丰田cd机接线图:PMER BLOG? 一个工程索赔案例（包含多份英文信函）

一个工程索赔案例（包含多份英文信函）

工作范围界定不清是工程合同中经常发生的纠纷之一。这样的纠纷通常会发生在以下一些情况：

1. 总承包商将工作内容分包给不同的分包商，发生在分包商之间的工作范围界定问题。

2. 业主的工作内容由多个工作承包商承包，

一种情况是多个平行的承包商，另外一种常见的情况是，在一个项目中有一个总承包商，但是有部分内容由业主直接承包给专业的分包商。

工作面界定不清的原因有以下一些常见的可能：

1. 某些工作内容在各个承（分）包商的合同中都没有提及，所以各个承包商都认为不应该属于他们的范围，但是从业主或者总承包商的角度，他在最初发包工程的初衷，一定认为是在各个承（分）包商的工作内容是能够涵盖所有的工作内容的。

2. 在合同中有相关内容的说明，但是不能清晰的界定工作范围，存在歧义。

3. 合同中的各个条款存在矛盾，合同各方都朝有利于自己的方向解释。

一般来说，工作范围的界定不清比较容易发生在临时工程或者是支持性的工作中，而对于永久工程相对发生的可能性要少一些。因为非永久工程一般不会反映在工程图纸中，甚至是在清单中也很难反映，更多的是靠语言的描述，而语言描述是最终以产生歧义的。而且临时性的工程往往在发包工程时很难预计到，所以很容易在合同中忽略。就作者的经验，在工作范围的确定的纠纷问题上，专业承包商比业主和承包商更容易占优势，因为他们一般在合同签订之初更容易预料到包括的工作内容。

在中东×××项目中，总承包商和业主之间由于在指定分包的脚手架搭设的问题上发生了合同纠纷，最后不得不诉诸仲裁解决，本文将简要的介绍这一事件的发展过程。

1. 合同基本情况介绍

在此项目中，总承包商和业主之间的合同中，电梯内容为指定分包实施，该项内容的在总合同中为暂定金额。具体条款如下：

Supply and installation of lifts and finishes                             USD ×××××

(Provision Sums of USD ×××××)

Main Contractor’s builders work,                                       USD ××××

general attendance, overhead and profit @5%

本合同使用的版本是87版的Fidic施工合同，不过业主在原合同的基础上增加了30多个条款形成了最终的合同条款。

合同中涉及到指定分包的内容包括合同条款第91.1款：

Clause 91.1 Responsibilities for Nominated Sub-contractors

Further to the provisions of Clause 58.1 and 59.1 above within this Contract, the work of any Nominated Sub-contractor/Specialist is deemed to be inclusive of the design, fabrication, supply and installation of all the work required by the Contract Documents, and as detailed in the Letter(s) of Nomination to the Nominated Sub-contractor, with the exception of the following which shall be the responsibility of the Main Contractor to provide under this Contract;-

(a) Providing trenching, scaffolding, carnage, assistance in unloading and site distribution, water, lighting and power on site. Task lighting shall be provided by the Nominated Subcontractors.

和工程量清单中关于制定分包工作内容的说明:

Preambles to the Bill of Quantities:-

Attendances to be provided by the Main Contractor: The Main Contractor shall be responsible for providing, including but not limited to the following attendances: (i)….; (v) Use of Standing Scaffolding…

Attendance to be provided by the Sub-contractor: The Sub-contractor shall be responsible for providing, including but not limited to the following attendance:- (i) all special scaffolding required by him in the execution of his works…

这两个条款之间存在一个矛盾的地方，在合同条件中，比较泛泛的规定“scaffolding”“shall be the responsibility of the Main Contractor to provide under this Contract”。但是在工程量清单的说明中，却区分了“Standing Scaffolding”和“special scaffolding”，并且指出前者属于承包商的工程范围而后者属于指定分包商的工作范围。

