從美國採購制度探討國內統包工程執行之關鍵課題

Abstract

政府採購法之頒布已近20年，其中有別於訂法前之實行法令為統包實施辦法、最有利標評選辦法及專案管理制度，惟在執行面上常產生諸多爭議。本研究主要探討範圍為決標前涉及之統包實施缺失，因為本研究認為統包工程決標前之缺失常為後續決標後統包執行爭議之主因，根據國內文獻探討，決標前統包關鍵課題主要有三：(1)評選機制不良(2)業主需求定義不清(3)契約風險分配不合理。 本研究大量參考國內外文獻，以取得國內與美國之法令及研究以進行探討。美國近20年在統包執行之法令訂定已臻完善，評選機制方面已明確訂定遴選技術顧問時採用品質遴選(QBS)，而在遴選統包廠商時多採用兩階段選商辦法之最佳價值評選，兩者均透過短名單機制將第二階段廠商減至五家以內。比對國內在技術顧問及統包廠商之遴選皆採用最有利標，然最有利標常產生不公現象，多為評選委員評分差距不當現有機制無法完善處理所致。美國評選委員會由專業之技術人員組成，而國內機關所派委員可佔委員會半數且不要求專業。文獻亦提及國內統包工程契約在風險上分配不清，顯現國內契約與國際契約之訂定有一段差距。 統包種類可概分為DB統包及EPC統包，綜觀許多論述，國內常見之建築工程DB統包常態上應完成基本設計後招標，惟現行國內各機關執行統包幾乎僅做先期規劃後就招標，究其因包含規劃設計工作權責劃分不清、設計服務費用分配並未明定、設計責任與著作權歸屬未予釐清等。 統包更快、更好及更便宜優點現今仍未為AEC業界所感受到，如何克服我國統包法令面或技術面的困境，建議政府主管部門及業界積極參考國外的制度與案例、徹底檢討過往十多年執行缺失及探討國內統包工程執行之關鍵課題，研議更完善統包制度，同時並建立定期檢討機制。

“Government Procurement Act” has since been issued for almost two decades. However, laws including “Regulations for the Implementation of Procurement on a Turnkey Basis”, “Regulations for Evaluation of the Most Advantageous Tender”, and project management system are different from it, which often cause disputes when implementing. This research focuses on discussing the Design-Build implementing deletions before Design-Build contract was awarded, because those deletions are usually the main reasons that cause follow-up disputes. According to domestic references, the key issues of Design-Build implementing deletions before the Design-Build contract awarded are: (1) Unhealthy selection system (2) Unclear owner requirements (3) Unreasonable contract risk allocation. These two decades, United States’ Design-Build laws for practical implementation of Design-Build are almost complete. This contains utilizing Qualification-Based Selection (QBS) to select Architects and Engineers (A/E), and usually use Best Value Selection in Two-Phased selection system when selecting a Design-Build firm. These selection systems reduce the numbers to under 5 firms. In Taiwan, we select A/E firm and Design-Build firm by the Most Advantageous Tender, but this selection system is often unfair because of unreasonable evaluation results given by selection committee members, and yet the current system isn’t able to solve this problem. American selection committee is organized by professional technical members, while 50% of the selection committee members in Taiwan are office members and professionalism is not strictly required. References also mentioned that the risk allocation of Design-Build contracts in Taiwan is unreasonable, which stated that domestic contracts are still far from meeting the standards of international contracts. The turnkey project delivery can be divided mainly into two types, Design-Build and EPC. A number of references show that the Design-Build for architectural projects should complete the basic design before the bidding, but in Taiwan it usually heads into the bidding process when completing the preliminary planning only. This is caused by a few reasons including ambiguous design responsibilities, unclear design fees allocation, and the division of copyright ownership. In turn, AEC still couldn’t acknowledge the advantages of Design-Build such as faster, better and cheaper constructions. To overcome the difficulties at decretal face and technical face, we recommend that government administrations and industries refer to foreign systems and cases actively, review the performance defect in past decades and investigate the key issues in Taiwan, then construct a more complete Design-Build system, and establish a regularly reviewing mechanism.