{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-129692", "citation": "Res. 00112-2009 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento como requisito de admisibilidad en licitación de manejo de residuos", "title_en": "Sanitary Operating Permit as an Admissibility Requirement in a Waste Management Tender", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección IX, confirmó la exclusión de un oferente en una licitación pública de la Municipalidad de Palmares para la recolección y disposición final de residuos sólidos, al considerar que el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario constituía un requisito de admisibilidad y no de mera ejecución. La actora argumentó que, si bien el permiso estaba vencido al momento de la apertura de ofertas, había presentado una solicitud de renovación, y que el permiso se encontraba vigente para la fecha de adjudicación. El Tribunal desestimó estos argumentos, señalando que el cartel exigía expresamente el permiso vigente. La naturaleza de los servicios licitados —vinculados a la salud pública y al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 constitucional)— convierte el permiso en una condición esencial de la oferta, cuya falta no podía subsanarse sin violar los principios de igualdad de trato, legalidad y seguridad jurídica. Además, la omisión de impugnar el cartel impidió cuestionar su validez. La resolución de la Contraloría General de la República que rechazó la apelación también fue declarada conforme a derecho.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Litigation Court, Section IX, upheld the exclusion of a bidder in a public tender by the Municipality of Palmares for solid waste collection and final disposal, ruling that the sanitary operating permit for the landfill was an admissibility requirement, not merely a condition of execution. The plaintiff argued that although the permit had expired at the time of bid opening, it had filed a renewal application, and that the permit was valid by the time of award. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that the tender documents expressly required a valid permit. Given the nature of the services—linked to public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution)—the permit constitutes an essential condition of the bid, the absence of which could not be cured without violating the principles of equal treatment, legality, and legal certainty. Additionally, the failure to challenge the tender documents precluded any question of their validity. The Comptroller General's resolution rejecting the appeal was also found to be lawful.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección IX", "date": "2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "Cartel de licitación", "Requisito de admisibilidad vs. ejecución", "Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento", "Relleno sanitario", "Subsanación de ofertas", "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "Principio de igualdad", "Artículo 50 constitucional" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 50", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 182", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 2", "law": "Ley General de Salud" }, { "article": "Art. 56", "law": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa" }, { "article": null, "law": "Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa" }, { "article": "Art. 8", "law": "Reglamento sobre Rellenos Sanitarios" } ], "keywords_es": [ "Contratación administrativa", "Licitación pública", "Cartel", "Requisito de admisibilidad", "Permiso sanitario de funcionamiento", "Relleno sanitario", "Desechos sólidos", "Artículo 50 constitucional", "Ambiente sano", "Principio de igualdad", "Subsanación", "Municipalidad de Palmares" ], "keywords_en": [ "Administrative contracting", "Public tender", "Bidding terms", "Admissibility requirement", "Sanitary operating permit", "Landfill", "Solid waste", "Article 50 Constitution", "Healthy environment", "Principle of equality", "Curing defects", "Municipality of Palmares" ], "excerpt_es": "Por la naturaleza de los servicios licitados \"tratamiento y disposición final de los desechos sólidos ordinarios del Cantón de Palmares\", el contar con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario, constituye un requisito de admisibilidad de la oferta que no podría ser subsanado, so pena de violentar los principios de igualdad de trato entre posibles participantes, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos y el de seguridad jurídica, por lo que no es de recibo la argumentación de la accionante en el sentido de que la presentación de la solicitud de prórroga basta para considerar la oferta dentro del concurso, al ser el permiso sanitario un requisito de admisibilidad y no de ejecución del concurso.", "excerpt_en": "Given the nature of the tendered services 'treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste of the Canton of Palmares,' having a sanitary operating permit for the landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be subsequently cured, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that the mere filing of a renewal application is sufficient to consider the bid in the competition is unacceptable, since the sanitary permit is an admissibility requirement and not a condition of execution of the contract.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Court denied the claim, confirming the legality of the exclusion of the bidder whose sanitary operating permit had expired at the time of bid opening, as it was an admissibility requirement that could not be cured.", "summary_es": "Se declaró sin lugar la demanda, confirmando la legalidad de la exclusión del oferente cuyo permiso sanitario de funcionamiento estaba vencido al momento de la apertura de ofertas, por tratarse de un requisito de admisibilidad insubsanable." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the obligation to have a sanitary operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health stems from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under Article 50 of the Constitution", "quote_es": "la obligación de contar con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento extendido por el Ministerio de Salud proviene de la garantía del derecho fundamental de toda persona de contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en los términos del artículo 50 constitucional" }, { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the establishment of the requirement that bidders hold the sanitary operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and adequate measure", "quote_es": "el establecimiento del requisito a efecto de que los oferentes cuenten con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento en este caso, constituye una medida necesaria y adecuada" }, { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "the sanitary operating permit for the landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be cured, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty", "quote_es": "el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario, constituye un requisito de admisibilidad de la oferta que no podría ser subsanado, so pena de violentar los principios de igualdad de trato entre posibles participantes, legalidad y transparencia de los procedimientos y el de seguridad jurídica" } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-129692", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-24284", "norm_num": "7494", "norm_name": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/05/1995" }, { "doc_id": "norm-52780", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Reglamento sobre Rellenos Sanitarios", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "" }, { "doc_id": "norm-58314", "norm_num": "33411", "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo", "norm_fecha": "27/09/2006" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6581", "norm_num": "5395", "norm_name": "Ley General de Salud", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/10/1973" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“VI. CONSIDERACIONES\r\nDEL TRIBUNAL. Conforme a lo establecido por el artículo 182 de la Constitución Política,\r\nla\r\n Administración Pública en cumplimiento de las finalidades\r\nestablecidas por el ordenamiento jurídico y de satisfacer de manera eficiente y\r\noportuna sus necesidades, debe recurrir \r\na los procedimientos de contratación administrativa, con el fin de\r\nseleccionar la oferta que estima más conveniente para suplir\r\nla necesidad pública en beneficio de la colectividad. El ejercicio de la\r\nactividad contractual del Estado, está sujeta a una serie de principios que han\r\nsido delimitados por la\r\n Sala Constitucional a partir del voto 0998-98 de las 11:30\r\nhoras del 16 de febrero de 1998 y reiterado en los fallos posteriores, en donde\r\nse ha considerando lo siguiente:“(...)