公共工程契約缺漏項量求償爭議之研究

Abstract

公共工程契約履行所衍生之爭議，向為我國政府採購機制履約上迭生履約爭議之型態。由於各級政府機關針對公共工程契約結算報酬方式，通常採用「契約價金總價結算」，即所謂總價契約。總價工程契約之承商，往往係在得標後，於施工過程中始發現，招標機關即業主所提供之工程設計圖說、施工規範、說明書等資訊，與工程數量清單存有差異或不一致之情形，由是產生所謂工程項量缺漏，即所謂「漏項」及「漏量」。所謂「漏項」，本文以為，應係指「工程設計圖說或規範等資訊上所顯示承包廠商應施作之工作項目或工料，未經工程數量清單列入工程之計價項目之情形」；而所謂「漏量」，本文以為，則應係指「工程設計圖說或規範上特定工作項目或工料之數量，未經工程數量清單全數列入之情形」。 工程項量缺漏所衍生之求償爭議，散見於法院、仲裁庭及調解程序等爭端解決程序中，司法實務及各家論者對於該等爭議之看法不一，甚且存在極端矛盾及衝突之不同見解。本文綜合觀察司法實務及各家論者見解，嘗試自工程項量缺漏之定義及判斷、公共工程採購契約範本規範、風險分配等面向探討其求償爭議。 本文以為，承商關於工程項量缺漏之求償是否得全數允許，尚非得一概而論。原則上，關於工程項量缺漏，倘承商未與業主踐行契約變更，即據以提起訴訟求償，依司法實務現行見解，乃較傾向否認承商之請求；惟在工程項量缺漏情形確實存在時，承商與業主或有循公共工程採購契約範本約定就該等確實存在之缺漏項量部分為商議討論，以契約變更方式妥適分配關於工程項量缺漏部分之風險負擔，避免工程缺漏項量求償化為全有全無之零和遊戲而有害整體公共工程環境。

The government institutions in Taiwan conduct public construction through the government procurement procedure according to the Government Procurement Act and usually use the lump sum contract form. Often the contractor discovers the omitted item or quantities in the bill of quantities (the “BoQ”). The omission item of BoQ means that the lump sum contract described certain construction item in its drawings or specifications and which is omitted in the BoQ of the contract. Similarly, the omission quantity of BoQ means that the lump sum contract described certain construction quantities in its drawings or specifications and which are not completely put down in the BoQ of the contract. When the omission of the BoQ happens, the contractor may claim additional payment based on the omission of the BoQ (including the omission of BoQ item and quantity); in the other hand, the employer may decline to pay the additional payment based on the standard clause of the lump sum contract stated that the errors regarding items and quantities of the BoQ shall not be a ground for adjusting the contract price. The disputes regarding the construction claim on omission of the BoQ can be commonly found in the courts, arbitration institution and mediation procedures. However, the views and opinions of the different judges, arbitrators and scholars are divided on the claim issue and even contradictory. This paper studies the different views and opinions and analyzes the omission of the BoQ through different aspects such as the definition, court judgments and decisions, the clauses of the model agreement of the public construction procurement and the allocation rule on construction risk. This paper tends to think that, based on the model agreement of the public construction procurement, the claims regarding the additional payment on the omission of the BoQ should be reconsidered and conferred by both the employer and the contractor and be settled by the variations clauses of the agreement, lest the claims on the omission of the BoQ become the zero-sum games.