在国际工程纷繁复杂的合同中，这样的合同条款的矛盾可以说只是很小的一个问题了。在比较紧张的投标时间中，能够发现这样的问题的承包商也是很少的。当然，本例中的承包商也没有发现这个问题，否则就没有这个案例的出现了。

不过，虽然承包商在投标过程中没有发现这个问题在国际工程中不算是什么大的问题，但是我们这里还是应该再次注意在投标之前一定要认真阅读合同条件，避免合同文件为以后的项目操作埋下地雷，这样的地雷虽然有时并非业主有意而为，可是在后来却会产生无法意料的结果。比如中东某公司的某项目，一般合同会规定如果业主超出一定时间不支付工程款，承包商有权“suspend”工程的，甚至于如果时间再长，就可以终止合同，并要求业主赔偿相应损失，可是该项目的业主将此条条款改了，如果业主不支付合同价款，承包商不能暂停工程而是可以向当地法院上诉。而在合同执行过程中，业主真的发生了不能支付工程款的情况，这种情况下，承包商变得非常的被动。

在合同中，业主相对于承包商更加容易避免合同中出现的冲突和歧义问题，因为合同条款是由业主方编写的。特别是他对原合同条款进行了修改增加时，他更应该注意会引发的相应问题。在合同操作中，业主有时会通过合同语句等的处理来避免自身可能带来的风险，这虽然是无可厚非的，但是最重要的，合同各方都应该避免出现合同中的矛盾和歧义。因为一旦这样的情况发生，就不可避免的有纠纷的发生，即使是业主通过苛刻的条款意图来保护自己，最终也会是合同双方的两败俱伤的结果。

另外，就是关于标准合同的修改问题。现在对于复杂的国际工程项目一般都采用一些国际上流行的合同条件，但是大部分的业主都喜欢在原合同条件上做一些修改，以利于业主方。不过一些专业的机构一向特别提醒对于这样的改动要特别谨慎，比如Fidic就要求对于通用条款的修改一般建议在专用条件中进行说明性的修改，而不是直接在通用条款上改，因为这样会提醒其它人注意修改了那些内容，而且Fidic协会一再提醒对于合同条件的修改要特别注意，避免其带来的不可意料的结果，如上文提到的关于中东某项目业主关于暂停条款的修改就带来了很严重的后果。在本合同中，业主就对合同条件作了很多的修改，而且我们应该注意到，一般来说，关于工作内容的界定，我们是放到规范，量单和图纸中的，而在本合同中，第91.1款实际上是界定了工作内容，这样的修改很容易被承包商所忽略。作为承包商，对于业主修改过的条款，是需要加倍小心其内容的。

合同中不同文件之间和同一文件不同条款的冲突是经常发生的问题，在Fidic的标准合同中，是通过引入合同文件的优先条件来解决这一问题的，对于本项目的合同，合同条件是优先于工程量清单的。我们在此案例和业主之间的纠纷中，毫无疑问业主会提出这个问题。

在比较单纯的看待合同之后，我们有必要比较深入的来分析一下，就是业主当初编写合同时关于这项工作内容的初衷。虽然在合同条件中，是写了“scaffolding”工作内容是在总承包商工作范围中的，但是我们可以看出，这里的规定是非常的泛泛的，这里关于“scaffolding”也是没有什么明确的说法的，业主在这里本意恐怕也不是为了界定工作范围，而是为了说明一个大的原则，在这条条款中除了“scaffolding”之外，还提到了一些其他的工作，如“trenching” “assistance in unloading and site distribution” “water”“ lighting”“ power”等，这些工作无一例外都是辅助性的工作，而且一般在现场中，这种工作是不可能由分包商提供的，而只能由总承包商提供。这里我们就有必要深入讨论一下“scaffolding”的概念了，在工程中这是一个非常不清晰的概念，我们最惯常的用法是指那些维护和通用的工作平台等一类辅助性的脚手架，但是如模板的支撑之类的也常常会叫做“scaffolding”的，但是我们当单独说的时候，无疑常常以前者为主。综合前面的分析，业主在合同条件里面的这个说法，显然是惯用的用语，他这里提到了脚手架，更主要是一种常规的说法，而不是明确的界定工作范围。一般来说，合同文件都会在规范，图纸和工程量清单中界定工作范围，本合同中是将脚手架分成了两种，其中“special scaffolding”是由指定分包提供的。综合这些情况，我们其实可以判断，其实业主在编制合同的初衷是将此项内容界定到了指定分包的工作范围中的。

