en
中文 
Current location:
Release date: 2026-10-19 
Clicks:From the core anxiety of the three parties, the attribution of responsibility for controversial scenarios, to the comparability of quotations, the lock-in clause of the contract and the handling of acceptance disputes, draw a decision-making map of "know who to look for and what documents to base on when something goes wrong".
The most expensive cost of splicing screen projects is often not the screen body, but the rework, wrangling and postponement after the failure of the three-way alignment.What Party A wants is "the effect is up to standard, the budget is controllable, and the broken one is repaired"; What the integrator wants is "the scheme can win the bid, the equipment is compatible, and the payment is guaranteed"; What the engineer wants is "the site can be installed, the construction period is sufficient, and the acceptance is not stuck". The anxiety of the three parties is different and the decision-making logic is different, but most projects only align with "what to buy" when starting, and do not align with "who is responsible for the accident, according to what criteria, and according to which document to pursue responsibility".A real procurement decision-making map is not a listing of the responsibilities of the three parties, but a mechanism for handling the failure of the lock-in clause of the comparable contract in which the responsibility of the disputed scenario belongs to the quotation.This article is carried out according to this logic, so that the three parties can clearly write down the "most quarrical places" before the project starts.
1. first see the core anxiety of the three parties: it is not the same set of templates to change the subject.
Party A, integrators and engineers are in the same project, but they are concerned about completely different things. Writing all three parties as "demand-plan-construction-acceptance" is tantamount to not writing a decision map.
| Character | Core Anxiety | Decision logic | The most afraid of things |
|---|---|---|---|
| Party A (Owner/user) | Whether the money is worth it or not, whether the effect can be checked and accepted, who will repair it if it is broken, and what about adding screens later? | Push back the scheme according to the budget and acceptance criteria; prefer "lump sum, responsibility for one family" | The three reported a price difference of 30%, but they could not understand the difference. During the acceptance, it was found that the index was not written into the contract. After the failure, the integrator and the engineer pushed each other. |
| Integrator (Solutions and Integration) | Whether the scheme can win the bid, whether there is any pit in equipment compatibility, whether the debugging workload will be out of control, and whether the payment node will be paid back. | Equipment is matched by scenario, but the scope of service is easily compressed under quotation competition. | After winning the bid at a low price, "including debugging" is understood as "only the communication number does not make the plan"; Party A shall be held responsible for the delay in the arrival of the equipment. Insufficient construction precision of the engineer leads to picture problems being counted on himself. |
| Engineer (Construction and Installation) | Whether the site can be installed, whether the construction period is sufficient, whether the wall/power supply/network conditions are met, and whether the acceptance will be blocked | quoted on site conditions, but the site conditions are often not fully exposed until after the mobilization | The integrator's plan does not conform to the site, resulting in rework; Party A changes the position/screen later but does not give the time limit for a project; The acceptance standard is vague and the installation quality is infinitely picky. |
Scenarios of 2. Disputes and Attribution of Responsibility: Six Nodes that Are Most Likable to Tipper
It is not enough to write "who leads and who supports" in the division of responsibilities table. "Support" is the most vague word in B2B projects-integrators can say "I provided solution support" and engineers can say "I cooperated", but when problems occur, both parties can claim that they only take on the role of "support. Really useful is one."Dispute Scenario-First Responsible Party-Document-Preventive Action"The comparison table.