\r\nVI. LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LA CONTRATACIÓN\r\n ADMINISTRATIVA. En virtud de lo anterior, debe entenderse que del artículo 182 de la Constitución Política\r\nse derivan todos los principios y parámetros constitucionales que rigen\r\nla actividad contractual del Estado. Algunos de estos principios que orientan y\r\nregulan la licitación son: 1.- de la libre concurrencia, que\r\ntiene por objeto afianzar la posibilidad de oposición y competencia entre los\r\noferentes dentro de las prerrogativas de la libertad de empresa regulado en el\r\nartículo 46 de la\r\n Constitución Política, destinado a promover y estimular el\r\nmercado competitivo, con el fin de que participen el mayor número de oferentes,\r\npara que la\r\n Administración pueda contar con una amplia y variada gama de\r\nofertas, de modo que pueda seleccionar la que mejores condiciones le ofrece; 2.-\r\nde igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes, principio\r\ncomplementario del anterior y que dentro de la licitación tiene una doble\r\nfinalidad, la de ser garantía para los administrados en la protección de sus\r\nintereses y derechos como contratistas, oferentes y como particulares, que se\r\ntraduce en la prohibición para el Estado de imponer condiciones restrictivas\r\npara el acceso del concurso, sea mediante la promulgación de disposiciones\r\nlegales o reglamentarias con ese objeto, como en su actuación concreta; y\r\nla de constituir garantía para la administración, en tanto acrece la\r\nposibilidad de una mejor selección del contratista; todo lo anterior, dentro\r\ndel marco constitucional dado por el artículo 33 de la Carta Fundamental;\r\n3.- de publicidad, que constituye el presupuesto y garantía de\r\nlos principios comentados, ya que busca asegurar a los administrados la más\r\namplia certeza de la libre concurrencia en condiciones de absoluta igualdad en\r\nlos procedimientos de la contratación administrativa, y que consiste en que la\r\ninvitación al concurso licitatorio se haga en forma general, abierta y lo más\r\namplia posible a todos los oferentes posibles, dándosele al cartel la más\r\namplia divulgación, así como el más amplio acceso al expediente, informes,\r\nresoluciones y en general a todo el proceso de que se trate; 4.- de\r\nlegalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos, en tanto los\r\nprocedimientos de selección del contratista deben estar definidos a priori en\r\nforma precisa, cierta y concreta, de modo que la administración no pueda obviar\r\nlas reglas predefinidas en la norma jurídica que determina el marco de acción,\r\ncomo desarrollo de lo dispuesto al efecto en la Constitución Política;\r\n5.- de seguridad jurídica, que es derivado del anterior, puesto\r\nque al sujetarse los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa a las\r\nreglas contenidas en las disposiciones normativas, se da seguridad y garantía a\r\nlos oferentes de su participación; 6.- formalismo de los procedimientos\r\nlicitatorios, en cuanto se exijan formalidades, éstas actúan a modo de\r\ncontroles endógenos y de autofiscalización de la\r\nacción administrativa; de manera que no se tengan como obstáculo para la libre\r\nconcurrencia; 7.- equilibrio de intereses, en tanto es necesario\r\nque en estos procedimientos exista una equivalencia entre los derechos y\r\nobligaciones que se derivan para el contratante y la administración, de manera\r\nque se tenga al contratista como colaborador del Estado en la realización de los\r\nfines públicos de éste; 8.- principio de buena fe, en cuanto en\r\nlos trámites de las licitaciones y en general, en todo lo concerniente a la\r\ncontratación administrativa, se considera como un principio moral básico que la\r\nadministración y oferentes actúen de buena fe, en donde las actuaciones de\r\nambas partes estén caracterizadas por normas éticas claras, donde prevalezca el\r\ninterés público sobre cualquier otro; 8.- de la mutabilidad del contrato, puesto que la administración cuenta con los poderes\r\ny prerrogativas necesarias para introducir modificaciones a los contratos, con\r\nel objeto de que cumplan con el fin público asignado que debe proteger y\r\nrealizar; 9.- de intangibilidad patrimonial, en virtud del cual\r\nla administración está siempre obligada a mantener el equilibrio financiero del\r\ncontrato, sea indemnizando al cocontratante de todos\r\nlos efectos negativos que se originen en sus propias decisiones, sea como\r\nefecto del principio de mutabilidad, sea por razones de conveniencia o de\r\ninterés público o por cualesquiera otras razones generales o especiales que\r\nlleguen a afectar el nivel económico inicial, reajustando siempre las\r\nvariaciones ocurridas en todos y cada uno de los costos que conforman los\r\nprecios del contrato para mantener incólume el nivel económico originalmente\r\npactado ( reajustes de precios que pueden originarse en las teorías jurídicas\r\nde la imprevisión, rebus sic stantibus,\r\nhecho del príncipe y sobre todo, en la llamada equilibrio de la ecuación\r\nfinanciera del contrato); y 10.- del control de los procedimientos,\r\nprincipio por el cual todas las tareas de la contratación administrativa son\r\nobjeto de control y fiscalización en aras de la verificación, al menos, de la\r\ncorrecta utilización de los fondos públicos. (..) Estos principios tienen reconocimiento tanto a nivel\r\ndoctrinal como jurisprudencial, y ya han sido desarrollados por este Tribunal\r\nen reiteradas ocasiones y con anterioridad a esta sentencia, de la siguiente\r\nmanera (…)\" (Sala Constitucional No. 2002-3816 de las 14:53 horas del 24\r\nde abril del 2002). La observancia de los principios citados adquiere\r\nrelevancia y deben estar reflejados en las disposiciones contenidas en el\r\nrespectivo cartel, el cual conforme a las disposiciones contenidas en el\r\nartículo 51 del Reglamento a la\r\n Ley de Contratación Administrativa, constituye el reglamento\r\nespecífico de la contratación y por ende debe ser un instrumento claro,\r\nsuficiente, concreto y objetivo, con el fin de que los posibles oferentes estén\r\nenterados claramente del objeto y condiciones de la contratación. Por\r\ndefinición y en atención a su naturaleza jurídica, se ha indicado que el cartel\r\nse equipara al reglamento para el caso concreto, al definir las condiciones en\r\nque se concretará el concurso y por ello resulta vinculante para el oferente\r\nlos términos que en él se haya establecido, siendo no sólo parte integral de la\r\nnormativa aplicable a la contratación particular de la cual se trate, sino que\r\nademás cumple un papel de fuente interpretativa ante los diversos supuestos\r\nfácticos que se enfrentan a lo largo del desarrollo de la relación\r\ncontractual. Es con base en el cartel\r\nque el oferente elabora su oferta, brindándosele así un parámetro de seguridad\r\njurídica y garantizando a su vez la administración promovente,\r\nel cumplimiento del principio de confianza legítima para el potencial\r\nparticipante, quien sabe de antemano las condiciones que regirán en el concurso\r\nde su interés. Así, éstas le serán aplicadas a partir de que manifieste su\r\nlibre