The contract stipulates that the quantity of engineering shall be calculated according to the 20** quota rule, and the 20** quota engineering quantity calculation rules stipulate that the amount of mud abandonment in the construction of mud hole-forming piles shall be calculated according to the depth of the hole * the volume of the pile design section;The project design adopts mud hole pile construction (the actual construction method is consistent with the design requirements), and the construction unit has applied for the on-site visa confirmation of the relevant engineering quantity for the mud abandonment, and the engineering quantity is calculated according to the pile volume. According to the construction process of the pile, the mud of the pile is reused in the process of forming the hole, and only the suspended sediment in the hole is precipitated and the unqualified mud is discarded, and the actual amount of mud abandonment is much smaller than the pile volume. How is it more appropriate to deal with such issues in the audit process?
Keywords: auditing
The core of this issue lies in whether the audit unit can break through the contract agreement on the basis that the quota is inconsistent with the actual amount when the audit is settled. Now the contract stipulates that the settlement shall be based on the quota, and the quota clearly stipulates that the amount of mud abandonment shall be measured according to the volume of the pile, and in the actual construction process, the two parties shall also calculate the quantity of the project according to the volume of the pile and apply for a visa. However, the audit pointed out that the agreement on the quota was inconsistent with the reality and should be dealt with in accordance with the actual situation, and it was obvious that there was no basis for this view put forward by the audit. It can be said that the audit is an illegal audit, which is also a very common problem in the work, that is, the audit should follow Article 799 of the Civil Code: "If the acceptance is qualified, the employer shall pay the price as agreed and accept the construction project." "Even if the valuation method agreed by the two parties in the contract is outrageous, the contract cannot be broken in the settlement audit.
In addition, the inconsistency between the quota and the actual situation is widespread, the quota is only a database, and the ** formed between the two parties is subjective, since both parties agree to measure in accordance with the measurement principle in the quota, it means that the two parties have formed an agreement and are willing to be bound by the measurement method, unless there is a major misunderstanding, coercion and obvious unfairness, etc., you can claim to revoke the contract, but obviously there is no defect in the above expression of intent, and the expression of intent of both parties is true. To sum up, there is no basis for the audit to reduce the quantity of the project on the basis that the quota does not match the actual situation.