| Controversial Scenes | Typical wrangling | First responsible party | According to the document | Preventive actions to be taken in the early stage of the project |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| After the screen body arrived, it was found that the wall did not bear enough load and needed reinforcement. | Integrator: "The site survey is done by the engineer." Engineer: "The plan does not include load-bearing requirements." | Engineer (first responsibility for site investigation), integrator assumes responsibility for scheme review | Site Investigation Table (including wall type, load-bearing calculation and whether steel structure is required) | The survey form shall be filled out by the engineer and signed by the integrator for confirmation; it is agreed in the contract that "the cost of reinforcement caused by the omission of the survey shall be borne by the responsible party of the survey" |
| The screen is installed, but the signal is not available, or the picture cannot be spliced. | Integrator: "The line is made by the engineer." Engineer: "The equipment is provided by the integrator." | Integrator (the first responsibility for system integration and commissioning), the engineer is responsible for the quality of cable construction. | Signal Link Test Record (section-by-section test: signal source → processor → cable → screen body); Cable Construction Acceptance Form | Before commissioning, the link section test shall be carried out, and the engineer and integrator shall sign together; the responsibility of distinguishing "cable on-off" and "signal protocol/resolution matching" in the contract |
| Uneven flat seam or out-of-tolerance surface flatness during acceptance | Party A: "The installation accuracy is not enough." Engineer: "The frame of the screen itself has a large tolerance." | It is necessary to judge according to the index: the uniformity of flat seam depends on the installation and leveling first, and then on the tolerance of the screen body. | Flat-splice indicators in the contract/bidding documents (such as physical flat-splice ≤ 3.5mm, surface flatness within ± 3mm, uniformity ≥ 97%) | Write the uniformity of patchwork, surface flatness and brightness uniformity into the acceptance clause; do the stage acceptance during the installation process, instead of the final one-time acceptance |
| Party A added two screens in the later period, and the integrator requested to change the contract. | Party A: "It was said that it could be expanded." Integrator: "Expansion requires new processor boards and authorization." | Party A (the change initiator), the integrator assumes the responsibility for the scheme of "whether the expansion capacity is reserved or not". | Explanation of Scheme Extensibility (whether to reserve processor slot, power margin and bracket expansion position); Change Terms | The specific meaning of "expandable" is clarified in the scheme stage (whether it is enough to add a screen or need to replace the processor); The pricing method for expansion agreed in the contract (according to the contract unit price/according to the new quotation) |
| Screen failure during warranty period, integrators and panel manufacturers push each other | Integrator: "The panel is the original factory, find the original factory." Original: "The installation environment is not enough heat dissipation." | Integrator (first responsibility for Party A's quality assurance), the original manufacturer's responsibility is traced by the integrator. | Warranty Terms (specifying warranty scope, response time limit and spare parts supply); Original Factory After-sales Service Commitment | The contract requires the integrator to provide the original factory warranty commitment; It is clear that "the integrator is responsible for unified acceptance during the warranty period, and Party A shall not be allowed to trace the original factory by itself" |
| The acceptance was delayed for three months, and Party A did not sign or say where it was unqualified. | Party A: "has not yet reached the conditions of use." Integrator/Engineer: "It has been completed according to the contract." | Party A (the responsibility of the acceptance organization), but the contract needs to set the acceptance time limit and the "deemed to pass" clause. | Terms of Acceptance Procedure (acceptance initiation conditions, rectification period, time limit for re-inspection, treatment of overdue acceptance) | It is agreed in the contract that Party A shall organize the acceptance within X working days after receiving the application for acceptance. If the acceptance is not completed within the time limit and no written objection is raised, the acceptance shall be deemed to have passed. |
The "support" in the division of labor table should be divided into at least three verifiable actions: what documents to provide, at what time node to provide, and by whom to sign for confirmation. For example, "the integrator supports the on-site survey" should be clearly defined as "the integrator shall provide the" load-bearing accounting review opinion "within 3 working days after the survey, which shall be signed by the project manager". The absence of "support" for specific actions is tantamount to no responsibility in the event of a dispute.
3. quotation comparability: the difference between the three is 30%, what is the difference
The most common confusion of Party A is "the same 55-inch screen, why is the quotation ranging from 20,000 to 100,000". Low prices are not necessarily cost-effective, and high prices are not necessarily reasonable, because the item composition of the quotation may be completely different. Comparing only the total price is like comparing three invoices with different line items.
split the quotation into three paragraphs
A comparable quotation for splicing screen shall be split into at least three paragraphs:Equipment and boards, integration and construction, service and delivery. The formal quotation will separate the three paragraphs, and the extensive quotation will only have one line of "one batch of splicing screen system" plus the total price. After the three phases are separated, Party A can clearly see where the cost savings lie—whether it’s due to the use of lower-grade panels for the equipment, a reduction in the scope of integration and installation, or a downsizing of service delivery to “only handle signal connectivity without developing contingency plans.”