2. 指定分包合同的签订

在合同的开展过程中，业主为电梯指定了分包商，分包商相应做了报价，其报价文件如下：

Lift NSC to E        Offer for Proposed Lift Works                     19^th Dec. 2005

We refer to our tender submission and the recent discussions, and upon careful review of our prices with a view of extending a further reduction, we hereby would like to submit our very special price for supply and installation of five nos. lifts as per our specifications  @ USD 1,100,000.00.

All other terms and conditions of our offer including specifications and works to be carried out by others shall remain unchanged.

We trust that our revised price is to your satisfaction and look forward to the pleasure of receiving you valued order.

Works to be carried out by other agency: … (iii) Scaffolding to erector’s requirement in the lift shaft…

在这里我们要注意的一点就是其报价文件中指明了不含脚手架的费用。这也是后来导致业主和承包商纠纷的直接原因。如果这里我们假设电梯分包没有提出脚手架不在其工作范围，但是报价假设也相应做了增加，在这种情况下，我们可以推想，业主也是很有可能会接受的，而不会提出脚手架应该承包商来搭设的。很多事情的发生都是一系列的事件促成的。

在随后业主和监理对分包商的报价进行了确认，承包商和分包商签订了合同。一些相关的文件分别如下：

业主的指定函

2006年1月22日，业主致函电梯指定分包，同意其报价，并抄送顾问

E to Lift NSC & Copy to CA     Lift Works – Nomination Letter           22^nd Jan. 2006

Lift Works – Nomination Letter: We refer to our letter dated 19^th December 2005 issued to the Consultant regarding the acceptance of your revised offer, we are pleased to inform you that we award the lift works to you for the agreed sum of USD 1,000,000.00.

It is understood that this nomination letter will lead to the signature of a formal subcontract agreement between you and the Main Contractor. The compliance with the Main Contractor’s programme is essential. Accordingly, you are kindly requested to proceed further to complete all the official formalities of Contract Documents.

监理的指定函

2006年2月18日，顾问致函承包商，指令承包商根据业主的批复与指定电梯分包签订合同

CA to MC        Award of Nominated Subcontract – Lift Works            18^th Feb. 2006

Following issue of letter of Acceptance (LOA) by the Employer and pursuant to Clause 58.1 & 59.1 of the Conditions of Contract, you are instructed to enter into a Nominated Subcontract Agreement with the Lift NSC for vertical transportation system for the supply and installation of five lifts to the above mentioned project.

The accepted Nominated Subcontract sum shall be USD 1,100,000.00 and Main Works Contract sum shall be adjusted in accordance with Clause 58.1 of the Conditions of Contract.

Accordingly we are enclosing herewith 3 originals of Variation Order (VO) for adjustment of Provisional sum indicated in the Main Works Bill of Quantities and Schedule of Rates, you are requested to sign and stamp all three original of VO and return at your earliest to enable us subsequently obtain endorsements from all other concerned parties…

承包商对以上文件的审核及回复

C to CA      Nominated Subcontract – Lift Works                     25^th Feb. 2006

We refer to your Letter of Award dated 18^th February 2006 relating to the nominated subcontract for lift works, and would like to inform you that we are preparing the Subcontract Agreement in this regard.

Our Project Manager and Contracts Manager had a meeting with you on 20^th February 2006 to clarify the exclusion in the Lift NSC’s offer, we seek your confirmation on the followings to enable us to formalize the Subcontract Agreement at the earliest:-

(i) Please confirm both the Client and you have no objection to the Lift NSC’s payment terms being …

(ii) Please confirm that provision of scaffolding for lift installation is not in Lift NSC’s scope of works. Although we will allow the Lift NSC to use our standing scaffolding as stated in the Preamble, however, the special scaffolding is requested to be provided by themselves or otherwise to be a variation to our scope of works in the event that you instruct us to provide.

