簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
丁怡禎 I-Jen Ting |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
以競爭性對話改善政府採購之分析 Improving Government Procurement Procedures by Competitive Dialogue |
| 指導教授： |
楊智斌
Jyh-Bin Yang |
| 口試委員: | |
| 學位類別： |
碩士 Master |
| 系所名稱： |
工學院 - 土木系營建管理碩士班 Master's Program in Construction Management, Department of Civil Engineering |
| 論文出版年： | 2019 |
| 畢業學年度： | 107 |
| 語文別： | 中文 |
| 論文頁數： | 96 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 競爭性對話 、政府採購 、招決標程序 、協商 、最有利標決標 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | Competitive Dialogue, Government Procurement, Tendering Procedure, Negotiation, Most Advantageous Tender |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：15 下載：0 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
台灣興建公共工程一般係根據政府採購法或是促進民間參與公共建設法執行，但在此二法中，並無得以讓招標機關與投標廠商充分溝通之採購程序，即使二法中皆有協商制度，但因協商制度制訂並不完整，因此機關使用協商制度之案例非常少，尤其在政府採購案件中。然而當招標機關遇到缺乏經驗、技術先進、契約複雜或是大型之招標案時，機關很可能制訂出不公正、不合理之契約，導致得標廠商在後續階段可能發生難以履約之問題。歐盟在2004年公佈了競爭性對話程序(Competitive Dialogue Procedure)，以讓公共工程能夠適用此一新的採購程序，進而改善招標過程中缺乏溝通和缺乏彈性的問題，其原因是在競爭性對話之程序中，設有對話階段得以讓招標機關與廠商充分討論契約內容，並且最後之契約係根據對話階段之結果而產出，故在專案初期政府能力不足時也能順利得到符合需求之採購結果。本研究分析已使用競爭性對話國家之情況，並研討我國使用之適合度以及應注意之問題，再根據現有之政府採購流程以及協商程序，參考競爭性對話程序之核心內容，以建立改善之方案。由於國內政府採購法確實在協商機制上有所不足，期待本研究之成果，能夠於國內目前正在推動最有利標納入協商機制時，提供更多的選擇，以提升政府採購法的整體效益。
In Taiwan, public construction works are delivered by the Government Procurement Act (GPA) or the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects. In those two acts, there is no procurement procedure that allows the tendering authority to communicate with the bidders sufficiently. Even though negotiation mechanisms are designed in the acts, there are very few cases, especially in GPA projects, to adopt negotiation procedures, due to the incompleteness of existing negotiation mechanisms. Therefore, when a tendering authority encounters inexperienced, advanced technology, complex contract or large-scale procurement cases, the authority is likely to prepare an unfair and unreasonable contract, which may lead to some problems in the performance stage. In 2004, the European Union announced the competitive dialogue (CD) procedure as a new public procurement procedure to solve the problem of lacking of communication and flexibility in the existing tendering process. In the process of adopting competitive dialogue, there is a dialogue stage that allows the tendering authority to fully discuss all the contract content with candidates. The final contract clauses are prepared based on the outcomes of the dialogue. By this approach, even if the capability of procurement authority in project’s initial stage is insufficient, the procurement result that meets the procurement demand can be smoothly obtained. This research reviews the current conditions in the countries that have adopted CD, and analyzes the suitability of adopting CD in Taiwan. According to the key principles in CD by other researches, this research has proposed three improvement schemes to solve the problem of the incapability of GPA in negotiation. Recently, in Taiwan, the government promotes the procurement authority to adopt most advantageous tendering approach integrated with negotiation mechanisms. Hopefully, the research outcomes can be good references for the above mentioned work and be alternatives to improve the performance of GPA.
European Institute of Public Administration. (2009). Competitive Dialogue – A Practical Guide. Retrieved from：https://www.eipa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Competitive_Dialogue_MBU_2009-Electronic-version-Final.pdf
2. European Defence Agency. (2012). Specifications for the Request to Paticipate in the Competitive Dialogue. Retrieved from:https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/procurement/corrected_technical_specifications_26_09_2012.pdf
3. Sue Arrowsmith, & Steen Treumer. (2012). Competitive Dialogue in EU Procurement: Cambridge University Press. ISBN:9781107023833
4. Michael Burnett. (2009). Conducting Competitive Dialogue for PPP Projects -Towards an Optimal Approach. Eur. Pub. Private Partnership L. Rev., 4, 190.
5. European PPP Expertise Centre. (2010). Procurement of PPP and the Use of Competitive Dialogue in Europe. Retrieved from: https://www.eib.org/attachments/epec/epec_procurement_ppp_competitive_dialogue_en.pdf
6. Commission of the European Communities. (1996). European Commission Green Paper, Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(3-4), 339-398. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013933627662
7. Tenders Electronic Daily. (2014). Retrieved from: http://ted.europa.eu/TED/search/search.do
8. Sylvia De Mars. (2011). The Influence of Recent Developments in EU Procurement Law on the Procurement Regulation of Member States : A Case Study of the UK, the Netherlands and France, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
9. Kim Haugbølle, Daniel Pihl, & Stefan Christoffer Gottlieb. (2015). Competitive Dialogue: Driving Innovation through Procurement? Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 555-562.
10. Mieke Hoezen, & Jan-Bertram Hillig. (2008). The Competitive Dialogue Procedure: Advantages, Disadvantages, and its Implementation into English and Dutch Law. Paper presented at the Proceedings COBRA RICS Construction and Building Research Conference, (p. 09).
11. Korthals Altes W. K. (2010). Europeanization as Discontinuous Adjustment: A Düsseldorf Court's Impact on Land Development Practice, European Planning Studies, 18(5), 815-832.
12. P Kraak. (2010). Competitive Dialogue : Opportunities and Pitfalls. CROetcetera, 5(2): 28-33.
13. Sander Lenferink, Jos Arts, & Taede Tillema. (2011). Ongoing Public-Private Interaction in Infrastructure Planning: An Evaluation of Dutch Competitive Dialogue Projects. Towards new horizons in public procurement, 236-272.
14. Jardar Lohne and Ola Lædre Paulos Abebe Wondimu. (2017). Motivate for the Use of Competitive Dialogue. In: LC3 2017 Volume II – Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC), Walsh, K., Sacks, R., Brilakis, I. (eds.), Heraklion, Greece, p. 53–60. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.24928/2017/0146
15. Regeringen. (2014). Vejen Til et Styrket Byggeri i Danmark – Regeringens Byggepolitiske Strategi, Copenhagen, Regeringen.
16. Pedro Telles. (2010). Competitive Dialogue in Portugal and Spain, Available at SSRN 2308502.
17. European Union. (2004). Diretctive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council, of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts. Official Journal of the European Union, 47(L134), 114-233.
18. R Van der Heijden. (1996). Planning Large Infrastructure Projects: Seeking a Balance between Engineering and Societal Support. DISP -The Planning Review, 32(125), 18-25.
19. R. Vickerman. (2005). Public and Private Initiatives in Infrastructure Provision. Barriers to Sustainable Transport: Institutions, Regulation and Sustainability, 18-36
20. 江義雄，2009，我國政府採購法招標爭議問題之研究－以評選程序為中心－，碩士論文，國立中正大學法律所，嘉義縣。
21. 行政院公共工程委員會，2008，BOT 專案進度與品質管理參考手冊。 <www.pcc.gov.tw/pccap2/TMPLfronted/Chtlndex.do?site=002>
22. 行政院公共工程委員會，2014，WTO政府採購協定(修正版）。 <https://www.pcc.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=37734BA79B67A89A>
23. 行政院公共工程委員會，2016，最有利標協商座談會會議記錄。<https://web.moi.gov.tw/psu/files/news/201612121410271051652614%E6%9C%80%E6%9C%89%E5%88%A9%E6%A8%99%E5%8D%94%E5%95%86%E6%A9%9F%E5%88%B6.pdf>
24. 行政院公共工程委員會，2018，最有利標作業手冊。 <https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/cfb83893-03e0-4f8e-ac52-9b7ff35a8292>
25. 洪浩華，2013，限制性招標採購法制之研究，碩士論文，中央警察大學行政管理研究所，桃園市。
26. 財政部推動促參司，2017，民間參與公共建設資訊網。<https://ppp.mof.gov.tw/PPP.Website/>
27. 陳世圯、謝定亞、李禮仲，2009，政府採購制度問題探討與對策，行政院國家發展委員會研究報告。
28. 詹紹均，2018，政府採購法加入歐盟競爭對話制度之可行性研究，碩士論文，東吳大學法律學系，台北市。
29. 蔡鎰仲，2016，論促進民間參與公共建設法的選商程序－以法國公私協力契約中的競爭性對話程序為借鏡，碩士論文，國立臺北大學法律學系，新北市。
30. 鍾昌賜，2017，政府採購法問題解析。<http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area=life_law&parent_path=,1,188,&job_id=205534&article_category_id=2330&article_id=122089>
