The Administrative Court of Public Contracts has reached a significant milestone in its 17 years of existence, managing between 3,500 and 4,000 cases related to public contracting, highlighted the presiding judge, Martín Wilson, during a commemorative event in which the role of this court was explained.
Wilson noted that almost 60% of these cases correspond to appeals arising from selection procedures, while 40% have been generated in administrative contract resolution procedures, the terms for which have been reduced thanks to recent reforms in the laws that govern the process.
The court, which was created under Law 22 of 2006, has played a crucial role in overseeing the legality of contractor selection processes and in the administrative resolution of public contracts. Of the cases filed, only a small number have reached the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which underlines the effectiveness of the court’s decisions.
The presiding judge stressed that, in these 17 years, the court has effectively protected the interests of contractors, the State, as well as the public treasury, avoiding possible costs for the country.
He explained that according to the reform of Law 153, in article 159, it is determined that the court must rule within 10 days, regarding the selection procedures and eventually requiring evidence, it has a period of 5 to 10 days, after the evidence is evacuated, it has 5 subsequent days to resolve the case. “The decisions of the court are collegial, that is, they are decided by the three magistrates that comprise it: Martín Wilson, Manuel Beckford and Luis Mariscal
“This year, we are dealing with around 150 cases, corresponding to the previous administration and the current one,” Wilson said.
The judge also clarified the difference between the Administrative Court of Public Procurement and the Court of Accounts, emphasizing that the former focuses on the supervision of procurement procedures, while the latter assesses the responsibility of public officials in the administration of funds.
In the accounting jurisdiction, the responsibility of public officials when managing money is assessed. If they do not perform this task well, they are sanctioned with the return of the ill-gotten money, while in the Administrative Court of Public Contracts, the responsibility of the official is monitored when in the purchasing process, in order to acquire goods, works or services for the State.
In order to commemorate the 17th anniversary of the creation of the court, a day of exposition was held, aimed at collaborators of public entities, in which Judge Mariscal spoke about: “Ethics in State contracting, the challenge of the 20th century; Judge Wilson referred to the topic: “Objective selection of Contractors in Public Contracting; and Judge Beckford spoke about: “Processing of the appeal before the Administrative Court of Public Contracting”.