voluntad atinente a integrar la relación contractual mediante la\r\nmanifestación inequívoca del deseo negocial, con\r\npleno sometimiento a las condiciones cartelarias,\r\ndisposiciones legales y reglamentarias vigentes, plasmada en su plica, cuando\r\nla misma se presenta ante la contratante, la cual a su vez vincula al oferente,\r\npues en caso de resultar adjudicatario, deberá someterse no sólo a las\r\ncondiciones cartelarias al efecto establecidas, sino\r\ntambién a los términos por él ofertados en dicho documento (véase en este\r\nsentido, la Sentencia\r\ndictada por ésta Sección del Tribunal No. 04-2008 dictada a las 16:30 horas del\r\n4 de agosto del 2008). \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nVII. En la especie el cartel de la Licitación Pública\r\nNo. 02-2005 promovida por la\r\n Municipalidad de Palmares para la \"Contratación del\r\nservicio de recolección, transporte, tratamiento y disposición final de los\r\ndesechos sólidos ordinarios, residenciales, comerciales y no tradicionales de\r\ndicho Cantón, en su aparte 13 Condiciones Generales estableció que todo\r\noferente debería entregar copia del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento para el\r\ntratamiento y disposición final de desechos sólidos ordinarios (Item 2 del Concurso). La oferta de la actora para la citada\r\nlínea fue declarada inelegible al considerar la Administración\r\nlicitante que al momento de la apertura de las ofertas el permiso sanitario de\r\nfuncionamiento se encontraba vencido. Argumenta la actora que si bien al\r\nmomento de la apertura de ofertas el permiso se encontraba vencido, lo cierto\r\nes que aportó una solicitud de renovación del permiso sanitario que había sido\r\npresentado ante el Ministerio de Salud, el cual se encontraba vigente al\r\nmomento de la adjudicación de la licitación y al ser este un requisito de ejecución y no de admisibilidad para el\r\nconcurso, su oferta no debió ser excluida. Por las razones que se dirán, los\r\nargumentos de la actora no son de recibo. En efecto, el requisito establecido\r\nen el cartel, obligaba a los oferentes a contar al momento de formulación de su\r\noferta con un permiso sanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario que\r\nemplearían para la disposición final de desechos del Cantón de Palmares, siendo\r\nque en el caso de la actora al momento de apertura de las ofertas, el permiso\r\nsanitario aportado, correspondiente al relleno sanitario Los Mangos, se\r\nencontraba vencido, por, lo que incumplía la disposición cartelaria.\r\nEl hecho de que la actora haya aportado copia de la solicitud de renovación del\r\npermiso que fue presentado ante el Ministerio de Salud, no implica el\r\ncumplimiento de la clara disposición contenida en el cartel. Por la naturaleza de\r\nlos servicios licitados \"tratamiento y disposición final de los desechos\r\nsólidos ordinarios del Cantón de Palmares\", el contar con un permiso\r\nsanitario de funcionamiento del relleno sanitario, constituye un requisito de\r\nadmisibilidad de la oferta que no podría ser subsanado, so pena de violentar\r\nlos principios de igualdad de trato entre posibles participantes, legalidad y\r\ntransparencia de los procedimientos y el de seguridad jurídica, por lo que no\r\nes de recibo la argumentación de la accionante en el\r\nsentido de que la presentación de la solicitud de prórroga basta para\r\nconsiderar la oferta dentro del concurso, al ser el permiso sanitario un\r\nrequisito de admisibilidad y no de ejecución del concurso. Por paridad de\r\nrazones no es de recibo la argumentación de la actora en el sentido de que en\r\ncaso de que no se hubiere otorgado el permiso sanitario y se viera en\r\nimposibilidad de ejecutar el objeto del contrato, la administración podría\r\nproceder a la ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento. Como bien lo argumenta\r\nla representación de la\r\n Contraloría General de la República, que figura en\r\neste proceso como coadyuvante de los demandados, la obligación de contar con un\r\npermiso sanitario de funcionamiento extendido por el Ministerio de Salud\r\nproviene de la garantía del derecho fundamental de toda persona de contar con\r\nun ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado en los términos del artículo 50\r\nconstitucional, así como de las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley General de Salud y\r\ndel Reglamento sobre el manejo de basuras, Decreto Ejecutivo No.19049-S del 20\r\nde junio de 1989 y del Reglamento sobre rellenos sanitarios, Decreto Ejecutivo\r\nNo.27378-S del 9 de octubre de 1998. Conforme a las disposiciones contenidas en\r\nel artículo 2 de la Ley\r\n General de Salud, el\r\nMinisterio de Salud debe velar por la salud de la población, garantizando que\r\nla operación de todo relleno sanitario cumpla los requisitos legales y\r\nreglamentarios para prevenir todo riesgo a la salud de las personas y del medio\r\nambiente. La actividad de tratamiento y disposición de desechos sólidos es una\r\nactividad que está intrínsicamente relacionada con la salud pública y el medio\r\nambiente que requiere de un control por parte de las instituciones de gobierno,\r\nsiendo que el artículo 8 Reglamento sobre Rellenos Sanitarios establece como\r\nrequisito para su funcionamiento, entre\r\notros, el permiso de funcionamiento que\r\nse deberá gestionar ante las áreas rectoras\r\nde salud. Contrario a lo aducido por la actora, el establecimiento del\r\nrequisito a efecto de que los oferentes cuenten con el permiso sanitario de\r\nfuncionamiento en este caso, constituye una medida necesaria y adecuada, sin\r\nque considere ésta Cámara que dicha disposición cartelaria\r\natente contra los principios de eficiencia, razonabilidad,\r\njusticia, lógica y conveniencia como lo argumenta el actor, toda vez que su\r\ninclusión lo es en cumplimiento de las disposiciones constitucionales y legales\r\nque obligan al Estado por velar por la salud de la población y su derecho a un\r\nambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En todo caso, de considerar que el\r\nrequisito de presentación del permiso sanitario de funcionamiento vigente al\r\nmomento de apertura de las ofertas resultaba contrario a los principios de\r\ncontratación administrativa, conforme a\r\nlas regulaciones contenidas en la\r\n Ley de Contratación Administrativa, la actora la accionante debió formular un recurso de objeción al\r\ncartel. Contrario a lo aducido por la accionante, el traslado de la fecha de recepción de ofertas\r\nno eximía a los potenciales oferentes de cumplir con el requisito de que el\r\npermiso sanitario estuviera vigente al momento de recepción de ofertas. Era\r\ndeber de la empresa oferente velar por que se tramitara con debido tiempo la\r\nprórroga del permiso y el hecho de que al momento de la adjudicación el permiso\r\nestuviera vigente, no subsana su omisión\r\nde cumplir el requisito del cartel en cuanto a la vigencia del permiso al\r\nmomento de presentar su oferta. Además, el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento\r\npara el relleno sanitario de Los Mangos, en Barrio San José de Alajuela, fue\r\naprobado por el Ministerio de Salud a la accionante\r\nde manera provisional, con una vigencia de 6 meses, hasta el día 23 de\r\ndiciembre del 2006 (folio 72 del principal), ordenándole ejecutar una serie de\r\nmejoras en el citado relleno, por lo que la actora se encontraba en\r\nimposibilidad de garantizar a la Administración el cumplimiento del objeto\r\ncontractual, en caso de resultar adjudicada en el concurso. Contrario a lo\r\nargumentado por la accionante, la Administración se\r\nencontraba en imposibilidad de subsanar el defecto de vigencia del permiso\r\nsanitario, ya que hubiera quebrantado el\r\nprincipio de igualdad de trato en perjuicio de los demás oferentes, que si\r\ndebieron cumplir el requisito contemplado en el cartel en cuanto a la vigencia\r\ndel certificado sanitario de funcionamiento al momento de la apertura de las\r\nofertas. Conforme artículo 56 de la\r\n Ley de Contratación Administrativa, la subsanación de\r\ndefectos solo es posible cuando no implique variaciones esenciales de la oferta\r\no que no coloquen al oferente en posibilidad de obtener una ventaja indebida.