當因工程設計服務契約文字用詞不明確或不適當、未載明工程設計瑕疵認定標準或依據，使得致認定工程設計瑕疵窒礙難行；其次，工程設計與監造分離時，設計與監造廠商之責任亦難以釐清。日後發生工程設計爭（疑）議，機關（業主）將難以根據設計服務契約內容對設計廠商究責，而發生政府採購法第六十三條規定適用困難之窘境。因此如何訂定工程設計瑕疵類型及其認定之標準或依據，實值探究。 本研究藉由國內工程設計服務契約範本之蒐集整理與分析，瞭解設計服務契約之內涵與契約語意問題所在並釐清設計廠商之權利義務與法律責任；其次由蒐集彙整工程設計問題相關研究調查結果與糾紛案例等資料，深入瞭解與分析工程設計瑕疵問題之現況與爭（疑）議，以確認國內現行工程設計瑕疵之態樣；最後依據所蒐集之設計相關法規、設計規範、設計服務契約內容、工程慣例、仲裁判斷等依據，嘗試研擬設計瑕疵類型與認定標準。 根據本研究之分析，國內工程設計瑕疵概分設計錯誤、設計不完整、漏項與數量計算差異、圖與圖衝突、圖與說不符、綁標等六大類瑕疵態樣，易導致爭（疑）議與糾紛，亟待檢討改善。有鑑於此，本研究乃彙整上述瑕疵類型與認定標準，並以特約條款（Covenants）之方式，提出將其納入勞務或技術服務的採購契約之建議，供實務運作之參考，俾利釐清設計廠商之責任，解決工程實務上因工程設計瑕疵所引起之爭（疑）議。 The language used in design service contracts determines the rights and obligation of the designer. If this language becomes vague or omission, major difficulty in determining the question of whether the design product is defective will be met. This also creates a problem-bound area for Government Procurement Act Provision 63, in which the liability for defection design work is clearly defined. This work attempts to rethink the source of design obligation and liability. In order to achieve this, it is imperative to pinpoint all possible areas of vague or omissive terms/ language used in a design service contracts. This work reviews all form design service contracts, relevant disputes and literature, and classifies six key types of design defects. Based on this classification, it then identifies the standard of cave with respect to each class of design defect. The contribution of this work is to afford contract drafter a reference as a set of covenant to be incorporated into design service contracts.
