PDB are recommended for the provision of electrical and/or mechanical plant, and for the design and execution of building or engineering works. Under the usual arrangements for this type of contract, the Contract designs and provides, in accordance with the Employer's requirements, plant and/or other works, which may include any combination of civil, mechanical, electrical and/or construction works.

EPCT are recommended for the provision on a turnkey basis of a process or power plant, and which also be used where one entity takes total responsibility for the design and execution of a privately financed infrastructure project which involves little or no work underground. Under the usual arrangements for this type of contract, the entities carries out all the Engineering, Procurement and Construction ("EPC") :providing a fully-equipped facility, ready for operation (at the turn of the" key").

因此，DBT、PDB和 EPCT都可以作為本項(xiàng)目EPC參考合同文本，那么區(qū)別在哪里?筆者自1995年開始使用橘皮書，2003年使用銀皮書，2012年開始使用黃皮書進(jìn)行實(shí)際工作。從實(shí)操中，筆者認(rèn)為，最大的區(qū)別就是雇主(即國(guó)內(nèi)的“發(fā)包人”)、承包商(即國(guó)內(nèi)的“承包人”)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分擔(dān)不同。例如，在EPC承包中常見的Setting Out(放線)，DBT、PDB和 EPCT 分別規(guī)定如下：

從上述對(duì)比可以看出，對(duì)于同一個(gè)Setting Out(放線)條款來說，黃皮書傾向承包商，銀皮書傾向雇主，而橘皮書相對(duì)來說，描述比較模糊，容易引起歧義。類似的條款內(nèi)容很多，關(guān)于三個(gè)版本的對(duì)比和應(yīng)用，筆者認(rèn)為完全可以作為一個(gè)專題，由于篇幅關(guān)系，不一一列舉?？傊?，潛在社會(huì)資本A希望用銀皮書，工程公司B希望用黃皮書作為討論的EPC承包合同文本。

在投標(biāo)階段，雙方?jīng)]有達(dá)成一致。但是同意，工程公司B站在EPC承包商角度對(duì)特許經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議(Concession Agreement)及附件條件(Annexure)提出書面偏差，與潛在社會(huì)資本A所提偏差共同匯總，作為投標(biāo)文件的內(nèi)容，向項(xiàng)目發(fā)起人(采購(gòu)人)遞交。

本項(xiàng)目的招標(biāo)文件要求社會(huì)資本編制特許經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議的偏差，但不參與評(píng)審及打分，以鼓勵(lì)社會(huì)資本提出更多的合理化建議和意見。這一點(diǎn)其實(shí)值得國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)習(xí)，國(guó)內(nèi)一些PPP項(xiàng)目招標(biāo)文件設(shè)置合同文件偏差評(píng)審項(xiàng)，并進(jìn)行打分，實(shí)際上社會(huì)資本在投標(biāo)文件中基本不會(huì)提出任何偏差，但到項(xiàng)目合同談判階段集中提出一堆偏差，造成合同談判持續(xù)時(shí)間長(zhǎng)，談判難度大。

筆者深刻體會(huì)到，境外PPP項(xiàng)目包括國(guó)際工程項(xiàng)目，一定要對(duì)境外的常見合同文本有所掌握，而其中FIDC發(fā)布的各種工程合同文本更應(yīng)熟知又熟。值得提醒的是，2017年12月，F(xiàn)IDIC在倫敦舉辦的國(guó)際用戶會(huì)議上，發(fā)布了1999版三本合同條件的第二版：施工合同條件 (新紅皮書，Conditions of Contract for Construction);工程設(shè)備與設(shè)計(jì)—建造合同條件 (新黃皮書，Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design Build );EPC交鑰匙合同條件 (新銀皮書，Conditions of Contract for EPC/Turnkey Projects )。感興趣的讀者可以深入關(guān)注這三個(gè)新版本的有關(guān)內(nèi)容。

2.責(zé)任限度和排除

經(jīng)過評(píng)審，非常幸運(yùn)，潛在社會(huì)資本A成為第一中標(biāo)候選人。因此潛在社會(huì)資本A和工程公司B談判簽署EPC承包合同是不可回避的工作。由于兩家公司同屬一個(gè)集團(tuán)公司，且都是全資子公司，存在共同的利益關(guān)系，因此集團(tuán)公司最終確定，以1999年FIDIC發(fā)布的《Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build》即黃皮書作為EPC承包合同簽約基礎(chǔ)。

簽約參考合同文本確定之后，工程公司B提出，按照黃皮書通用條款的規(guī)定，承包商對(duì)項(xiàng)目公司應(yīng)有一個(gè)責(zé)任限度的條款，即除非特殊情況，承包商對(duì)項(xiàng)目公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任應(yīng)有一個(gè)總體金額額度的限制，不能無限大。

這實(shí)際上就是黃皮書通用條款第17.6款的規(guī)定，其表達(dá)的實(shí)際上是兩個(gè)意思：(1)間接損失不賠;(2)責(zé)任有上限。具體內(nèi)容如下：

17.6 Limitation of Liability責(zé)任限度

Neither Party shall be liable to be other Party for loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other Party in connection with the Contract, other than under Sun-clause 16.4 [Payment on Termination] and Sub-Clause17.1[indemnities](除根據(jù)14.6款[終止時(shí)的付款]和第17.1款[保障]的規(guī)定外，任何一方不應(yīng)對(duì)另一方使用任何工程中的損失、利潤(rùn)損失、任何合同的損失，或?qū)α硪环娇赡茉馐艿呐c合同有關(guān)的任何間接或引發(fā)的損失或損害負(fù)責(zé))。

The total liability of the Contractor to the Employer, under or in connection with the Contractor other than under Sub-Clause4.19 [Electricity, Water and Gas], Sub-Clause4.20 [Employer’s Equipment and Free-Issue Material], Sub-Clause17.1 [Indemnities] And Sub-Clause 17.5 [Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights], should not exceed the sum stated in the Particular Conditions or (if a sum is not so stated) the Accepted Contract Amount(除根據(jù)第4.19款[電、水和燃?xì)鈃、第4.20款[雇主設(shè)備和免費(fèi)提供的材料]、第17.1款[保障]以及第17.5款[知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)]的規(guī)定外，承包商根據(jù)或與有關(guān)合同對(duì)雇主的全部責(zé)任不應(yīng)超過專用條件中規(guī)定的總額，或(如果沒有規(guī)定該總額)中標(biāo)合同金額)。

This Sub-Clause shall not limit liability in any case of fraud, deliberate default or reckless misconduct by the defaulting Party(本款不應(yīng)限制違約方的欺騙、有意違約、或輕率的不當(dāng)行為等任何情況的責(zé)任)。

但是Concession Agreement (特許經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議)及其附件并沒有類似約定，因此，社會(huì)資本A和工程公司B共同與項(xiàng)目發(fā)起人(采購(gòu)人)談判特許經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議之時(shí)，要求增加該部分內(nèi)容。經(jīng)過談判和協(xié)商，特許經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議中增加了一款內(nèi)容，即責(zé)任限度(LIABILITY LIMIT)，如下所示：

1) Concession Company Limitation of Liability

(a) The Concession Company’s aggregate liability to the Master Developer pursuant to or under this Agreement over the Construction Period shall not exceed USDXXX.

(b) The Concession Company’s aggregate liability to the Master Developer pursuant to or under this Agreement in any Operating Year shall not exceed XX% of the total Service Charges for that Operating Year.

編輯：王媛媛