\r\nEl contar con el permiso de funcionamiento era un requisito esencial de la\r\noferta, toda vez que el servicio licitado no era la construcción y futura\r\noperación de un relleno sanitario, sino de un relleno en funcionamiento que por\r\nende debía contar con el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento vigente. La oferta\r\nde la actora para la línea No. 2 del concurso público no cumplía uno requisito\r\nesencial que no podría ser subsanado, en virtud de lo cual su exclusión del\r\nconcurso por parte de la\r\n Municipalidad de Palmares se encuentra conforme a derecho. En\r\neste mismo sentido, no evidencia ésta Cámara la existencia de vicios que\r\ngeneran la nulidad de la resolución dictada por la Contraloría General\r\nde la República No.\r\nR-DCA-396-2006 dictada a las ocho horas del 8 de\r\nagosto del 2006, por medio de la cual se\r\nrechazó de plano por falta de legitimación el recurso de apelación formulado\r\npor la actora contra el renglón 2 acto de adjudicación de la licitación pública\r\n02-2005, promovida por la\r\n Municipalidad de Palmares.”", "body_en_text": "“VI. CONSIDERATIONS\nOF THE TRIBUNAL. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 182 of the Political Constitution, the Public Administration, in fulfilling the purposes established by the legal system and satisfying its needs efficiently and in a timely manner, must resort to administrative contracting procedures, in order to select the offer it deems most convenient to supply the public need for the benefit of the community. The exercise of the State's contractual activity is subject to a series of principles that have been defined by the Constitutional Chamber starting with Voto 0998-98 issued at 11:30 hours on February 16, 1998, and reiterated in subsequent rulings, where the following has been considered: “(...) VI. THE PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING. By virtue of the foregoing, it must be understood that all of the constitutional principles and parameters that govern the State's contractual activity are derived from Article 182 of the Political Constitution. Some of these principles that guide and regulate the bidding process (licitación) are: 1.- free competition (libre concurrencia), which aims to strengthen the possibility of opposition and competition among bidders (oferentes) within the prerogatives of freedom of enterprise regulated in Article 46 of the Political Constitution, intended to promote and stimulate the competitive market, so that the greatest number of bidders may participate, in order for the Administration to have a wide and varied range of offers, so that it can select the one that offers the best conditions; 2.- equal treatment among all possible bidders (igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes), a principle complementary to the previous one and which within the bidding process has a dual purpose: that of being a guarantee for the administered parties in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and as private individuals, which translates into a prohibition for the State to impose restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of legal or regulatory provisions for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and that of constituting a guarantee for the administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework provided by Article 33 of the Fundamental Charter; 3.- publicity (publicidad), which constitutes the prerequisite and guarantee of the aforementioned principles, since it seeks to ensure the administered parties have the broadest certainty of free competition under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the bidding competition being made in a general, open, and as broad a manner as possible to all potential bidders, giving the tender specifications (cartel) the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the case file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; 4.- legality or transparency of procedures (legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos), insofar as the procedures for selecting the contractor must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and concrete manner, so that the administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the framework of action, as a development of the provisions to that effect in the Political Constitution; 5.- legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), which is derived from the previous one, since by subjecting the administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the normative provisions, security and guarantee are given to the bidders of their participation; 6.- formalism of bidding procedures (formalismo de los procedimientos licitatorios), insofar as formalities are required, these act as endogenous controls and self-auditing of the administrative action; so that they are not considered an obstacle to free competition; 7.- balance of interests (equilibrio de intereses), insofar as it is necessary in these procedures for there to be an equivalence between the rights and obligations derived for the contracting party and the administration, so that the contractor is considered a collaborator of the State in the realization of its public purposes; 8.- principle of good faith (principio de buena fe), insofar as in the procedures of bidding processes and in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical norms, where the public interest prevails over any other; 8.- mutability of the contract (mutabilidad del contrato), since the administration has the necessary powers and prerogatives to introduce modifications to contracts, in order for them to fulfill the assigned public purpose that it must protect and realize; 9.- patrimonial intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), by virtue of which the administration is always obliged to maintain the financial balance of the contract, whether by indemnifying the co-contractor for all the negative effects originating from its own decisions, whether as an effect of the principle of mutability, for reasons of convenience or public interest, or for any other general or special reasons that may affect the initial economic level, always adjusting the variations that have occurred in each and every one of the costs that make up the contract prices to maintain the originally agreed economic level unchanged (price adjustments that may originate in the legal theories of unforeseeability, rebus sic stantibus, act of the prince, and above all, in the so-called balance of the financial equation of the contract); and 10.- control of procedures (control de los procedimientos), a principle by which all the tasks of administrative contracting are subject to control and oversight for the purpose of verifying, at least, the correct use of public funds. (..) These principles are recognized both at the doctrinal and jurisprudential levels, and have already been developed by this Tribunal on reiterated occasions and prior to this judgment, in the following manner (…)\" (Sala Constitucional No. 2002-3816 issued at 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002). The observance of the cited principles gains relevance and must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective tender specifications, which, according to the provisions contained in Article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), constitutes the specific regulation of the contracting process and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, in order for potential bidders to be clearly informed of the object and conditions of the contracting. By definition and in view of its legal nature, it has been indicated that the tender specifications are equivalent to the regulation for the specific case, by defining the conditions under which the competition will materialize, and