營造工程物價指數增減率與工程款調整合理性之研究

The rationality of construction payment adjustments based on the increasing/decreasing rate of the construction cost index (CCI).

陳宗祥(Tsung-Hsiang Chen)

指導教授 ： 郭斯傑

國立臺灣大學/工學院/土木工程學研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.02148

摘要

92年至93年因為國際經濟景氣回升，全球市場需求旺盛及原料成本增長等原因，國內營建物價因應鋼筋、砂石等原物料價格飆漲劇烈，行政院公共工程委員會邀集業界代表開會積極研商因應，92年4月30日行政院函文要求各機關辦理工程採購時，因應國內營建物價劇烈變動，適用「因應國內鋼筋價格變動之物價調整處理原則」；近期又因國際原油價格上漲，導致國內產業與石油息息相關的生產運輸成本大幅上升，行政院於94年1月24日函文各機關將物調處理原則適用期限配合調整為94年12月31日。目前有關「物價指數調整工程款」規定措施是否達到解決廠商因鋼筋、砂石價格上漲虧損之目標？各種不同性質之工程一率適用物價調整處理原則後之公平合理性？本研究即對物價調整處理原則調整施工期間之工程款作案例狀況探討。
研究方法擬由行政院主計處公佈總指數與物價調整處理原則規定與台灣營建研究院「營建物價」比較，藉由營造工程指數與營建物價之發展沿革、調查方法與編製方式，檢討物價調整之法令規則，並收集研究文獻，回顧過去有關「物價指數調整工程款」規定。將營造工程物價總指數調整「機關補貼」計算方法與實際鋼筋及混凝土上漲「廠商損失」計算方法比較。物價指數調整金額以主計處公佈總指數及廠商估驗款中之直接工程費計算，廠商實際損失金額以台灣營建研究院調查之鋼筋、型鋼、混凝土、砂石四項營建物價計算差額，兩者分別以開標當月總指數及營建物價價格為基期，試算施工階段補貼款及廠商因物價波動之損失比較。再據以分析建築、土木類不同契約類型因物價波動實際遭受損失情形。
案例研究共收集91-95年期間之建築案例7個、土木類案例10個，工程金額約1.2億至21.3億元，案例探討採統計圖表、財務試算，比較案例機關補貼與廠商損失，發現完工案例中機關補貼金額高於廠商實際損失金額共有14例，廠商損失較高者有3例，進一步分析參雜各標案項目契約預算項目權重、適用時間不同等可能原因，因此物價調整處理原則統一採用主計處營造工程物價總指數之政策，應檢討適當合理之調整策略。
最後彙整研究結論提出建議，契約工項權重連動的量化調整模式，以賽局理論建立物價調整履約爭議模式，模擬主辦機關與廠商均衡模式，探討現行「因應國內鋼筋價格變動之物價調整處理原則」之指數調整補貼工程款之適當性。

關鍵字

營造工程物價指數 ； 因應國內鋼筋價格變動之物價調整處理原則 ； 營建物價 ； 賽局理論

並列摘要

The world economy boomed in the years 2003 and 2004. This increase in economic activity has led to increased construction activity causing increased demand for construction materials such as reinforcement bars, sand and gravel, cement, etc. This has led to a corresponding increase in the prices for these construction supplies. To handle the price problem, the Public Construction Commission of the Executive Yuan had a meeting with Association of General Contractors representatives and issued an April 30, 2003 memorandum (valid until December 2004) to all government departments. This memo outlined the procedures for handling construction price adjustments for all government construction contracts. This memo was originally valid until December 2004 but the increase in oil prices led to a one year extension of the memo – till December 2005. This research analyzes whether this memo for project fund adjustments (escalation) adequately addresses the losses of contractors from material price increases.
The second part of this research will describe and explain two different ways of adjusting project costs (escalation) in public government projects. One way of providing project cost escalation is based on the published total construction cost index (CCI) of the Directorate of Budget, Accounting and Statistics. Another way (non-index based) is provided by the Taiwan Construction Research Institute (TCRI). TCRI’s escalation calculation method is based on the bi-monthly published prices of major construction materials.
It appears that using the total CCI to provide project cost escalation for all material cost increases does not allow contractors to adequately cover the actual added cost of increased material costs. This method of providing cost escalation is based on a total of the indices of all construction materials in the entire country and is not applicable to each individual material or project. Perhaps a better way of calculating the material price escalation is to apply the different indices for each construction material.
Another way of providing project cost escalation is based on the unit price difference between the contract price and actual price of materials used in the project multiplied by the actual quantities used in the project. The individual construction material prices used in this second way of calculating material price escalation are provided by the Taiwan Construction Research Institute (bi-monthly prices).
The third part of this research provides a case study of 17 public projects. These two ways of calculating material price escalations are applied to these 17 public projects. The result of these calculations is quite surprising. It appears that in most cases (14 out of 17 projects) the government is actually paying more for material price escalation using the current index based method than by using another alternative material price escalation method. In the remaining three cases, the contractor has suffered losses because of the index method of calculation material price escalation. These three exceptions are analyzed in greater detail to determine why the contractor suffered losses using the index method of calculating material price escalation.
The fourth and final part of this research proposes a third way of calculating material price escalation. This third way of calculation uses a weighted average of the material cost portion of the total project cost. A further discussion is made on using game theory for conflict resolution.

並列關鍵字

Construction Cost Index ； construction prices could be readjusted according to the change of construction cost indices principle ； Construction Cost Data ； Game Theory

參考文獻

4. Dixit, Avinash K., and Robert S. Pindyck (1995).“The Options Approach to Capital Investment,”Harvard Business Review (May-June), pp.105-115.

3. Dixit, Avinash (1989). “Entry and Exit Decision Under Uncertainty, ” Journal of Political Economy97 (No. 3), pp. 620-638.

7. Wang , Ching-Hwang and Yong-HO Mei,“Optimization model for forecasting construction cost indices in Taiwan,” Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 147-157,(1998).

英文文獻

1. Anderson Sweeny Willian「STATASTICS FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS」(8th ed.，)pp. 116-118, pp. 726-743, (2003).