國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 = A ...

國立高雄大學高階法律暨管理碩士在職專班(EMLBA)

公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 = A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : 單行本
並列題名:	A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction
作者:	姚人帥,
其他團體作者:	國立高雄大學
出版地:	高雄市
出版者:	撰者;
出版年:	2016[民105]
面頁冊數:	124面圖，表格 : 30公分;
標題:	政府採購法
標題:	Government Procurement Act
電子資源:	http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/16765471232972932458
附註:	106年4月25日公開
附註:	參考書目: 面53-54
摘要註:	國家行政以公平、公開的方式執行攸關公眾福祉及安全之事務，應是一個社會、政權達成進步、法治的重要指標之一，公共工程要實際執行必經採購過程，而遵循「政府採購法」以適切的行政流程進行管控、推動及執行，自然為其正確且有效之選擇。政府採購法之制定雖有其歷史因素，當時我國期待加入世界貿易組織，故而參考其政府採購協議相關條文，來促進採購程序標準化與透明化，並規範了後續履約管理及其相關罰則，然本論文之討論將著重於採購中的公告金額以上工程之定作，及相關勞務之委任；當發生履約不實或違約情事時，對罰則啟用條件之考量為何？公共工程中監造單位與政府間是為委任契約，則採購法中之罰則考量條件，對監造單位而言是否應完全等同承攬工程定作之廠商？為了政府採購之公共工程能符合預期，大部分採購執行單位皆委託專業設計及監造單位，這些專業人員依刑法第10條第2項應屬公務員，所以他們所負之責任及罰責也就比照公務員，雖然他們也同樣是與政府屬民法上之承攬契約，但我們卻不得不讓他們以服務業(現今採購機關設定)之姿態背負公務員之原罪，在此情況下社會大眾對這些專業人員的付託，及他們如何定位自己，如何落實協助執行採購法之罰則等事宜，亦將是論本文研討之重點。公共工程的監造單位根據政府採購法第2條應屬勞務之委任，在民法各種債中應屬委任性質，意即就受委託範圍內也可視為負瑕疵擔保責任，而依行政程序法第2條第三項，係屬政府主辦機關所委託之行使公權力團體，就委託範圍內事項，依法等同行政機關，所以監造單位同時對採購機關及公共工程承攬施工之廠商，具有兩種不同之身份表徵，所以政府採購法之罰則、附則(第101條第1項刊登公報各款)是否宜全部與承攬施工的廠商同受約束，實有探討之必要，因監造單位與機關間屬民法之委任關係，而是否如上述，應只負瑕疵擔保責任之賠償責任，即依民法中第544條對於委任人應負賠償之責，及第216條法定損害賠償範圍為限，此點或可由政府採購法第63條第二項『委託社規劃、設計、監造或管理之契約，應訂明廠商規劃設計錯誤、監造不實或管理不善，致機關遭受損害之責任』略知一二。另機關對監造單位執行政府採購法第101條第1項各款時，同時依據第92條之精神，將第92條原只針對罰金部分，擴大推定至其他行政罰一併適用，或許此措施亦可以行政罰法第7條第2項做為後盾，惟是否符合憲法第23條所包含之比例原則，及另查採購法第 101條當初之立法理由，其所載「明定對於廠商有違法或重大違約情形時，…視其結果刊登於政府採購公報…」，可見當一千人公司因一不良員工觸犯刑責，是否符合重大違約情形，亦有討論空間。再者，要真正達成政府採購法第1條所謂『確保採購品質』，是否對委託監造單位之委任範圍，宜進行擴大，現行我國對公共工程已存有全民督工之機制，此機制或許參照了美國聯邦防制不實請求法精神，惟對整體施工品質及承攬廠商之履約誠意最清楚了解者，無非是監造單位，故將政府採購法第101條等相關罰則之認定及執行相關權責，或者至少建議權力等，亦納入委任範圍，委由監造單位依法執行，如此一來才可真正全方面、全程『確保採購品質』，而避免流於消極且效果不彰之防範措施。綜合上述將於本論文中對各立論詳加探討，針對適用法規之合宜與否，及旁徵相關文獻，並參考若干工程實例，希望能給採購機關、監造單位一合理作業定位。 One of the key indicator to show that asociety and its regime is indeed moving forward and governed by law, is that the people can see that the nation’s administrationis adhered to the principle of fairness and transparency whileexecuting its public services and safety issues. Hence to strictly follow the “Government Procurement Act (hereafter GPA)” is no doubt the most accurate and efficient way to assure that the whole process is adequately followed, measured, and supervised.Our GPA was created based on the “Agreement of Government Procurement” at the time when Taiwan was seeking accession to the World Trade Origination. It was enacted to establish a standardized, fully transparent process that also sets out the management framework which provides guidelines on the circumstances of both fulfill, and failure to fulfill the contract. This essay will look at those public constructions exceeding the governmentestimate, and its work assignments; as well as the laws that will apply when the suppliers breach the contract. Also, while the supervision unit works under a mandate contract with the government, do they therefore fall into the category of “suppliers” and will be reviewed in the same aspect under the GPA?In order to meet the expectations and the needs, most of the procurement executing unit chose to entrust professionals in planning and supervision fields to conduct its procurement. According to article 10, paragraphs 2 in Criminal Law, those professionals arecategorized as public servants and therefore should carry the same responsibilities, though they are by all means only a role of contractors in Civil Law. One of the key point that this essay will examine, is to see how these professionals position themselves, fulfill their job and public expectations, and whether the GPA is practically applicable to them.Article 2 of the GPA defines that the supervision unit in civil construction is a purchase of service, which in Civil Law they are under the obligation to take up the responsibility of quality assurance. However under the Administrative Law article 2 paragraphs 3, they are entrusted with the right to use the public authority, which means they are equivalent toan administration unit in the government sector. These two different statusesand definitionsoffereda good argument as of whether the GPA is applicable in such case, or if the unit only needs to bear the responsibility of defects and penalties afterwards, as described in the Administrative Law.Moreover, while the supervision unit is applied in GPA article 101 section 1, adding on article 92 and further extend its scope to its relevant administrative penalties, though they could have/use Administrative Lawarticle 7 paragraph 2 as the backup support, when we know about the first initiation of making article 101, which was said “listing out the consequences in case of breaching the contract…of such will be publicly announced on the government procurement journal” - whether a company with more than a thousand employees will be punished accordingly even the mistake is simply done by one awful employee? This sure will be a great area to look into too.To assure the best practicein the procurement process, it is believed that the scope of the supervision unit’s assignmentshould be further extended, so that we could possiblypossess the real, comprehensive “quality assurance” and not wasting time discussing the ineffective countermeasures anymore.This essay will include the discussion and address the possible solutions to the above identified matters. By quoting the real case also the laws and regulations, hoping to offer both the procurement authorityand supervision unit a better work positioning.

