Thread Content
Four key points regarding project settlement that cannot be overlooked. Project settlement refers to the financial documents through which construction companies settle the project costs with the construction unit (owner), based on the contract terms and the amount of work completed. Construction projects have a long duration and require substantial funding. To ensure that construction and installation enterprises receive timely compensation for the funds they expend during construction, interim settlements (progress payment settlements) and year-end settlements must be conducted. Following the completion and acceptance of the entire project, a final settlement should also be carried out. In the setup of accounting accounts, “Construction Settlement” is an accounting account designated specifically for construction contractors. Project settlement is a very important task in project contracting. One of the key steps: Verifying and preparing settlement documents is fundamental. For any construction project, relevant documents must serve as the basis when preparing the settlement. Therefore, during the review process, it is necessary to first examine the relevant documents. All documents, from construction drawings and engineering contracts to dynamic data throughout the entire construction process, must be carefully verified to ensure they are complete and comprehensive, thereby guaranteeing the smooth progress of the review work. Whether an engineering task has been completed is determined based on the construction drawings. Provisions regarding the project schedule, quality, prices of building materials, rewards and penalties, etc., are based on the contract agreement, supplementary contracts, or other mutually agreed-upon terms. Furthermore, any dynamic progress during actual construction, partial modifications, and concealed works must be supported by relevant documentation in order to be included in the settlement process. In short, a settlement carried out without complete and comprehensive data is an incomplete settlement; likewise, an audit conducted without all the necessary information will yield inaccurate conclusions, failing to achieve the purpose of the audit. Step two: Quantity of work is the key to review. The cost related to the quantity of work constitutes the main part of the project cost. It offers great flexibility and concealment during operation. Reviewing the quantity of work is both a key point and a difficult task. During audits, it is common to find discrepancies between the quantities of work billed and those actually completed. There are many reasons for this, but generally they fall into the following categories: First, construction companies deliberately increase the quantity of work and exaggerate the construction difficulty in order to inflate their costs. Second, some modified items are still included in the settlement as if they were the original items. Third, in projects involving multiple contractors, each party sometimes includes the portion of work they are responsible for as part of the entire project in the settlement. The above situations occur frequently during settlement audits. The overestimated quantities of work must be deducted; otherwise, it would directly harm the interests of the owner. Meanwhile, regarding any omitted work quantities, after repeated verification, they are added to the settlement in a fact-based manner, so as to prevent any loss of interests for the contractor. Step three: The review of standard unit prices must not be overlooked. Under normal circumstances, the standard unit prices for construction projects are clearly stipulated; when preparing the project settlement, these prices can be directly applied by referring to the detailed items listed in the standard unit price schedule. However, in actual practice, errors often occur when applying the standard unit prices. The reasons for this are, first, artificially raising or lowering the specifications. Second, it involves incorrectly separating the tasks included in the quota and either overestimating/ falsely reporting them or underestimating/missing them in the report. Third, when calculating, the prescribed standard unit prices are not used for conversion. Fourth, there is a lack of basis for the supplementary fixed unit prices, which are directly incorporated into the settlement process without approval, etc. The aforementioned situations have a direct impact on construction costs; therefore, during the review process, one must not become complacent just because there are specific regulations regarding the application of unit prices in the quota. Step four: Review of other expenses must be reasonable and justifiable. Since the calculation methods for other expenses differ from those used for quantities of work and standard unit prices, they must be handled on a case-by-case basis during the review process. There are generally four categories of other expenses: first, costs incurred during construction; second, expenses mandated by policy regulations; third, price difference costs for materials resulting from market fluctuations; and fourth, expenses arising from the implementation of incentive mechanisms. Regarding costs incurred during construction—such as scaffolding usage, long-distance transportation of materials, use of heavy machinery, additional charges for high-rise buildings, and surcharges for remote-location projects—the review process should first verify the actual circumstances of the project’s implementation. Secondly, the coefficients used in the calculations must be checked to ensure accuracy and to minimize any errors. For fees stipulated by policies, the relevant documents shall be used as a reference during the review. Some projects span more than two documents during their construction period. In terms of billing, calculations must be performed in segments based on the time boundaries specified in the documents. For enterprises of different natures and classifications, the reduction coefficients and base figures must be determined in accordance with regulations. When reviewing taxes, apart from checking whether the normal tax rates are applied, special attention should be paid to determining whether certain tax-inclusive items have been double-counted during settlement. Regarding the cost differences in materials caused by market fluctuations, the key point of review is whether the method of compensating for such differences is reasonable and appropriate. In current practice, three methods are commonly used for price adjustments: first, adjusting the price based on the unit price stipulated in the contract; second, adjusting it according to the market price information released by respective cities; third, calculating a weighted average price based on the warranty certificates and other documents submitted by the construction contractor, and then making the adjustment accordingly. Regardless of which method of compensation is used, it’s acceptable as long as both parties agree. Regarding the costs incurred from implementing incentive mechanisms, such as premium pricing for high-quality products and overtime pay, contracts or agreements shall serve as the basis for calculating these costs.