| Quotation paragraph | Accounts that must be aligned item by item | Common "incomparable" traps |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment and board | Specific screen model, panel source and grade (A /A), patchwork seam specification, brightness and resolution; Processor model, number of input/output channels, window opening capacity; Matrix/decoder model and number of channels; Support type (wall hanging/front maintenance hydraulic/floor cabinet) | Only write "55-inch splicing screen" and do not write model and panel grade; The processor only writes "support 4K" and does not write the processing capability under multi-channel 4K. The bracket only writes "standard" and does not write load-bearing and maintenance methods. |
| Integration and Construction | Cable brand and specification (HDMI version/optical fiber/network cable), cable length and laying method; Cabinet/distribution frame; Screen installation and leveling; Wall reinforcement (if any); Removal of old equipment; Decoration restoration | Cable quotation according to "item" does not include length and specification; installation fee "one price" but does not include aerial work/night construction/wall reinforcement; old screen removal and decoration restoration are listed as "later additions" |
| Service and Delivery | Commissioning scope (whether it is "communication number" or "color calibration of plan"); training sessions and objects; warranty period and starting point; after-sales response time limit; spare parts supply commitment | Verbal promise "including debugging", but the contract did not write plan preparation and multiple rounds of revision; Training only writes "provide training" instead of sessions and materials; The starting point of quality assurance is "delivery date" instead of "acceptance date" |
Operation list of horizontal price comparison of Party A
All bidders are required to submit their quotations using the same itemized pricing template, rather than accepting quotation forms with varying formats. Key check: whether the screen body indicates the specific model and panel grade; Whether the processor indicates the continuous processing capacity under the target number of input paths and the number of windows opened; Whether the cable has the brand, version and length stated; Whether the installation fee covers wall reinforcement, aerial work and demolition of old equipment; Whether debugging clearly includes plan preparation and color calibration; Whether the quality assurance starting point is linked to the acceptance. Any item listed as “standard,” “as per actual conditions,” or “to be negotiated separately” should be subject to a written clarification request during the bid evaluation phase, rather than being deferred until after the contract is signed.
"Ultra-low price" quotations are often used to recover profits in the later period in three ways: first, equipment degradation (panel from A to A or assembly screen); The second is the construction additions (wall reinforcement, power supply renovation and cable redrawing are said to be "accidental discovery"); Third, the service shrinks (debugging only involves communication numbers, and additional charges for plans and training). When comparing prices, Party A shall require the bidder to make a written explanation of "which costs have been included and which may be additionally incurred", and shall make the explanation as an annex to the contract.
The 4. contract is locked: write in "who is responsible, according to what standard, and what to do if it exceeds"
A contract is not a process document, it is the only basis for adjudication when a dispute occurs. There are five types of clauses in the splicing screen project contract that directly determine the responsibility boundary of the three parties, which should be confirmed one by one before signing the contract.
Acceptance standard terms: must be quantified, not just write "meet the requirements"
Acceptance criteria should be written into specific values, rather than subjective descriptions such as "clear picture, uniform patchwork. Refer to the common quantitative caliber in the bidding documents of the industry: physical splicing ≤ 3.5mm (or 1.8/0.88mm according to the project requirements); Brightness uniformity ≥ 90% (high-requirement items ≥ 97%-98%); The number of dark spots on the unit panel is ≤ 3; The surface flatness is within 3mm; Flat seam uniformity ≥ 97%; no afterimage, no burning, no light leakage, no glare, no bright spot, no dark spot. The acceptance criteria should also specify "under what environmental conditions to test" (ambient illumination, viewing distance, test screen) to avoid differences between the two parties on "how to test" during acceptance.