监理的对承包商的上述信函的回复

CA to C            Nominated Subcontract – Lift works               28^th Feb. 2006

With respect to the above and further to your letter dated 25^th February 2006, kindly note the followings:-

(i) No object on the payment terms mentioned in your letter;

(ii) Scaffolding to be provided by the Main Contractor whether standing or special as referred to the Conditions of Contract Clause 91.1 Responsibilities of Nominated Subcontractors

指定电梯分包合同于2006年3月5日由承包商和电梯指定分包签订，主要包含的文件如下

Nominated Subcontract Agreement                          5^th March 2006

Clause 3 Contract Documents: The documents forming this Subcontract Agreement are to be taken as mutually explanatory of one to another … the documents forming the integral part of this Subcontract Agreement are as follows:-

(i) The Main Contract Documents

(ii) This Subcontract Agreement

(iii) The Client’s Letter of Acceptance dated 22^nd January 2006

(iv) The CA’s Letter of Award dated 18^th February 2006

(v) Lift NSC’s Revised offer dated 19^th December 2005

我们注意到，在签订过程中，承包商已经注意到了其中关于脚手架的问题，并且提出了脚手架费用的承担问题，但是监理认为所有脚手架的费用都应该由承包商来承担。可惜的是，承包商关于此问题没有坚持弄清楚之前就和指定分包签订了合同，这也是导致后来的争议的原因。承包商从自身利益的角度考虑，应该坚持在澄清此问题之前不能签订分包合同，这样就会使其在之后的争议中处于比较有利的地位，当然，即使承包商签订了此合同，作者也并认为承包商就是默认了其应该承担所有脚手架的费用。

不过，假设当时承包商坚持一定要澄清此项费用才和电梯分包签订合同，那么可以想见，在合同签订之前承包商就会和业主之间产生争议，而由此会导致分包合同很长时间不能签订。对于电梯来说，其加工准备时间是很长的，这样很有可能会导致对整体项目工期的影响。在后面的介绍中可以看出，在此问题产生争议时，监理由于意识到可能会对工期造成影响，首先指示承包商搭设脚手架，然后再处理争议问题。但是如果此种情况是发生在合同签订时，那时候离电梯现场安装还有较长时间，那么监理可能就很难意识到这个问题，从而对加工时间造成比较大的延误，并间接对现场安装造成极大的延误是很有可能的。

如果是从整体利益的考虑，避免对于项目整体的延误，那么承包商也可以选择在没有澄清问题的情况下，和分包签订合同。不过应该继续和监理要求此问题，而不能停止此问题的申诉，特别是对于监理关于认为承包商应该承担脚手架费用的信函必须要回复。

3. 争议的开始

2006年5月，电梯指定分包要求承包商提供脚手架，以便他们尽快开始放线等安装准备工作。承包商引用工程量清单前的导言而拒绝了电梯指定分包的请求。

C to Lift NSC        Scaffolding for Lifts Installation                      6^th May 2006

Further to our discussion held on 5^th May 2006 concerning the above subject, we would like to inform and confirm to you that the special required scaffolding for lifts installation is in your scope of works. Please kindly refer to the Main Contract Document Volume II – Preamble, copy attached for your easy reference, and we trust which is self-explanatory.

