學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 政府採購未得標者因機關違法請求賠償之研究：以比較我國、美國、歐盟、英國司法實務為中心
Unsuccessful Tenderers’ Claims for Damages Based on the Procuring Government Agency’s Breach of Law: A Comparative Study on the Judicial Review in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK作者 李淑珺
Li, Shu Jiun貢獻者 顏玉明
Yan, Anna
李淑珺
Li, Shu Jiun關鍵詞 政府採購
備標費用
國家賠償
償付請求權
締約過失
異議費用
Government Procurement
unsuccessful bidder
protest cost
tender preparation cost
government liability
culpa in contrahendo日期 2013 上傳時間 1-Sep-2014 13:48:57 (UTC+8) 摘要 我國政府採購法第85條第3項規定，針對招標申訴審議判斷指明機關違反法令時，廠商得請求償付其準備投標、異議，申訴之必要費用，該請求權係根據「政府採購協定」所定。但由於政府採購法及相關法規均未規定該條項所定之請求權之法律定性為何，以及何謂必要費用等，而本法主管機關亦不做解釋，加上備標費用證明不易，使法院見解只能趨於保守，並產生許多爭議。目前國內探討本條項規定之文獻數量極少，相關判決亦不多，因此筆者認為，除了從我國學說及實務見解出發之外，本條項既根據政府採購協定而訂定，則其他協定締約國法院對相似案例之見解，應亦可供我國法院參考。因此本文選擇同為政府採購協定締約國，且政府採購金額於世界名列前茅的美國、歐盟，以及英國作為選擇比較研究之對象，並採取實務判決見解分析、文獻研究，以及比較研究之研究方法。第一章為序論，說明本研究之動機、目的、範圍以及方法。第二、三、四、五章則分別討論我國、美國、歐盟，以及英國之公共採購相關法規，並分析各國司法實務審理參與政府採購之廠商主張採購機關違反採購法規致其未得標，而請求投標、備標及申訴異議等費用，甚至請求其他賠償時，所可能肯認之請求權基礎、應否賠償之判斷標準、應得賠償之範圍，以及得賠償金額之審酌標準，並於各章提出各國較具代表性之具體案例，以了解各判斷標準之實際操作。第六章則參酌各國實務見解及判決，與我國採購法相關法條及實務見解加以分析比較，以提出筆者認為值得參考的審查標準，並提出修法建議，以為本文結論。筆者於研究後認為，在程序部份，應放寬政府採購法第75條可提起異議申訴之當事人適格認定，並將同法第85條第1項明定為：「審議判斷或法院確定判決指明原採購行為違反法令者，招標機關應另為適法之處置。」而使第3項所稱之「第一項情形」包含司法判決確定時。關於實體部份，筆者認為政府採購法第85條第3項所規定之請求權似乎可定義為行政法上債務關係之締約過失賠償請求權，而建議將此條項修改為：「第一項情形，廠商得向招標機關請求賠償其準備投標、異議及申訴所支出之合理費用。」以釐清此請求權應屬廣義之國家對人民之賠償，並將賠償範圍由「必要」改為「合理」，以免實務見解過度限縮。此外，筆者並認為，此請求權為違反已經存在之債務關係義務而生之責任，與國家賠償法之賠償係不法行為所生之侵權賠償責任性質應屬不同而可能併存。因此，廠商若因機關違法而受有其他損害，並符合國家賠償法所定之要件，似乎亦可循國家賠償法請求賠償。
In accordance with Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan, an unsuccessful tenderer of public procurement is entitled to recover the “necessary” costs he has incurred in his bid/proposal preparation and protest/complaint process if he has challenged the procuring agency’s relevant decision in time and the decision has been declared to be in breach of statutes and regulations by the review authority, the Public Construction Commission. This article is legislated according to the principle laid down by the Government Procurement Agreement that stipulates challenge procedures reviewing procuring agency’s decision shall provide compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the complaining tenderer. However, there have been a lot of disputes concerning the legal status of the basis of action stipulated in this article and the exact extent of the compensable costs since they have never been defined clearly by any statute or explained by the authority. Along with the difficulties in proving the relevancy and “necessity” of the expenses and costs, these disputes have driven the Administrative Court to take a very restrictive view in deciding the recoverable costs which in many cases may not be appropriate remedies for the complaining tenderers. With very limited literature focusing on the disputes arising from this article and a very small number of judgments of such cases in Taiwan, I attempt to explore the opinions expressed not only by Taiwan’s court and scholars but also by the courts of the other countries that are also parties to the GPA and have similar articles in their statutory law in order to offer a comparative perspective that will help resolving the differences concerning the interpretation of this article.Besides Taiwan, I have chosen to examine the judicial review of such cases in the USA, the UK and the EU since their public procurement budgets are on the top list of the world and they are all members of the GPA. The first chapter states the purpose, the extent and the method of this study. The second, third, fourth and fifth chapters respectively discuss the main public procurement regulations and analyze the judicial review standards concerning the basis of actions, the possible remedies and the extent of damages allowed in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK (including the judicial system of England, Wales and the North Ireland and the judicial system of Scotland). In the final chapter, I try to offer a comparative view and to suggest possible changes to the relevant statues and review standards in Taiwan. After completing the research, I suggest that a prospected bidder should also be recognized as an interested party that has standing in making claims against procuring authority for damages in order to ensure judicial review of important procuring decisions. Besides, Article 85.1 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan should be revised as “where a review decision or an unappealable court judgment specifies that the procuring entity is in breach of Acts and Regulations, the procuring entity shall proceed with a lawful alternative,” so that the protesting bidder