therefore the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular contracting in question, but also serving as a source of interpretation for the various factual situations encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship. It is on the basis of the tender specifications that the bidder prepares its offer, thus providing a parameter of legal certainty and guaranteeing in turn the promoting administration compliance with the principle of legitimate trust (confianza legítima) for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the competition of its interest. Thus, these will be applied to it from the moment it expresses its free will regarding entering into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of business intent, with full subjection to the tender conditions, legal and regulatory provisions in force, embodied in its sealed bid (plica), when it is presented to the contracting party, which in turn binds the bidder, since if it is awarded the contract,it must submit not only to the tender conditions established for that purpose, but also to the terms offered by it in said document (see in this regard, Judgment No. 04-2008 issued by this Section of the Tribunal at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008).\n\nVII. In the present case, the tender specifications of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares (Municipalidad de Palmares) for the \"Contracting of the service for the collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste of said Canton,\" in its section 13 General Conditions, established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the sanitary operating permit (permiso sanitario de funcionamiento) for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Competition). The plaintiff's offer for the cited line was declared ineligible when the contracting Administration considered that at the time of the opening of offers, the sanitary operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that although at the time of the opening of offers the permit was expired, the fact is that it provided a renewal application for the sanitary permit that had been submitted to the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud), which was in force at the time of the awarding of the tender, and since this is an execution requirement and not an admissibility requirement for the competition, its offer should not have been excluded. For the reasons that will be stated, the plaintiff's arguments are not acceptable. In effect, the requirement established in the tender specifications obliged the bidders to have, at the time of formulating their offer, a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) that they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares, and in the case of the plaintiff, at the time of opening of the offers, the sanitary permit provided, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, and therefore, it did not comply with the tender provision. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the renewal application for the permit that was submitted to the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the tender specifications. Due to the nature of the tendered services \"treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares,\" having a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement of the offer that could not be corrected, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among possible participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty, therefore the plaintiff's argument that the submission of the extension application is sufficient to consider the offer within the competition is not acceptable, as the sanitary permit is an admissibility requirement and not an execution requirement of the competition. For the same reasons, the plaintiff's argument that if the sanitary permit had not been granted and it found itself unable to execute the object of the contract, the administration could proceed to execute the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento) is not acceptable. As correctly argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), which appears in this process as a coadjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a sanitary operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health stems from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of Article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) and the Regulation on Garbage Management, Decreto Ejecutivo No.19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills (Reglamento sobre rellenos sanitarios), Decreto Ejecutivo No.27378-S of October 9, 1998. According to the provisions contained in Article 2 of the General Health Law, the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill complies with the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to people's health and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity intrinsically related to public health and the environment that requires control by government institutions, and Article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its operation, among others, the operating permit that must be processed before the governing health areas (áreas rectoras de salud). Contrary to what was alleged by the plaintiff, the establishment of the requirement so that bidders have the sanitary operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and adequate measure, without this Chamber considering that said tender provision violates the principles of efficiency, reasonability, justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion is in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions that obligate the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if considering that the requirement to present a sanitary operating permit valid at the time of opening the offers was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting, according to the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law, the plaintiff should have filed an objection appeal (recurso de objeción) against the tender specifications. Contrary to what was alleged by the plaintiff, the postponement of the offer receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from complying with the requirement that the sanitary permit be valid at the time of offer receipt. It was the duty of the bidding company to ensure that the permit extension was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not correct its omission in complying with the tender requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of submitting its offer. In addition, the sanitary operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health to the plaintiff provisionally, with a validity of 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the principal), ordering it to execute a series of improvements in the cited landfill, so the plaintiff was unable to guarantee to the Administration the fulfillment of the contractual object, in the event of being awarded the competition. Contrary to what was argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to correct the defect of the sanitary permit's validity, since it would have violated the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement contemplated in the tender specifications regarding the validity of the sanitary operating certificate at the time of opening the offers. According to Article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations of the offer or that do not place the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the offer, since the tendered service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but rather a landfill in operation that, therefore, had to have the sanitary operating permit in force. The plaintiff's offer for Line No. 2 of the public competition did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, by virtue of which its exclusion from the competition by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same sense, this Chamber does not find evidence of defects that cause the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006, by means of which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against line 2 of the award act of public tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was flatly rejected for lack of standing (legitimación).”