这里我们应该指出，承包商认为脚手架应该承担由电梯分包来搭设是占不住脚的，虽然在工程量清单中有这样的说明，但是电梯分包的报价中已经明确提出了脚手架不在其报价范围中。所以在这里其实承包商提出应该由分包商提供脚手架是没有什么意义的，只不过是希望能籍此解决这个问题而已，实际上只能是徒劳的。我们常提到，合同双方都能够公平的按照合同来实施，而不是试图利用一些可能的漏洞来将一些责任转嫁给其他人。但是实际上做到这一点是非常难得，在经济利益面前，很少有人能做到真正的公平合理的办事。

随后，电梯指定分包引用其投标书中的不含项条件，坚持脚手架不含在其合同范围内

Lift NSC to C         Scaffolding Sketch for All Elevators                  14^th May 2006

We refer to the meeting between you and the undersigned, please find the attached documents (works to be carried out by other agency) which confirmed the list of works excluded from our scope.

As discussed in the meeting, please arrange to provide the scaffolding, planks and barricades in all elevator entrances as per the sketches. You are requested to inform you about the installation schedule in advance to enable us to arrange for inspection to avoid any major alteration in further.

承包商在收到电梯指定分包的上述信函后，将该信函抄送给监理及业主，并进一步澄清了自己的观点

C to CA&E          Scaffolding Provision for Lift Works                28^th May 2006

We write following the discussions with the Lift NSC regarding the scaffolding provision for lift installation works, and would like to record the following:-

We would refer to the attached Lift NSC’s letter dated 14^th May 2006 in response to our letter dated 6^th May 2006.

We would also refer to your letter dated 28^th Feb. 2006 referring to Clause 91.1 of the Conditions of Contract, wherein it’s stated that “Scaffolding to be provided by the Main Contractor whether standing or special as referred to the Conditions of Contract Clause 91.1 Responsibilities of Nominated Subcontractors”.

We would however record the Clause 91.1 is further clarified under the preamble to the Bills of Quantities, as follows:-

“The Main Contractor shall be responsible for providing … use of standing scaffolding..” and

“The Nominated Subcontractor shall be responsible for providing …all special scaffolding required by him in the execution of his work”.

The Contract is therefore clear in it’s intention that the Main Contractor has a general attendance requirement in respect of standing scaffolding, whilst the Nominated Subcontractor is responsible for the provision of all task-related scaffolding.

In the event that the Nomination of lift works on terms excluding the responsibility for provision of special scaffolding required by them thus constitutes a variation to the Main Contract Works, should such scaffolding be required to be provided by us.

这里，作者所不明白的是承包商将电梯分包的信函抄送给业主的用意何在，如果是为了告诉业主电梯分包现在需要电梯了，那倒是没有什么问题。但是如果是为了证明脚手架费用不应该由承包商承担，那是没有什么用处的。不过信的内容倒是没有什么问题，不过分包商不承担脚手架倒是并非一定就形成变更，业主也可以让其它的人来实施。

随后，在监理没有给出任何回复的情况下，承包商又发了一封信

C to CA&E          Scaffolding Provision for Lift Works                8^th June 2006

Further to our letter dated 28^th May 2006 with respect to the above subject, please note that the Lift NSC will commence on site from July 2006.

Should you require us to provide the special scaffolding as per the Lift NSC’s requirements (as per their sketch), we will need your clear instruction in writing and we will follow up with the quotation for your consideration.

Otherwise, we will consider that the scaffolding will be provided and undertaken by others.

We look forward to your instruction within next week regarding this matter to avoid any delay to the lift works.

监理对承包商上述两封信函的回复

CA to C                       Scaffolding for Lift Works            12^th June 2006

We refer to your letter dated 8^th June 2006 and would like to reiterate our statement in our letter dated 28^th February 2006 that both standing and special scaffolding should be provided by the Main Contractor in accordance with Clause 91.1 of the Conditions of Contract.

Moreover, the Lift NSC’s quotation dated 19^th December 2005 was accepted and stampted by you including the pages of Works to be Carried Out by Other Agency – (iii) Scaffolding to erector’s requirement in the lift shaft, hence you are deemed as the “other agency” as you have accepted this condition.

Therefore based on the above references we must reject your claimed variation and instruct you to provide the scaffolding as per the Lift NSC’s requirements.

