejecutar la resolución de cita, es decir, se abstenga de ejecutar la garantía de cumplimiento ante el no pago ordenado en la resolución que se suspende; suspendiendo además la orden de pago de las cláusulas penales y de la ejecución forzosa de las garantías de cumplimiento. La anterior disposición se mantendrá por todo el plazo que sea necesario hasta que se dicte sentencia en firme en el proceso de conocimiento u otra situación determine lo contrario. Indicado lo anterior deberá tomar en consideración la representación del CONSORCIO IDECO- RUCO-GCI, IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA Y RUCO CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA, que según las reglas del artículo 26 párrafo segundo Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en el caso de que aún no lo haya realizado, deberá presentar la demanda de conocimiento en el plazo de 15 días, contados a partir del día siguiente de la notificación de esta resolución, y bajo este mismo número (20-004040-1027-CA), bajo el apercibimiento de que en caso de omisión la medida cautelar aquí decretada será levantada y se le condenará al pago de los daños y perjuicios causados los cuales se liquidarán por el trámite de ejecución de sentencia. Como CONTRACAUTELA, DEBERÁ la representación de la parte accionante, mantener en vigencia las garantías de cumplimiento; por TODO el plazo necesario para el dictado de la sentencia de fondo; caso contrario se procederá a levantar la medida cautelar aquí decretada,con las consecuencias anteriormente establecidas. Se resuelve este asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas. En su oportunidad, archívese el expediente." Se adicionó lo anterior por resolución N°596-2020- BIS del TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO de las diez horas veinte minutos del día quince de Diciembre del año dos mil veinte, que dispuso: "POR TANTO. Conforme se indicó, se adiciona la resolución número N°596-2020 las dieciséis horas veinte minutos del día veintiséis de Noviembre del año dos mil veinte, en el siguiente sentido: Se ordena suspender además de lo ya dispuesto, la orden de pago de las cláusulas penales y de la ejecución forzosa de las garantías de cumplimiento, hasta que en el fondo en el proceso principal se dicte la resolución que corresponda, u otra situación no determine lo contrario. En todo lo demás manténgase incólume la resolución citada." (ver resoluciones en legajo de medida cautelar) De manera expresa y por la manera en que se resuelve este extremo, resulta improcedente a manera de consecuencia jurídica derivada, acoger las pretensiones siete principal y primera, quinta subsidiarias, en su relación, al no tener sustento jurídico al respecto, según los términos y alcances en que fue abordado este tópico, so pena de incurrir en irazonabilidad e incongruencia, acogiéndose en colofón la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la parte demandada en lo pertinente.

XIII.- SOBRE LAS DEFENSAS OPUESTAS. Corolario. Sobre la falta de derecho opuesta por la parte demandada, ésta debe acogerse en relación a los extremos denegados y rechazarse en la medida de aquel extremo estimado con lugar en relación al reconocimiento del valor de las obras inconclusas. Por lo anterior, entiéndase denegadas las pretensiones sobre las cuales no se ha hecho pronunciamiento expreso. En consecuencia, debe disponerse el declarar parcialmente con lugar la demanda, de acuerdo a las consideraciones expuestas anteriormente.

