;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.