题目内容

某实施监理的工程，建设单位与甲施工单位按《建设工程施工合同(示范文本)》签订了合同，合同工期2年。经建设单位同意，甲施工单位将其中的专业工程分包给乙施工单位。工程实施过程中发生以下事件。事件1：甲施工单位在基础工程施工时发现，现场条件与施工图不符，遂向项目监理机构提出变更申请。总监理工程师命令甲施工单位暂停施工后，立即与设计单位联系，设计单位同意变更，但同时表示无法及时提交变更后的施工图。总监理工程师将此事报告建设单位，建设单位随即要求总监理工程师修改施工图并签署变更文件，交甲施工单位执行。事件2：专业监理工程师巡视时发现，乙施工单位未按审查后的施工方案施工，存在工程质量、安全事故隐患。总监理工程师分别向甲、乙施工单位发出整改通知，甲、乙施工单位既不整改也未回函答复。事件3：工程竣工结算时，甲施工单位将事件1中基础工程设计变更所增加的费用列入工程竣工结算申请，总监理工程师以甲施工单位未及时提出变更工程价款申请为由，拒绝变更基础工程价款。事件4：工程竣工验收前，项目监理机构根据《建设工程文件归档整理规范》(GB/T 50328)的要求整理、归档资料，其中包括： (1)工程开工审批表； (2)图纸会审会议纪要； (3)分包单位资格材料； (4)工程质量事故报告及处理意见； (5)工程费用索赔报告。 [问题] 分别指出事件1中总监理工程师和建设单位做法的不妥之处。写出该变更的正确处理程序。

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

People"s financial history has a strong impact on their taste for risk. Looking at surveys of American household【C1】from 1960 to 2007, Ul-rike Malmendier of the University of California at Berkeley and his cooperator found that people who【C2】high returns on the stock market【C3】in life were, years later, likelier to report a higher tolerance for risk, to own shares and to invest a bigger slice of their【C4】in shares. But【C5】to economic turmoil appears to suppress people"s appetite for risk【C6】of their personal financial losses. That is the【C7】of a paper by Samuli Knupfer of London Business School and two co-authors. In the early 1990s a severe recession caused Finland"s GDP to【C8】by 10% and unemployment to【C9】from 3% to 16%. Using detailed data on tax, unemployment and military conscription(draft), the authors were able to【C10】the investment choices of those【C11】by Finland"s "Great Depression". Controlling for age, education, gender and【C12】status, they found that those in occupations, industries and regions hit harder by unemployment were【C13】likely to own stocks a decade later. Individuals" personal misfortunes, however, could explain at most half of the【C14】in stock ownership, the authors reckon. They【C15】the remainder to "changes in beliefs and preferences" that are not easily measured. This seems【C16】with a growing body of research that links a low tolerance of risk to 【C17】emotional trauma(a severe shock). Studies have found, for example, that natural【C18】such as the tsunami(a large destructive wave)that hit South-East Asia in 2004 and military【C19】such as the Korean war can render their victims more【C20】for years. 【C11】

A. impressed
B. affected
C. killed
D. processed

People"s financial history has a strong impact on their taste for risk. Looking at surveys of American household【C1】from 1960 to 2007, Ul-rike Malmendier of the University of California at Berkeley and his cooperator found that people who【C2】high returns on the stock market【C3】in life were, years later, likelier to report a higher tolerance for risk, to own shares and to invest a bigger slice of their【C4】in shares. But【C5】to economic turmoil appears to suppress people"s appetite for risk【C6】of their personal financial losses. That is the【C7】of a paper by Samuli Knupfer of London Business School and two co-authors. In the early 1990s a severe recession caused Finland"s GDP to【C8】by 10% and unemployment to【C9】from 3% to 16%. Using detailed data on tax, unemployment and military conscription(draft), the authors were able to【C10】the investment choices of those【C11】by Finland"s "Great Depression". Controlling for age, education, gender and【C12】status, they found that those in occupations, industries and regions hit harder by unemployment were【C13】likely to own stocks a decade later. Individuals" personal misfortunes, however, could explain at most half of the【C14】in stock ownership, the authors reckon. They【C15】the remainder to "changes in beliefs and preferences" that are not easily measured. This seems【C16】with a growing body of research that links a low tolerance of risk to 【C17】emotional trauma(a severe shock). Studies have found, for example, that natural【C18】such as the tsunami(a large destructive wave)that hit South-East Asia in 2004 and military【C19】such as the Korean war can render their victims more【C20】for years. 【C9】

A. recede
B. spin
C. sneak
D. soar

The rigid higher-education business is about to experience a welcome earthquake. Traditional universities now face a new【C1】in the form of massive open online courses, or MOOCs. These digitally-delivered courses, which teach students via the【C2】or tablet apps, have big【C3】over their established rivals. With low startup costs and powerful economies of scale, online courses【C4】lower the price of learning and【C5】access to it, by【C6】the need for students to be taught at set times or places. The low cost of【C7】courses—creating a new one costs about $70,000— means they can be sold【C8】, or even given away. Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School considers MOOCs a【C9】"disruptive technology" that will kill off many【C10】universities. "Fifteen years from now more than half of the universities in America will be in bankruptcy," he【C11】last year. 【C12】, traditional universities have a few favorable aspects. As well as teaching, examining and certification, college education creates social capital. Students learn how to【C13】present themselves, make contacts and roll joints. How can a digital college experience give all of that The answer may be to【C14】the two. Anant Agarwal, who runs edX-, one of established MOOCs, proposes an alternative to the【C15】American four-year degree course. Students could spend an introductory year learning via a MOOC,【C16】by two years attending university and a final year starting part-time work while【C17】their studies online. This sort of【C18】learning might prove more attractive than a four-year online degree. It could also【C19】those who want to integrate learning with work or child-rearing, freeing them from timetables assembled to【C20】academics. 【C7】

A. dismissing
B. displacing
C. providing
D. intensifying

People"s financial history has a strong impact on their taste for risk. Looking at surveys of American household【C1】from 1960 to 2007, Ul-rike Malmendier of the University of California at Berkeley and his cooperator found that people who【C2】high returns on the stock market【C3】in life were, years later, likelier to report a higher tolerance for risk, to own shares and to invest a bigger slice of their【C4】in shares. But【C5】to economic turmoil appears to suppress people"s appetite for risk【C6】of their personal financial losses. That is the【C7】of a paper by Samuli Knupfer of London Business School and two co-authors. In the early 1990s a severe recession caused Finland"s GDP to【C8】by 10% and unemployment to【C9】from 3% to 16%. Using detailed data on tax, unemployment and military conscription(draft), the authors were able to【C10】the investment choices of those【C11】by Finland"s "Great Depression". Controlling for age, education, gender and【C12】status, they found that those in occupations, industries and regions hit harder by unemployment were【C13】likely to own stocks a decade later. Individuals" personal misfortunes, however, could explain at most half of the【C14】in stock ownership, the authors reckon. They【C15】the remainder to "changes in beliefs and preferences" that are not easily measured. This seems【C16】with a growing body of research that links a low tolerance of risk to 【C17】emotional trauma(a severe shock). Studies have found, for example, that natural【C18】such as the tsunami(a large destructive wave)that hit South-East Asia in 2004 and military【C19】such as the Korean war can render their victims more【C20】for years. 【C6】

A. typical
B. pessimistic
C. irrespective
D. composed