问答题

简答题 本题为案例分析题,要求分析合理,结论正确;有计算要求的,应简要写出计算过程。
1. 某房屋建筑工程项目,建设单位与施工单位按照《建设工程施工合同(示范文本)》签订了施工承包合同。施工合同中规定:
(1)设备由建设单位采购,施工单位安装;
(2)建设单位原因导致的施工单位人员窝工,按18元/工日补偿,建设单位原因导致的施工单位设备闲置,按表7-3中所列标准补偿;
(3)施工过程中发生的设计变更,其价款按建标[2003]206号文件的规定以工料单价法计价程序计价(以直接费为计算基础),间接费费率为10%,利润率为5%,税率为3.41%。

该工程在施工过程中发生以下事件。
事件1:施工单位在土方工程填筑时,发现取土区的土壤含水量过大,必须经过晾晒后才能填筑,增加费用30 000元,工期延误10天。
事件2:基坑开挖深度为3m,施工组织设计中考虑的放坡系数为0.3(已经工程师批准)。施工单位为避免坑壁塌方,开挖时加大了放坡系数,使土方开挖量增加,导致费用超支10 000元,工期延误3天。
事件3:施工单位在主体钢结构吊装安装阶段发现钢筋混凝土结构上缺少相应的预埋件,经查实是由于土建施工图纸遗漏该预埋件的错误所致。返工处理后,增加费用20 000元,工期延误8天。
事件4:建设单位采购的设备没有按计划时间到场,施工受到影响,施工单位一台大型起重机、两台自卸汽车(载重5t、8t各一台)闲置5天,工人窝工86工日,工期延误5天。
事件5:某分项工程由于建设单位提出工程使用功能的调整,必须进行设计变更。设计变更后,经确认直接工程费增加18 000元,措施费增加2 000元。
上述事件发生后,施工单位及时向建设单位造价工程师提出索赔要求。
问题
分析以上各事件中监理工程师是否应该批准施工单位的索赔要求?为什么?

【参考答案】

监理工程师对施工索赔的审核批准如下。
事件1:不应该批准。 理由:这是施工单位应该预料到的(属施工单位的责任)......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)
热门 试题

未分类题
Flight attendants, who start as low as $ 12,000 per year, are paid meagerly. No question. But for all the rhetoric stirred by last month's strike against American Airlines, few have dared to breathe perhaps the key question—a 60-year-old question. Are flight attendants indispensable guardians of passengers' safety and well-being? Or, are they flying waitresses (85% are women) and waiters who are becoming less important to passengers willing to sacrifice frills for cheap fares? Fright attendants find the second suggestion repugnant. 'We're very highly trained in first aid and CPR,' says Wendy Palmer, an American Air fines flight attendant based in Nashville, 'Our goal is to evacuate an airplane in a minute or less. That's what we're there for. In the meantime, we do serve drinks and food. ' 'But maybe the time has come to let the free market determine if passengers value flight attendants enough to pay for them,' says Thomas Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Customers willing, there's no reason airlines can't hand out sandwiches and soft drinks as passengers board. Then they could be on their way with, perhaps, one safety expert on board. 'I'd suspect some people would be willing to pay dirt-cheap fares,' says Bill Winter, spokesman for the Libertarian Party, an opponent of government regulation, 'Other (airlines) would go in the opposite direction and there would be three attendants for each flier. ' Already millions of passengers have shown an eagerness to sacrifice service for lower fares. Southwest Airlines, which doesn't offer meals or assigned seating, has been the fastest-growing and most profitable airline in the industry. Southwest never staffs a jet with more attendants than the Federal Aviation Administration requires. The FAA requires at least one flight attendant for every 50 seats. A 122-seat Boeing 737 must have three flight attendants even if it's flying only a few passengers. Union contracts often require more. Among its demands, American Airlines wants the option of staffing its jets at the FAA minimum. No other form. of transportation falls under such rigid government control. Passengers aboard Amtrak and Greyhound aren't even required to wear seat belts. But climb aboard a Boeing 757, and you not only have to be strapped in, but four specialists are there to supervise a rare evacuation. The National Safety Council estimates that 1 in 2.2 million people are killed in airline crashes each year. There are about 90,000 airline flight attendants employed by U. S. carriers. They cost the airlines $ 2.7 billion a year, assuming they average $ 30,000 per year in salary and benefits. If they save 100 lives per year, each life costs $ 27 million. Dee Maki, National president of the Association of Flight Attendants, says 100 saved lives is a gross underestimate. No one tracks the actual number, but Maki says more than 100 heart-attack victims are saved each year by attendants. Maybe one on-board attendant is all that's needed for safety, says Moore, an opponent of government regulation. 'I don't know. But the FAA undoubtedly makes the wrong decision. Government always makes the wrong decision because they don't have the right information. John Adams, former vice president of human resources for Continental Airlines, doubts that deaths would increase much if the number of flight attendants were cut in half. 'Flying is very safe. It's much safer than riding a bus or a train,' he says. No one doubts that flight attendants have a tough job. They make about 20% what pilots make and often less than baggage handlers. Stuck in a metal tube for hours with cramped passengers battling nicotine fits, they are constantly being driven to go the extra mile for customer service. They have to worry about policies concerning theft wei