will have the right for damages endowed by Article 85.3 of the same act if the procuring decision in question has been declared in breach of law only by the court but not by the Public Construction Commission. The right for compensation of tender preparation and protest costs stipulated by article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should be defined as a right arising from the procuring authority’s liability based on culpa in contrahendo in administrative law. Therefore, this article should be revised as “where the circumstance set forth in paragraph 1 occurs, the supplier may request the procuring entity to reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by the supplier for the preparation of tender and the filing of protest and complaint.” Besides, just as the liability based on culpa in contrahendo is different from the liability arising from tort and the former does not substitute for the later, an unsuccessful tenderer’s claim for compensation based on Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should not exclude his right in making other claims for other loss or damage according to the State Compensation Law.參考文獻 中文專著王澤鑑，債法原理第一冊，2009。王澤鑑編，英美法導論，2010。行政院公共工程委員會，公共工程委員會處理政府採購爭議事件成效評估及修法事宜之研究，2012。吳庚，行政法之理論與實用，12版，2012。李家慶，政府採購契約之廠商所負損害賠償責任之研究，行政院公共工程委員會專案研究計畫研究報告，2006。李惠宗，行政法要義，4版，2008。李震山，行政法導論，8版，2009。林家褀，政府採購行政訴訟－訴之利益理論與實務，2009。林誠二，債法總論新解－體系化解說，上冊，2010。孫森焱，民法債編總則，下冊，2010。財團法人國家政策研究基金會，政府採購制度問題探討與對策，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，2009。陳敏，行政法總論，新學林，2007。葉百修，國家賠償法之理論與實務，2012年9月4版。葉百修，損失補償法，2011。羅昌發，政府採購法與政府採購協定論析，2008年11月3版。 外文專著Bovis, Christopher H., EU PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW, (2007)TREPE, PETER, PUBLIC PROCUREMENT IN THE EU, (2007)THAI, KHI V., ed., INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, (2009) 中文論文王澤鑑，損害賠償法專題研究系列之一：危險社會、保護國家與損害賠償法，月旦法學雜誌，第117期，頁132-141，2005。王澤鑑，損害賠償法專題系列研究之二：損害賠償法的體系、請求權基礎、歸責原則及發展趨勢，月旦法學雜誌，第119期，頁129-131，2005。李惠宗，主觀公權利、法律上利益與反射利益之區別，行政法爭議問題研究（上），台灣行政法學會主編，頁139-168，2000。楊崇森，英美法系 vs.大陸法系若干問題初探，軍法專刊第57卷第4期，頁116-117，2011。蘇永欽，締約過失責任的經濟分析－從現代交易的階段化談起，臺大法學論叢第33卷第1期，頁210-211，2003。 外文期刊論文ARROWSMITH, SUE, EC Regime on Public Procurement, International Handbook of Public Procurement, 251-289, 2009CLAYBROOK, FREDERICK W., JR., Good Faith in the Termination and Formation of Federal Contracts, MD. L. REV. 555. (1997).GOGER, THOMAS J., J.D., Recovery from United States of costs incurred by unsuccessful bidder in preparing and submitting contract bid in response to government solicitation, 30 A.L.R. Fed. 355Henty, Paul, A note on Aquatron Marine v Strathclyde Fire Board, 106, note 3, P.P.L.R. 2008, 3, 104-107 (2008).HOGG, MARTIN, Liability for improperly rejected contract tenders: legitimate expectations, contract, promise and delict, Edin.L.R. 2012, 16(2), 246-253.LAVERS, ANTHONY, Tender Contract Developments Give Hope to the Disgruntled: Part 1, Construction Law International, June, 2010, 5 No. 2 Construction L. Int’l 15-20 (2010)LAVERS, ANTHONY, Tender Contract Developments Give Hope to the Disgruntled: Part 2, Construction Law International, August, 2010, 5 No. 3 Construction L. Int’l 6-11 (2010)MACKIE, SAM A., J.D., Proof That a Government Agency Was Liable for Improperly Granting a Bid Award to a Bid Applicant, § 13. Damages: Competitive bidding challenges, 70 AMJUR POF 3d97, Database updated April 2013, (2013)TREUMER, STEEN, Damages for breach of the EC public procurement rules - changes in European regulation and practice, P.P.L.R. 2006, 4, 159-170Verdeaux, Jean-Jacques, Public Procurement in the European Union and in the United States: A comparative Study, PUBLIC CONTRACT LAW JOURNAL, 713-738, Summer (2003) 學位論文王天健，政府採購法決標程序及相關爭議之探討及修正建議，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2005。何應朋，政府採購法爭議處理程序之研究，國防管理學院法律研究所碩士論文，2000。林清強，政府採購法申訴廠商償付請求權之探討-兼論其償付數額之計算基礎及舉證，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2011。曹志仁，從美國聯邦採購規則論我國政府採購法之爭議處理制度，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2002。 網路資源行政院公共工程委員會網站之「我國簽署WTO政府採購協定承諾開放清單」。