Abstract
In Nicaragua, prior procedures to the contracts with the State represent, although a breakthrough in
transparency in procurement management of the State, does not mean that they are exempt from
abnormal situations that place in a position of disadvantage other persons who knock on the door of
the state to offer their goods and services.
At the central level, much of the purchasing processes are regulated in the Act 737: Ley de
contrataciones administrativas del sector público y su reglamento, even the mechanisms for the
protection of those who introduce themselves to the State to offer their goods and services. These
mechanisms are identified as ¨means¨. We can enumerate these means in sequence: aclaración,
impugnación and nulidad. For this work, we have chosen the mean of nulidad, because its regulation
represents, in certain instances, an obstacle to acquisitive procedures of the State and it´s the focus
of our research.
We consider that it´s imperative a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the mechanisms
where businesses can defend their rights against other competitors and against the State itself, in
order to achieve transparent management and due process for public sector procurement to the
maximum extent possible. In this investigation, we will work exclusively on a detailed analysis and
proposals towards improving the mean of nulidad in Act 737 that, in our view, shows a total
deregulation and does not promote legal certainty.
Key words: Administrative recourses, competent authority, legal certainty, administrative instance.
Introducción
En Nicaragua, los procesos de adquisición de bienes y servicios por parte del sector público
representan una dinámica bastante compleja, casi fugaz y de todos los días. En aras de procurar un
sistema ordenado, y para lograr la consecución de este fin, es que entran a operar la Ley 737: Ley de
contrataciones administrativas del sector público, su Reglamento y una reforma a este último (en
adelante Ley 737 y su reglamento).2 Sin embargo, como todo documento susceptible de perfección,
dichos textos legales presentan en la práctica, si bien varios aciertos, muchos vacíos en el
Instrumentos jurídicos publicados respectivamente en La Gaceta, Diario Oficial No. 213 y 214 del 8 y 9 de
Noviembre del 2010 (ley), en Las Gacetas, Diario Oficial, Nos. 239 y 240 del 15 y 16 de Diciembre del 2010
(reglamento) y en La Gaceta, Diario Oficial No. 119, del 27 de junio del año 2013 (Decreto No. 22 – 2013, de
reformas y adiciones al Decreto No. 75 – 2010, Reglamento General de la Ley No. 737).
2
25