承包商对于监理的来函的回复如下

C to CA                       Scaffolding for Lift Works            15^th June 2006

We refer to your letter dated 12^th June 2006 with respect to the above subject and regret to inform you that we cannot agree with your assessment based on the following reasons:-

Your interpretation of Clause 91.1 Responsibilities of Nominated Subcontractors is not in conformance with all the Contract documents. We maintain our stand that the Preambles to the Bill of Quantities has further defined and clarified Clause 91.21 by identifying standing scaffolding and special scaffolding.

We refer to the second paragraph of your letter and regret that we cannot concur with your assumption to the “other agency” being the Main Contractor. It’s for the Client to nominate the so called “other agency” to provide special scaffolding to the lift NSC’s requirements, since the Client has allowed the Lift NSC to exclude this part of works from his scope of works, we do not believe it is contractually correct to assume that the Main Contractor shall take over contractual obligations of other parties due to the Client’s acts of omission.

Please also be informed that we have exercised our due diligence by bringing to your attention that the provision of scaffolding under the Lift NSC’s scope of works has been exclude in your Letter of Nomination, prior to the finalization of the Nominated Subcontract Agreement, in the same letter, we have notified you that it will be a variation if you require us to provide the special scaffolding to the Lift NSC.

We believe the above satisfactorily explains our position, and look forward to your further instructions.

从这些信函的来往中可以看出，监理认为脚手架费用应该在承包商的范围之中主要由于两点，一是根据合同第91.1款，承包商应该承担指定分包的脚手架。第二点是说电梯分包的报价中已经提出了脚手架不在其工作范围之中，承包商和其签订了合同，所以监理认为承包商就应该是分包商报价中所指的“other agency”。在这里，监理引出合同是有所依据的，但是我们注意到，他有意的忽略了工程量清单中的说法。但是他所说的第二个理由，就显然是占不住脚的，有点强词夺理的味道了。

在承包商的回信中，当然提到了关于工程量清单中的说明，认为这应该是关于工程范围的深入解释，作者在这里认为，这是比较合理的一种说法，因为在合同中虽然合同条件有所说明，但是这个显然是比较空泛的说明，更具有一种泛指的意味。而工程量清单中的界定要详细的多，所以把后者作为工程范围的界定是比较合理的，这里的唯一风险就是Fidic中优先条件的问题。

关于分包商报价中所指的“other agency”的问题，显然监理的假设是占不住脚的，这里承包商也指出了这一假设的不合理，并且指出当时承包商已经提出了这一问题。不过这里的风险就是监理对于这一问题当时也回复了，但是承包商没有做出进一步的回复。

之后，监理意识到了这样的争执可能会导致工程的延误，所以给承包商下了指令，要求其实施脚手架的工程，对于费用问题留待以后解决。信函如下：

CA to C                      Scaffolding for Lift Works                 20^th June 2006

With reference to your letter dated 15^th June 2006 responding our letter dated 12^th June 2006, we hereby instruct you to proceed with the scaffolding works for lift works to avoid further delay.

You are informed that the issue will be reviewed and resolved in due course in accordance with the Contract provisions.

承包商在收到监理的指令后也采取了相应的行动，并且给监理发了信函：

C to CA                     Scaffolding for Lift Works                 22^nd June 2006

We confirm having received your instruction on 20^th June 2006 regarding providing scaffolding for lift works, and hereby inform you that we are proceeding with the works accordingly.

We will submit to you the cost and time impacts in due course.

这里我们需要说明的是，这里监理意识到了继续的争执会给工程造成延误的风险，而给承包商发了指令，而承包商马上采取了相应的行动。这种做法是比较正确的，在工程中经常出现的问题就是，合同中出现了争执，双方都不肯让步，而监理又坚持不发指令，害怕费用以后由它承担，而承包商也不采取进一步的行动，结果由此常引发更严重的问题的产生。

承包商最终寻到了三份不同脚手架公司的报价，并在通知顾问和业主之后，雇用了最低价的分包完成了电梯安装所需的脚手架，并支付了分包10万美元。之后将这些证据都交给了顾问及业主。

不过，在2006年10月，监理再次拒绝承包商对电梯安装脚手架的索赔

CA to C                    Scaffolding for Lift Works                5^th October 2006

We refer to your letter dated 15^th June 2006 in connection with the above subject and respond as follows in the same order:-

The Preamble to the Bill of Quantities (which you referred to in your letter) stated that “the Main Contractor shall be responsible for providing including but not limited to the following attendances (v) use of standing scaffolding”. This clarification further confirms your responsibility under Clause 91.1 of the Condition of Contract.

