票票不等值下政府採購法中最有利標評選委員加權計分作業之研究

「票票等值、人人生而平等」看似民主社會裡一種普世價值，然而現實社會中卻往往存在「票票不等值」之事實，意即所謂的「假平等」。是本論文提出以「票票不等值」之觀點，進行政府採購法中最有利標決標加權作業之研究。政府機關採購案件之開標決標方式有二種，一是開價格標，即是以合於資格投標廠商報價最低者為決標對象，另一決標方式是以最有利標決標，即不以廠商報價高低為決標之選擇。政府採購法令訂明允許採購機關依實際需求，在價格之外另擬訂評選項目(因子)如:價格、技術、功能、效益等等項目，透過評選委員專家學者針對評選項目綜合評分選出最有利標廠商加以決標，使機關可在原有預算下，不以價格為唯一考量，選出功能好、技術佳、服務品質優良之投標廠商，如此對採購機關最為有利。本論文研究探討政府機關採購最有利標評選案件，對採購評選項目(因子)及評選委員學者專家，個別之配分權重採以運用層級分析法，求得較客觀符合實際之配分權重研究出具體可行作業模式，提供政府機關採購承辦人員參照採行，提升採購效益。

關鍵字

票票不等值；最有利標；分析層級程序法

並列摘要

“One vote one value” and “all men are created equal” are commonly regarded as universal values in a democratic society. In practice, however, there often exist facts of “one vote multiple values” that is so-called “false equality”. In this thesis, from the aspect of “one vote multiple values”, we investigate the weighting process of the Most Advantageous Tendering (MAT) approach for procurement projects in the Government Procurement Law. The opening of government agency procurement projects has two kinds of decision criteria, opening price and MAT. Rather than the lowest bidding price, by the MAT approach, an evaluation committee can determine the bid winner according to all evaluation criteria. The Government Procurement Law has specified that besides price, procurement authorities are allowed to consider other evaluation criteria to fit actual demand, such as technology, function, and efficiency. In this way, the tenderers with good function, technology and service quality can be selected to obtain the biggest benefits. In the thesis, we apply the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method to both the procurement factors and evaluation committee in the MAT approach for government agency procurement projects. The proposed method provides procurement authorities with a feasible weighting process which more objectively fits actual demand. In the literature, no study has concerned whether the contribution values of members in an evaluation committee should be weighted unequally. Therefore, besides the original evaluation factors, we apply the AHP method to the contribution values of committee members, which is performed by member peer assessment. Two cases are verified. In one case, the order of the evaluated companies is not changed. In another case, the winner is the original one, but the second and the third alter because the contribution values of committee members significantly differ. Accordingly, government procurement officers and related personnel should pay attention to the possibility of the order change of evaluated companies.

並列關鍵字

One Vote Multiple Values ； Most Advantageous Tendering ； Analytic Hierarchy Process

參考文獻

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, 2nd Ed., RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1990 (1st Ed. in 1980).

聯合國憲章(1968)。http://www.un.org/zh/documents/charter/