http://www.pcc.gov.tw/pccap2/BIZSfront/MenuContent.do?site=002&bid=BIZS_C09901853經濟部WTO入口網，美國政府採購制度摘要http://www.trade.gov.tw/cwto/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=473&pid=311891&dl_DateRange=all&txt_SD=&txt_ED=&txt_Keyword=&Pageid=0駐英國代表處經濟組：英國政府採購制度與商機www.tbbc.org.tw/html/twelvethmeeting/008.doc﹐visited on 2013/7/17Curia, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/EU STATISTICAL REPORT 2008 ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htmEuropean Commission, Secrietariat-General, Application of EU Law,（http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/index_en.htm）Fiona Todd, The Scottish Legal System in a Nutshell, http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/06/17/the-scottish-legal-system-in-a-nutshell/ Ralph O. White, GAO Bid Protest Review, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652260.pdfScottish Government, Law, Order and Public Safety, Courts and the Legal System, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legalScotland Judiciary Organization http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/16/0/Court-StructureWorld Trade Organization, Government Procurement, Statistics reports under Article XIX:5 of the GPA, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htmWorld Trade Organization, Parties and observers to the GPA, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm 台灣判決（按時間順序）台中高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第526號判決（2005/3/23）台中高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第595號判決（2005/8/3）台中高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年）訴字第246號判決（2005/8/31）台北高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第696號判決（2005/9/8）台北高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年）訴字第1165號判決（2006/7/27）台北高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年度）訴字第3098號判決（2006/7/27）最高行政法院2007年度（民國96年）判字第393號判決（2007/3/15）台北高等行政法院2007年度（民國96年）訴字第2857號判決（2007/12/2）台北高等行政法院2007年度（民國96年）簡字第688號判決（2008/3/17）最高行政法院2008年度（民國97年）判字第529號判決（2008/11/6）台北高等行政法院2008年度（民國97年）訴字第8號判決（2009/12/17）台北高等行政法院2010年度（民國99年）簡字第37號判決（2010/6/10）台北高等行政法院2010年度（民國99年）訴字第1336號判決（2010/10/28）台北高等行政法院2010年（民國99年）度訴字第1644號判決（2010/11/25）最高行政法院2011年度（民國100 年）判字第1786號判決（2011/10/13）最高行政法院2011年度（民國100年）判字第2001號判決（2011/11/17）台北高等行政法院2011年度（民國100年）訴更一字第205號判決（2012/2/23）台北高等行政法院2011年度（民國100年）訴更一字第230號判決（2012/3/6）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）簡字第17號判決（2012/8/3）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）訴字第805號判決（2012/12/6）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）訴字第1017號判決（2012/12/27）最高行政法院2013年度（民國102年）判字第339號判決（2013/5/31）台北高等行政法院2013年度（民國102年）訴更二字第71號判決 （2013/11/20)台中高等行政法院2013年度（民國102）訴字第168號判決（2013/12/5） 美國判決（按時間順序）Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 (1875)Corliss Steam-Engine Co. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cl. 494 (1874), aff`d, 91 U.S. 321 (1875)United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53 (1876)Perkins v Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940)Heyer Products Co. v United States, 140 F. Supp. 409 (135 Ct Cl 63, 1956)Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v The Federal Aviation Administration, 424 F. 2d 859 (137 U.S. App. D.C. 371 1970)Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v United States, 356 F. Supp. 514 (DC Wash 1973), aff’d 514 F2d 402 (CA9 Wash)Descomp, Inc. v Sampson 377 F. Supp. 254 ( DC Del, 1974)Keco Industries, Inc. v United States, 492 F. 2d 1200 (C. C. 1974)McCarty Corp. v United States, 499 F. 2d 633 (204 Ct Cl 768, 1974)Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v Thomas, 521 F. 2d 941 (172 U.S.App.D.C. 281 1975)Gray v. Bell, 712 F. 2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1983)MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. United States, 878 F. 2d 362 (Fed.Cir.1989)Guardian Moving & Storage Co. v United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 645(Fed. Cl. 1994)Credle v. East Bay Holding Co., Inc., 263 Ga. 907, 440 S. E. 2d 20 (Fed. Cl. 1994)Finley v United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1994)Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F. 3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.1999)Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F. 3d 1054 (Fed.Cir.2000)Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, 213 F. 3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2000)Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2002)Information Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F. 3d 1312, (Fed.Cir.2003)Gentex Corp. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 49(Fed. Cl. 2004)Rex Service Corporation v. United States, and Associated Aircraft Manufacturing & Sales Inc., 448 F. 3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006)Geo–Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 74 (Fed. Cl. 2007); 77 Fed. Cl. 633 (Fed. Cl. 2007)Digitalis Educ. Solutions, Inc. v. U.S., 664 F. 3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012)Guzar Mirbachakot Transp. v. U.S., 65, 104 Fed. Cl. 53 (Fed. Cl. 2012).Reema Consulting Services Inc. v. U.S., 107 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2012) 歐盟判決（按時間順序）Case C-21-24/72, International Fruit Co NV v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1236Joined Cases 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commission and Council, [1985] ECR 2523Case 85/86, Commission v EIB, [1988] ECR 1281Case