工地之地質現況與鑽探報告有所差異，常為工程上展延工期或變更設計之事由。造假或錯誤之地質鑽探報告固然為爭議之原因，但鑽探技術受設備侷限，縱使鑽探報告依正確之操作方法作成，其探測之結果與實際地質仍可能存在差異。將地質風險由廠商負擔的契約條款，或要求廠商應進行補充鑽探，或根據現場挖掘狀況，事先選用適當切削機具，或於施工中更換適當機具等，如此造成的應變成本由廠商負擔是否合理，容有疑問。 為探討地質鑽探報告對於推進工程可能造成之風險負擔，本研究嘗試藉由文獻回顧，蒐集契約及施工規範、案例等，認識地質鑽探報告在地下管線推進工程之風險。在蒐集、分析10個地下管線工程案例後，本研究建議在現有契約範本之基礎上，加以「業主提供的鑽探報告在技術上是否錯誤」及地質報告未呈現出之資訊是否為「不可預見」作為區分條件，以作為重大差異之輔助判准，為此，本研究試擬一契約條款，期能補充現有的契約條款，以提升分擔地質風險之公平性。;Differences between site conditions and that shown in the geotechnical investigation report are reasons often seen that cause extensions of time or design changes. A false or wrong geotechnical investigation report is always an unavoidable reason leading to dispute. However, even though the geotechnical investigation report was made based on valid methods, the differences may still exist. In such case, it is questionable when the contract clauses require the contractor take the burdens of additional geotechnical investigation, changing of appropriate drill heads, etc. This research explores the issues of risk allocation for using jacking method in underground lines based on a geotechnical investigation report. Literature review including collection of construction specifications, contracts, and dispute cases were conducted in this research to distinguish possible risks. Ten dispute cases were collected and analyzed to summarize two suggestions that assist in awarding differing site conditions in the current model contract. These suggestions are “if the investigation method is technically incorrect in the geotechnical investigation report,” and “site conditions are unforeseeable for an experienced contractor.” Finally, this research proposes an additional clause in the model contract to facilitate a fair distribution of the risks between the contractor and the owner.
