民間參與公共建設爭議處理協調委員會機制之研究與建議

The Study and Suggestions on Mediation Committee for Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects in Taiwan

系所名稱：營建管理研究所 學位別：碩士 畢業學年：102年 指導教授：姚乃嘉 自民國 90 年促進民間參與公共建設法（促參法）施行以來，國內已有886 件民間參與公共建設之案例。因公共建設涉及強烈公益目的及國家財政，在民間參與公共建設之同時，一旦發生爭議，自應同時謀求兼顧國家、主辦機關、廠商、一般民眾之利益最佳化。因此促參法施行細則第22 條第3 項遂規定：「投資契約，應明定協調委員會之組成時機、方式及運作機制，以協商處理契約履行及其爭議事項。」爭議發生時先藉由促參爭議協調會來促進契約當事人間良性溝通、協調，以期在資源耗費及公益影響尚未擴大前消弭紛爭。惟相關法規未明確規定促參爭議協調會之組織、職權行使程序等，以致不同契約容有不同之規定，並流於主辦機關一己之見，不見得適於個案。本研究遂將焦點置於有關促參爭議協調會，(1)現狀下實務運作之利弊；(2)外國之規定及運作情形；(3)現況問卷調查之分析;以及(4)組織、行使程序之建議。本文先透過文獻之整理比較，歸納出現狀問題以及國外之爭議處理機制運作方式，並透過對實務工作者之問卷調查，瞭解實務問題以及理想之解決方式。最後，本文從文獻比較以及問卷結果認為，在「迅速定紛止爭」之前提下，現況確實存有諸多待改善之處，應朝縮減委員人數、強化職權、確立委員資格、簡化選任方式、避免選任僵局、增列報酬等等方式改良，以發揮促參爭議協調會之功能。

In Taiwan, 886 public construction projects involve private participation since the “Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” (the PPP Act) was enacted in 2001. These projects generally require relatively large amount of financial investments from private sectors. Even though contractual clauses are always defined as clear as possible in a concession contract based on the PPP Act, disputes between the Parties of the concession contract; i.e., the government agency and the private investors, occur very often during the long period of contract performance. To resolve such disputes, a mediation committee is usually set up after the disputes occur, even though many contracts require the committee be immediately formed after the concession contracts are signed. The “Enforcement Rules of Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects” (the PPP Rules) states in the 22nd Article that “the concession agreement should state when and how to form a mediation committee and its operation procedures, in order to coordinate and manage the execution of the contract and other disputes.” Since the PPP Rules enforce the power of the mediation committee and the use of the committee as a priori, no other dispute resolution methods such as arbitration can be used unless the mediation committee permits. However, there are no specific details stated in the PPP Rules in describing how to form or operate the committee, nor how the decisions of the committee be enforced between the contractual parties. Thus, this research collects related laws and concession contracts in Taiwan, UK and Japan then makes comparisons among them. Details of the formations and operation procedures of various mediation committees are identified and evaluated. Suggestions to the formation, operation procedures, and detailed regulations of the mediation committee are then proposed accordingly.