笔者近期经手的PPP项目中，经常遇到采购文件、合同文件等出现内容缺漏、错误、前后矛盾的情况，不仅导致了社会资本中标结果被推翻的严重后果，同时还产生了投标保证金退还、相关损失由谁负责等争议，给交易各方、项目推进均带来诸多困扰。

其中一个项目经过竞争性采购程序确定了中标社会资本，项目实施机构也向社会资本发出了中标通知书。但是，在中标之后、合同签署前的洽谈过程中，双方对于合同中需明确且会对投资收益产生重大影响的某一财务指标产生分歧。究其缘由，在采购时，采购文件从未对该指标提出报价要求，任何文件也未给予该指标具体的计算公式，故双方只能基于自身的理解确定该财务指标。但因双方基于不同的理解，采用的计算基准依据不同，导致该指标产生重大差异。令人遗憾的是，双方多次协商未果，最终政府方通知社会资本取消其中标资格。

该财务指标问题属于采购文件的重大缺失。那么，对于采购文件的重大失误，依法应由社会资本承担被取消中标资格等不利后果和法律风险吗？答案是否定的。

笔者认为，对于采购文件的过失问题，双方应当友好协商予以解决，但有些政府方在双方未能就争议达成一致的情况下径行取消中标人资格的做法有失妥当，有悖于现行法律法规的要求，且会给地方及项目造成负面影响。

采购程序确定的合同法律关系应当依法受到保护。《政府采购法》第46条规定："中标、成交通知书对采购人和中标、成交供应商均具有法律效力。中标、成交通知书发出后，采购人改变中标、成交结果的，或者中标、成交供应商放弃中标、成交项目的，应当依法承担法律责任。"

在上述项目中，通过政府方的采购程序，政府方已确认投标文件符合采购文件要求的全部实质性条件，并向社会资本发放中标通知书。目前，虽然实践中对于中标通知书的效力及后果存有不同看法，但是司法判例中一般均倾向于认为双方已达成合同法律关系。笔者认为，前述项目中双方业已成立的法律关系应受保护，政府方不宜仅仅因为项目所涉的部分争议问题就主动改变项目中标结果，这涉嫌违反《政府采购法》等相关法律规定。

交易合意应受到充分尊重。依《合同法》基本原则，采购文件属于"要约邀请"，响应文件属于"要约"，中标通知书属于"承诺"。政府方已在"承诺"中同意"要约"，并以《中标通知书》的书面形式确定。至此，项目完成了采购公告、响应及报价、综合评审、采购结果确认谈判、最终采购结果确认、发出中标通知书的整个采购流程，双方已就合同的实质性内容达成了合意，从而合同法律关系形成，采购文件、响应文件、中标通知对双方均有法律约束力。

而且，依据《政府采购法》《政府和社会资本合作模式操作指南（试行）》等文件要求，采购文件、响应文件、中标通知书等均是合同文本拟定的基础。因此，若在部分争议未能解决的情况下，政府方直接取消社会资本的中标资格，不仅有违双方已达成的合意，也未能符合对依法签署PPP项目合同的要求，更有失诚实信用。

分歧问题的解决应当本着公平交易的原则。采购文件存有失误是既定事实，应由过错方负责。各方是否有责、责任多寡应经过合理判断，不宜简单粗暴地界定为完全归于某一方，或要求某一方独自承担而不管其是否存有过错，更不应由无过错一方承担由此引起的不利后果。

笔者认为，既然项目采购程序已完成、中标结果已确定，各方应当本着公平、合理的原则定纷止争，结合法律规定、交易惯例等进行友好协商，最终确不能达成一致的情况下，应协商确定切实可行的退出路径和对该中标人相关损失及预期利益的合理赔偿。

上述项目中，个别地方政府方无视中标社会资本的合法权益，对既有失误视而不见，以己方意见强加于对方，让无过错方承担全部的不利后果，最后甚至直接取消中标社会资本的成交资格。这种做法有悖PPP本身的"合作"精神及公平交易原则，也可能因违背相关法律法规的要求而承担相应的法律责任。同时，社会资本亦有权通过提出质疑、投诉，乃至以诉讼、仲裁等渠道维护自身权益。

It’s frequent to see deficient, erroneous and contradictory content in procurement documents and contracts of public-private partnership (PPP) projects, leading to serious consequences such as the revocation of an award, as well as disputes over the return of bid security and the responsibility for resulting losses. This causes trouble for relevant parties and hinders the progress of projects.

In one case, a private party won the bid for a project through competitive procurement procedures, and received a bid-winning notice from the government agency responsible for the project. However, during negotiations prior to the contract signing, the two parties disputed a financial indicator that should have been clarified in the contract, which would have a material impact on investment return. As the procurement documents did not set pricing requirements on the indicator, nor did any other document offer a detailed calculation formula for it, the two parties had different views on the financial indicator, leading to a great difference due to their differing calculation bases. The government agency revoked the bidding result. 

The financial indicator issue was a big flaw, in this case, within the procurement documents. But should this result in the private party bearing the negative consequences, like revocation of the award and legal risks? The answer is no. 

When there are mistakes in procurement documents, the two parties should seek a solution through amicable negotiation. It is improper, and even illegal, for governments to unilaterally revoke an award-winning bid without reaching a consensus over the disputes; this undermines the reputation of local governments, and also stalls projects. 

The contractual relationship established by procurement procedures should be protected according to the law. Article 46 of the Government Procurement Law stipulates that, "the notice of winning the bid (or concluding the transaction) must have binding force upon the purchaser, and the winning bidder (or the supplier). If, after the issuing of the notices, the purchaser alters the results of bid winning (or the conclusion of transaction), or the winning bidder (or the supplier) forgoes the bid (or the transaction), the breaching party must be held legally accountable." 

In the above-mentioned project, the government agency had confirmed that the bidding document met all the substantive requirements on procurement documents, and issued the notice of winning the bid to the private party. Though there are divided views on the effectiveness and consequences of the bid-winning notice, judicial precedents tend to agree that the two parties have established contractual relations. The legal relationship between the two parties in the project should be protected, and the government agency should not change the bidding outcome just because of partial disputes over the project, which may violate relevant laws such as the Government Procurement Law. 

Transaction agreement should be fully respected. According to the basic principles of the Contract Law, procurement documents are defined as "offer invitations", bidding documents as "offers", and bid-winning notices as "acceptances". The government agency had agreed with the "offer" in its "acceptance", and confirmed with the bid-winning notice. The project had so far completed the procurement workflow of procurement announcement, response and quotation, comprehensive evaluation, negotiation about confirming procurement results, final confirmation of procurement results, and issuing of bid-winning notice. The two parties reached an agreement on the contract’s substantive content and thus established a contractual legal relationship. For the two parties, the procurement documents, bidding documents and the bid-winning notice were legally binding. 

Besides, according to the Government Procurement Law and the Guidelines for Mode of Co-operation for Government and Social Capital (for Trial Implementation), procurement documents, bidding documents and the bid-winning notice are the basis for writing a contract. Therefore, if the partial disputes remained unresolved, the government’s revocation of the private party’s qualification as the winning bidder breached the agreement and failed to meet the requirement of signing a PPP project contract in accordance with the law, as well as impairing its credibility. 

The solution to disputes should be based on the principle of fair dealing. The party that makes mistakes in procurement documents should be held accountable. However, it should be judged in a reasonable manner as to which party should be responsible, and to what degree it should bear the responsibility, rather than jump to a conclusion that one party should be fully responsible, or requiring one party to take sole responsibility regardless of whether or not it made mistakes. 

If procurement procedures were completed and the bidding outcome confirmed, the parties should resolve the disputes fairly and reasonably, and conduct negotiations according to laws and regulations, and customary practice. Even if the parties failed to reach a consensus eventually, they should work out a feasible exit mechanism and the government agency should make proper compensation for relevant losses and expected incomes of the winning bidder. 

In the above-mentioned project, the local government ignored the legal rights and benefits of the private investor and overlooked existing mistakes, and forced the innocent party to bear all the negative consequences. It even revoked the winning result. This behaviour violated the PPP’s spirit of co-operation and principle of fair dealing, and the local government may be held legally accountable for breaching relevant laws. Meanwhile, the private party has the right to challenge the government’s decisions and even take legal or arbitration action to defend its legitimate interests.