指定分包工程常見爭議探討

Abstract

指定分包商制度自新光摩天大樓與台北金融中心等工程之國外專案管理團隊引入國內後，廣被私人工程所採用，特別因私人工程不受採購法所約束，近年來多見其存在於大小工程之契約中。能被如此廣泛運用的確係由於此制度能給予業主另一個機制去選擇或於品質面、或於成本面、或於其他條件上適合自己之分包商，並由主承包商與其締約，由主承包商負責其管理責任，讓工程管理介面單純，而主承包商也可以因此享有指定分包契約之管理費。看似雙贏的制度，但於實際執行時卻常發生履約爭議，令人不得不重視此問題。 因民間工程遇到履約爭議時，基於商誼，多半會採用協商方式處理，甚少會走上法律途徑。本研究收集與指定分包商制度相關之法院判決並將其分為七種，爭議類型整理法院見解後，希望能提供相關從業人員於履行此類契約時之參考；另一方面研究五件採用指定分包商制度之契約，將其有助於主承包商之條文彙整，以供未來相關人士締約時之參考。 根據判決結果得知，在指定分包商制度下，主承包商與指定分包商是有承攬契約關係的，因此主承包商需對其工程進度與品質進行管理，並向業主負責。若指定分包商發生違約事件，並不能因分包商為業主指定，而主張定作人(業主)指示不當，免其應負之責任；應於對業主指定分包商之資格有疑慮，立刻向業主提出反對理由、拒絕與指定分包商締約與支領管理費之方式。業主對指定分包契約享有實質決定權，因此指定分包契約中之約定可以延伸至主承攬契約中。契約中若有背靠背條款(pay when paid)之特別約定時，當業主未支付主承包商費用時，主承包商並沒有給付指定分包商款項之義務。 本研究綜整五案例之契約條文後，建議主承包商與業主締約前須釐清對指定分包商管理責任、發包漏項責任與當發生指定分包商無法履約須重新發包之責任歸屬等議題。此外，以主承包商立場應爭取於契約中加入對業主指定分包商之反對權與背靠背條款(pay when paid)等之約定，讓自身權益受到更多保障。

The use of nominated subcontractor, first introduced by the foreign project management team into Taiwan for the case of the construction of Shin Kong Life Tower and Taipei Financial Center, is exempted from the regulations of Procurement Act for the nature of private construction; another reason for its widely adopted by private construction since then is the owner may select proper subcontractor meeting the owner’s demand of quality, cost, or other conditions. After nomination, the general contractor shall assume the responsibility of subcontractor management and is entitled of the administration fee. However, the appeared ideal framework for the owner and general contractor is controversial in practice. As the related contractual disputes is often settled by negotiation instead of legal process, the judgments related to nominated subcontractor collected in the study are divided into 7 types and the study further provided the court’s opinion accordingly to provide the industrial practitioner for reference in performing the contracts related to nominated subcontractor. In addition, the study scrutinized 5 contracts related to nominated subcontractor, hoping that can be an useful reference for the general contractor to draft the contract with nominated subcontractor, and prevent potential disputes. According to the judges’ insight, general contractor and nominated subcontractor are both bond to the contract and the general contractor shall report to the owner and is responsible for the construction schedule and quality of nominated subcontractor. If general contractor concerns the qualification of the subcontractor, it shall immediately report to the owner and shall reject to receive the administration fee or reject to contract with the subcontractor. Any default may be attributed to the nominated subcontractor shall not be claimed as the responsibility of the owner for the act of the nomination performed by the owner. The owner makes the final decision for the nominated subcontracting agreement so the related parties in the main contract shall be bond by the terms and conditions in the subcontracting agreement accordingly. If the pay when paid clause is specifically regulated, as the owner fail to duly pay to the general contractor, the general contractor is not bond by the paying obligation to the nominated subcontractor. The study analyzed the clause of 5 cases and propose the suggestions to the owner that they should assign the related administration responsibility to the general contractor explicitly and specify the accountability when occurring missing contracting items or re-contracting as the nominated subcontractor’s unable to perform. In addition, the study suggests that the general contractor shall negotiate with the owner the pay when paid clause and the rejection right against the nominated subcontractor to ensure the right and interest of itself.