subsequently, yintuo company signed the project economic contracting responsibility contract with the plaintiff jiangshibiao, and determined that the plaintiff was the actual contractor of the project department, responsible for the specific work of the project and taking risks.
3 company and the contractor extension company, the core of the dispute is the basis of settlement.
3 company after winning the bid, and with the relevant provisions of the project economic responsibility contract signed by the extension company and Jiang Shibiao afterwards.
From november2014 to 2016, yintuo company repeatedly requested Borui No.
However, after investigation, the bidder extension company, Borui Commerce & Trade and Borui Hotel, which belong to the bidding unit, are controlled by Borui group.
2.
3 company sent the letter of acceptance to the extension company, and both parties signed the construction contract of construction project to agree on the relevant contract contents.
3 company in writing to pay the progress payment in time.
3.
On January 28, 2013, the third-party extension company signed a letter of intent for project construction contracting with Jiang Shibiao, agreeing on project overview, contracting method, quality, construction period, project payment, settlement method, etc.
In case of violation of the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the relevant bids shall be invalid.
3 company and extension company.
The plaintiff recognized that it had received the project payment of 107186172.73 yuan from the defendant.
5.
As for the settlement amount of project funds between the employer Borui No.
Article 32 of the bidding law of the people’s Republic of China stipulates that bidders shall not collude with each other in bidding quotation, nor exclude other bidders from fair competition, so as to damage the legitimate rights and interests of the tenderee or other bidders.
In this case, although the three defendants finally determined that the third-party extension company would win the bid in the form of invitation to bid, it formally complied with the relevant procedures of bidding.
Regarding the scope of “project price”, Article 21 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (II) stipulates: “The scope of the Contractor’s priority to be compensated for the construction project price shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the relevant competent administrative department under the State Council on the scope of the construction project price.
3.
On January 23, 2018, the project involved in the case was accepted as “qualified” by the construction, supervision, survey, design and construction units.
Summary of case 1.
Therefore, it can be determined that the bidder in this case has an interest with the tenderee and may affect the fairness of the bidding, and the relevant bids are invalid.
However, the construction contract and supplementary agreement of construction project signed by extension company and the employer Borui III company were the true intentions of both parties, and the construction contract of construction project was filed afterwards and actually performed according to the contract.
2.
Therefore, the settlement of the project funds of both parties shall be based on the construction contract of construction project and the supplementary agreement, rather than the bidding documents that determine that the bid is invalid..
On October 18, 2013, the project involved in the case started.
（2） The basis of project settlement between Borui No.
The reply of the Supreme People’s Court on the priority of compensation for construction project price also has similar provisions.
of late payment of the construction project price.” Although this article is a provision on the priority of compensation, the determination of the scope of project price can be applied by reference.
The actual construction contractor who subcontracts practical problems can require the employer to pay the project price if he breaks through the relativity of the contract.
As the tender of extension company was invalid, the project involved in the case did not have to be subject to bidding.
If the person in charge of the unit is the same person or different units with holding or management relationship, they shall not participate in the bidding of the same bid section or the bidding of the same bidding project without bid section division.
extension company) and the owner.
If the person in charge of the unit is the same person or different units with holding or management relationship, they shall not participate in the bidding of the same bid section or the bidding of the same bidding project without bid section division.
Does the scope of the payment include the loss of construction delay, liquidated damages and interest? Referee opinion 1 A legal person, other organization or individual that has an interest in the tenderer and may affect the impartiality of the tender may not participate in the tender.
if the contract is invalid but the construction project has passed the completion acceptance, and the contractor requests to pay the project price according to the contract, it shall be supported.
as the actual constructor, in accordance with Article 26 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects and Article 24 of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over construction contracts of construction projects (II), the scope of payment that can be required from the employer to break through the relativity of the contract is only the project price, and does not include the loss due to delay in construction period Liquidated damages and interest.
Both parties also agreed on other contents such as project price settlement.
On August 27, 2013, the employer Borui No.
In case of violation of the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs, the relevant bids shall be invalid.
4.
The people’s court shall not support the Contractor’s claim for priority to be compensated for the interest, liquidated damages, damages, etc.
The project shall be settled in the manner agreed in the construction contract signed between Party A (i.e.
At the same time, in combination with the fact that the extension company has signed the letter of intent for engineering construction contracting with Jiang Shibiao before the bidding, and the letter of intent has core contents such as the settlement method of project funds, It is basically consistent with the relevant provisions of the construction project construction contract and supplementary agreement signed by the extension company and the employer Borui No.
Article 34 of the regulations for the implementation of the bidding law of the people’s Republic of China stipulates that legal persons, other organizations or individuals who have an interest in a tenderer and may affect the fairness of bidding may not participate in bidding.
Reasons for judgment: the Zhejiang Provincial High Court held that: in view of the claims of both parties and the facts of the case, the court made the following specific analysis and judgment: (1) the effectiveness of the case involving bidding and tendering.
