| 摘要: | 91年7月行政院公共工程委員會發佈「公共工程專業技師簽證規則」及92年1月實施之「公共工程監造制度改進方案」，將專業技師簽證制度區分為機關自行辦理及機關委託民間辦理兩大類。對於專業技師簽證項目主要以設計簽證及監造簽證兩類為主，各相關法令中對專業技師於辦理簽證作業時，其人員資格、簽證範圍、工作內容、罰則等均有相關規定。 為因應法令所規定於辦理公共工程技師簽證時，需由具技師資格者才得以辦理之情形，目前工程機關或民間機構於辦理技師簽證時，皆須由具技師資格者辦理。但於工程機關產生內部人員具技師資格者因無額外相當報酬，不願意簽證，結果反需委請外部技師簽證，或是應交由專業簽字負責簽證之事項，機關卻在無技師監督下完成作業後再請技師蓋章之現象產生。而民間顧問公司執行專案計畫時，卻易發生具技師資格者雖為組織架構中之一員，但卻僅負責圖說上之簽證工作，未實際參與工作事項。對於以上現象似乎扭曲了公共工程專業技師簽證規則中所規定「技師執行簽證，應親自為之，並僅得就本人或在本人監督下完成之工作為簽證」之本意。 目前法令規定政府機關內部於辦理設計及監造工作時，須由具有專業知識及經驗之技師辦理公共工程案件。此一簽證制度規定與組織內部責任架構相互衝突，除將產生責任不明之處外，也使當初在制定該專技技師簽證制度之目的有所扭曲。若能以政府機關內部於辦理工程案件時，是以具備專業知識者為工程文件之簽名負責是較為恰當。 另ㄧ方面，每位技師應僅就其法定範圍辦理簽證。任一複雜之公共工程皆需多種技師參與該工程，則需要多種不同技師共同辦理該案件，但在對於臨時外聘之技師辦理簽證時，實際上對於該案件所知有限，這也會進一步扭曲專業技師之簽證制度，因此當一顧問公司被接受委託辦理設計與監造時，該計畫主持人或計畫經理其所具備之專業知識及簽證範圍，應涵蓋廣泛之專業技師資格，如此才能真正承擔計畫之成敗之責。 因此，本研究將藉由文獻回顧了解目前簽證制度執行狀況為何，法令規定探討專業技師實際簽證工作應為何，並蒐集先進國家對於專業工程師於辦理簽證時，對於簽證人員之資格規定、簽證工作、簽證責任，並藉由問卷發放、專家訪談了解目前實務上對於簽證作業如何運作詳加討論，最後提出適當法令修改建議以供相關機關作為參考。 “Professional Engineer Signing Regulation for Public Works” and “The Improvement Act for Public Construction Supervision” in Taiwan were promulgated respectively in July, 2002 and January, 2003. The Signing of Professional Engineers is categorized into signing of Governmental Agency Engineers and signing of the Entrusted Professional Engineers. For the items need to be signed by professional engineers include both Design and Construction Supervision while the qualification of signer, scope of signing, content of work, and punishment are regulated. According to the regulations, the design and construction supervision must be signed by a licensed professional engineer regardless if the design or supervision are performed in-house by governmental engineers or entrusted to outside consulting firms. The governmental agency engineers, who personally are licensed engineer, are normally reluctant to sign as a professional engineer because of lack of incentive. In response to the requirement that all the design and supervision must be signed by professional engineers, the governmental agency can only entrust an outside professional engineer to sign the documents which were actually completed in-house, but are neither really completed nor monitored in the process by the signed engineer himself. Similar situation may also happen in a consulting engineering firm. The firm may be entrusted to completed a design or supervision contract for public works, but the working team may not have the professional engineers in every necessary discipline thus must use a professional engineer outside the team or outside the firm to do the signing. The above mentioned situations are all deviated from the original motive “to have professional engineers sign the design and/or supervision that are completed or monitored by the professional engineer.” It is observed that for some of the governmental agencies, which have been traditionally doing design and construction supervision in-house, the expertise and experience of the engineering personnel are strong enough to meet the need of public works. Having an external licensing system interfering into internal responsibility structure is confusing and also defeats the original purpose the Professional Engineer licensing mechanism. It is believed that allowing the engineer working within governmental agencies be responsible for the signing of engineering documents is a more appropriate. On the other hand, Professional Engineers of each discipline is eligible only to sign within the expertise of the single discipline. Thus, for any public work construction, when many disciplines are involved, the need to incorporate some professional engineers from outside becomes necessary. The outsider again may sign under limited knowledge about the work. This again defeats the purpose of Professional Engineer licensing mechanism. Therefore, when a consulting firm is entrusted to carry out the design and/or supervision, the team leader may need to have a discipline license covering a broader area to be responsible for the whole project. In this study, through literature review, questionnaire survey, expert interview, and comparative studies, etc., some in-depth analysis has been made and suggestions on the revision of the regulations formulated. |