Schedule and delay liability clause: distinguish between "equipment arrival delay" and "construction delay"
The duration risk of splicing screen projects usually comes from two ends: the delay of equipment arrival and the delay of on-site construction. The contract shall respectively stipulate: the responsible party and liquidated damages for the delay in the arrival of the equipment; Which party shall bear the responsibility for the delay in construction caused by the lack of site conditions (the wall is not reinforced, the power supply is not in place, and the decoration is not completed); For the delay caused by Party A's change demand, how to postpone the construction period and how to adjust the cost. In general terms, "Party B shall complete it within X days" without distinguishing the reasons for the delay, which cannot be determined in case of dispute.
Change terms: expansion, change location, change the pricing method of signal source
The frequency of late changes in the splicing screen project is very high: Party A adds screens, changes the installation location, adds new signal source types, and requires access to a new management platform. The initiation process, pricing method (based on contract unit price/based on new quotation/based on quota) and construction period impact of the change shall be agreed in the contract. In particular, it is necessary to make clear "what is specifically meant by" extensibility "claimed in the scheme"-whether it is enough to add a screen, or whether it is necessary to replace the processor or add a board. If the expansion conditions are not clearly written in the scheme stage, the later expansion will easily become controversial.
Warranty starting and spare parts supply terms: from "acceptance", not "delivery"
The common caliber in government procurement and industry contracts is "the warranty period is calculated from the date of system acceptance". The warranty period is usually 2-3 years, and the after-sales response is required within 24 hours. The contract shall also stipulate the supply of spare parts: the supply period of spare parts for the same type of panel or module, the alternative scheme after production stop, and the time limit for the arrival of spare parts at the site. The more concentrated the source of the panel (e. g., the 0.88mm ultra-narrow side mainly depends on a few panel factories), the more the risk of spare parts needs to be locked in advance.
Payment and acceptance link clause: avoid "acceptance drag back"
The common payment structure is "advance payment + acceptance payment + warranty payment", for example, 50% after the contract comes into effect, 40% after final acceptance, and 10% of the warranty payment one year after acceptance. However, if Party A delays the acceptance, or fails to pass the acceptance and fails to give written rectification opinions, the collection of money from integrators and engineers will be suspended indefinitely. The contract shall stipulate the time limit for the start of acceptance, the time limit for rectification, the time limit for re-inspection, and the clause that "if Party A fails to organize the acceptance within the time limit and does not raise a written objection, it shall be deemed that the acceptance has passed.
5. project type difference: government, enterprise, retail, transformation is not the same map
The same set of tripartite roles, in different types of projects, decision chains, focus of responsibility and risk points vary greatly.
| Project type | decision chain characteristics | focus of responsibility | Specific risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government/Public Projects | Bidding parameters, bid evaluation methods, trust requirements, audit settlement; long decision-making chain, user and purchaser may be separated. | Compliance and responsiveness of tender parameters; completeness of acceptance documents; audit traceability of changes and additions | The preference of parameters leads to the cancellation or challenge of the bid; the requirements for the localization of the trust are not met; the performance threshold is improperly set to cause complaints; the payment is affected by the financial process. |
| Corporate project | IT department, procurement department, use department tripartite game; budget approval chain determines project rhythm | Compatibility of the solution with existing systems; attribution of operational responsibilities (self-maintenance or outsourcing); ease of later expansion | Frequent changes in user requirements; IT departments have additional requirements for network and security; procurement price reduction leads to compression of service scope |
| Retail Chain Project | Headquarters unified decision-making, multi-store replication; The store is only responsible for cooperating with the construction. | Standardized configuration (same model, same installation method); remote management capabilities; parallel organization of multi-store durations | Site conditions vary greatly from store to store, and standard solutions require site adaptation; headquarters and stores have different tolerances for "downtime"; spare parts matching for later single-store expansion |
| Renovation/Upgrade Project | Expansion or replacement on the basis of the original system; the user has the inertia to use the old system. | Compatibility of old and new equipment; Can old screen/old processor be reused; Very short construction window | Mismatch between interface and protocol due to missing data of old system; underestimation of removal and restoration cost; inconsistent color difference and brightness attenuation of old and new screens |
The core of government projects is not "choosing the cheapest", but "parameters can withstand questioning and acceptance can withstand auditing"; The core of enterprise projects is "compatible with existing systems and operation and maintenance systems"; The core of retail projects is "standardization can be copied and remotely managed". The core of the renovation project is "the connection between the old and the new and the short window construction". The same set of responsibility table has completely different weights in these four types of projects.
