在公共工程中，以仲裁解決爭議的方式逐漸被扼殺，更遑論和解或調解，亦常有在調解、仲裁後又提起訴訟，在最新趨勢中仲裁條款被排除或前置程序更加複雜，在在顯示公共工程糾紛的救濟機制仍指向訴訟一途，在工程主辦機關立場而言是最合乎公平，且較不受爭議的方法，往往過度追求救濟之公平性而忽略了處理之效率、時間、成本等因素，如救濟費用，救濟時間。 本研究希望透過較嚴謹的方法，對公共工程爭議之性質進行分析，因不同的爭議事件，在處理上有其輕重不同，某些爭議可能注重處理的效率，因其有急迫性；有可能爭議本質上需尋求較公平的救濟程序；又或者爭議本身具有專業性，需由專家鑑定等，在在皆顯示了公共工程有其不同的性質。本研究希望經由不同性質爭議之界定，分析出各類型之爭議是否能由不同的救濟機制獲得較合理的救濟途徑。 In public works, settling disputes by arbitration is becoming rarer, least to mention about reconciliation or mediation. Even when mediation or reconciliation are dealt with, litigation may sometimes inevitable. In the latest trend in Taiwan, the clauses of arbitration are overall excluded or is set followed by a preempt procedure. This further complicates much how disputes are resolved, yet killing off all other means of dispute resolution mechanism. From the standpoint of government authority overseeing the construction industry, this very development can only work against to improving the efficiency and to helping the industry as a whole to grow. In particular, litigation can squarely prolong the process of seeking justice, necessarily hurt the contractor’s, in most cases the plaintiff, liquidity. The fundamental conviction of this work is that things need not be so controversial. There exist areas where both parties are beneficiary when disputes are resolved by arbitration or other more efficient means of resolution. This work attempts to categorize public work disputes, so that those which qualify for arbitration or which adamantly unsuitable for litigation can be revealed. The findings of this work can be employed to ratify dispute resolution clauses in public work contracts.
