| 摘要: | 建立政府採購法第26條之目的在於能夠降低甚至避免限制競爭、綁標的問題，由於公共工程大部分的業主大多以公家機關為主，並不屬於專門負責的工務機構，但依照流程規定同等品之審查是經由主辦機關審查認定，導致公家機關為了避免爭議及降低自身麻煩，則將標準降低讓大部分的廠商得以參與工程之競標，以至於雖有同等品的審查規定，卻沒有實際使用的時機，也讓公共工程的品質長期停在「雖不滿意但可接受」的程度。 過去的相關研究針對公共工程同等品之制度做研究，提出在短期計畫中需建立同等品之審查機制，本研究將依照同等品之特性不同分為1.複雜度2.資訊之透明3.審查預算4.時間5.業主是否有能力審查，及適用之審查機制可分為1.自行審查2.開會審查3.委託審查，此三種審查方式為政府採購法第二十六條執行注意事項中所提及的，希望能依照同等品不同之特性，配合不同之審查機制，作為較適當的審查，例如：條件一、複雜度低，條件二、資訊透明度夠，條件三、擁有充足之審查預算等，依照這三項條件來選擇哪個審查機制較為合適，機關自行審查這種審查機制可以符合條件需求，由於複雜度低以及資訊透明，機關較不用擔心會引發廠商之不滿或是認為有綁標之嫌疑，則表示這項審查機制較適合作為此部分之審查，而若是複雜度高，為了避免爭議達到公平性，可能需要由專業的機關來協助審查，則可依照條件選擇開會審查或是委託審查，如此一來則可以比較公平，也希望能經由本研究之辦法，提升同等品之使用及其內涵。 The purpose of establishing the Law of Government Procurement, Article 26, is to reduce competition and bid rigging problems, even to restrict and avoid them. Most owners of public construction works are government agencies, which may not retain professional engineering expertise. But according to the Law, the review of substitutions are conducted by them. The lack of engineering expertise causes these agencies to tighten the possibility of allowing the use of substitutes. Therefore, despite there is provisions for the substitutions, there is no opportunity to use it. Past research focused on the issue of substitutions in public construction works, and generally proposed that a special-purpose system for reviewing substitutions is necessary. According to the natureof adopting substitutions, this work introduces five specific aspects for discussion: 1. Complexity, 2. Transparency of information, 3. Review costs, 4. Time, 5. Owner’s ability of review. The special-purpose review system can be divided into 1. Internal review, 2. Experts review meeting, and 3. Commissioned. Review. These three review methods are also mentioned in the Law of Government Procurement, Article 26, the executive notes. This work examine the ways of using the review methods appropriately. For example, condition 1 is the low complexity, condition 2 is that the transparency of information is sufficient, condition 3 is having enough review costs, and the owner could base these three conditions in order to decide which methods of review is appropriate. Because internal review is not so complicated and the information is transparent, the owner does not need to worry about that this method will lead to dissatisfaction with firms, or being suspected that any bid rigging is taking place. It means that this method of review is appropriate for these parts. But if the complexity is higher, in order to avoid controversy, a professional team is commissioned to help substitution reviews . It can examined by meeting or by commissioned to reach a fair situation. It is the main expectation of this work that the use and the connotation of the substitutions could be enhanced. |
