公共工程爭議的產生不僅延長施工期限、降低施工品質，也造成業主與營造廠商間的信任度下降，因此，為避免損失擴大，如何及時解決爭議並使工程順利進行即成了現今營建產業的重要課題。訴訟外爭議解決機制 (Alternative Disputes Resolution) 之盛行使營建產業了解訴訟非為工程爭議的唯一解決途徑，而相較調解、仲裁及訴訟，爭議審議委員會 ( Dispute Boards) 更有時效性及個案專業性之優點，亦有預防工程爭議之功用。本研究之目的為蒐集並彙整國外DB制度之成功案例並分析國內公共工程爭議處理制度之現況，以探討國內公共工程使用DB之適用性，並研擬DB制度之導入模式，探討導入DB之問題點，提出導入建議及改善方法。本研究藉由專家訪談之問卷結果及相關文獻提出國內導入爭議審議委員會之問題點，加以討論其影響國內導入爭議審議委員會之源由，分別為1. 對制度不熟悉2. 國內無法源依據3. DB於程序上之定位4. 委員會決定之效力5. 委員會之費用，並提出增訂公共工程使用DB制度之法源依據及改善促參法協調委員會制度兩項建議。Disputes in public works not only extend the construction period, but reduce the quality of construction, and cause mistrust between owners and contractors. Resolving the disputes in time is the priority of all construction issues. The increasing popularity of Alternative Disputes Resolution, which enables the construction industry to understand that litigation is not the only way, nor the best, to resolve a dispute. Compared to mediation, arbitration and litigation, Dispute Boards (DB) is faster and more professional, with the added function of potentially preventing a dispute from becoming one. The purpose of this research is to collect successful examples of DB system from other countries, to analyze the current status of the domestic dispute system, and to be able to recommend the DB and to identify the most likely limitations.By interviewing DB experts and reviewing related literature, some typical problems of the DB have been identified in this research, including: 1.an unfamiliarity with the DB system; 2.the lack of the resources of law; 3.the absence of the DB program orientation; 4.the finding of DB member’s decisions and 5.the cost of DB. Finally, this research will propose two suggestions. The first is to amend the law of public work and add in a DB system, the second is to improve the mediation committee of Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects.
