A study on review system of product substitution in public works

碩士 === 國立中央大學 === 營建管理研究所 === 99 ===   The purpose of establishing the Law of Government Procurement, Article 26, is to reduce competition and bid rigging problems, even to restrict and avoid them. Most owners of public construction works are government agencies, which may not retain professional en...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kuo-chang Wu, 吳國正
Other Authors: Ting-ya Hsieh
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2011
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/62863683797879390450
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立中央大學 === 營建管理研究所 === 99 ===   The purpose of establishing the Law of Government Procurement, Article 26, is to reduce competition and bid rigging problems, even to restrict and avoid them. Most owners of public construction works are government agencies, which may not retain professional engineering expertise. But according to the Law, the review of substitutions are conducted by them. The lack of engineering expertise causes these agencies to tighten the possibility of allowing the use of substitutes. Therefore, despite there is provisions for the substitutions, there is no opportunity to use it.   Past research focused on the issue of substitutions in public construction works, and generally proposed that a special-purpose system for reviewing substitutions is necessary. According to the natureof adopting substitutions, this work introduces five specific aspects for discussion: 1. Complexity, 2. Transparency of information, 3. Review costs, 4. Time, 5. Owner’s ability of review. The special-purpose review system can be divided into 1. Internal review, 2. Experts review meeting, and 3. Commissioned. Review. These three review methods are also mentioned in the Law of Government Procurement, Article 26, the executive notes. This work examine the ways of using the review methods appropriately. For example, condition 1 is the low complexity, condition 2 is that the transparency of information is sufficient, condition 3 is having enough review costs, and the owner could base these three conditions in order to decide which methods of review is appropriate. Because internal review is not so complicated and the information is transparent, the owner does not need to worry about that this method will lead to dissatisfaction with firms, or being suspected that any bid rigging is taking place. It means that this method of review is appropriate for these parts. But if the complexity is higher, in order to avoid controversy, a professional team is commissioned to help substitution reviews . It can examined by meeting or by commissioned to reach a fair situation. It is the main expectation of this work that the use and the connotation of the substitutions could be enhanced.