北京仲裁委员会

发布时间： Fri Oct 14 13:39:32 CST 2016   供稿人：檀中文

来源：《商法 》第7 辑第8 期

建设工程竣工验收合格并交付使用，承包人在缺陷责任期届满后要求发包人返还质保金，发包人以在保修期内工程存在质量缺陷为由拒绝支付质保金，并提出工程质量鉴定申请。对保修期内发包人提出工程质量鉴定的申请如何处理？何种条件下需要启动工程质量鉴定？如果仲裁庭决定不启动工程质量鉴定，对于发包人主张的工程质量缺陷又当如何处理？

近期的一起仲裁案件中，承包人在北京仲裁委员会/ 北京国际仲裁中心提起仲裁，认为其承担的发包人的办公楼翻建工程于2013年竣工验收合格并交付使用，合同约定的缺陷责任期已过，要求发包人返还质保金。发包人随即提出反请求，认为在保修期内工程质量出现墙体开裂、卫生间漏水等一系列问题，并提供了工程现场存在质量瑕疵的照片，要求承包人承担保修期内发生的维修费用。

此外，发包人认为承包人施工的工程质量严重不合格，向仲裁庭提出了工程质量鉴定申请，要求对工程质量进行整体鉴定。

此案处理的关键在于两点：其一，是否能够支持发包人关于工程质量鉴定的申请？其二，如果不支持发包人的工程质量鉴定申请，对其要求承包人承担保修期内发生的维修费用的主张，应当如何支持？

工程质量鉴定

仲裁庭从审查发包人提交的关于工程质量瑕疵的证据出发。建设工程的质量和安全涉及到社会公共利益，如果发包人提交的证据显示或者仲裁庭根据发包人提交的证据可以初步判断工程质量瑕疵影响到了建设工程的整体质量安全以及社会公共利益，那么仲裁庭有责任查明该等建设工程是否合格、是否会危及公共安全以及社会公共利益。此种情况下，就必须要启动工程质量鉴定。

基于对发包人提供证据的审查，仲裁庭初步判断发包人所主张的工程质量瑕疵主要涉及到防水层施工，墙体、地面装修施工方面，尚无明显的能够证明该建设工程的地基基础和主体结构等方面存在质量瑕疵的证据。在此基础上，仲裁庭询问发包人是否认为该工程的主体结构、地基基础等方面存在质量和安全问题以及是否有相关的证据，发包人认可涉案工程在地基基础和主体结构方面没有问题。仲裁庭结合上述查明的情况以及本案涉案工程已经经过竣工验收合格并交付使用的事实，认为就本案目前所显示的情况看，对本案工程启动质量鉴定的理由尚不充分。

保修期内的维修费用承担

对此，发包人提供了保修期内涉案工程出现质量问题的证据、发包人通知承包人维修的证据、发包人自行聘请第三方进行维修且已经支付了相关维修费用的证据。

基于对发包人提供证据链的审查，仲裁庭认定了以下三个方面的事实：一是涉案工程在保修期内出现了质量缺陷，且该质量缺陷是由于承包人的原因造成的；二是发包人就工程保修事宜通知了承包人，而承包人未按约定履行保修义务；三是发包人自行对质量缺陷进行了维修，且维修费用在合理的范围内。据此，仲裁庭支持了发包人要求承包人承担保修期内发生的维修费用的主张。

依靠专业

本案中，仲裁庭认真审查每一份证据，并结合仲裁员自身的专业知识和经验，就本案工程是否应当启动工程质量鉴定以及保修期内维修费用的承担进行了合理的分析和认定。建设工程争议中对于事实的查明和认定往往有赖于仲裁员的专业知识和经验，而专业的仲裁服务是处理此类争议更为明智的选择。

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：中航勘察设计研究院有限公司总法律顾问、北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心仲裁员檀中文。北仲仲裁秘书武文棣对本文亦有贡献

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