C 314/89, Siegfried Rauh v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth, [1991] ECR I 1647Case C 370/89, SGEEM and Etroy v EIB, [1992] ECR I 6211Case T 108/94, Candiotte v Council, [1994] ECR II 249Case T 175/94, International Procurement Services v Commission, [1996] ECR II 729Case T 267/94, Oleifici Italiani v Commission, [1997] ECR II 1239Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria and Others, [1999] ECR I-7671Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria AG and others v Bundeministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr, [1999] ECR I-7693Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, [2000] ECR I-5291Case T 169/00, R Esedra v Commission, [2000] ECR II 2951Case C 19/00 SIAC Construction, [2001] ECR I 7725Joined Cases T 198/95, T 171/96, T 230/97, T 174/98 and T 225/99, Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, [2001] ECR II 1975Case C-470/99, Universale-Bau AG v. Antsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH, [2002] ECR I 11617Case C 25/02 Katharina Rinke v Ärztekammer Hamburg, [2003] ECR I 8349Case C-410/01, Fritsch, Chiari & Chiari & Partner and Others, [2003] ECR I-11547Case T-303/04, European Dynamics v Commission, [2004] ECR II-3891Case T 303/04 R, European Dynamics v Commission, [2004] ECR II 3889Case T-69/00, FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission, [2005] ECR II-5393Case C-331/04, ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and others v ACTV Venezia SpA and others, [2005] ECR I-10109Case T 228/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Venezia v Commission, [2005] ECR II 787Case T 195/08 Antwerpse Bouwwerken v Commission, [2009] ECR II 4439Case T-437/05, Brink’s Security Luxembourg SA v. Commission of the European Communities, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, (Sixth Chamber) 9 September 2009Case T-461/08, Evropaïki Dynamiki v.European Investment Bank, [2011] ECR II-6378 英國判決（按時間順序）Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council, [1990] 1 WCA Civ 13Fairclough Building v Port Talbot Borough Council, (1993) 62 BLR 82Regalian Properties v. London Dockland Development Corporation, [1995] 1 All ER 1005Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, [1999] EWHC Technology 199, [2000] EWHC Technology 84Letting International v Newham, [2007] EWCA Civ 1522,Monro v HM Revenue & Customs, [2007]EWHC 114 (Ch)Aquatron Marine v. Strathclyde Fire Board, [2007] CSOH 185Scott v Belfast Education and Library Board, [2007] NICh 4Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited, [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC)Sidey Ltd v Clackmannanshire Council, [2011] CSOH 194 (OH)Mears v. Leeds City Council, [2011] EWHC 1031, [2011] EWHC 2694 (TCC) 其他國家判決Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario and the Water Resources Commission v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd, [1981] 1 SCR 111. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律科際整合研究所
98652001
102資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098652001 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 顏玉明 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Yan, Anna en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李淑珺 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Li, Shu Jiun en_US dc.creator (作者) 李淑珺 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Li, Shu Jiun en_US dc.date (日期) 2013 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Sep-2014 13:48:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Sep-2014 13:48:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Sep-2014 13:48:57 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0098652001 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/69460 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律科際整合研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98652001 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 我國政府採購法第85條第3項規定，針對招標申訴審議判斷指明機關違反法令時，廠商得請求償付其準備投標、異議，申訴之必要費用，該請求權係根據「政府採購協定」所定。但由於政府採購法及相關法規均未規定該條項所定之請求權之法律定性為何，以及何謂必要費用等，而本法主管機關亦不做解釋，加上備標費用證明不易，使法院見解只能趨於保守，並產生許多爭議。目前國內探討本條項規定之文獻數量極少，相關判決亦不多，因此筆者認為，除了從我國學說及實務見解出發之外，本條項既根據政府採購協定而訂定，則其他協定締約國法院對相似案例之見解，應亦可供我國法院參考。因此本文選擇同為政府採購協定締約國，且政府採購金額於世界名列前茅的美國、歐盟，以及英國作為選擇比較研究之對象，並採取實務判決見解分析、文獻研究，以及比較研究之研究方法。第一章為序論，說明本研究之動機、目的、範圍以及方法。第二、三、四、五章則分別討論我國、美國、歐盟，以及英國之公共採購相關法規，並分析各國司法實務審理參與政府採購之廠商主張採購機關違反採購法規致其未得標，而請求投標、備標及申訴異議等費用，甚至請求其他賠償時，所可能肯認之請求權基礎、應否賠償之判斷標準、應得賠償之範圍，以及得賠償金額之審酌標準，並於各章提出各國較具代表性之具體案例，以了解各判斷標準之實際操作。第六章則參酌各國實務見解及判決，與我國採購法相關法條及實務見解加以分析比較，以提出筆者認為值得參考的審查標準，並提出修法建議，以為本文結論。筆者於研究後認為，在程序部份，應放寬政府採購法第75條可提起異議申訴之當事人適格認定，並將同法第85條第1項明定為：「審議判斷或法院確定判決指明原採購行為違反法令者，招標機關應另為適法之處置。」而使第3項所稱之「第一項情形」包含司法判決確定時。關於實體部份，筆者認為政府採購法第85條第3項所規定之請求權似乎可定義為行政法上債務關係之締約過失賠償請求權，而建議將此條項修改為：「第一項情形，廠商得向招標機關請求賠償其準備投標、異議及申訴所支出之合理費用。」