| 摘要: | 公部門透過政府採購制度委託私部門進行財物購置、辦理服務、興建工程之契約委外行為，於現今被大量的採用，甚已成為公部門最主要的業務項目之一。如無此助力，公共事務的處理及公共服務的提供，其困難程度將大幅增加。
政府採購制度以採購級距(採購金額)就個案需遵循的程序進行分類，「未達公告金額招標案件」，即採購級距在「未達公告金額但逾公告金額十分之一」此一類別的採購案件，占比長期在全國政府採購案件的50%以上，各年度內總和之案件數超過10萬件且採購金額各達新臺幣數百億元以上，雖個別採購案件的採購金額不高，但自公共行政整體性的角度觀察，對此類契約委外行為即不能不加以重視。「未達公告金額但逾公告金額十分之一」類型的政府採購，雖然預算少但居然佔整體案量的近六成(旅遊性質採購又占其中的兩成五左右)，明顯成為課責上的一大缺口。
以桃園市基層單位旅遊(觀摩)性質採購為例，在「未達公告金額招標案件」中，旅遊(觀摩)性質採購案數量最多，大多為基層單位所辦理，並以「參考最有利標精神」方式決標者占絕大部份，而基層單位相較之下，因人員配置較少、人力較不充足，業務無法進行高度分工，致專業程度和法令熟悉程度較低，但又有諸多與所在區域相關連的業務需要處理，因此會更偏好簡易、迅速、因循往例的作法，未能對採購案件的「課責性」予以重視，致使「代理問題」更可能產生。是以，以桃園市基層單位旅遊(觀摩)性質採購做為本研究之次級資料分析與深度訪談的標的，可認為是最具代表性的類型。
其中，包括「機關辦理採購之廠商家數規定一覽表」在內繁複的招標方式、監辦程序在中央機關和地方機關不一致的狀況、以「參考最有利標精神」決標的工作小組和專家學者委員參與評審及欠缺法令規範與可能產生分批採購等問題、「改採限制性招標」所帶來的適用上疑義，都是本研究在試圖建構「未達公告金額招標案件」之課責途徑及監督機制時，所必須重新檢視的議題。
期待透過本研究之文獻分析、次級資料分析及深度訪談獲得的結果，修正調整現行制度規範，讓「未達公告金額招標案件」能建構課責途徑及監督機制，使契約委外行為不至於頻發代理問題，也讓公眾對公平、公正、公開、透明的政府採購行為的期待能得到回應，基層單位的採購人員也不會因為課責機制和法令規範的不明確，無端遭受責難而不能勇於任事。;The utilization of government procurement systems by the public sector to outsource the procurement of goods, provision of services, and construction projects to the private sector is a prevalent practice. This modus operandi has ascended to become a fundamental component of public sector activities, playing a pivotal role in the efficacious administration of public affairs and the delivery of public services.
In the realm of government procurement, a categorization system is employed, predicated on procurement tiers (monetary values) and the corresponding procedural requisites for each tier. The category designated as “Bidding cases that do not reach the announced amount” encompasses those procurement instances that fall within the bracket of “not attaining the announced value yet surpassing one-tenth of said amount.” This category persistently represents a substantial fraction, exceeding 50%, of all government procurement cases at the national level, with an annual aggregate of cases surpassing 100,000 and the procurement expenditures reaching several billions of New Taiwan Dollars. Despite the modest procurement value of individual cases, their aggregate significance cannot be understated when considered from a holistic public administration perspective. The type of government procurement where the “ bidding cases do not reach the announced amount”, despite the low budget, surprisingly constitutes 60% of the total case volume. (travel related procurement has approximately 25% of these cases). It has revealed a significant “accountability” gap.
A case in point is the prevalence of travel (observation)-related procurement cases within “Bidding cases that do not reach the announced amount” in the basic level units of Taoyuan City. These cases, predominantly managed by basic level units, typically resolve the awarding of contracts based on the principle of “opting for the most advantageous bid.” The constrained staffing and specialization levels in these units engender a predilection for methods that are streamlined, rapid, and adhere to precedent, thereby neglecting the crucial aspect of “accountability” in procurement cases, and consequently heightening the propensity for “agency problems.” Therefore, this study elects to focus on the travel (observation)-related procurements of grassroots units in Taoyuan City for its secondary data analysis and in-depth interviews, as they epitomize a prototypical scenario within this context.
Pertinent issues warranting scrutiny include the complexity of bidding procedures, exemplified by instruments such as “A List of the Number of Vendors Required for Agencies to Conduct Procurement,” the discrepancy in supervisory protocols between central and local bodies, the predilection for decision-making aligned with the “spirit of the most advantageous bid,” and the absence of stringent legal and regulatory frameworks. Additionally, the challenges associated with split procurement and the ambiguities encountered in the transition to “restricted tendering” are pivotal considerations in the endeavor to formulate an accountability framework and supervisory mechanism for “bidding cases that do not reach the announced amount.”
The objective of this study is to critically appraise and recalibrate the extant regulatory framework through comprehensive literature analysis, secondary data scrutiny, and in-depth qualitative interviews. The aim is to establish a robust accountability pathway and supervisory mechanism for “bidding cases that do not reach the announced amount.” This initiative seeks to mitigate the frequency of agency problems in contract outsourcing activities, align with public expectations for equitable, impartial, transparent, and accountable government procurement practices, and safeguard procurement personnel at basic levels from unwarranted censure owing to nebulous accountability mechanisms and regulatory directives, thereby empowering them to discharge their duties with conviction. |
