La réception de l’ouvrage emporte la réception de l’ensemble des prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre

Acceptance of the work entails receipt of all project management services

par Sébastien Palmier le 7 February 2020 | Catégorie : Public markets
La réception de l’ouvrage emporte la réception de l’ensemble des prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre La réception de l’ouvrage emporte la réception de l’ensemble des prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre

CE December 2, 2019, Sociétés Guervilly, Puig Pujol Archtiecture, req.n ° 423544

In this case, the Council of State recalls on the one hand that the reception puts an end to the contractual relations between the project owner and the project manager as regards the services inseparable from the realization of the work in number of which include design missions; on the other hand, that the absence of notification of the general statement allows the owner to call in guarantee the main contractor for the assumption of additional works.

Enseignement n°1 : La réception de l’ouvrage emporte réception de l’ensemble des prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre

Dans son arrêt, le Conseil d’Etat considère qu’il n'y a aucune raison de distinguer à l'intérieur des missions de la maîtrise d'œuvre, celles relatives à la conception de l'ouvrage de celles liées à la réalisation de l'ouvrage de sorte qu’il faut considérer que la réception met fin aux rapports contractuels entre le maître de l'ouvrage et le maître d’œuvre en ce qui concerne l’intégralité des missions de réalisation et de conception de l'ouvrage.

Acceptance of the work therefore entails receipt of all project management services, including those relating to the design of the work


Enseignement n°2 : l’absence de notification du décompte général allows the contracting authority to call the project manager as security

This judgment is also an opportunity to recall that as long as the contracting authority has not notified the general account of the contract, it is entitled to call in guarantee the project manager for the taking charge in particular of delays or additional work.

La réception demeure par elle-même sans effet sur les droits et obligations financiers nés de l’exécution du marché dont la détermination intervient définitivement lors de l’établissement du solde du décompte définitif. Seule l'intervention du décompte général et définitif du marché a pour conséquence d'interdire au maître de l'ouvrage toute réclamation à cet égard.

Le Conseil d’Etat rappelle ensuite que si la charge définitive de l’indemnisation du coût des travaux supplémentaires indispensables à la réalisation d’un ouvrage dans les règles de l’art à laquelle a droit l'entrepreneur incombe, en principe, au maître de l’ouvrage, celui-ci est fondé, en cas de faute du maître d’œuvre, à l’appeler en garantie et qu’il en va ainsi :

Lorsque la nécessité de procéder à ces travaux n’est apparue que postérieurement à la passation du marché, en raison d’une mauvaise évaluation initiale par le maître d’œuvre, et qu’il établit qu’il aurait renoncé à son projet de construction ou modifié celui-ci s’il en avait été avisé en temps utile.

Lorsque, en raison d’une faute du maître d’œuvre dans la conception de l’ouvrage ou dans le suivi de travaux, le montant de l’ensemble des travaux qui ont été indispensables à la réalisation de l’ouvrage dans les règles de l’art est supérieur au coût qui aurait dû être celui de l’ouvrage si le maître d’œuvre n’avait commis aucune faute, à hauteur de la différence entre ces deux montants (application de la solution dégagée dans CE 20 décembre 2017, Communauté d’agglomération du Grand Troyes, n°401747).


CE December 2, 2019, Sociétés Guervilly, Puig Pujol Archtiecture, req.n ° 423544

Considering the following:

  1. It appears from the documents in the file submitted to the trial judges that, for the construction of its new hospital, the Francis Vals hospital center, located in Port-la-Nouvelle, entrusted the project management to a solidarity group formed between the companies Guervilly, Puig Pujol and Bâti Structure Ouest and the carrying out of foundations and structural work for the building at the company SM Entreprise. The Administrative Court of Appeal of Marseille, after having condemned, by a judgment of December 21, 2017 which was the subject of a correction on April 9, 2018, the hospital center to be paid to this company, within the framework of the financial regulation of its market, the sum of 619,889.79 euros including tax for the additional work it had to carry out, has, by a new judgment of July 2, 2018 intervened at the end of an investigative measure, jointly condemned the Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture and Bâti Structure Ouest companies to guarantee the hospital center in the amount of € 518,372.11 including tax for the additional construction cost. The companies Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture and Bâti Structure Ouest appeal to the Court of Cassation against this last judgment.
  2. Firstly, it appears from the documents in the file that, contrary to what is argued, the minute bears the signatures required by the provisions of article R. 741-7 of the code of administrative justice.
  3. Secondly, it appears from the statements in the judgment under appeal that, in order to consider that the Francis Vals hospital center was justified in asking for the joint and several condemnation of Guervilly, Pujol and Bati Structure Ouest to guarantee it the sentence pronounced against him for the additional cost of construction, the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal, on the one hand, noted that this additional cost was directly attributable to the lack of design of the work of the project managers and, on the other hand, considered that the latter could not rely on the receipt of the work or the finality of the statement of the works contract.
  4. On the one hand, the contractor has the right to be compensated for the cost of additional work essential to the realization of a work in the rules of art. The final charge for compensation rests, in principle, with the contracting authority. However, the project owner is entitled, in the event of fault of the project manager, to call him in guarantee, without hindering the reception of the work. This is the case when the need to carry out this work only appeared after the award of the contract, due to an initial incorrect assessment by the project manager, and he establishes that he would have renounced his construction project or modified it if he had been notified in good time. The same applies when, due to a fault on the part of the project manager in the design of the structure or in the follow-up of works, the amount of all the works which were essential for the realization of the work in the rules of the art is higher than the cost which should have been that of the work if the project manager had committed no fault, up to the difference between these two amounts.
  5. By the judgment under appeal, the court held that the increased cost of construction resulted not only from the constructive needs of the site, but from the existence of a designer's fault with the design resulting from a poor initial assessment, the consequences in terms of additional works only appeared after the contracting of project management and works and that the Francis Vals hospital established that it would have modified the construction project if it had been notified in time useful of the need to carry out this additional work. The court was able to legally infer from the findings and assessments it made within the framework of its sovereign power, which are free from denaturing, that the prime contractors had to be jointly and severally condemned to guarantee the contracting authority of the sentence pronounced against him for the additional construction cost directly attributable to this error.
  6. On the other hand, the receipt of a work is the act by which the owner declares to accept the work with or without reservation. It applies to all participants in the work operation, even if it is only pronounced with regard to the contractor, and terminates the contractual relationship between the owner and the builders with regard to concerns the completion of the work. If it therefore prohibits the contracting authority from invoking, after it has been pronounced, and subject to the guarantee of perfect completion, apparent disorders caused to the structure or disorders caused to third parties, which it is then deemed to have renounced to request compensation, it does not terminate the contractual obligations of manufacturers only to this extent. Acceptance therefore remains, in itself, without effect on the financial rights and obligations arising from the performance of the contract, notably due to delays or additional work, the determination of which takes place definitively when the balance of the account is established. final. Only the intervention of the general and final account of the market has the consequence of prohibiting the contracting authority any complaint in this regard.
  7. Si, aux termes des stipulations de l’article 32 du cahier des clauses administratives générales applicables aux marchés de prestations intellectuelles, applicable au marché de maîtrise d’oeuvre en cause : “ Les prestations faisant l’objet du marché sont soumises à des vérifications destinées à constater qu’elles répondent aux stipulations prévues dans le marché (...) “, et aux termes des stipulations de l’article 33.2 du même cahier : “ La personne responsable du marché prononce la réception des prestations si elles répondent aux stipulations du marché. La date de prise d’effet de la réception est précisée dans la décision de réception ; à défaut, c’est la date de notification de cette décision (...) “, il résulte de ce qui a été dit au point précédent qu’indépendamment de la décision du maître d’ouvrage de réceptionner les prestations de maîtrise d’œuvre prévue par les stipulations précitées de l’article 32 du cahier des clauses administratives générales applicables aux marchés de prestations intellectuelles, la réception de l’ouvrage met fin aux rapports contractuels entre le maître d’ouvrage et le maître d’œuvre en ce qui concerne les prestations indissociables de la réalisation de l’ouvrage, au nombre desquelles figurent, notamment, les missions de conception de cet ouvrage.
  8. It follows from this that by justifying by the fact that the reception of the work is not intended to note any design faults attributable to the prime contractor of the operation, which are intended to be noted and reserved , where applicable, when receiving the services from the project management contract, the acknowledgment that this reception does not prevent the contractual responsibility of the project managers from being sought due to design errors that they may have committed, the Marseille Administrative Court of Appeal committed an error of law. However, this reason, which does not justify the solution adopted by the court in the light of what has been said in point 4, is overabundant. Consequently, the plea alleging error of law affecting this part of the judgment can be rejected as ineffective.
  9. It follows from all of the above that the companies Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture and Bâti Structure Ouest are not justified in asking for the annulment of the judgment they are attacking.
  10. The provisions of article L. 761-1 of the code of administrative justice prevent the claims presented in this respect from the companies Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture and Bâti Structure Ouest from being granted. However, these companies should be charged with the sum of 3,000 euros presented in the same way by the Francis Valls hospital center.

 

DECIDE:
Article 1er : Le pourvoi des sociétés Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture et Bâti Structure Ouest est rejeté.
Article 2 : Il est mis à la charge des sociétés Guervilly, Puig Pujol Architecture et Bâti Structure Ouest la somme globale de 3 000 euros au titre de l’article L. 761-1 du code de justice administrative.
Article 3 : La présente décision sera notifiée à la société Guervilly, représentant unique ainsi qu’au centre hospitalier Francis Valls.