公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 = A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction
姚, 人帥

公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 = A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction / 姚人帥撰 - 高雄市 : 撰者, 2016[民105]. - 124面 ; 圖，表格 ; 30公分.
106年4月25日公開參考書目: 面53-54.
政府採購法Government Procurement Act

公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 = A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction
LDR:09158pam0a2200277 450 001 496608
005 20170505090110.0
010 0 $b 平裝
010 0 $b 精裝
100 $a 20170406d2016 k y0chiy50 e
101 1 $a chi $d chi $d eng
102 $a tw
105 $a ak am 000yy
200 1 $a 公共工程中委託監造單位對應於政府採購法第101條責任定位之研究 $d A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction $z eng $f 姚人帥撰
210 $a 高雄市 $c 撰者 $d 2016[民105]
215 0 $a 124面 $c 圖，表格 $d 30公分
300 $a 106年4月25日公開
300 $a 參考書目: 面53-54
314 $a 指導教授: 姚志明博士，莊寶鵰博士
328 $a 碩士論文--國立高雄大學高階法律暨管理碩士在職專班(EMLBA)
330 $a 國家行政以公平、公開的方式執行攸關公眾福祉及安全之事務，應是一個社會、政權達成進步、法治的重要指標之一，公共工程要實際執行必經採購過程，而遵循「政府採購法」以適切的行政流程進行管控、推動及執行，自然為其正確且有效之選擇。政府採購法之制定雖有其歷史因素，當時我國期待加入世界貿易組織，故而參考其政府採購協議相關條文，來促進採購程序標準化與透明化，並規範了後續履約管理及其相關罰則，然本論文之討論將著重於採購中的公告金額以上工程之定作，及相關勞務之委任；當發生履約不實或違約情事時，對罰則啟用條件之考量為何？公共工程中監造單位與政府間是為委任契約，則採購法中之罰則考量條件，對監造單位而言是否應完全等同承攬工程定作之廠商？為了政府採購之公共工程能符合預期，大部分採購執行單位皆委託專業設計及監造單位，這些專業人員依刑法第10條第2項應屬公務員，所以他們所負之責任及罰責也就比照公務員，雖然他們也同樣是與政府屬民法上之承攬契約，但我們卻不得不讓他們以服務業(現今採購機關設定)之姿態背負公務員之原罪，在此情況下社會大眾對這些專業人員的付託，及他們如何定位自己，如何落實協助執行採購法之罰則等事宜，亦將是論本文研討之重點。公共工程的監造單位根據政府採購法第2條應屬勞務之委任，在民法各種債中應屬委任性質，意即就受委託範圍內也可視為負瑕疵擔保責任，而依行政程序法第2條第三項，係屬政府主辦機關所委託之行使公權力團體，就委託範圍內事項，依法等同行政機關，所以監造單位同時對採購機關及公共工程承攬施工之廠商，具有兩種不同之身份表徵，所以政府採購法之罰則、附則(第101條第1項刊登公報各款)是否宜全部與承攬施工的廠商同受約束，實有探討之必要，因監造單位與機關間屬民法之委任關係，而是否如上述，應只負瑕疵擔保責任之賠償責任，即依民法中第544條對於委任人應負賠償之責，及第216條法定損害賠償範圍為限，此點或可由政府採購法第63條第二項『委託社規劃、設計、監造或管理之契約，應訂明廠商規劃設計錯誤、監造不實或管理不善，致機關遭受損害之責任』略知一二。另機關對監造單位執行政府採購法第101條第1項各款時，同時依據第92條之精神，將第92條原只針對罰金部分，擴大推定至其他行政罰一併適用，或許此措施亦可以行政罰法第7條第2項做為後盾，惟是否符合憲法第23條所包含之比例原則，及另查採購法第 101條當初之立法理由，其所載「明定對於廠商有違法或重大違約情形時，…視其結果刊登於政府採購公報…」，可見當一千人公司因一不良員工觸犯刑責，是否符合重大違約情形，亦有討論空間。再者，要真正達成政府採購法第1條所謂『確保採購品質』，是否對委託監造單位之委任範圍，宜進行擴大，現行我國對公共工程已存有全民督工之機制，此機制或許參照了美國聯邦防制不實請求法精神，惟對整體施工品質及承攬廠商之履約誠意最清楚了解者，無非是監造單位，故將政府採購法第101條等相關罰則之認定及執行相關權責，或者至少建議權力等，亦納入委任範圍，委由監造單位依法執行，如此一來才可真正全方面、全程『確保採購品質』，而避免流於消極且效果不彰之防範措施。綜合上述將於本論文中對各立論詳加探討，針對適用法規之合宜與否，及旁徵相關文獻，並參考若干工程實例，希望能給採購機關、監造單位一合理作業定位。 One of the key indicator to show that asociety and its regime is indeed moving forward and governed by law, is that the people can see that the nation’s administrationis adhered to the principle of fairness and transparency whileexecuting its public services and safety issues. Hence to strictly follow the “Government Procurement Act (hereafter GPA)” is no doubt the most accurate and efficient way to assure that the whole process is adequately followed, measured, and supervised.Our GPA was created based on the “Agreement of Government Procurement” at the time when Taiwan was seeking accession to the World Trade Origination. It was enacted to establish a standardized, fully transparent process that also sets out the management framework which provides guidelines on the circumstances of both fulfill, and failure to fulfill the contract. This essay will look at those public constructions exceeding the governmentestimate, and its work assignments; as well as the laws that will apply when the suppliers