自1980年代大台北區之捷運計畫啟動以來，工程進度管理規範與標準在台灣推行已近30年，大型的公共軌道工程契約中皆訂定有進度管理準則之相關條款，但是也有計畫規定得完整，也有不明確的，有的甚至分散於不同的契約規範章節中；於2013年工程會統一頒布施工規範「第01103章進度管理」，實際上係彙整前述各種公共工程契約內進度管理之規範總合，以為提供業主與廠商有一完整的共同遵行依據，且希望藉由此統一規範之頒行，能協助後續各項公共工程的進度管理，提升廠商進度管理的品質與成效，以期達到如期完工之目標。 2013年後發包之大型軌道公共工程僅有新北市之三鶯線計畫一案，故於該項規範之頒佈後，政府各級機關新的軌道計畫案，目前尚處啟始規劃階段，故無法作為新頒規範之有效檢証案例，因此本研究乃以2013年以前已完工計畫的進度管理執行狀況，來分別比對、驗證工程會「第01103章 進度管理」中各項條款於過往實施時之適用性與管理成效，結果發現這些已完成之計畫案在執行上絕大部分符合「01103章」之規定，惟，除了高鐵的特殊處理案例外，其餘實際上全部經歷數次工期展延無一倖免。為何依契約執行各項進度管理規範的要求後，卻仍發生工期遲延情事？本研究詳細探討五個案例計畫之實際執行紀錄，以及遲延的原因加以彙整，並建議以目前工期遲延分析最準確的「視窗分析法」定期分析計畫的執行結果，於遲延發生時以中立角度分析業主與廠商之遲延責任歸屬，積極降低延遲的影響，並進一步探討進度管理規範之不足並建議應補充之處，以做為未來公共工程進度管理的參考。;The project schedule control specification had been enforcing for almost 30 years, since the Taipei metropolitan area mass rapid transit line projects were initiated in 1980. Although all the large public track work construction contracts have mandatory requested with schedule management clauses or regulations, some of their requirements were clear and specific, yet some were not. Some of the contracts even put these scheduling requirements in different sections under the specification. In 2013, the Public Construction Commission, Executive Yuan (PCC) has openly enacted the Construction Outline Specification with the new “Section 01103 Progress Management” (SPEC) related to the project schedule control. This SPEC has actually lumped together all aforementioned schedule control regulations or clauses of the past public construction contracts to be the completed, basic standard to be followed by both the government owners and contractors. With its taking effect, PCC expected to promote the overall quality and performance of the project progress control in order to complete the contracts on time. As of the late 2016, only the San Ying line project of New Taipei City has been awarded after the SPEC enforcement in 2013. Therefore, the government latest track work project which utilizes the SPEC is currently only on the initiating stage and could not be taken as eligible case for effectiveness study. This study has taken the track work projects which have completed before 2013 as the cases to thoroughly review the actual schedule control report against each specific progress control requirement of those cases. Then, these results were used for comparing, validating the applicability and performance on each of the SPEC article. All cases were found almost fully conforming to the requirements or regulations of the SPEC. However, all cases had encountered one or two contractual time extensions (EOT) except the high speed rail way project, which extended their contract time under different conciliation alternative. These EOT facts bring up the unavoidable question i.e. why the SPEC regulations could not achieve its promises? This study thoroughly reviews the actual construction record of 5 cases and summarizes all their EOT events. The author also recommends adapting the Window Analysis method to perform the time delay analysis periodically and fairly to conclude all delay responsibilities which are to be shared by the owner or the contractor. The deficiency of the new SPEC has also been reviewed and proposed with some amendment as the reference material on progress management procedures for future public projects.