\n\n2002-3816 at 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002). The observance of the cited principles becomes relevant and must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective tender specifications (cartel), which, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), constitutes the specific regulation of the procurement and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, so that potential bidders are clearly informed of the object and conditions of the procurement. By definition and considering its legal nature, it has been indicated that the tender specifications are equivalent to the regulation for the specific case, defining the conditions under which the bidding process will be conducted, and for this reason, the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular procurement in question but also serving as an interpretative source for the various factual scenarios encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship. It is based on the tender specifications that the bidder prepares its bid, thus providing a parameter of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and, in turn, guaranteeing the promoting administration the fulfillment of the principle of legitimate trust (principio de confianza legítima) for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the bidding process of their interest. Thus, these will be applied to them from the moment they express their free will to enter into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of their desire to negotiate, with full submission to the conditions of the tender specifications (condiciones cartelarias), and the current legal and regulatory provisions, as reflected in their bid, when it is submitted to the contracting party, which in turn binds the bidder, because if awarded the contract, they must submit not only to the conditions of the tender specifications established for that purpose but also to the terms offered by them in said document (see in this regard, the Judgment issued by this Section of the Tribunal No. 04-2008 issued at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008).

\n\n

 

\n\n

VII. In the present case, the tender specifications (cartel) of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares for the \"procurement of the service for the collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste from said Canton,\" in its section 13 General Conditions, established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the valid health operating permit for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Tender). The plaintiff's bid for said line was declared ineligible because the contracting Administration considered that, at the time of bid opening, the health operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that while the permit was expired at the time of bid opening, they did provide a renewal application for the health permit submitted to the Ministry of Health, which was in force at the time of the tender's award, and as this is an execution requirement and not an admissibility requirement for the tender, their bid should not have been excluded. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiff's arguments are not accepted. Indeed, the requirement established in the tender specifications obliged bidders to have, at the time of formulating their bid, a valid health operating permit for the sanitary landfill they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares. In the plaintiff's case, at the time of bid opening, the submitted health permit, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, thus breaching the provision of the tender specifications. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the permit renewal application submitted to the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the tender specifications. Due to the nature of the procured services, \"treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares,\" having a valid health operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be corrected, or else the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty would be violated. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument that submitting the extension request is sufficient to consider the bid within the tender is not accepted, as the health permit is an admissibility requirement and not an execution requirement for the tender. For parity of reasoning, the plaintiff's argument is not accepted that, had the health permit not been granted and they were unable to execute the contract's object, the Administration could proceed to execute the performance bond (garantía de cumplimiento). As rightly argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), which appears in this process as coadjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a valid health operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health stems from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under the terms of article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) and the Regulation on Waste Management, Executive Decree No.19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills, Executive Decree No.27378-S of October 9, 1998. In accordance with the provisions contained in article 2 of the General Health Law, the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill meets the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to people's health and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity intrinsically related to public health and the environment, requiring control by government institutions, and article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its operation, among others, the operating permit to be processed before the governing health areas. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, establishing the requirement that bidders have the valid health operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and adequate measure, without this Chamber considering that said provision of the tender specifications threatens the principles of efficiency, reasonableness, justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion complies with the constitutional and legal provisions that obligate the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if it were considered that the requirement to present a valid health operating permit at the time of bid opening was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting, according to the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), the plaintiff should have filed an objection to the tender specifications (recurso de objeción al cartel). Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the change in the bid receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from the requirement that the health permit be valid at the time of bid receipt. It was the duty of the bidding company to ensure that the permit's renewal was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not cure its omission to comply with the tender specifications requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of submitting its bid. Furthermore, the health operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health for the plaintiff on a provisional basis, valid for 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the main file), ordering it to implement a series of improvements in said landfill. Therefore, the plaintiff was unable to guarantee the Administration the fulfillment of the contractual object, had it been awarded in the tender. Contrary to what is argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to cure the defect of the health permit's validity, as this would have breached the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement set forth in the tender specifications regarding the validity of the health operating certificate at the time of bid opening. According to article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations in the bid or does not put the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the bid, as the procured service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but an operating landfill that therefore had to have a valid health operating permit. The plaintiff's bid for Line No. 2 of the public tender did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, and therefore its exclusion from the tender by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same vein, this Chamber finds no evidence of defects that would generate the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against item 2 of the award act of Public Tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was flatly rejected for lack of standing.\"

