營造業評鑑制度與項目之分析與改善

台灣營造業發展成熟，近 20 年內亦經歷不少天災而造成建築物、橋樑、公共建設毀損、破壞、甚至倒塌，造成不少居民、人員傷亡。民國92年2月7日正式立法完成營造業法，使用至今仍持續的在修改不恰當的部份，其中包含營造業評鑑辦法。基於營造產業潛在的問題，營建署期望透過評鑑的六大項目：工程實績、施工品質、組織規模、管理能力、專業技術研究發展及財務狀況，來評估營造廠的優劣，並減少其承攬業務時之風險和保障工程之品質。本研究首要目的在於探討目前營造評鑑制度的問題，分析評鑑過程的合理性與真實性，以確保評鑑結果之可信度及品質保證，提升營造業整體的品質及管理能力。本研究資料採用張淑貞提出 95-101 年評鑑項目之結果統計及本研究蒐集之107 年高雄土木技師公會、106-108 年台北土木技師公會之數據，後續針對專家訪談之內容進行設計，包含受訪對象之公司規模、各公司營造業評鑑制度項目之實際執行狀況和難易度、模擬營造業評鑑制度進行以探討可能缺漏之狀況，並綜合以上分析及回饋，進行討論，提出未來改善及建議之方向。研究結果顯示，評鑑制度的存在，雖然客觀且可約略鑑別營造公司之水平，但對於小型營造廠而言，部份項目過於嚴苛。因評鑑非強制申請，因此在未明訂獎懲辦法的條件下，僅對於有升等需求的營造廠有實質上的幫助，其餘並不明顯。工程實績與施工品質項目，可能因為累積案件數量而忽略品質之要求。組織規模對於較小型的營造廠而言會有招募困難的問題。管理能力的部份，對於承接工程規模較大且複雜性高的案件的甲級營造而言，容易造成工程逾期與職業災害。專案技術研究發展的執行狀況不佳，即使具有一定規模的營造業廠商，也不見得願意投入執行。財務狀況具有鑑別度，但可能因為不願意揭露公司內部財務資訊而選擇以缺漏資料方式提報。這些潛在問題都與評鑑規定的設定有關。本研究建議在評鑑項目上可以明訂必選項目及自選項目，以改善評鑑制度之問題。

關鍵字

營造業；評鑑辦法；評鑑指標；工程品質

並列摘要

The construction industry in Taiwan has matured. In the past 20 years, it has also experienced a lot of damage, destruction and even collapse of buildings, bridges, and public construction, causing many casualties. Though the Construction Industry Acts and the Construction Industry Accreditation Regulations was formally enacted, they have been continuously modified to date. Based on the potential problems of the construction industry, Construction and Planning Agency expects to evaluate the quality of the construction company, reduce its contracting risk and protect the project quality through the accreditation of the six indicators: project performance, construction quality, organizational scale, management capacity, professional technical development and financial status. The primary purpose of this study is to explore the problems of the construction industry accreditation and evaluation, then, analyze the rationality and authenticity of the evaluation process to ensure its credibility and assurance of quality, also enhance the overall quality and management capabilities of the construction industry. The study data include the accreditation results of the year 2006-2011 (Kaohsiung) proposed by Shu-Chen Chang, and the accreditation results of the year 2018 (Kaohsiung) and years 2017-2019 (Taipei) collected by this study. Then, this study designs the content of the expert interview, including the company scale, the actual implementation status and difficulty of each company’s construction industry accreditation indicators and simulation of the process to discuss the possible missing situations. Integrating the aforementioned analyses and feedbacks, the study discusses and proposes the direction of future improvements and suggestions. The results show that the construction company may neglect the quality requirements due to the cumulative number of cases about the indicators of project performance and construction quality. As to the organizational scale, some small construction company may have recruitment difficulties. As to the management capacity, the large construction company may easier cause project delay and occupational disasters if the project is large-scale and high-complexity. The implementation status about professional technical development is not good, even construction companies with a certain scale are not willing to execute. The financial status is discriminatory but may missing data to be reported. The reason is some construction company is unwilling to disclose the internal financial information. These potential problems are all related to the regulations of the accreditation. It is recommended to add necessary indicators to improve the construction industry accreditation and evaluation.