| 摘要: | 「政府採購法」有關拒絕往來制度之規定，明定於第一百零一條至第一百零三條。觀其立法意旨，乃在藉由一定期間排除廠商投標或作為決標對象或分包廠商之效果，處罰廠商違法或重大違約行為，避免再度危害其他機關，甚而保障其他殷實廠商。有鑒於此，本研究首先將就該制度法制面理論及規定逐一剖析，且以此為實務執行面探討基礎；其次，再輔以拒絕往來廠商名單與停權爭議申訴案例的相關統計數據分析，俾具體呈現制度運作情形，並為現況檢討依據；繼而歸納常見之停權爭議態樣與研究發現，提出執行注意事項與改善建議。期許此制度全貌探討的結果，得以提供主管機關修法參考，以及招標機關裁量之依循，並讓廠商瞭解相關規定和救濟。
經研究發現：「政府採購法」自八十八年五月二十七日施行迄至九十四年止，已有5,482家廠商曾被拒絕往來一年或三年，且每年約有1,000筆停權處分記錄；因停權爭議提起申訴之總案件數近1,441件；平均申訴有理由之比例達40.11%，「政府採購法」第一百零一條第一項第十一款申訴有理由情形更高達54.33%；另同條項第十二款、第十款、第七款、第八款停權事由，則佔刊登政府採購公報及停權爭議申訴案件的83.13%與69.25%。此外，停權爭議多肇於不確定法律概念認知之差異；廠商一旦被停權，對於執行中之契約容易有不履約或濫為履約之事實；而法制面將履約階段情形列為停權事由，亦容易衍生調解和申訴競合，以及行政訴訟裁定駁回之狀況；申訴審議過程冗長，審議判斷視同訴願決定之規定，亦造成機關採購作業困擾。
綜上所述，本研究建議：主管機關宜針對執行或裁量易生爭議部分，建立明確可循原則、檢討各款停權事由的必要性、考慮擴大拒絕往來之範圍及效果，甚至可斟酌刪除視同訴願決定之規定，並加強法令教育與宣導；就採購機關而言，提高自審能力、加強招標文件廠商資格規範、善用最有利標決標原則、積極舉發不良廠商，有其必要；而對廠商來說，惟有誠信並審慎參與政府採購，始得避免成為拒絕往來對象，萬一接獲機關依法之通知，亦應妥適掌握法定救濟期間與途徑。
;In Taiwan’s Government Procurement Act, Articles 101 to 103 refer to the debarment system for suppliers. The objective of this system is to debar suppliers that have engaged in any activities in breach of laws or contract from participating in tendering, or being awarded or sub-contracted within a certain period of time, so that possible damages that may be caused by the debarred suppliers will not be extended to other procuring entities, and that the interests of other suppliers of good faith will be protected.For this purpose, this thesis focuses firstly on the analysis of the facts of the laws, regulations, and practices, and then on the statistics study of debarred suppliers and cases of dispute on debarment that have been referred to the Complaint Review Board for Government Procurement (CRBGP). Lastly, this thesis provides models of dispute on debarment, as well as some valuable findings and improvement proposals.。Hoping that the facts and findings of this thesis will be of much help not only to the responsible entity of the Act in refining the debarment system, but also to the procuring entities in making their decisions, as well as to the suppliers in understanding the laws and regulations and the dispute settlement procedures in this regard.
The study reveals that from the effective date of the Government Procurement Act, i.e. May 27, 1999, through the end of 2005, a total of 5,482 suppliers have been debarred for a period of one or three years, and the average number of such suppliers per year is around 1,000. In the same period, there have been 1,441 cases of dispute on debarment referring to the CRBGP, and 40.11% of them have been decided by the CRBGP as sustainable. Of the complaint cases related to sub-para.11 of para.1 of Article 101, the percentages of sustainability reaches 54.33%. Of the number of debarred suppliers related to sub-paras 12, 10,7 and 8 of para. 1 of Article 101 to the total number of debarred suppliers, the percentage reaches 83.13%.Of the number of complaint cases related to sub-paras 10, 12, 8 and 7 of para. 1 of Article 101 to the total number of complaint cases of the same Article, the percentage reaches 69.25%.In addition, many disputes on debarment were caused by different interpretation of the laws and regulations. Furthermore, in the event of debarment, a supplier may terminate its contract performance or perform the contract in an unfaithful manner. The inclusion of unfaithful contract performance as circumstances of debarment also causes non-harmony between the mediation system and the complaint review system, and consequently, the dismissal of filing by the administrative court. Besides, inconveniences incurred to the procuring entities also include the time-consuming complaint review procedures, and the regulation as to a dissatisfied supplier may refer the decision of the CRBGP to an administrative court.
In conclusion, this thesis proposes the following suggestions:
1.For the responsible entity of the Act: prescribing guidelines for circumstances where disputes may easily occur when procuring entities are making their decisions; reviewing the appropriateness of the circumstances prescribed in Article 101; extending further the coverage and effectiveness of the debarment system; abolishing the appeal procedure by the administrative court; and enhancing education and training programs.
2.For the procuring entities: Improving the capability of making correct decisions; developing appropriate qualification requirements for tendering; awarding to the most advantageous bid in an appropriate way; and implementing the debarment system affirmatively.
3.For the suppliers: participating government procurement in a faithful manner so that to avoid being en-listed as a debarred supplier and, in the event of receiving a notification of debarment from the procuring entity pursuant to the Act, the supplier should take into account the challenge procedures and time-limits that are available for the Act. |