The Preambles to the Bill of Quantities are intended to be clarifying notes in case there is no full description of the subject BOQ item. However, the Preamble becomes irrelevant if full description of the item scope is given in the BOQ as in the case of scaffolding.

We reject you suggestion that the “other agency” should be nominated by the Client and does not mean you as the main Contactor. We point out that scaffolding is an item within the scope of the (Preliminary of Main Contract BOQ) which states that “the Contractor shall allow for providing and maintaining scaffolding for the use of his own and subcontractors operatives.” This BOQ item in Preliminary for scaffolding has been priced by you.

It’s true that you wrote to us prior to entering into Subcontract Agreement in which you requested for confirmation regarding the scaffolding provisions, however, via our letter dated 28^th Feb. 2006 we have responded to your letter rejecting the variation suggestion by confirming to you that “scaffolding to be provided by Main Contractor whether standing or special as referred to clause 91.1…”

Without responding to our above letter, you preceeded and exchanged contract with the Lift NSC on 5^th March 2006, hence accepting you responsibility for the whole scaffolding provision under the Contract, although numerous subsequent correspondence followed on this subject however which added very little.

Moreover, we would like to refer to the order of priority of Contract documents, the Conditions of Contract shall precede the Bill of Quantities, we therefore again reject your cost claim accordingly.

这里监理提到了几个方面的问题，一个是他认为工程量清单中说明进一步加强了合同条件91.1的说法，但是这样的说法倒是占不住脚的，因为他只提工程量清单中对其有利的一点，而对于另外一点却不提，所以工程量清单的导言对于合同条件91.1显然只能说有矛盾，但是说不上是加强了承包商应该承担脚手架费用的说法。

第二点他提出了工程量清单中关于脚手架的说法中提到了承包商应该搭设自己用的和其它人用的脚手架。这里作者倒是认为，这里的说明仍然是比较泛指的，而导言中所说的“stand”和“special”脚手架的划分倒是更细。当然这一点是监理可以一提的说法，不过这一处的说法比较类似合同条件但是还没有合同条件更有用。

他也说到了监理在签订合同之前的信函中，关于脚手架的工作范围问题的最后一封信函，承包商一直没有回复，这是承包商不可忽视的一个风险。

最后他提到了关于合同优先条件的问题。

最后这个问题是诉诸仲裁进行了解决，以下是承包商发给监理准备仲裁的信函：

C to CA                     Scaffolding for Lift Works               10^th October 2006

With reference to your letter dated 5^th October 2006 in connection with the above subject, we reiterate our stands regarding Clause 91.1 and Preamble issues.

As for the priority of Contract Documents mentioned in the closing paragraph of your letter, we would like to respond as follows:-

The interpretation of Clause 91.1 a) is as “… the responsibility of the Main contractor to provide … a) Provide trenching, scaffolding …”. The interpretation of Preambles to Bills of Quantity, pages 5, is “Attendances to be provided by the Main Contractor, (v) Use of Standing Scaffolding” and page 6, is “Attendances to be provided by the Subcontractor, (i) All special scaffolding …”.

In the event of any conflicting of the same interpretation between Conditions of Contract and Bills of Quantity, and in line with the order of priority of contract documents, the conditions of contract shall precede the Bills of Quantities.

In point of facts, the interpretations between Clause 91.1 a) and Preambles to the Bills of Quantity are different, therefore your statement relating to the order of priority of contract documents is irrelevant and is not the case.

