公共建設BOT案履約爭議處理機制—以促參法第48條之1為中心

促進民間參與公共建設法自89年2月9日正式公布施行後，政府機關原囿於財政短缺困境，而無法順利推動之重大公共建設，藉由引入民間企業資金、技術及管理效率，推動公共建設。政府機關辦理促參案件招商，大多採取BOT方式辦理。由於促參案件強調政府部門與民間機構間公私合作之夥伴關係，和一般受政府採購法規範之公共工程有所不同。是以，促參案件履約期間衍生之契約爭議，無法準用政府採購法中，有關機關與廠商間之履約爭議處理機制。惟近年來，促參案件於履約期間所衍生之爭議，層出不窮，不但延宕重大公共建設之推動，並造成社會經濟之影響。現行促參法針對履約爭議處理機制，並無強制仲裁或強制調解之規定。由於主辦機關深怕調解或仲裁若作成有利民間企業之方案或判斷，恐有不當圖利廠商之嫌。是以，只要促參案件涉及履約爭議時，機關大多寧願採取曠日廢時之民事訴訟途徑解決，而任令公共建設延宕不滯。因此，如何以法律明定公正、合理之訴訟外履約爭議處理機制，藉由協商、調解或仲裁等制度，迅速、有效地解決履約爭議，實屬重要。

關鍵字

公私協力；爭議調解；協調委員會；強制仲裁； BOT ； ADR

並列摘要

Since the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects was enacted and promulgated on February 9th 2000, major infrastructure projects that were once unenforceable due to financial shortage have been executed by bringing in the funds, technologies and operation efficiency of the private institutes. Most of the Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects adopted the BOT method. In such cases, the governmental agency and the private institute are like partners and is different from the public construction stipulated in Government Procurement Act. Thus, the dispute resolution methods provided by Governmental Procurement Act are not applicable to the disputes in a Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Project. However, in recent years, more and more Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Project disputes occurred and this will not only hinder the execution of major infrastructure projects, but also negatively impact the economy of the society. To solve a performance dispute, arbitration or mediation is not mandatory under the current Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects because the governmental agencies do not want to be censured as profiting the private institute if the result of the arbitration or mediation is favorable to the private institute. Therefore, the governmental agencies would prefer to go for the time-consuming civil litigation and this would delay the progress of the project. This demonstrates the importance of formulating fair and reasonable alternative dispute resolution in our law to rapidly and efficiently solve performance disputes by negotiation, mediation or arbitration.