依據大眾捷運法第七條第七項規定，大眾捷運系統主管機關或交通部指定之地方主管機關得辦理不動產興闢事業，以有效利用土地資源。從而，政府機關藉由捷運之興建促使廠、站與毗鄰土地開創互利關係，帶動鄰近地區經濟活動發展，提昇捷運系統沿線土地之利用價值，此種「聯合開發」行為自開發業務至78年以來，已興建完成了30處個案，皆已進入租售作業階段。 目前聯合開發業務已趨向高峰，聯合開發的法令亦漸趨完備，惟依據大眾捷運系統土地開發辦法第十七條受理申請投資土地開發案件，辦理甄選臺北都會區大眾捷運系統土地開發投資人之審查及評選作業，特訂「臺北都會區大眾捷運系統土地開發投資申請案件審查及評選作業要點」，在投資人甄選能力資格條件，倘符合一般資格，即可通過第一階段篩選，進入第二階段評選作業後，相關機關與專家學者依據各投資人提出之「開發建議書」，配合評選作業中評審項目及重要性係數，進一步評選出最後得標投資人。而關於第二階段投資人提出之「開發建議書」，主辦機關與評審專家於評選程序中，評審項目與內容包括申請人與主管機關、土地所有人合作條件、分收比例及相關權利與義務、開發建議書、及其他有益開發之事項，此評選項目是否完整與合理，評審作業是否只考慮到權益而忽略聯合開發品質與執行力等課題，仍有進一步研酌之餘地。 本研究根據目前已進入租售作業的聯合開發個案，對於交屋時實際發生的問題，有接近一半的聯合開發案例發生交屋後續服務相關的問題，包括公共設施無法順利移交與客戶投訴問題，皆嚴重影響客戶的生活品質，客戶或管委會告知投資人，但投資人解決問題成效不彰，或是一再推延，所以尋求捷運局的介入，才得以尋求解決方法。此外，藉由分析聯合開發基地之評選作業程序、法規政策，並運用問卷調查法亦發現評選項目不完善，常常影響投資人得標與否；多數廠商無後續服務之機制，遇到後續服務問題時，就發生之問題與管委會、主管機關協商，尋求解決；評選項目無相關內容對於後續服務解決之規定。本研究最後將所歸納之問題，包括一、評選項目須加入後續服務之規定，如何加入；二、後續服務之具體規定內容；三、廠商無後續服務之機制，如何解決，透過曾參與聯合開發之顧問團隊、開發商、聯合開發業務主辦機關等之專家，進行訪談，以完整掌握專業建議與解決方案，藉以檢討適切辦理方式，爰以本文探討之。 Pursuant to relevant regulations, the Agency responsible for constructing the Mass Rapid Transit System is delegated to power to develop real estate under partnership with private developers. This creates immense property development opportunities around station zones. Ever since the promulgation of the relevant regulations, there have been thirty projects completed under this business partnership. Until this date, most developers have witness the pass success and are quite responsive to future possibilities. Along this trend, more detailed regulations were also in place to better promote this Public-Private partnership mode. As much as this partnership can be very successful, the competition among potential private bidders has been acute. There exist calls for improvement upon the review and selection procedure undertaken by the MRT agency. Specifically, the criteria adopted during the review and selection procedure primarily are responsible for how potential bidders prepare themselves, as well as the bid proposal. Some private developers question the reasonableness of these criteria, and believe the Agency’s rationality shall be challenged. The aim of this study is to look into the doubts opined by developers who actually involved in one or more such partnership development cases, and verify whether they present merits. It collects all the complaints filed by the end buyer/owner of the real estates developed out of the partnership cases. It is found that more than half of the complaints are related to warranty problems, ranging from turn-over of public facilities, discrepancies of construction quality, etc. In some filed cases, there seem to exist delinquent delays in responding to the complaints. This study was able to conduct interview with most of the agency personnel who participate in past partnership with private developers. The filed complaints were analyzed and used as the basis for attempting to improve the review and selection criteria adopted in the past. The major findings of this work include: 1. the developer’s reputation and capacity in providing premium service after proper turnover should be included as a key criteria in selecting the bidder; 2. such an criterion need to be clearly defined in accordance to industrial standard; for those completed projects which yet obviously are lacking sufficient subsequent warranty services, the incumbent agency should present a task force to duly resolve the filed complaints.