We maintain our stand that the Preamble to Bills of Quantity has further defined and clarified the Clause 91.1 by stating that “the Main Contractor shall be responsible for providing … use of Standing Scaffolding” and “the Subcontractor shall be responsible for providing … All special scaffolding required by him in the execution of his works”.

We hereby reiterate our stands in our previous letters and we will ask for an Engineer’s Decision in this regard under Clause 67.1 of the Conditions of Contract in due course.

关于仲裁的问题我们将会在其他的章节中讨论。

4. 关于结果的分析

在这个案例中，从合同文件上来看，承包商和业主可以说各有站的住脚的地方。从业主方来说：

1. 合同条款中提到了这一工作内容应该由承包商承担。而从优先次序上来说，合同条件优于工程量清单。

2. 工程量清单的脚手架中的说明也是比较泛的说明应该由承包商搭设所有脚手架。

3. 承包商在没有坚持澄清这个问题的情况下和分包商签订了合同，最主要的在于，对于监理的信函，承包商没有进行回复。

从承包商的角度来说：

1. 在工程量清单中，非常清楚的说明了这项工作内容的界定。虽然有合同条件等，但是那里的说明非常的空泛。

2. 承包商在收到分包商的报价已经提出这部分工作内容的问题。

3. 虽然在合同条件上有争执，但是我们前面分析过，此合同内容的初衷，也就是业主和承包商签订合同时，对于这一争论内容的判定，比较合理的推断是应该属于指定分包范围的。这一点非常重要。

那么，这一案例在仲裁中谁有可能胜诉呢，咋一看来，似乎业主比较占优势，因为他似乎占了合同优先条件的理由。不过基于法律和合同的原则来分析，我们则要重新来看待这个问题，法律原则来判定问题的目的是其结果能够促使未来人们的行为向有利于增大社会效益的方向发展。对于合同来说就是要做到对于双方利益判定的公平合理。当合同产生歧义时，最重要的一点是，就是推定双方在签订合同之时的各自的本意，这对于双方的利益是最公平的判定，如果在过程中对于合同条件的解释发生争执，但是对最初的双方签订合同时的本意的推定能够界定清楚，那么这一结果往往会成为判断的结果。在本例中，我们在文章开头就分析过，双方在签订之处的各自对于范围界定的本意，最合理的解释是“special scaffolding”在指定分包的范围之中，所以从这一点来说，承包商胜诉的可能性是比较大的。关于合同签订之初的双方的本意的推定，作者这里再提及一个例子，当然这个例子本身比较复杂，这里作者只是简单提及一下。某中国公司在中东承接了项目，其材料有很大部分是从中国采购，但是后来由于汇率升值问题，导致了承包商的很大损失，所以承包商向业主提出了汇率的索赔。那么，这里就要讨论一下，到底能不能索赔汇率风险。比较简单的考虑可能说能，因为承包商受到了损失。但是稍微考虑的人恐怕就会说，不能索赔或者是很难。确实很难索赔基本上也成功不了。不过再深入考虑一下，却可以有更深入的答案。如果是在签订合同时，承包商有充分的证据证明其报价是基于很大部分的材料是从中国采购的，并且也通知了业主。那么即使在合同文件中的1，2，3，4，5，6，7中没有包含这部分文件，那承包商也是有可能索赔到这部分的，因为这时当初双方签订合同时是基于了这样的条件的。这里提到这个就是说，合同的分析不能简单的看其中的一些条款，而是要深入分析合同签订时的真实的涵义。

另外，关于法律的判定的问题，就是产生的结果的责任应该由能够避免此问题发生的付出成本最小的一方来承担。在此问题中，这一原则带来的作用较小。这里产生问题的主要原因是合同条款中存在的问题，相比较而言，业主方避免此问题的成本肯定相对更小，因为合同是他编写的，他更容易避免合同中出现的矛盾问题。但是承包商无疑也有检查合同的责任，作为合同的一方，他相对的责任比业主也相差无几。但是这一原则对于很多合同问题是有效的。