What to do 6. the acceptance is not passed: the processing mechanism is more important than the acceptance criteria
No matter how detailed the acceptance criteria are, if there is no dispute-resolution mechanism in place when acceptance fails, the disputes will still remain unresolved. The following mechanisms shall be agreed in advance in the Contract or Acceptance Plan.
Identification of rectification responsibility: first qualitative, then responsibility
When the acceptance fails, the first step is not to pursue responsibility, butWritten record problem phenomenon and qualitative: Is the product itself defective (panel defective, uneven brightness), installation accuracy problem (uneven patching, flatness out of tolerance), signal link problem (resolution mismatch, black screen switching), or function not realized (plan not configured, touch not calibrated). The basis for qualification is the quantitative criteria and test records specified in the contract. Once the nature of the issue is clearly defined, the responsible party becomes readily apparent; bypassing this step and jumping straight to assigning blame will only lead to a stalemate in which all three parties remain entrenched in their own positions.
Rectification period and re-inspection: set time limit to avoid infinite loop
The contract shall stipulate: how long will the responsible party complete the rectification after the acceptance fails? How long will Party A organize the re-inspection after the rectification is completed? If the re-inspection still fails, whether to continue the rectification, deduct the contract amount, or trigger the breach clause. The "rectification-re-inspection" cycle, which has no time limit, is a common reason for dragging out project refunds and deliveries.
Payment processing during rectification: distinguish between "acceptance payment" and "warranty payment"
If the acceptance fails, it is reasonable that the acceptance payment will not be paid for the time being. However, the part that has passed the stage acceptance or the equipment payment unrelated to the disputed item shall not be frozen as a whole. The contract may stipulate that "the undisputed part shall be paid first, and the disputed part shall be paid after rectification and re-inspection", so as to avoid the stagnation of the whole payment due to local problems.
Handling of Party A's delay in acceptance: written reminder shall be deemed as passing clause
If Party A delays the acceptance without justifiable reasons, the integrator and the engineer shall issue a written reminder and keep the delivery record. The "overdue acceptance and no written objection is deemed to be adopted" clause in the contract is the key to breaking the deadlock. Government projects should also pay attention to the requirements of acceptance audits and prepare complete change records and test records in advance to avoid retroactive deductions during the audit phase.
The requirement definition template 7. to Party A: make "what do you want" a fillable field.
Party A's "unclear demand" is the root cause of repeated modifications to the plan. Instead of asking Party A to "clarify the needs", it is better to give a list of fields that can be filled in. The following fields shall be filled in by Party A and reviewed by Integrators and Engineer at the start of the project.
| Field | Fill in the content | Why must I fill in |
|---|---|---|
| Application scenarios | Monitoring Center/Showroom/Meeting Room/Retail/Renovation | Determine patchwork, brightness, panel type, and signal architecture |
| Recent viewing distance | ____ m (sofa/operator's seat/nearest station) | Determine the lower limit of single screen size and patchwork grade |
| Wall Size Available | Width ____ m x height ____ m (excluding maintenance space) | Determine the number of stitching rows and columns and the size of a single screen. |
| Source List | Type (camera/computer/playback box/conference terminal) x quantity x native resolution | Determine the size and number of processors, matrices, decoders |
| Whether 7 x 24 operation is required | Yes/No; run ____ hours per day | Decide on industrial-grade panel and thermal design |
| Core index of acceptance | Patchwork ≤ ____ mm; Brightness uniformity ≥ ____%; Bad points ≤___ | Write the contract acceptance clause to avoid acceptance disputes. |
| Budget range | ___million yuan (including screen body/processor/installation/debugging/warranty) | Determine the boundaries of the choice of the plan, not "the lower the better" |
| Late expansion plan | Whether it is necessary to add screen/change position/add signal source; Estimated time | Determines whether processor slots, power margin, and bracket expansion bits are reserved |
8. FAQ
Which link is the most easy for the three parties to wrangle in the project?
