營建工程標案押標金性質與問題之研究

A Study of the Characteristics and Issues Relating to Bid Bonds in Tendering of Construction Projects

陳耀賢(YAO- SHIAN CHEN)

指導教授 ： 伍勝民

朝陽科技大學/理工學院/營建工程系/碩士(2016年)

摘要

政府採購行為適用之法律應偏向所謂雙階段理論，即以決標前後作為分水嶺，決標前屬公法事件、決標後遁入私法。押標金為擔保招標程序相關事由，為決標前之公法階段之一部，此階段即為本文探討之背景。
然，此階段爭議雖為公法案件，但因私法發展早於公法，遇公法規定不足時，以不與公法規範相衝突下應得適用私法之原理原則，藉此作為公法規範之補充。而政府採購行為中，採購法訂有參與廠商須於投標前繳交押標金及押標金不予發還之規定，作為投標程序公平性與得標廠商履行契約之擔保。欲參與工程採購之投標廠商能否得標尚屬未知，更不論獲利，於投標前即須提供可能為不小之金額作為擔保，按押標金擔保之精神，如遇機關本身影響招標程序順利進行之爭議，應有機關提供相對擔保之機制作為廠商救濟途徑較為合理。另，採購法用列舉方式訂定不予發還押標金之規定，以不確定法律概念作為漏列之預防，行政機關由此部份決定是否發還押標金為行政裁量，可能作成與法律授權目的不符之濫用及超出法律授權範圍之逾越等瑕疵行為。機關其實應探究歸責於廠商之錯誤程度及廠商有無違背押標金擔保之精神。然而，可歸責廠商錯誤之嚴重程度不同，相對之懲處亦須有輕重之分。本文嘗試打破發還押標金非一即零的方式，依不確定法律概念精神及參考工程施工品質查核扣點罰款之辦法，當廠商行為非屬重大錯誤時，以罰款方式懲處，代替不予發還押標金之不合理現象。

關鍵字

政府採購 ； 營建工程 ； 押標金

並列摘要

The government procurement of construction projects in Taiwan can perceivably be described as a two-phased legal concept, with the awarding of contracts serving as the main division between events corresponding to either public or private law, respectively. This study focused on the characteristics and issues relating to bid bonds used as guarantees during the tendering process, and their status as a component of the public law events prior to the awarding of contracts.
Even though disputes that occur before the awarding of contracts would fall under the public law phase, private law principles are applied, as private law is more complete and began development much earlier than public law in regards to such situations. As long as the private law principles do not conflict with the justifications and specifications of public law, the private law principles are used to supplement public law under the circumstances relating to disputes that transpire before awarding of contracts. Per the government procurement process, there exists legal requirements for bidders to submit payment for bid bonds prior to bidding, such that the bid bonds will not be reimbursed. This is to serve as a fairness and guarantee measure for the tendering process for the awarding of the contract to the winning bidder. However, the bid bond may sometimes be of significant amounts, and yet whether the bidders will be awarded a contract or not remains unknown. In instances of disputes occurring where the tendering entity improperly influences the tendering process, the tendering entity should be required to provide an appropriate guarantee measure to the bidders in order to maintain fairness for both parties. Another issue relating to bid bonds is where the Government Procurement Act includes a list of provisions stating why bid bonds are not reimbursable, using an indefinite legal concept as a means of covering anything that may not have been included, to determine whether bid bonds will be reimbursed at their own discretion. This method of practice by the tendering entity could lend itself to controversy, as it may be perceived as manipulating the legal purpose of having such laws in place, while also overstepping the boundaries of the law itself. Instead, the tendering entity should thoroughly examine the degree to which a bidder may have erred, using a penalty system for various degrees of severity, as well as whether or not the bidder rightfully breached the concept of the bid bonds as a guarantee measure of the tendering process. This study aimed to break through the “all or nothing” notion of bid bond reimbursement, using indefinite legal concepts and referencing the point deduction penalty system used in construction quality assessment as ways to propose a system where bidders are penalized for minor or secondary errors, as opposed to current condition where bid bonds would be not reimbursed at all.

並列關鍵字

government procurement ； construction ； bid bonds

參考文獻

3.潘秀菊，政府採購法修訂二版，2012年。

2.行政院公共工程委員會，採購契約要項，2002年11月4日。

5.行政程序法，2015年12月23日。

7.行政院公共工程委員會，工程施工查核小組作業辦法，2003。

9.台中市政府水利局，臺中市政府水利局工程督導、查驗缺失扣點規定，2015。