摘 要 為使採購作業流程能順利決標，我國政府採購法（以下簡稱「《採購法》」）於第五十三至五十六條訂定相關措施，規定於無法決標時，得啟動協商措施。若仍無法決標，再行確定廢標。《採購法》中將協商措施制定為廢標前可選擇採取之最後方式，目的為使整體採購於規定之條件限制下仍無法決標時，採ㄧ較為彈性之方式，使得整體採購在經由漫長等待後能夠順利決標，雙方各得所需，不致廢標而前功盡棄，故協商措施立意良好無庸置疑。 但是，因現行《採購法》中，協商措施尚未制度化且缺乏進一步可遵循之作業程序，導致政府機關之承辦人員，因無明確程序可依循，進而避免採行該類措施。反觀其他國際組織或國家，例如：聯合國、世界貿易組織、美國及中國大陸相關採購制度中，競爭性談判（Competitive Negotiation）採購方式於各單位施行已久且已制度化實施。此方式之概念與我國協商措施制定精神相同，但於我國卻甚少使用，殊為可惜。 本研究旨在由國內協商措施隱含之問題，及透過比較上述主要組織及國家之競爭性談判施行相關規定與我國協商措施之差異，藉以改善國內現況所遭遇之問題，並提出於我國適用競爭性談判之情形及實施作業程序建議，以供相關單位參考。 Abstract In order to be successfully awarded in the procurement process, the provisions no. 53 to 56 of the Government Procurement Law are set to activate the negotiation procedure, which is the last measure before the procurement is nullified. The purpose is to apply negotiation in a flexible manner when it is difficult to award under the regulation and restricted condition of the procurement law. This will help to complete the award of the procurement after a long wait and both side are in their best interests. Therefore the negotiation is doubtlessly important. However, the negotiation in the current procurement procedure is yet to be institutionalized and is in lack of the further operation process. This has resulted in the hesitation of the application of the measure by the procurement officials. On the contrary, the competitive negotiation measure has long been institutionalized and was put into practice for the procurement system in other international organizations or countries such as United Nations, World Trade Organization, America and China. This study discusses issues related to the negotiation in the domestic market and compares the difference with the competitive negotiation from the other main organizations and nations to improve the domestic conditions and proposed an implementation process of the suitable competitive negotiation in the domestic market.
