工程採購爭議仲裁程序公正性之研究

• Main Author: 陳良勇
• Language: 中文
• Published: 國立政治大學
• Subjects: 工程採購; 仲裁; 程序正義; 公正性; public construction procurement; arbitration; procedural justice; fairness
• Online Access: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cdrfb3/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&i=sid=%22G0099921046%22.

政府採購法下之工程採購較他類採購規模大，契約金額高，且因履約期長，履約之不可預期性增加，常造成履約過程中，對於契約無法明確釐清之事項及責任，在機關為維護公共利益，而廠商為爭取合理利潤，雙方立場不一致情形下，無法有效解決問題，遂產生履約爭議，而須透過履約爭議處理制度來解決雙方之紛爭。而仲裁係履約爭議處理的一種快速有效解決爭議之方式，由雙方當事人各自推舉仲裁人，再共推一名主任仲裁人組成仲裁庭解決雙方之紛爭。然現行情況機關多抗拒仲裁，不信任仲裁，質疑仲裁程序之公正性，進而提出撤銷仲裁判斷之訴訟，但幾乎皆遭法院駁回，機關最終必須接受仲裁判斷結果。本研究針對公共工程採購仲裁爭議案件，以深度訪談實際參與仲裁庭審理過程之機關與廠商兩造，就整個仲裁過程是否以公平公正、符合程序正義，有效合理的解決紛爭，並探究為何機關提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴訟之原因。研究結果發現機關質疑仲裁制度公正性的原因係對工程採購履約爭議制度不熟悉，且仲裁人在處理過程有代理人之行為，加上機關的律師不若廠商的律師積極、仲裁結果輸多贏少，導致不信任仲裁。而機關除認為仲裁結果不公正外，又為避免遭受圖利廠商質疑遂提起撤銷仲裁判斷訴訟。因此研究建議機關可選任由具工程專業背景之資深公務人員擔任仲裁人，並提供聘任律師合理費用以提升機關參與仲裁之信心與意願。 另公開工程採購爭議仲裁判斷書供社會大眾閱覽、加強仲裁人訓練、推廣仲裁、相關主計、政風及審計等監督單位應尊重採購專業人員之判斷等建議，使當事人更能接受仲裁判斷結果。 === Under Government Procurement Law, the scale and amount of public construction procurement is usually much larger. The increased unexpected factors due to longer compliance period, and different standpoint from both sides could rise the possibility of disputes, which should be solved with a more systematic way. Arbitration, which solves disputes by selecting arbitrators and forming an arbitral tribunal, is a fast and efficient way to deal with disputes from public construction procurement. However, presently, most government agencies distrust arbitration and often file out a revocation of an arbitral, which usually be dismissed by the court. At last, government agencies have to accept the outcome of the arbitration.This thesis studies the cases of public construction procurement disputes. By interviewing both sides of the actual participants, the fairness, effectiveness and justifiability of an arbitral tribunal is carefully examines. The result indicates that the major reasons why government agencies distrust arbitration include the followings: First, government agencies are often unfamiliar with the system of public construction procurement arbitration. Second, arbitrators could assign delegates. Third, attorneys of government agencies could be less aggressive than that of contractors. Forth, government agencies often lose in arbitrations. Moreover, government agencies could file out a revocation of an arbitral preventing being suspected to be in favor to contractors. It is suggested by this study that government agencies could select senior staffs from government agencies with engineering background as arbitrators and provide them with reasonable subsidy. Other suggestions includes: arbitration award be opened for public reference, enhancing arbitrator's training, promoting arbitrator, other divisions of government agencies respect public construction procurement professionalism, et cetera.