2018-11-26
基本案情
2009年9月28日(ri)，J公司、C公司与设(she)计(ji)单(dan)位、监理单(dan)位对某工(gong)程结构和电气施工(gong)图纸进(jin)行了四方(fang)会审(shen)。在该项(xiang)目(mu)正式招标之(zhi)前，J公司已经完成了部(bu)分楼栋的定位测量、基(ji)础放线、基(ji)础垫层等施工内容。2009年12月(yue)1日，C公司经招投(tou)标程序(xu)确定(ding)J公司为中标(biao)人(ren),招标文件载明合(he)同价款(kuan)采用固定(ding)总价方(fang)式。2009年(nian)12月8日，双方签(qian)订《备案合同》，约定(ding)的计价(jia)方式为(wei)固(gu)定(ding)总价(jia)，并(bing)于2009年12月30日(ri)在市建(jian)设局(ju)进(jin)行了备案。2009年12月28日(ri)，双方当事人签订《补充协议》，约(yue)定以(yi)可调价(jia)计价(jia)方式结(jie)算工程款。2011年11月30日，该项目经竣工(gong)验(yan)收合(he)格。后双方因合(he)同(tong)效(xiao)力(li)及工(gong)程(cheng)结算等(deng)问题产(chan)生争议，诉至(zhi)法院。经工(gong)程(cheng)造价(jia)鉴定(ding)，按照(zhao)《备案合(he)同(tong)》即固定(ding)总(zong)价(jia)合(he)同(tong)，工(gong)程(cheng)总(zong)造价(jia)为11732万元；按照《补充协议》即可(ke)调价合(he)同，工程总造价为15047万(wan)元。
本(ben)案经河北(bei)省高(gao)级人(ren)民法(fa)(fa)院一审，最(zui)高(gao)人(ren)民法(fa)(fa)院终(zhong)审，认(ren)定《备(bei)案合(he)同(tong)》及(ji)《补充协议》均(jun)为无效合(he)同(tong)；结(jie)合(he)本(ben)案案情，无法(fa)(fa)判断实际履行了哪份(fen)合(he)同(tong)，最(zui)终(zhong)判令各方当事人(ren)按过错(cuo)程度(du)分(fen)担因合(he)同(tong)无效所造(zao)成的(de)损失(shi)（即两份(fen)合(he)同(tong)之(zhi)间的(de)差价）。
法律分(fen)析
《招标(biao)投标(biao)法》第(di)四(si)十三(san)条规(gui)(gui)定，“在确(que)定中标(biao)人前(qian)，招标(biao)人不得与投标(biao)人就投标(biao)价格、投标(biao)方案等(deng)实质(zhi)性内容进(jin)(jin)行谈判。”第(di)五十五条规(gui)(gui)定，“依法必须进(jin)(jin)行招标(biao)的项目，招标(biao)人违反本法规(gui)(gui)定，与投标(biao)人就投标(biao)价格、投标(biao)方案等(deng)实质(zhi)性内容进(jin)(jin)行谈判的，给(ji)予警告……前(qian)款所列行为影(ying)响中标(biao)结果的，中标(biao)无效。”本案中，在项目招标(biao)前(qian)，C公司、J公司便(bian)与设计(ji)单位(wei)、监理单位(wei)进行了四方(fang)会审，且(qie)J公司(si)在招(zhao)标(biao)前(qian)已开(kai)展(zhan)了(le)部分(fen)施工工作，即存在未招(zhao)先定等违反《招(zhao)标(biao)投标(biao)法(fa)》禁(jin)止性(xing)规定的行为(wei)，中标(biao)结(jie)果无效，因此基于该中标(biao)结(jie)果签订(ding)的《备案合同》亦(yi)无效。
依(yi)据(ju)《最高(gao)人民法院关(guan)于审理建设工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)施(shi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)同(tong)纠纷案件适用法律问题(ti)的解(jie)释(shi)》（简称《施(shi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)同(tong)司(si)法解(jie)释(shi)》）第二十一条的规(gui)定(ding)，“当(dang)事(shi)人就同(tong)一建设工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)另(ling)行订(ding)立的建设工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)施(shi)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)合(he)同(tong)与经过备案的中标合(he)同(tong)实质性内(nei)容不一致的，应当(dang)以备案的中标合(he)同(tong)作为结(jie)算(suan)工(gong)(gong)(gong)(gong)程(cheng)价款的根据(ju)”之规(gui)定(ding)， C公司与J公司所签订的《补充协(xie)议》系未(wei)通过(guo)招投标程(cheng)序签订，且对《备案合同》中约定的工程(cheng)价款(kuan)等实质(zhi)性内容进行了变更，亦(yi)属无(wu)效。
依据《施(shi)工(gong)(gong)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)司法解(jie)释》第二(er)条“建设工(gong)(gong)程施(shi)工(gong)(gong)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)无效，但(dan)建设工(gong)(gong)程经竣工(gong)(gong)验(yan)收合(he)格，承包人(ren)(ren)请求参照(zhao)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)约(yue)定(ding)支(zhi)付工(gong)(gong)程价款的(de)(de)，应(ying)予支(zhi)持”的(de)(de)规(gui)定(ding)，本案中，《备(bei)案合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)》与《补(bu)充协(xie)议》分别约(yue)定(ding)不同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)结(jie)算方(fang)式，应(ying)首(shou)先确(que)定(ding)当事人(ren)(ren)真实(shi)合(he)意并实(shi)际(ji)(ji)履(lv)行的(de)(de)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)。