來源：《商法 》第7 輯第8 期

建設工程竣工驗收合格并交付使用，承包人在缺陷責任期屆滿后要求發(fā)包人返還質保金，發(fā)包人以在保修期內工程存在質量缺陷為由拒絕支付質保金，并提出工程質量鑒定申請。對保修期內發(fā)包人提出工程質量鑒定的申請如何處理？何種條件下需要啟動工程質量鑒定？如果仲裁庭決定不啟動工程質量鑒定，對于發(fā)包人主張的工程質量缺陷又當如何處理？

近期的一起仲裁案件中，承包人在北京仲裁委員會/ 北京國際仲裁中心提起仲裁，認為其承擔的發(fā)包人的辦公樓翻建工程于2013年竣工驗收合格并交付使用，合同約定的缺陷責任期已過，要求發(fā)包人返還質保金。發(fā)包人隨即提出反請求，認為在保修期內工程質量出現(xiàn)墻體開裂、衛(wèi)生間漏水等一系列問題，并提供了工程現(xiàn)場存在質量瑕疵的照片，要求承包人承擔保修期內發(fā)生的維修費用。

此外，發(fā)包人認為承包人施工的工程質量嚴重不合格，向仲裁庭提出了工程質量鑒定申請，要求對工程質量進行整體鑒定。

此案處理的關鍵在于兩點：其一，是否能夠支持發(fā)包人關于工程質量鑒定的申請？其二，如果不支持發(fā)包人的工程質量鑒定申請，對其要求承包人承擔保修期內發(fā)生的維修費用的主張，應當如何支持？

工程質量鑒定

仲裁庭從審查發(fā)包人提交的關于工程質量瑕疵的證據(jù)出發(fā)。建設工程的質量和安全涉及到社會公共利益，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量瑕疵影響到了建設工程的整體質量安全以及社會公共利益，那么仲裁庭有責任查明該等建設工程是否合格、是否會危及公共安全以及社會公共利益。此種情況下，就必須要啟動工程質量鑒定。

基于對發(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，尚無明顯的能夠證明該建設工程的地基基礎和主體結構等方面存在質量瑕疵的證據(jù)。在此基礎上，仲裁庭詢問發(fā)包人是否認為該工程的主體結構、地基基礎等方面存在質量和安全問題以及是否有相關的證據(jù)，發(fā)包人認可涉案工程在地基基礎和主體結構方面沒有問題。仲裁庭結合上述查明的情況以及本案涉案工程已經(jīng)經(jīng)過竣工驗收合格并交付使用的事實，認為就本案目前所顯示的情況看，對本案工程啟動質量鑒定的理由尚不充分。

保修期內的維修費用承擔

對此，發(fā)包人提供了保修期內涉案工程出現(xiàn)質量問題的證據(jù)、發(fā)包人通知承包人維修的證據(jù)、發(fā)包人自行聘請第三方進行維修且已經(jīng)支付了相關維修費用的證據(jù)。

基于對發(fā)包人提供證據(jù)鏈的審查，仲裁庭認定了以下三個方面的事實：一是涉案工程在保修期內出現(xiàn)了質量缺陷，且該質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；三是發(fā)包人自行對質量缺陷進行了維修，且維修費用在合理的范圍內。據(jù)此，仲裁庭支持了發(fā)包人要求承包人承擔保修期內發(fā)生的維修費用的主張。

依靠專業(yè)

本案中，仲裁庭認真審查每一份證據(jù)，并結合仲裁員自身的專業(yè)知識和經(jīng)驗，就本案工程是否應當啟動工程質量鑒定以及保修期內維修費用的承擔進行了合理的分析和認定。建設工程爭議中對于事實的查明和認定往往有賴于仲裁員的專業(yè)知識和經(jīng)驗，而專業(yè)的仲裁服務是處理此類爭議更為明智的選擇。

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：中航勘察設計研究院有限公司總法律顧問、北京仲裁委員會/北京國際仲裁中心仲裁員檀中文。北仲仲裁秘書武文棣對本文亦有貢獻

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