XIV- COSTAS. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien. En la especie, para el Tribunal aplica el vencimiento recíproco. Para Hugo Alsina, citando a Chiovenda, el vencimiento recíproco ocurre: "Cuando el actor no triunfa totalmente en sus pretensiones, existe vencimiento recíproco. En tal caso, las costas deben abonarse por su orden, o proporcionalmente, según el resultado del pleito" (TRATADO TEORICO PRACTICO DE DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL Y COMERCIAL, Tomo II, Compañía Argentina de Editores, S. R. L., Buenos Aires, 1982, páginas 751 y 752). El autor Ricardo Reimundín, señala: "En la condenación en costas, la declaración del derecho se hace contra una sola de las partes. En el mutuo vencimiento, la declaración de derecho se hace contra ambas partes, de lo cual resulta que ambas son vencidas. Y vencedoras, decimos nosotros” (LA CONDENA EN COSTAS EN EL PROCESO CIVIL, 2° Edición, Editor Víctor P. De Zavalía, Buenos Aires, 1966, página 118). Eduardo J. Couture indica: "El proceso no constituye un modo de enriquecerse, sino la única forma que el Estado reconoce como indubitable para que cada uno pueda conservar lo suyo sin sacrificio injusto de los otros." (ESTUDIOS DE DERECHO PROCESAL CIVIL, Tomo III, 3° Edición, Depalma, Buenos Aires, 1989, página 345). Agrega este autor que el proceso es un precioso instrumento de justicia pero de manejo peligroso; el que acude a él debe hacerlo asistido de razón; el costo del proceso no debe gravitar ni directa ni indirectamente sobre aquel que tiene razón; en circunstancias de excepción la justicia impone repartir proporcionalmente entre ambos litigantes el costo del proceso (Obra citada, página 338). Pues bien, como en el caso en estudio ambas partes tuvieron razón para litigar, y con el objeto de evitar una injusticia, se impone que cada uno pague las suyas por mediar vencimiento recíproco. Se falla sin especial condena en costas.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la prueba para mejor resolver referida a: oficio JDG-1434-22/23 del acuerdo N°03 de Junta Directiva del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, en sesión ordinaria N°37-22/23 G.E. de fecha 19 de setiembre de 2023. Se ACOGE la excepción de falta de derecho en cuanto a lo denegado. SE DISPONE: Se declara PARCIALMENTE CON LUGAR LA DEMANDA EN LO QUE PUNTUALMENTE SE DIRÁ, entendiéndose denegado aquellos extremos en lo demás sobre lo presentado por el Consorcio IDECO-RUCO-GCI, liderado por la empresa IDECO INGENIERÍA DESARROLLO Y CONSTRUCCIÓN S.A., conformado además por las empresas GESTIÓN Y CONSULTORÍA INTEGRADA GCI S.A, CEMENTOS PROGRESO COSTA RICA S.A. (anteriormente CEMEX (Costa Rica) S.A.) y la empresa RUCO CONSTRUCTORA S.A. para la Licitación Pública Internacional "LPI No: 01-2017. Diseño, Construcción y Equipamiento de 4 lotes de 10 Centros Educativos", contra el FIDEICOMISO BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA – MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA LEY NÚMERO 9124, cédula de Fideicomiso MEP-BNCR 3-112-672283, representado por el BANCO NACIONAL DE COSTA RICA. ASÍ: ÚNICAMENTE SE DECLARA CON LUGAR LO SIGUIENTE: SE LE RECONOCE A LA PARTE ACTORA percibir el pago de los siguientes montos correspondientes a pago por concepto de avance de obra, sumas que deberán ser traídas a valor presente en los términos del artículo 123 del CPCA: la suma de USD $298.520,48 por concepto de Valor de Obras Inconclusas Impagas según detalle siguiente: Liceo Santa Rosa/Addenda (taludes) la suma de $29.757.3, Escuela Hermosa $188.980.10 y Escuela Azul $79.783.08. Temporalidad de la indexación: se hará conforme los riges de las resoluciones declaradas por el Fideicomiso del contrato N° 88-2017, respecto a los proyectos 23-5969 Liceo Rural Santa Rosa Resolución FID3076-2020 N°26-2020, proyecto 24-1942 Escuela Azul Resolución FID3331-2020 N°31-2020, ambos a partir del día 15 de julio de 2020, y del proyecto 58-0870 Escuela La Hermosa Resolución FID2879-2020 N°24-2020 desde el día 26 de junio de 2020 y hasta su efectivo pago. COSTAS: Se falla SIN ESPECIAL CONDENA en costas. Notifíquese. Ronaldo Hernández Hernández. Eduardo González Segura. Marco Hernández Vargas.

???????????????

Goicoechea, Calle Blancos, 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Café Dorado. Teléfonos: 2545-0107 ó 2545-0099. Ext. 01-2707 ó 01-2599. Fax: 2241-5664 ó 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: [email protected] Clasificación elaborada por CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.