採購招標方式之選擇----政府採購法第十九條實踐論證;Selection of Tendering Method: A Study of Article 19 of Government Procurement Act

NCU Institutional Repository > 工學院 > 土木工程研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/68009

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/68009

題名:	採購招標方式之選擇----政府採購法第十九條實踐論證;Selection of Tendering Method: A Study of Article 19 of Government Procurement Act
作者:	胡海潮;Hu,Tony Hai-Chao
貢獻者:	土木工程學系
關鍵詞:	政府採購法;採購招標方式;選擇採購招標方式;公開招標;Government Procurement Act;Procurement & Tendering Method;Selection of Tendering Method;Open tendering
日期:	2015-07-27
上傳時間:	2015-09-23 10:12:10 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學
摘要:	我國《政府採購法》(以下簡稱《採購法》)自西元1998年通過，迄今已經執行逾15年。文獻中顯示此一制度一直有下列爭議：一、因選擇採購方式易被冠上圖利的罪名，造成機關人員選擇相對安全的招標方式。其他的方式都被污名化了，能用的僅存公開招標。二、文獻之文義中，顯露有採用公開招標較高的現象。但多只是文字描述之質化說明，或有量化數字亦屬間接表露。三、選擇公開招標之決策機制，造成政府整體效能窒礙不彰、廠商低價搶標，無法確保採購品質、作業違失、採購作業僵化、造成工程保固缺失、移送偵辦數量偏高等問題。本研究針對以上文獻顯示部分，直接探究選擇公開招標與造成不理性的決策機制之制度層面原因，對於公務員圖利陰影之心理行為層面不在討論範圍。量化證明前述高度使用公開招標的現象之質化資訊後，直接追溯探究「選擇相對安全的招標方式」之法律制度機制來源。認為《採購法》第19條(以下用§19條代表)條款制度設計之現行機制與我國實務上採用公開招標較高可能有關係。廣義的「採購招標方式之選擇」機制涵括現行§19條條款制度設計之機制，故有此研究題目命題。本研究目的在證明此一命題是否正確，若可能則對該條文給予修改建議。研究首先將研究目的轉化為五個問題，作為研究之綱領。五個問題如下：一、如何證明我國實務上採用公開招標較高? 二、§19條之制度設計由那來的? 三、§19條制度設計上是怎麼規定的? 四、其他國家的採購法是否有類似§19條條款?是如何規定的? 五、要依據什麼來改§19條條款?如何改? 本研究用多國實踐結果數據統計、文獻回顧法、比較研究法、歷史溯源、術語(Terminology)定義與語句構造分析等方法研究上述五個問題。發現類似概念皆源自外國相關法條，且在引入稼接中有兩次概念之混淆。復經歸納、分析、整理與採購招標選擇之原理探討，除證明命題正確，並獲得下列三點核心概念，作為設計修改§19條條文之機制依據，提出修改建議，以及過渡期處理建議。一、選擇招標方式之權力應在行政機關二、更多的採購招標方式能更清晰精確的處理可能遇到的情境三、按選擇招標方式之辦法(子法)，設計制度機制總括來說，本研究統計分析多國資料，發現我國採用公開招標頻率高於他國之特殊性。再用比較法及歷史溯源語言分析認識現行之§19條，認為該條文機制除造成《採購法》§1條的法律體系價值不貫徹，且有悖於國際趨勢，應予以調整。本研究同時提出§19條條文修改芻議，以及修改條文立法前，過渡期之處理芻議，以期機關有所遵循。建議未來研究方向，應往如何改進法律制度，讓公務執行單位在面對採購標的以及採購情境時，不用再被鼓勵「勇於任事」，而能依循制度執行，無須尋求「勇士」，(鼓)「勇」(涉險)任事。制度亦能無求「廉士」，而士自廉。並列舉七項具體未來研究方向建議。;Taiwan′s Government Procurement Act (hereinafter referred to as the Procurement Act) was promulgated since year 1998. This Act has been in execution for more than 15 years. Literature has shown that such a system has many issues to be discussed as follow: 1. Selective tendering method may easily topped with profit charges, causing authorities choosing the relative safe tendering method. Other methods have been stigmatized, and leave only open tendering method popular. 2. Reviewing the related documents revealed that the open tendering was highly utilized, but only descriptive or indirect qualitative evidence were revealed. 3. Open tendering method often resulting in low price completion between bidders and might eventually hinder Governmental effectiveness. Low bid cannot ensure the quality of construction, is easy to encounter fraud due to operation rigidity, and, even inviting investigation and over indictment. In view of the literatures reviewed and quantitative evidence of over use of open tendering method, this study directly explores the institutional reasons on choosing open tendering methods, which lead to irrational decision-making mechanisms. The psychological and behavioral aspect of tendering officers to avoid responsibility is not in the scope of this study. It is a “believe” the 19th article of the Procurement Act may have been the origin of the over use of open tendering method in practice. The broader notion of “Selection of Tendering Method” mechanisms includes the existing provisions § 19 are studied. This study aims to demonstrate that this proposition is correct and revision of the provision is proposed. In this study, the subject is transformed into five questions. These five questions are listed as follows: 1. How to prove the open tendering method is over used in Taiwan’s practice? 2. Where is §19 of Procurement Act from? 3. How §19 was designed and analyzed ? 4. Does other countries have similar provisions as §19 in their Procurement Act? 5. How should §19 be revised and the reasoning of the modification? Through the use of multinational practice statistics, literature reviews, comparison study, historic findings, terminology definitions and structured statement analysis, the study of the five questions were conducted. Similar concept do exists in some the foreign laws, and there were twice confused when the concept was introduced. After analysis and discussion on the tendering principles of procurement, It is concluded that the “believe” was correct and the following three core concepts may be used as the base to propose modification of §19. The three concepts are: 1. The power of selecting tendering method shall rest in executive authorities 2. Various Tendering methods is needed for better and more precise handling for meeting the need in the variation of situations 3. Detailed selection method guidance is needed It is observed in the statistical analysis that the frequency of using open tendering method in Taiwan is higher than many other countries. Historic review of the Act legislation on §19 indicated conflict logic with that of §1 and is in contrary to the international trend and should be adjusted. It is also proposed in this study the transitional practice to mitigate this conflict before the provision amendment. Recommends for future research are also suggested for further modification of the Act so as to encourage tendering authorities to bravely execute the Act without worry about possible legal risks.
顯示於類別:	[土木工程研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
index.html		0Kb	HTML	456	檢視/開啟

在NCUIR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

資料載入中.....