隧道工程契約型態與履約爭議之探討

台灣地區地質狀況具多變及複雜性，而隧道工程是典型且最具代表性的「地質工程」，因此隧道工程有別於一般建築或土木工程，其工程不確定性及風險多寡易隨地質狀況變化而產生相當大的差異，故業主在採購隧道工程時，統包及傳統契約何者較能符合業主需求，以及風險分攤及產生爭議時如何處理等，皆為主辦機關在決定採用何種契約型態發包時應該思考的課題。本研究認為隧道工程傳統契約履約階段主要爭議包含：（1）工地條件差異引起之爭議，（2）處理災害或緊急狀況引起之爭議，（3）非屬承包商過失引起之爭議，（4）因契約變更引起之爭議，（5）替代方案處理之爭議，及（6）一式計價處理之爭議等六項。而建議處理方式主要基於三個原則：（1）承包商確實有施作的工作項目，應給予合理成本補償；（2）契約規定應該合理公平，且風險分攤及責任歸屬應與明確化；及（3）提供公正之爭議處理規定或機制。比較兩種契約範本及爭議案例，隧道工程利用統包設計與施工合一之特性，較傳統契約能有效處理地質複雜問題，業主也可減少行政管理及變更程序之資源耗費，而爭議發生與處理也較傳統契約減少或加快速度，故統包契約執行隧道工程之適宜性應可確認。另外長大隧道地質風險可能達到某種程度，而降低統包所產生工期縮短的效益，因此本研究建議若預知有較高地質風險或無法推估實際狀況時，仍應將此類風險歸為業主責任，而此類隧道工程，應較適合施工前完成詳細調查及完整設計之傳統履約方式，而較不適合承包商負責較大風險的統包契約模式。

關鍵字

隧道工程；統包契約；履約爭議

並列摘要

The geology in Taiwan varies with great complexity, and tunneling is the most typical ‘geological project’. Accordingly, the degree of uncertainty and the level of risk of the construction of a tunnel largely depend on site conditions. Therefore, when a public sector decides to procure a tunnel project and chooses between a design & build or a traditional contract at the bidding stage, the main considerations should include which one of the two better meets the need of the owner as well as risk sharing and the way of settlement when dispute occurs. This study surveys the major types of dispute arising during construction with traditional contract in a tunnel project, summarizing them as follows: (1) disputes due to differing site conditions, (2) disputes due to dealing with hazardous or emergent situation, (3) disputes due to mistakes not resulting from contractor, (4) disputes due to change orders, (5) disputes due to variations and adjustments, and (6) disputes due to flat pricing. The proposed ways of settlement are based on three principles: (1) reasonable cost compensation for pay items completed by the contractor, (2) fairness and reasonability of contract as well as clarify and precision of allocation of risk and responsibility, and (3) fair procedures in the settlement of dispute. After comparing the contract clauses and dispute cases between the two types of contract, this study finds that the feature of ‘design & build’ is more efficient than the traditional contract in dealing with differing site condition. In addition, owner reduces the cost of administration management and resource waste during the procedure of change order. Further, it helps reduce the amount of disputes and speed up the procedure. So it can be confirmed that the D&B contract is suitable for tunnel project. Finally, for long and huge tunnels, the geological risks may reach so high that it reduces the benefit of D&B contract. Therefore, this study suggests that when project involves in high risks or a great amount of uncertain conditions, the traditional contract which features detailed investigation and design before bidding is better than the D&B contract.