以釐清此請求權應屬廣義之國家對人民之賠償，並將賠償範圍由「必要」改為「合理」，以免實務見解過度限縮。此外，筆者並認為，此請求權為違反已經存在之債務關係義務而生之責任，與國家賠償法之賠償係不法行為所生之侵權賠償責任性質應屬不同而可能併存。因此，廠商若因機關違法而受有其他損害，並符合國家賠償法所定之要件，似乎亦可循國家賠償法請求賠償。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In accordance with Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan, an unsuccessful tenderer of public procurement is entitled to recover the “necessary” costs he has incurred in his bid/proposal preparation and protest/complaint process if he has challenged the procuring agency’s relevant decision in time and the decision has been declared to be in breach of statutes and regulations by the review authority, the Public Construction Commission. This article is legislated according to the principle laid down by the Government Procurement Agreement that stipulates challenge procedures reviewing procuring agency’s decision shall provide compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the complaining tenderer. However, there have been a lot of disputes concerning the legal status of the basis of action stipulated in this article and the exact extent of the compensable costs since they have never been defined clearly by any statute or explained by the authority. Along with the difficulties in proving the relevancy and “necessity” of the expenses and costs, these disputes have driven the Administrative Court to take a very restrictive view in deciding the recoverable costs which in many cases may not be appropriate remedies for the complaining tenderers. With very limited literature focusing on the disputes arising from this article and a very small number of judgments of such cases in Taiwan, I attempt to explore the opinions expressed not only by Taiwan’s court and scholars but also by the courts of the other countries that are also parties to the GPA and have similar articles in their statutory law in order to offer a comparative perspective that will help resolving the differences concerning the interpretation of this article.Besides Taiwan, I have chosen to examine the judicial review of such cases in the USA, the UK and the EU since their public procurement budgets are on the top list of the world and they are all members of the GPA. The first chapter states the purpose, the extent and the method of this study. The second, third, fourth and fifth chapters respectively discuss the main public procurement regulations and analyze the judicial review standards concerning the basis of actions, the possible remedies and the extent of damages allowed in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK (including the judicial system of England, Wales and the North Ireland and the judicial system of Scotland). In the final chapter, I try to offer a comparative view and to suggest possible changes to the relevant statues and review standards in Taiwan. After completing the research, I suggest that a prospected bidder should also be recognized as an interested party that has standing in making claims against procuring authority for damages in order to ensure judicial review of important procuring decisions. Besides, Article 85.1 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan should be revised as “where a review decision or an unappealable court judgment specifies that the procuring entity is in breach of Acts and Regulations, the procuring entity shall proceed with a lawful alternative,” so that the protesting bidder will have the right for damages endowed by Article 85.3 of the same act if the procuring decision in question has been declared in breach of law only by the court but not by the Public Construction Commission. The right for compensation of tender preparation and protest costs stipulated by article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should be defined as a right arising from the procuring authority’s liability based on culpa in contrahendo in administrative law. Therefore, this article should be revised as “where the circumstance set forth in paragraph 1 occurs, the supplier may request the procuring entity to reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by the supplier for the preparation of tender and the filing of protest and complaint.” Besides, just as the liability based on culpa in contrahendo is different from the liability arising from tort and the former does not substitute for the later, an unsuccessful tenderer’s claim for compensation based on Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should not exclude his right in making other claims for other loss or damage according to the State Compensation Law. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 誌謝 I摘要 IIABSTRACT I第一章 研究目的、範圍，以及方法 1一、研究目的與動機 1二、 研究範圍 2（一）比較研究之法領域 2（二）限於主張機關違法而最終未得標者之金錢賠償請求 3三、研究方法 3第二章 我國政府採購未得標廠商因機關違法而請求賠償之相關法規與實務 5一、未得標廠商主張機關違法而請求賠償之相關法規 5（一）法規概述 5（二）救濟途徑 5二、未得標廠商主張機關違法而請求賠償之相關實務 7（一）訴權（當事人適格認定） 7（二）因機關違法而請求賠償之請求權基礎 9（三）投備標及異議費用請求權之法律定性 10三、依據採購法第85條第3項應得請求之「必要費用」 20（一）實務見解 20（二）對實務見解之評析 24（三）本文見解 26四、案例評析 28（一）事實概要 29（二）對採購法85條第3項請求權之定性 29（三）對異議及申訴費用之見解 30（四）對內部人員薪資之見解 30（五）對律師費之見解 34五、小結 34（一）採購法85條第3項請求權為基於行政法上債務關係之締約過失責任 34（二）採購法85條第3項之必要費用應指「為備標、投標，以及異議所必要」 35第三章 美國聯邦政府採購之相關法規與實務 36一、聯邦政府採購相關法規概述 36（一）成文法與案例法 36（二）救濟途徑 37二、未得標廠商因機關違法請求賠償實務 38（一）管轄 38（二）訴權（當事人適格） 40（三）請求權基礎 40（四）得請求賠償之前提 43（五）應得賠償之範圍 46（六）可供參考的州法院判決 50三、案例評析 50（一）事實概要 50（二）得請求賠償之前提 52（三）應得賠償之範圍 53四、小結 54（一）聯邦法院僅承認得以成文法為請求權基礎 54（二）以「合理性」及「關聯性」認定得請求賠償之費用範圍 55第四章 歐盟及其成員國之政府採購相關法規與實務 57一、歐盟政府採購相關法規概述 57（一）法規架構 57（二）採購相關規則 58（三）採購相關指令 59（四）政府採購協定之適用 60二、歐盟法院得審理之政府採購案類型 61三、歐盟成員國政府採購案之未得標廠商因機關違法請求賠償實務 61（一）救濟途徑 61（二）訴權 64（三）得請求賠償之前提 66（四）應得賠償之範圍 67四、歐盟機關採購案件之未得標廠商因機關違法請求賠償實務 67（一）管轄 67（二）請求權基礎 68（三）得請求賠償之前提 69（四）應得賠償之範圍 69五、 案例評析 70（一）事實概要 70（二）管轄 71（三）訴權 72（四）得請求賠償之前提 73（五）應得賠償之範圍 74六、小結 75（一）歐盟機關的採購所生爭議 75（二）歐盟成員國政府採購所生爭議 76第五章 英國政府採購之相關法規與實務 78一、公共採購法規概述 78（一）英格蘭法域之政府採購相關法規 78（二）蘇格蘭法域之政府採購相關法規 79（三）歐盟法規之適用 79二、未得標廠商因機關違法請求賠償之司法實務 80（一）管轄 80（二）訴權 81（三）請求權基礎 82（四）得請求賠償之前提 86（五）應得賠償之範圍 87三、案例評析 91（一）英格蘭法域案例 91（二）蘇格蘭法域案例 97四、小結 100（一）請求權基礎與求償範圍之關連 100（二）「受合理告知並具一般勤勉程度之投標者」標準之應用 101（三）締約過失概念 v.契約責任或侵權責任 101第六章 比較、建議，與結論 102一、當事人適格認定之比較 102（一）各國之當事人適格認定標準不同 102（二）採購法第75條之當事人適格認定宜放寬 103二、以行政救濟為司法救濟前提之比較 104（一）各國招標爭議救濟途徑 104（二）以行政救濟為司法救濟前提之不當 105（三）第85條第3項請求權於特定情形得不適用「訴願前置主義」 105三、機關違法之判斷標準比較 106（一）各國對機關違法之認定標準 106（二）可供我國借鏡之機關違法判斷標準 107四、未得標廠商請求賠償之請求權基礎比較 108（一）以成文法為請求權基礎 108（二）以契約為請求權基礎 109（三）以侵權行為為請求權基礎 110（四）政府採購法第85條第3項請求權修法建議 112五、廠商是否須證明其得標機會之比較 113六、廠商得請求之費用範圍比較 114（一）各國對於投標備標費用範圍之判斷標準 114（二）採購法第85條第3項所得請求「費用」之判斷標準探討 115七、一般得受償之費用項目比較 116（一）各國認定一般得受償之項目 116（二）應允許合理之異議申訴程序之律師費 117八、可否請求所失利益之比較 118（一）依締約過失請求所失利益之可能 118（二）政府採購法第85條第3項所列之賠償範圍應可考慮修法擴大 119九、修法建議及結論 120（一）程序部份 120（二）實體部份 120（三）我國法院就採購法第85條第3項請求權應審酌之要件 121參考文獻 123 zh_TW dc.format.extent 8957588 bytes - dc.format.extent 258231 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098652001 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政府採購 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 備標費用 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 國家賠償 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 償付請求權 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 締約過失 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 異議費用 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Government Procurement en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) unsuccessful bidder en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) protest cost en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) tender preparation cost en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) government liability en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) culpa in contrahendo en_US dc.title (題名) 政府採購未得標者因機關違法請求賠償之研究：以比較我國、美國、歐盟、英國司法實務為中心 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Unsuccessful Tenderers’ Claims for Damages Based on the Procuring Government Agency’s Breach of Law: A Comparative Study on the Judicial Review in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文專著王澤鑑，債法原理第一冊，2009。王澤鑑編，英美法導論，2010。行政院公共工程委員會，公共工程委員會處理政府採購爭議事件成效評估及修法事宜之研究，2012。吳庚，行政法之理論與實用，12版，2012。李家慶，政府採購契約之廠商所負損害賠償責任之研究，行政院公共工程委員會專案研究計畫研究報告，2006。李惠宗，行政法要義，4版，2008。李震山，行政法導論，8版，2009。林家褀，政府採購行政訴訟－訴之利益理論與實務，2009。林誠二，債法總論新解－體系化解說，上冊，2010。孫森焱，民法債編總則，下冊，2010。財團法人國家政策研究基金會，政府採購制度問題探討與對策，行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告，2009。陳敏，行政法總論，新學林，2007。葉百修，國家賠償法之理論與實務，2012年9月4版。葉百修，損失補償法，2011。羅昌發，政府採購法與政府採購協定論析，2008年11月3版。 外文專著Bovis, Christopher H., EU PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW, (2007)TREPE, PETER, PUBLIC PROCUREMENT IN THE EU, (2007)THAI, KHI V., ed., INTERNATIONAL HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, (2009) 中文論文王澤鑑，損害賠償法專題研究系列之一：危險社會、保護國家與損害賠償法，月旦法學雜誌，第117期，頁132-141，2005。王澤鑑，損害賠償法專題系列研究之二：損害賠償法的體系、請求權基礎、歸責原則及發展趨勢，月旦法學雜誌，第119期，頁129-131，2005。李惠宗，主觀公權利、法律上利益與反射利益之區別，行政法爭議問題研究（上），台灣行政法學會主編，頁139-168，2000。楊崇森，英美法系 vs.大陸法系若干問題初探，軍法專刊第57卷第4期，頁116-117，2011。蘇永欽，締約過失責任的經濟分析－從現代交易的階段化談起，臺大法學論叢第33卷第1期，頁210-211，2003。 