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSome of these principles that guide and regulate the bidding process are: 1.- free competition (libre concurrencia), which aims to strengthen the possibility of opposition and competition among bidders within the prerogatives of freedom of enterprise regulated in article 46 of the Political Constitution, intended to promote and stimulate the competitive market, with the aim of having the largest number of bidders participate, so that the Administration can count on a wide and varied range of offers, enabling it to select the one that offers the best conditions; 2.- equal treatment among all potential bidders (igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes), a principle complementary to the previous one and which within the bidding process has a dual purpose: to serve as a guarantee for the administered in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and private individuals, which translates into the prohibition for the State of imposing restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of legal or regulatory provisions for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and to constitute a guarantee for the administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework provided by article 33 of the Fundamental Charter; 3.- publicity (publicidad), which constitutes the precondition and guarantee of the principles discussed, since it seeks to ensure for the administered the broadest certainty of free competition under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the bidding competition being made in a general, open, and as broad as possible manner to all potential bidders, giving the bidding conditions the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the case file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; 4.- legality or transparency of procedures (legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos), insofar as the contractor selection procedures must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and concrete manner, so that the administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the framework of action, as a development of what is provided for this purpose in the Political Constitution; 5.- legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), which derives from the previous one, since by subjecting administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the normative provisions, security and guarantee are given to bidders regarding their participation; 6.- formalism of bidding procedures (formalismo de los procedimientos licitatorios), in that when formalities are required, these act as endogenous controls and self-auditing of the administrative action; so that they are not considered an obstacle to free competition; 7.- balance of interests (equilibrio de intereses), insofar as it is necessary in these procedures for there to be an equivalence between the rights and obligations that arise for the contracting party and the administration, so that the contractor is considered a collaborator of the State in the realization of its public purposes; 8.- principle of good faith (principio de buena fe), in that in the processing of bids and in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical norms, where the public interest prevails over any other; 8.- mutability of the contract (mutabilidad del contrato), since the administration has the necessary powers and prerogatives to introduce modifications to contracts, in order for them to fulfill the assigned public purpose that it must protect and realize; 9.- patrimonial intangibility (intangibilidad patrimonial), by virtue of which the administration is always obliged to maintain the financial balance of the contract, either by indemnifying the co-contractor for all negative effects originating from its own decisions, whether as an effect of the principle of mutability, or for reasons of convenience or public interest, or for any other general or special reasons that come to affect the initial economic level, always readjusting the variations that have occurred in each and every one of the costs that make up the contract prices to keep the originally agreed economic level intact (price adjustments that may originate from the legal theories of unforeseeability, rebus sic stantibus, act of the prince, and above all, from the so-called equilibrium of the financial equation of the contract); and 10.- control of procedures (control de los procedimientos), a principle by which all tasks of administrative contracting are subject to control and oversight for the sake of verification, at least, of the correct use of public funds. (..) These principles have recognition both at a doctrinal and jurisprudential level, and have already been developed by this Court on repeated occasions and prior to this judgment, in the following manner (…)\" (Constitutional Chamber No. 2002-3816 of 14:53 hours on April 24, 2002). Observance of the cited principles acquires relevance and they must be reflected in the provisions contained in the respective bidding conditions (cartel), which, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 51 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law, constitutes the specific regulation of the contracting and therefore must be a clear, sufficient, concrete, and objective instrument, with the aim that potential bidders are clearly informed of the object and conditions of the contracting. By definition and in consideration of its legal nature, it has been indicated that the bidding conditions are equated to a regulation for the specific case, by defining the conditions under which the competition will materialize, and therefore the terms established therein are binding on the bidder, being not only an integral part of the regulations applicable to the particular contracting in question, but also fulfilling a role as an interpretive source for the various factual scenarios encountered throughout the development of the contractual relationship.  It is on the basis of the bidding conditions that the bidder prepares its bid, thus providing it with a parameter of legal certainty and in turn guaranteeing the promoting administration compliance with the principle of legitimate expectations for the potential participant, who knows in advance the conditions that will govern the competition of their interest. Thus, these will be applied to them from the moment they manifest their free will concerning entering into the contractual relationship through the unequivocal manifestation of the desire to negotiate, with full submission to the bidding conditions, legal and regulatory provisions in force, embodied in their sealed bid, when the same is presented before the contracting entity, which in turn binds the bidder, since if they become the awardee, they must submit not only to the bidding conditions established for that purpose, but also to the terms offered by them in said document (see in this regard, the Judgment issued by this Section of the Court No. 04-2008 issued at 16:30 hours on August 4, 2008).

