來(lái)源：《商法 》第7 輯第8 期

建設(shè)工程竣工驗(yàn)收合格并交付使用，承包人在缺陷責(zé)任期屆滿(mǎn)后要求發(fā)包人返還質(zhì)保金，發(fā)包人以在保修期內(nèi)工程存在質(zhì)量缺陷為由拒絕支付質(zhì)保金，并提出工程質(zhì)量鑒定申請(qǐng)。對(duì)保修期內(nèi)發(fā)包人提出工程質(zhì)量鑒定的申請(qǐng)如何處理？何種條件下需要啟動(dòng)工程質(zhì)量鑒定？如果仲裁庭決定不啟動(dòng)工程質(zhì)量鑒定，對(duì)于發(fā)包人主張的工程質(zhì)量缺陷又當(dāng)如何處理？

近期的一起仲裁案件中，承包人在北京仲裁委員會(huì)/ 北京國(guó)際仲裁中心提起仲裁，認(rèn)為其承擔(dān)的發(fā)包人的辦公樓翻建工程于2013年竣工驗(yàn)收合格并交付使用，合同約定的缺陷責(zé)任期已過(guò)，要求發(fā)包人返還質(zhì)保金。發(fā)包人隨即提出反請(qǐng)求，認(rèn)為在保修期內(nèi)工程質(zhì)量出現(xiàn)墻體開(kāi)裂、衛(wèi)生間漏水等一系列問(wèn)題，并提供了工程現(xiàn)場(chǎng)存在質(zhì)量瑕疵的照片，要求承包人承擔(dān)保修期內(nèi)發(fā)生的維修費(fèi)用。

此外，發(fā)包人認(rèn)為承包人施工的工程質(zhì)量嚴(yán)重不合格，向仲裁庭提出了工程質(zhì)量鑒定申請(qǐng)，要求對(duì)工程質(zhì)量進(jìn)行整體鑒定。

此案處理的關(guān)鍵在于兩點(diǎn)：其一，是否能夠支持發(fā)包人關(guān)于工程質(zhì)量鑒定的申請(qǐng)？其二，如果不支持發(fā)包人的工程質(zhì)量鑒定申請(qǐng)，對(duì)其要求承包人承擔(dān)保修期內(nèi)發(fā)生的維修費(fèi)用的主張，應(yīng)當(dāng)如何支持？

工程質(zhì)量鑒定

仲裁庭從審查發(fā)包人提交的關(guān)于工程質(zhì)量瑕疵的證據(jù)出發(fā)。建設(shè)工程的質(zhì)量和安全涉及到社會(huì)公共利益，如果發(fā)包人提交的證據(jù)顯示或者仲裁庭根據(jù)發(fā)包人提交的證據(jù)可以初步判斷工程質(zhì)量瑕疵影響到了建設(shè)工程的整體質(zhì)量安全以及社會(huì)公共利益，那么仲裁庭有責(zé)任查明該等建設(shè)工程是否合格、是否會(huì)危及公共安全以及社會(huì)公共利益。此種情況下，就必須要啟動(dòng)工程質(zhì)量鑒定。

基于對(duì)發(fā)包人提供證據(jù)的審查，仲裁庭初步判斷發(fā)包人所主張的工程質(zhì)量瑕疵主要涉及到防水層施工，墻體、地面裝修施工方面，尚無(wú)明顯的能夠證明該建設(shè)工程的地基基礎(chǔ)和主體結(jié)構(gòu)等方面存在質(zhì)量瑕疵的證據(jù)。在此基礎(chǔ)上，仲裁庭詢(xún)問(wèn)發(fā)包人是否認(rèn)為該工程的主體結(jié)構(gòu)、地基基礎(chǔ)等方面存在質(zhì)量和安全問(wèn)題以及是否有相關(guān)的證據(jù)，發(fā)包人認(rèn)可涉案工程在地基基礎(chǔ)和主體結(jié)構(gòu)方面沒(méi)有問(wèn)題。仲裁庭結(jié)合上述查明的情況以及本案涉案工程已經(jīng)經(jīng)過(guò)竣工驗(yàn)收合格并交付使用的事實(shí)，認(rèn)為就本案目前所顯示的情況看，對(duì)本案工程啟動(dòng)質(zhì)量鑒定的理由尚不充分。

保修期內(nèi)的維修費(fèi)用承擔(dān)

對(duì)此，發(fā)包人提供了保修期內(nèi)涉案工程出現(xiàn)質(zhì)量問(wèn)題的證據(jù)、發(fā)包人通知承包人維修的證據(jù)、發(fā)包人自行聘請(qǐng)第三方進(jìn)行維修且已經(jīng)支付了相關(guān)維修費(fèi)用的證據(jù)。

基于對(duì)發(fā)包人提供證據(jù)鏈的審查，仲裁庭認(rèn)定了以下三個(gè)方面的事實(shí)：一是涉案工程在保修期內(nèi)出現(xiàn)了質(zhì)量缺陷，且該質(zhì)量缺陷是由于承包人的原因造成的；二是發(fā)包人就工程保修事宜通知了承包人，而承包人未按約定履行保修義務(wù)；三是發(fā)包人自行對(duì)質(zhì)量缺陷進(jìn)行了維修，且維修費(fèi)用在合理的范圍內(nèi)。據(jù)此，仲裁庭支持了發(fā)包人要求承包人承擔(dān)保修期內(nèi)發(fā)生的維修費(fèi)用的主張。