外文期刊論文ARROWSMITH, SUE, EC Regime on Public Procurement, International Handbook of Public Procurement, 251-289, 2009CLAYBROOK, FREDERICK W., JR., Good Faith in the Termination and Formation of Federal Contracts, MD. L. REV. 555. (1997).GOGER, THOMAS J., J.D., Recovery from United States of costs incurred by unsuccessful bidder in preparing and submitting contract bid in response to government solicitation, 30 A.L.R. Fed. 355Henty, Paul, A note on Aquatron Marine v Strathclyde Fire Board, 106, note 3, P.P.L.R. 2008, 3, 104-107 (2008).HOGG, MARTIN, Liability for improperly rejected contract tenders: legitimate expectations, contract, promise and delict, Edin.L.R. 2012, 16(2), 246-253.LAVERS, ANTHONY, Tender Contract Developments Give Hope to the Disgruntled: Part 1, Construction Law International, June, 2010, 5 No. 2 Construction L. Int’l 15-20 (2010)LAVERS, ANTHONY, Tender Contract Developments Give Hope to the Disgruntled: Part 2, Construction Law International, August, 2010, 5 No. 3 Construction L. Int’l 6-11 (2010)MACKIE, SAM A., J.D., Proof That a Government Agency Was Liable for Improperly Granting a Bid Award to a Bid Applicant, § 13. Damages: Competitive bidding challenges, 70 AMJUR POF 3d97, Database updated April 2013, (2013)TREUMER, STEEN, Damages for breach of the EC public procurement rules - changes in European regulation and practice, P.P.L.R. 2006, 4, 159-170Verdeaux, Jean-Jacques, Public Procurement in the European Union and in the United States: A comparative Study, PUBLIC CONTRACT LAW JOURNAL, 713-738, Summer (2003) 學位論文王天健，政府採購法決標程序及相關爭議之探討及修正建議，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2005。何應朋，政府採購法爭議處理程序之研究，國防管理學院法律研究所碩士論文，2000。林清強，政府採購法申訴廠商償付請求權之探討-兼論其償付數額之計算基礎及舉證，東吳大學法律學系碩士論文，2011。曹志仁，從美國聯邦採購規則論我國政府採購法之爭議處理制度，國立政治大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2002。 網路資源行政院公共工程委員會網站之「我國簽署WTO政府採購協定承諾開放清單」。http://www.pcc.gov.tw/pccap2/BIZSfront/MenuContent.do?site=002&bid=BIZS_C09901853經濟部WTO入口網，美國政府採購制度摘要http://www.trade.gov.tw/cwto/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=473&pid=311891&dl_DateRange=all&txt_SD=&txt_ED=&txt_Keyword=&Pageid=0駐英國代表處經濟組：英國政府採購制度與商機www.tbbc.org.tw/html/twelvethmeeting/008.doc﹐visited on 2013/7/17Curia, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/EU STATISTICAL REPORT 2008 ON PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htmEuropean Commission, Secrietariat-General, Application of EU Law,（http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/index_en.htm）Fiona Todd, The Scottish Legal System in a Nutshell, http://thestudentlawyer.com/2013/06/17/the-scottish-legal-system-in-a-nutshell/ Ralph O. White, GAO Bid Protest Review, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652260.pdfScottish Government, Law, Order and Public Safety, Courts and the Legal System, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/legalScotland Judiciary Organization http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/16/0/Court-StructureWorld Trade Organization, Government Procurement, Statistics reports under Article XIX:5 of the GPA, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/gpstat_e.htmWorld Trade Organization, Parties and observers to the GPA, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm 台灣判決（按時間順序）台中高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第526號判決（2005/3/23）台中高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第595號判決（2005/8/3）台中高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年）訴字第246號判決（2005/8/31）台北高等行政法院2004年度（民國93年）訴字第696號判決（2005/9/8）台北高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年）訴字第1165號判決（2006/7/27）台北高等行政法院2005年度（民國94年度）訴字第3098號判決（2006/7/27）最高行政法院2007年度（民國96年）判字第393號判決（2007/3/15）台北高等行政法院2007年度（民國96年）訴字第2857號判決（2007/12/2）台北高等行政法院2007年度（民國96年）簡字第688號判決（2008/3/17）最高行政法院2008年度（民國97年）判字第529號判決（2008/11/6）台北高等行政法院2008年度（民國97年）訴字第8號判決（2009/12/17）台北高等行政法院2010年度（民國99年）簡字第37號判決（2010/6/10）台北高等行政法院2010年度（民國99年）訴字第1336號判決（2010/10/28）台北高等行政法院2010年（民國99年）度訴字第1644號判決（2010/11/25）最高行政法院2011年度（民國100 年）判字第1786號判決（2011/10/13）最高行政法院2011年度（民國100年）判字第2001號判決（2011/11/17）台北高等行政法院2011年度（民國100年）訴更一字第205號判決（2012/2/23）台北高等行政法院2011年度（民國100年）訴更一字第230號判決（2012/3/6）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）簡字第17號判決（2012/8/3）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）訴字第805號判決（2012/12/6）台北高等行政法院2012年度（民國101年）訴字第1017號判決（2012/12/27）最高行政法院2013年度（民國102年）判字第339號判決（2013/5/31）台北高等行政法院2013年度（民國102年）訴更二字第71號判決 （2013/11/20)台中高等行政法院2013年度（民國102）訴字第168號判決（2013/12/5） 美國判決（按時間順序）Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389 (1875)Corliss Steam-Engine Co. v. United States, 10 Ct. Cl. 494 (1874), aff`d, 91 U.S. 321 (1875)United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53 (1876)Perkins v Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940)Heyer Products Co. v United States, 140 F. Supp. 409 (135 Ct Cl 63, 1956)Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v The Federal Aviation Administration, 424 F. 2d 859 (137 U.S. App. D.C. 371 1970)Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v United States, 356 F. Supp. 514 (DC Wash 1973), aff’d 514 F2d 402 (CA9 Wash)Descomp, Inc. v Sampson 377 F. Supp. 254 ( DC Del, 1974)Keco Industries, Inc. v United States, 492 F. 2d 1200 (C. C. 1974)McCarty Corp. v United States, 499 F. 2d 633 (204 Ct Cl 768, 