\n\n

 

\n\n

VII. In the present case, the bidding conditions of Public Tender No. 02-2005 promoted by the Municipality of Palmares for the \"Contracting of the service of collection, transport, treatment, and final disposal of ordinary, residential, commercial, and non-traditional solid waste of said Canton, in its section 13 General Conditions established that every bidder must deliver a copy of the sanitary operating permit for the treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste (Item 2 of the Competition). The plaintiff's bid for the cited line was declared ineligible when the tendering Administration considered that at the time of the opening of bids, the sanitary operating permit was expired. The plaintiff argues that although at the time of the opening of bids the permit was expired, the fact is that it provided a renewal application for the sanitary permit that had been filed before the Ministry of Health, which was valid at the time of the award of the tender, and since this is a performance requirement and not one of admissibility for the competition, its bid should not have been excluded. For the reasons to be stated, the plaintiff's arguments are not acceptable. In effect, the requirement established in the bidding conditions obliged bidders to have, at the time of formulating their bid, a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill that they would use for the final disposal of waste from the Canton of Palmares, and in the plaintiff's case, at the time of opening the bids, the submitted sanitary permit, corresponding to the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, was expired, thus failing to comply with the bidding conditions provision. The fact that the plaintiff provided a copy of the permit renewal application that was filed before the Ministry of Health does not imply compliance with the clear provision contained in the bidding conditions. Due to the nature of the tendered services \"treatment and final disposal of ordinary solid waste from the Canton of Palmares\", having a sanitary operating permit for the sanitary landfill constitutes an admissibility requirement for the bid that could not be corrected, under penalty of violating the principles of equal treatment among potential participants, legality and transparency of procedures, and legal certainty, therefore the plaintiff's argument that the presentation of the extension application is sufficient to consider the bid within the competition is not acceptable, as the sanitary permit is an admissibility requirement and not a performance requirement of the competition. For parity of reasons, the plaintiff's argument that in the event the sanitary permit had not been granted and it found itself unable to execute the object of the contract, the administration could proceed with the enforcement of the performance bond is not acceptable. As is well argued by the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, which appears in this process as a co-adjuvant of the defendants, the obligation to have a sanitary operating permit issued by the Ministry of Health derives from the guarantee of the fundamental right of every person to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the terms of article 50 of the Constitution, as well as from the provisions contained in the General Health Law and the Regulation on the management of garbage, Executive Decree No. 19049-S of June 20, 1989, and the Regulation on sanitary landfills, Executive Decree No. 27378-S of October 9, 1998. In accordance with the provisions contained in article 2 of the General Health Law,  the Ministry of Health must ensure the health of the population, guaranteeing that the operation of every sanitary landfill meets the legal and regulatory requirements to prevent any risk to the health of persons and the environment. The activity of treatment and disposal of solid waste is an activity that is intrinsically related to public health and the environment, which requires control by government institutions, and article 8 of the Regulation on Sanitary Landfills establishes as a requirement for its  operation, among others,  the operating permit that must be processed  before the governing health areas. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the establishment of the requirement for bidders to have the sanitary operating permit in this case constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure, without this Chamber considering that said bidding conditions provision violates the principles of efficiency, reasonableness (razonabilidad), justice, logic, and convenience as argued by the plaintiff, since its inclusion is in compliance with the constitutional and legal provisions that oblige the State to ensure the health of the population and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In any case, if it were considered that the requirement to present a sanitary operating permit valid at the time of opening the bids was contrary to the principles of administrative contracting,  in accordance with the regulations contained in the Administrative Contracting Law, the plaintiff should have filed an objection appeal against the bidding conditions. Contrary to what is alleged by the plaintiff, the postponement of the bid receipt date did not exempt potential bidders from complying with the requirement that the sanitary permit be valid at the time of receipt of bids. It was the bidder company's duty to ensure that the permit extension was processed in due time, and the fact that the permit was valid at the time of the award does not correct  its omission to comply with the bidding conditions requirement regarding the validity of the permit at the time of presenting its bid. Furthermore, the sanitary operating permit for the Los Mangos sanitary landfill, in Barrio San José de Alajuela, was approved by the Ministry of Health to the plaintiff on a provisional basis, with a validity of 6 months, until December 23, 2006 (folio 72 of the principal), ordering it to execute a series of improvements in said landfill, so the plaintiff was unable to guarantee the Administration compliance with the contractual object, should it be awarded the competition. Contrary to what is argued by the plaintiff, the Administration was unable to correct the defect in the validity of the sanitary permit,  as it would have breached the principle of equal treatment to the detriment of the other bidders, who did have to comply with the requirement contemplated in the bidding conditions regarding the validity of the sanitary operating certificate at the time of opening the bids. In accordance with article 56 of the Administrative Contracting Law, the correction of defects is only possible when it does not imply essential variations of the bid or that do not place the bidder in a position to obtain an undue advantage. Having the operating permit was an essential requirement of the bid, since the tendered service was not the construction and future operation of a sanitary landfill, but rather an operational landfill that therefore had to have a valid sanitary operating permit. The plaintiff's bid for Line No. 2 of the public competition did not meet an essential requirement that could not be corrected, by virtue of which its exclusion from the competition by the Municipality of Palmares is in accordance with the law. In this same vein, this Chamber does not find evidence of defects that generate the nullity of the resolution issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic No. R-DCA-396-2006 issued at eight hours on August 8, 2006,  by means of which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against line 2 of the award act of public tender 02-2005, promoted by the Municipality of Palmares, was rejected outright for lack of standing.”

\n\n

 

\n\n\n\n\n\n" }