A Study on Dispute Procedure of Forfeiting Bid Security in Government Procurement Law﹣Focusing on Related Judgements

• Main Authors: Chien, Wei-Chen, 簡瑋辰
• Other Authors: Hsu,Tzong-Li
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/auvf5n

碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 法律學系 === 105 === In the judicial practice in our country, the government procurement law is considered to be two-stage theory(Zweistufentheorie). Therefore, about the dispute procedure of forfeiting Bid Security¸ to judge whether the disputation belongs to public law argument or not should depend on the period of tender awarding. However, the opinion view cause the contradiction of the disputation of bid Security. In this article, we try to cite the judgments to discuss the opinion makes by Supreme Administrative Course is suitable or not. First of all, in this article, we'd like the discuss the judicial proposition of the procurement. Secondly, the discussion about nature of the disputation of bid Security, and the problems of period of making procurement contracts will come after. In conclusion, in this article, we consider that the proposition of government procurement shall be divided into 2 levels : Administrative Act and Administrative Contract. The proposition should be revised two-level theory. The bid security considers to be security in public law. Forfeiting Bid Security can be view as a Administrative penalty. Government procurement contract should become effective when signing a written agreement. There are 3 concrete suggestions: first, we consider to view government procurements as administrative contracts will cause great burden for administrative course. In the case, we suggest to fix the trial system from the monetary value. Secondly, Forfeiting Bid Security can be view as a Administrative penalty , this act should apply the principle of Double Jeopardy. But two exception should be allowed. Thirdly, in order to involve the argument of ban restituting tender bond issue, we consider the 31 article of government procurement law should be fixed.