1974)Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v Thomas, 521 F. 2d 941 (172 U.S.App.D.C. 281 1975)Gray v. Bell, 712 F. 2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1983)MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. United States, 878 F. 2d 362 (Fed.Cir.1989)Guardian Moving & Storage Co. v United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 645(Fed. Cl. 1994)Credle v. East Bay Holding Co., Inc., 263 Ga. 907, 440 S. E. 2d 20 (Fed. Cl. 1994)Finley v United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 1994)Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F. 3d 1365 (Fed.Cir.1999)Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F. 3d 1054 (Fed.Cir.2000)Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, 213 F. 3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2000)Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 629 (Fed. Cl. 2002)Information Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F. 3d 1312, (Fed.Cir.2003)Gentex Corp. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 49(Fed. Cl. 2004)Rex Service Corporation v. United States, and Associated Aircraft Manufacturing & Sales Inc., 448 F. 3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006)Geo–Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 74 (Fed. Cl. 2007); 77 Fed. Cl. 633 (Fed. Cl. 2007)Digitalis Educ. Solutions, Inc. v. U.S., 664 F. 3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012)Guzar Mirbachakot Transp. v. U.S., 65, 104 Fed. Cl. 53 (Fed. Cl. 2012).Reema Consulting Services Inc. v. U.S., 107 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2012) 歐盟判決（按時間順序）Case C-21-24/72, International Fruit Co NV v. Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit, [1972] ECR 1236Joined Cases 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commission and Council, [1985] ECR 2523Case 85/86, Commission v EIB, [1988] ECR 1281Case C 314/89, Siegfried Rauh v Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth, [1991] ECR I 1647Case C 370/89, SGEEM and Etroy v EIB, [1992] ECR I 6211Case T 108/94, Candiotte v Council, [1994] ECR II 249Case T 175/94, International Procurement Services v Commission, [1996] ECR II 729Case T 267/94, Oleifici Italiani v Commission, [1997] ECR II 1239Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria and Others, [1999] ECR I-7671Case C-81/98, Alcatel Austria AG and others v Bundeministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr, [1999] ECR I-7693Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission, [2000] ECR I-5291Case T 169/00, R Esedra v Commission, [2000] ECR II 2951Case C 19/00 SIAC Construction, [2001] ECR I 7725Joined Cases T 198/95, T 171/96, T 230/97, T 174/98 and T 225/99, Comafrica and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, [2001] ECR II 1975Case C-470/99, Universale-Bau AG v. Antsorgungsbetriebe Simmering GmbH, [2002] ECR I 11617Case C 25/02 Katharina Rinke v Ärztekammer Hamburg, [2003] ECR I 8349Case C-410/01, Fritsch, Chiari & Chiari & Partner and Others, [2003] ECR I-11547Case T-303/04, European Dynamics v Commission, [2004] ECR II-3891Case T 303/04 R, European Dynamics v Commission, [2004] ECR II 3889Case T-69/00, FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission, [2005] ECR II-5393Case C-331/04, ATI EAC Srl e Viaggi di Maio Snc and others v ACTV Venezia SpA and others, [2005] ECR I-10109Case T 228/00, Gruppo ormeggiatori del porto di Venezia v Commission, [2005] ECR II 787Case T 195/08 Antwerpse Bouwwerken v Commission, [2009] ECR II 4439Case T-437/05, Brink’s Security Luxembourg SA v. Commission of the European Communities, JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, (Sixth Chamber) 9 September 2009Case T-461/08, Evropaïki Dynamiki v.European Investment Bank, [2011] ECR II-6378 英國判決（按時間順序）Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council, [1990] 1 WCA Civ 13Fairclough Building v Port Talbot Borough Council, (1993) 62 BLR 82Regalian Properties v. London Dockland Development Corporation, [1995] 1 All ER 1005Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, [1999] EWHC Technology 199, [2000] EWHC Technology 84Letting International v Newham, [2007] EWCA Civ 1522,Monro v HM Revenue & Customs, [2007]EWHC 114 (Ch)Aquatron Marine v. Strathclyde Fire Board, [2007] CSOH 185Scott v Belfast Education and Library Board, [2007] NICh 4Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited, [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC)Sidey Ltd v Clackmannanshire Council, [2011] CSOH 194 (OH)Mears v. Leeds City Council, [2011] EWHC 1031, [2011] EWHC 2694 (TCC) 其他國家判決Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario and the Water Resources Commission v Ron Engineering and Construction (Eastern) Ltd, [1981] 1 SCR 111. zh_TW
