For a bidding project, the construction process hired a follow-up audit, the process is now changed, the construction unit reports the change budget, and the follow-up audit approves a**. The front of the change approval form is the approval of the construction unit and the overview, the back is the approval ** and the signature of Party A's personnel, and it is written that according to this **, the final audit data shall prevail, and there is no signature of the construction unit on the back. After the review, both parties A and B checked and there were some disputes, but the amount was also paid in this way.
When reporting for settlement, the construction unit does not report the amount approved by the process, and the financial evaluation is reviewed on the basis of the construction unit's submission, and the approved changes are greater than the amount of tracking audit. The current Audit Bureau is the second instance.
Is it reasonable for the Audit Bureau to review the amount of follow-up audits?How can it be refuted?
Keywords: auditing
In order to make it easier to understand, the content of the case is briefly sorted out: suppose that the construction unit submitted the change approval form reported by the construction unit is 100 yuan, and the tracking audit on the back of the change approval form is 80 yuan, but the back is only approved ** and Party A's personnel signed, and there is no construction unit signature. Now the construction unit in the package settlement according to the amount of change reported 100 yuan, the first instance of the approval of 90 yuan, but now the audit bureau in the second instance wants to track the audit on the basis of 80 yuan of the audit, at this time should be implemented which **?Is it a follow-up audit of 80 yuan?Or is it the first instance **90 yuan?Or will it be reduced below 80 yuan?
As to how to solve this problem, we can refer to the rules of the Construction Contract (Model Text), Article 104.Article 2 is the rule on the procedure for changing the valuation: "The contractor shall submit an application for the change of valuation to the supervisor within 14 days after receiving the change instruction. The supervisor shall complete the review and submit it to the employer within 7 days after receiving the application for change of valuation submitted by the contractor, and if the supervisor has any objection to the application for change of valuation, he shall notify the contractor to revise and resubmit it. The employer shall complete the examination and approval within 14 days after the contractor submits the application for change of valuation. If the employer fails to complete the examination and approval within the time limit or does not raise an objection, it shall be deemed to have approved the application for change of valuation submitted by the contractor. Therefore, when the employer does not approve or sign, it can be pretended to be an approval. In this case, the contractor continued the construction without signing and approving the approved **, and we can only rely on Article 488 of the Civil Code: "The content of the commitment shall be consistent with the content of the offer." If the offeree makes substantial changes to the content of the offer, it is a new offer. Changes in the subject matter, quantity, quality, price or remuneration, performance period, place and method of performance, liability for breach of contract and dispute resolution method are substantive changes to the content of the offer. "If the 100 yuan quoted on the front of the change approval form is regarded as an offer, the employer should also make an undertaking to agree to the offer according to the 100 yuan. Now, the approval of RMB 80 on the back of the change approval form should be regarded as a new offer if the employer has made substantial changes to the content of the contractor's offer, and the new offer does not have a corresponding commitment in response, and no agreement has been formed between the parties.
However, depending on what has been provided in this case, there may be some other rules involved. There will also be views on the contractor's continued construction in this case, which constitutes an implied commitment. Article 140 of the Civil Code: "The actor may express or implicitly express his intentions. Silence can only be regarded as an expression of intent if there is a legal provision, an agreement between the parties, or a conformity with the trade customs between the parties. Those who hold this view will think that since the contractor does not agree with the approval of **, it can not continue the construction, but its act of continuing the construction may be understood as consent to the approval. Of course, the author is only providing another way of thinking for the reader's reference.