而从两(liang)份合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)的(de)(de)签订时(shi)间、合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)内容等(deng)方(fang)面均无法判断(duan)实(shi)际(ji)(ji)履(lv)行的(de)(de)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)。因(yin)(yin)此法院最终认定(ding)，在无法确(que)定(ding)双(shuang)方(fang)当事人(ren)(ren)真实(shi)合(he)意并实(shi)际(ji)(ji)履(lv)行的(de)(de)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)时(shi)，应(ying)当结(jie)合(he)缔(di)约(yue)过错(cuo)、已完(wan)工(gong)(gong)程质量、利益(yi)平(ping)衡等(deng)因(yin)(yin)素，根据《合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)法》第五十(shi)八(ba)条规(gui)定(ding)，由各方(fang)当事人(ren)(ren)按过错(cuo)程度分担因(yin)(yin)合(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)无效造(zao)成的(de)(de)损失。
律师提示
在(zai)建设工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)施(shi)工(gong)(gong)承(cheng)包实(shi)践(jian)中(zhong)，除了(le)“未(wei)招先(xian)定”这类老生常(chang)谈(tan)的问(wen)题以外，发包人与(yu)承(cheng)包人有时也会在(zai)备案合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)签订(ding)(ding)后，再私下签订(ding)(ding)一(yi)份工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)或补充协议，即“黑(hei)(hei)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)”。而根(gen)据(ju)《招标投标法》、《施(shi)工(gong)(gong)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)司法解释》，当(dang)事(shi)人就(jiu)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)一(yi)建设工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)另(ling)行(xing)订(ding)(ding)立(li)的建设工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)施(shi)工(gong)(gong)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)与(yu)经过(guo)备案的中(zhong)标合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)实(shi)质性内(nei)容不一(yi)致(zhi)的，应(ying)当(dang)以备案的中(zhong)标合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)作(zuo)为(wei)结(jie)算(suan)工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)价款(kuan)的根(gen)据(ju)。因此(ci)，“黑(hei)(hei)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)”在(zai)法律上不会被作(zuo)为(wei)工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)价款(kuan)结(jie)算(suan)的依据(ju)。即使备案合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)因违法被认定无效，“黑(hei)(hei)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)”也不具有优先(xian)适(shi)用效力。尤其对基(ji)于(yu)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)一(yi)项目而形成的多(duo)份无效合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)，当(dang)事(shi)人在(zai)诉讼过(guo)程(cheng)中(zhong)往往难以证明哪(na)份合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)系(xi)构成真实(shi)合(he)(he)(he)(he)意并实(shi)际(ji)履行(xing)的合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)，此(ci)时法院可能会基(ji)于(yu)各(ge)方当(dang)事(shi)人的过(guo)错程(cheng)度判令分担(dan)合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)损(sun)失。因此(ci)，在(zai)招投标的过(guo)程(cheng)中(zhong)，当(dang)事(shi)人应(ying)依照法律规定，加强(qiang)对无效合(he)(he)(he)(he)同(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)(tong)的预(yu)防，对建设工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)招投标活动中(zhong)的行(xing)为(wei)加以规范，为(wei)工(gong)(gong)程(cheng)结(jie)算(suan)清(qing)除障碍(ai)。
作者：郝 利 薛(xue)慕(mu)童(tong)
（作者单位：中伦律师事(shi)务所）
来源：《招(zhao)标采购(gou)管理》