政府採購法停權制度自88年公告實施、91年修正施行後，無論是機關，或是廠商，對於停權條款均認仍有修法之需要。最近一次108年修法從第一個提案到三讀通過歷經30個月，立委對於新增陳述意見、情節重大的認定要件及修訂停權期間等均存在歧異意見，顯見立法過程極複雜。本文之研究目的在於，瞭解立法過程的主要爭點與修法結果，與具有實務經驗的專家意見比對，找出異同。 本文綜整立委提案及內容，檢視爭點及最終立法結果，藉此訪問具實務經驗之專家對於修法內容提出意見與看法，然後比較兩者之間的異同，依此研討修法結果與實務經驗的契合與歧異。 本文研究發現發現，（1）新增應予廠商陳述意見之機會為多數專家所認可，僅少數受訪者認定，機關仍有決定權；（2）論比例原則，多數專家同意增訂情節重大之認定原則，惟認定標準難有一致；（3）空窗期概念多為專家反對，存有未審先判疑慮，（4）有關第六款之廠商違法事項需要如何認定成立，法院最終判決始認定，或維持目前規定之一審有罪，抑或緩起訴即納為停權要件，以及連帶規範停權期間長短，彈性放寬與嚴格處分，立法者之間幾乎是南轅北轍，專家看法也不完全相似。 本文提出三項未來修法建議：（1）停權制度對於投標公司規模或標案經費級距應予以不同的懲罰標準，使得大小不一的公司受到的處分得以提升採購效率與功能之立法目的；（2）以懲罰性措施促使承攬廠商做好內部控制，確保政府採購品質。此一彈性作法亦可給予機關處分的彈性，以符合比例原則的法律精神；（3）立法過程其實是達成社會共識的過程，因此，公共工程委員會或是各類公、協會若能在平時增進社會大眾對於停權制度的瞭解，修法之際就能較容易達成共識，完成多贏修法。;The suspension mechanism by the Government Procurement Act has influenced practitioners significantly, especially for tiny flaw(s) that can cause a firm out of business. The purpose is to explore the impact to the practice after the suspension mechanism of the Government Procurement Act was modified in 2019. The literature review focuses on the legislation process, orientation for suspension mechanism, and modification process for the Government Procurement Act. Expertise are collected regarding procurement review process, false documents, severe violation, labor protection, bribery on procurement, and collateral punishment, followed by the findings including (1) establishment of review board for procurement, (2) cumulative punishment for deliberately false documents, (3) guilty verdict by first instance as the suspension threshold, (4) additional articles to prevent bribery during procurement processes, (5) determination rules for severe circumstances, and (6) window sanction. The findings can clarify how practitioners may concern if they run into suspension punishment and how they may deal with procurement regulations.