breach the contract. Also, while the supervision unit works under a mandate contract with the government, do they therefore fall into the category of “suppliers” and will be reviewed in the same aspect under the GPA?In order to meet the expectations and the needs, most of the procurement executing unit chose to entrust professionals in planning and supervision fields to conduct its procurement. According to article 10, paragraphs 2 in Criminal Law, those professionals arecategorized as public servants and therefore should carry the same responsibilities, though they are by all means only a role of contractors in Civil Law. One of the key point that this essay will examine, is to see how these professionals position themselves, fulfill their job and public expectations, and whether the GPA is practically applicable to them.Article 2 of the GPA defines that the supervision unit in civil construction is a purchase of service, which in Civil Law they are under the obligation to take up the responsibility of quality assurance. However under the Administrative Law article 2 paragraphs 3, they are entrusted with the right to use the public authority, which means they are equivalent toan administration unit in the government sector. These two different statusesand definitionsoffereda good argument as of whether the GPA is applicable in such case, or if the unit only needs to bear the responsibility of defects and penalties afterwards, as described in the Administrative Law.Moreover, while the supervision unit is applied in GPA article 101 section 1, adding on article 92 and further extend its scope to its relevant administrative penalties, though they could have/use Administrative Lawarticle 7 paragraph 2 as the backup support, when we know about the first initiation of making article 101, which was said “listing out the consequences in case of breaching the contract…of such will be publicly announced on the government procurement journal” - whether a company with more than a thousand employees will be punished accordingly even the mistake is simply done by one awful employee? This sure will be a great area to look into too.To assure the best practicein the procurement process, it is believed that the scope of the supervision unit’s assignmentshould be further extended, so that we could possiblypossess the real, comprehensive “quality assurance” and not wasting time discussing the ineffective countermeasures anymore.This essay will include the discussion and address the possible solutions to the above identified matters. By quoting the real case also the laws and regulations, hoping to offer both the procurement authorityand supervision unit a better work positioning.
510 1 $a A Study on the Liability of the Supervision Unit Corresponding to the Government Procurement Act Article 101 in the Commission of Public Construction $z eng
610 0 $a 政府採購法 $a 政府採購協議 $a 委任關係 $a 監造單位
610 1 $a Government Procurement Act $a Agreement Government Procurement $a Under the obligation $a Supervision unit
681 $a 008M/0019 $b 349952 4282 $v 2007年版
700 1 $a 姚 $b 人帥 $4 撰 $3 759210
712 0 2 $a 國立高雄大學 $b 高階法律暨管理碩士在職專班(EMLBA) $3 483026
801 0 $a tw $b NUK $c 20170406 $g CCR
856 7 # $u http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/16765471232972932458 $z 電子資源 $2 http