The engineering contracts of most government investment construction projects currently stipulate that the audit results of the government audit department shall be used as the basis for the settlement of construction engineering costs,which has caused many disputes and engineering disputes.The Supreme People's Court has judicially interpreted this several times:auditing is a kind of administrative supervision by the state over the construction unit,which does not affect the contractual effect between the construction unit and the contractor.But it also believes that if the construction contract stipulates that the audit results or the review results of financial investment shall be used as the basis for settlement,the review results shall be used as the basis for settlement.Although this judicial interpretation follows the legal principles of civil contract and contract evidence,it fails to distinguish the concepts of investment cost and construction cost in the construction engineering process,and confuses the role of cost management at different stages of construction engineering.The nature,connotation,calculation basis,and scope of application of investment cost and construction cost are different,and they cannot be used interchangeably.Therefore,it is improper to use the government audit or financial review results as the basis for construction engineering cost settlement,which violates the principle of fair and equal contract in the Civil Code.Even if the construction engineering contract stipulates that the government audit or financial review results shall be used as the basis for engineering cost settlement,such contractual terms should not be valid.
维普
万方数据