Mismatch between site conditions and scheme. Wall load-bearing, power capacity, network conditions, maintenance space, these may only be "hypothetical" in the scheme stage, only found to be untenable after entering the site. The core of the wrangling is not "who is wrong", but "who should find this problem before making a plan". The prevention method is to make the on-site investigation form into a joint document filled in by the engineer and signed and confirmed by the integrator, instead of each oral investigation.
The price difference between the three reports is 30%. How can Party A judge which one is reasonable?
The quotation is split into equipment, integrated construction and service delivery, not just the total price. Key check: whether the screen type and panel grade are consistent; Whether the processing capacity of the processor under the target number of paths is stated; Whether the cable brand, version and length are listed; Whether the installation fee covers wall reinforcement, aerial work and dismantling of old equipment; Whether the debugging includes plan and color calibration; Whether the starting point of quality assurance is linked with the acceptance. If any item is written as "standard" or "another discussion", it shall be clarified in writing before price comparison.
How to write the acceptance criteria to avoid disputes?
Write quantitative values, not subjective descriptions. Common calibers include: physical splicing ≤ 3.5mm (or according to 1.8/0.88mm); Brightness uniformity ≥ 90% (high requirement items ≥ 97%-98%); Unit damage ≤ 3; Surface flatness within 3mm; Flat seam uniformity ≥ 97%. At the same time, it is stated that "under what environmental conditions, with what test screen, by who jointly present the test". The more specific the standard, the less room for interpretation at the time of acceptance.
The engineer said that "it cannot be installed on site", but the plan has been decided. What should I do?
This is why the "site survey" must be completed at the programme stage. If it is found that the site is not established only after entering the construction stage, the attribution of responsibility depends on the survey record: if the survey form is filled in by the engineer and the integrator has signed and confirmed, both parties shall jointly bear the responsibility; If there is no survey form at all, the integrator shall bear the main responsibility as the scheme party. The treatment method is to follow the change process, recalculate the reinforcement/renovation cost and postpone the construction period, rather than to determine the responsibility orally at the construction site.
Party A wants to add screens in the later period. Is it reasonable for the integrator to say "change the processor?
It depends on whether the specific conditions of "extensibility" are stated in the programme phase. If the processor has reserved enough input/output slots and backboard bandwidth, adding the screen may only need to add boards. If the processor is fully equipped or has insufficient bandwidth, it is a reasonable technical judgment to change the processor. The key is whether the "Expansion Description" at the program stage is clearly written and whether the pricing method for changes in the contract is agreed. If you don't write it beforehand, it will easily become controversial afterwards.
Is the warranty period calculated from delivery or acceptance?
The common caliber in industry and government procurement is "the warranty period is calculated from the date of system acceptance", and the warranty period is usually 2-3 years. It is not good for Party A from the time of delivery, because the equipment may be installed after several months of storage in the warehouse or on the construction site. The starting point should be clearly defined in the contract, and the integrator should be required to provide the original factory after-sales commitment to avoid the original factory and the integrator shirking each other during the warranty period.
9. Conclusion
The decision map of the splicing screen B2B project can be compressed into four sentences:
First align anxiety, then align division of labor; First split the quotation, then compare the total price; First write the dispute scene into the contract, then talk about acceptance; First give Party A a form that can be filled in, and then require the plan to be accurate.
Party A, integrator, and engineer are not the relationship between who is in charge, but the three risk takers do the allocation of responsibility around the same deliverable. Whether the division of labor will go wrong or not depends not on whether the relationship between the three parties is good or not, but on whether it will be good or not."According to which document, according to what criteria, who will deal with it within what time limit" was it clearly written before the project started. The value of the decision-making map is not to prevent problems in the project, but to let the three parties know who to look for, what to take, and which step to take when problems arise.
The division of labor is written on paper, and the responsibility is locked in the contract before the dispute can be resolved.
Previous:
Return to list
Partner Links:
