政府採購法第101條停權制度之剖析──不確定法律概念爭議問題探討

Analysis of Article 101 of the Government Procurement Law

招標機關在採購過程中，若有廠商履約不良或其他違法情事，依據政府採購法規範機制，針對廠商違法或違約情形，將以廠商公告停權之方式，在一定期間內拒絕與之往來，達成履約管理之效果，目前行政院公共工程委員會與法院審判實務上一般稱為「廠商公告停權制度」。惟政府採購法第101條第1項所規定之十四款公告停權之責任事由，除造成各款公告停權事由間關係複雜外，同時在實務上也產生了諸如法院審判權實質衝突、政府採購履約爭議救濟體系紊亂，以及不同紛爭解決機制間之協調等相關問題。本論文並非針對採購現行所有爭議問題提出研討，而係僅就廠商因參與政府採購作業有採購法第101條停權事由所生之爭議，為主要探討，透過參酌國內學者及實務上見解，針對停權之事由及其爭議，進行分析比較，以作為修法之建議。

Tendering authorities encounter suppliers have bad performance incase or other violation of the law in the procurement process, the GovernmentProcurement Law sets up a regulatory mechanism, it uses the mannernotice the suppliers to stop their rights, and rejects any contacts and performanceswithin a certain period in the future for suppliers breach law orcontacts. The purpose is in order to achieve results of performance management.Now Public Construction Commission of Executive Yuan andthe courts name the mechanism is “Debarred List”. But the contents ofseven contractual obligations in the Government Procurement Act Article101, not only cause complex relationship in all of the contents, but alsocause some problems in practice. For example: Not real conflict of jurisdictionof the courts; the mess of government procurement performancecontroversy remedy system, and the coordination of the different mechanismsof settlement dispute.This paper is not aimed at all contentious issues of current procurementbut the controversies caused by the participation that vendors havewith the government on the procurement which violates the ProcurementLaw Section 101 of suspension. Through the opinions of domestic scho- lars and real practices to analyze and compare the vendors’ wrongdoing, todiscuss if the current law complete, reasonable and practicable? so to bethe suggestions or reference resources.