摘要 公共工程機電工程具有系統整合度高、施工界面複雜及功能驗證嚴謹等特性，履約過程易因契約範圍、設計整合、施工協調、驗收認定及價金結算等事項產生爭議。相關爭議雖常以工期展延、工程款給付、驗收不合格、結算差額或契約終止等一般公共工程爭議型態呈現，惟其實質成因多與機電工程之設計界面、施工條件、系統測試、功能驗證及使用需求調整有關，故不宜僅依最終爭議名稱理解。 本研究採文獻分析、案例編碼分析及問卷調查法進行。首先，依公共工程履約管理、履約爭議及機電工程特性等文獻，建立契約與設計界面、履約時程與施工協調、品質功能與驗收認定、價金與結算給付等四大構面及二十項爭議因素；其次，蒐集三十二件公共工程機電履約爭議案例，依爭議核心及履約階段進行編碼；最後，針對五十五位具實務經驗之從業人員進行問卷調查，並與案例結果交叉驗證。 研究發現，公共工程機電履約爭議之外觀類型與實質成因存在落差，且前期契約與設計界面問題具有延後顯現特性。許多爭議雖於施工、驗收或結算階段才具體發生，其成因常已存在於契約範圍不明、設計圖說整合不足、施工界面未明確或使用需求未充分釐清等前期問題中。施工協調則是工程事實轉化為契約責任之關鍵環節，若界面交付、現場障礙、工期影響及變更事項未能即時記錄與處理，後續易形成責任歸屬、工期展延及價金認定爭議。另機電工程之履約完成認定具有功能導向特性，應區分施工完成、功能完成與履約完成。綜合而言，施工界面、時程責任與價金認定為公共工程機電履約管理中較需優先處理之課題。本文建議前期強化契約與設計界面整合，施工階段建立界面交付與履約條件成熟度檢核，驗收階段明確功能完成標準，結算階段強化價金變動之即時管理。;Abstract Public mechanical and electrical (M&E) works are characterized by a high degree of system integration， complex construction interfaces， and rigorous functional verification requirements. During contract performance， disputes may easily arise from issues concerning contract scope， design integration， construction coordination， acceptance determination， and payment settlement. Although such disputes are often presented in the form of general public construction disputes， such as time extensions， payment claims， failed acceptance， settlement discrepancies， or contract termination， their substantive causes are frequently related to design interfaces， construction conditions， system testing， functional verification， and changes in user requirements in M&E works. Therefore， disputes in the performance of public M&E works should not be understood merely by their final dispute categories. This study adopts literature review， case coding analysis， and questionnaire survey as its research methods. First， based on literature concerning public construction contract administration， performance disputes， and the characteristics of M&E works， an analytical framework consisting of four major dimensions and twenty dispute factors was established. The four dimensions include contract and design interfaces， performance schedule and construction coordination， quality， function and acceptance determination， and payment and settlement. Second， thirty-two dispute cases related to the performance of public M&E works were collected and coded according to their dispute cores and performance stages. Finally， a questionnaire survey was conducted among fifty-five practitioners with practical experience in public construction and M&E works， and the survey results were cross-validated with the case analysis results. The research findings indicate that there is a gap between the apparent dispute types and the substantive causes of disputes in the performance of public M&E works. In addition， issues arising from early-stage contract and design interfaces tend to appear at later stages of contract performance. Although many disputes become concrete during construction， acceptance， or settlement stages， their causes often originate from early-stage problems， such as unclear contract scope， insufficient integration of design drawings， unclear construction interfaces， or inadequately clarified user requirements. Construction coordination serves as a critical mechanism through which engineering facts are transformed into contractual responsibilities. If interface handover， site obstacles， schedule impacts， and variation matters are not recorded and managed in a timely manner， subsequent disputes may arise regarding responsibility allocation， time extensions， and payment determination. Furthermore， the determination of completion in M&E works is function-oriented; therefore， construction completion， functional completion， and contractual completion should be clearly distinguished. Overall， construction interfaces， schedule responsibility， and payment determination are priority issues in the contract administration of public M&E works. This study suggests that contract and design interface integration should be strengthened in the early stage， interface handover and contract performance condition readiness should be checked during construction， functional completion standards should be clarified during acceptance， and real-time management of payment variations should be reinforced during settlement.