依靠專(zhuān)業(yè)

本案中，仲裁庭認(rèn)真審查每一份證據(jù)，并結(jié)合仲裁員自身的專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)和經(jīng)驗(yàn)，就本案工程是否應(yīng)當(dāng)啟動(dòng)工程質(zhì)量鑒定以及保修期內(nèi)維修費(fèi)用的承擔(dān)進(jìn)行了合理的分析和認(rèn)定。建設(shè)工程爭(zhēng)議中對(duì)于事實(shí)的查明和認(rèn)定往往有賴(lài)于仲裁員的專(zhuān)業(yè)知識(shí)和經(jīng)驗(yàn)，而專(zhuān)業(yè)的仲裁服務(wù)是處理此類(lèi)爭(zhēng)議更為明智的選擇。

BAC/BIAC                 DISPUTE DIGEST

Project quality appraisals within warranty period

Acontractor claimed against an employer for the repayment of a quality assurance deposit after the expiration of the warranty period, when the final acceptance had been completed and the construction project had been delivered for use. But the employer refused to repay the quality assurance deposit – on the grounds of the existence of quality defects within the warranty period – and put forward an application of appraisal of project quality.

How should a contractor deal with an application of appraisal that the employer has requested within the warranty period? And what are the conditions under which an appraisal of project quality should be carried out? If the arbitral tribunal decides not to conduct such an appraisal, how should the alleged quality defects that the employer has claimed be dealt with?

In a recent arbitration case, a contractor initiated an application for arbitration at the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre,claiming repayment of the quality assurance deposit on the grounds that the project it was contracted to do – reconstruction of office buildings – had already completed the final acceptance phase and had been delivered for use in 2013, and the warranty period had expired.

The employer then filed a counter-claim,requesting that the contractor bear the maintenance costs incurred during the warranty period, since a series of project quality problems – including wall cracks and leakage in the toilets – arose out of the warranty period. The employer also submitted photos showing on-site quality defects, and held that there was severe non-conformance in the project’s construction. The employer’s application of appraisal of project quality was put to the arbitral tribunal, requesting the appraisal of the integral quality of the construction project.

There are two important issues in this case. First, should the arbitral tribunal accept the application for appraisal? Second,if not, how should the claim concerning the maintenance costs incurred during the warranty period be dealt with?

APPRAISAL OF PROJECT QUALITY

The arbitral tribunal started by examining the evidence that the employer submitted with regard to quality defects. The quality and safety of the construction project is related to the public interest. If the evidence submitted showed, or led the arbitral tribunal to roughly assess, that the quality defects of the project had affected the overall safety of the construction project, then the arbitral tribunal has a responsibility to find out whether the construction project has conformed to quality standards or not, and whether it has endangered public security or the public interest. If the answer is yes,an appraisal is necessary.

Based on examination of the evidence that the employer submitted, the arbitral tribunal made a preliminary assessment of the quality defects. These were mainly defects concerning waterproof-layer construction,walls and ground decoration. There was no clear evidence to prove that quality defects existed in the foundation, or in the main structure. On this basis, the arbitral tribunal asked the employer if it saw any quality defects related to the foundation, or the main structure; or had any evidence if such defects were real. The employer admitted no defects concerning the foundation or the main structure. According to the above facts, and given the fact that the construction project had completed the final acceptance and had already been delivered for use, the arbitral tribunal held the view that it was not necessary to carry out the appraisal of project quality.

MAINTENANCE COSTS

The employer submitted evidence regarding quality defects within the warranty period, evidence regarding a notice to the contractor of maintenance, and evidence regarding the employer’s inviting of a third party to repair defects, and its cost.

Based on the examinations of the chain of evidence the employer submitted, the arbitral tribunal identified the following facts:first, the existence of quality defects within the warranty period, caused by the contractor;second, the employer had informed the contractor to make repairs, but the contractor failed to perform its obligation of maintenance according to their agreement;third, the employer itself managed the maintenance, and at a reasonable cost.So the employer’s claim that the contractor should bear the maintenance costs incurred during the warranty period was sustained.

RELYING ON EXPERTISE

In this case, the arbitral tribunal carefully examined all the evidence, and with the arbitrator’s own expertise and experience,it carried out a reasonable analysis and assessment on whether it was necessary to conduct the appraisal of project quality,and on the allocation of maintenance cost incurred during the warranty period. The fact-finding process in construction project disputes often depends on the arbitrator’s expertise and experience. And a professional arbitration service can be a more effective choice for resolving such disputes.

作者：中航勘察設(shè)計(jì)研究院有限公司總法律顧問(wèn)、北京仲裁委員會(huì)/北京國(guó)際仲裁中心仲裁員檀中文。北仲仲裁秘書(shū)武文棣對(duì)本文亦有貢獻(xiàn)

Tan Zhongwen is general counsel of the AVIC Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, and an arbitrator at Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre. BAC/BIAC’s case manager, Wu Wendi, also contributed to the article