隨著現代社會經濟之發展，民事紛爭的態樣已日趨多元化。而實務上，政府採購履約爭議使用仲裁程序者，尤以工程案件居多，但制度是一體兩面的，優劣往往難以同時兼顧，特別是近年機關及廠商對於仲裁判斷的信任感低落，及效力不如預期導致其履約糾紛處理的地位受到質疑及挑戰；甚至因以調解方式處理機關與廠商基於履約而產生之爭議，提供了另種訴訟外紛爭解決機制之選擇，也是使仲裁制度在政府採購法上功能性產生動搖的原因之一，故而有「先調解，後仲裁」運作模式的產生；本文茲就工程採購履約糾紛解決機制之面向，探討仲裁制度的法律功能、提付仲裁之運作，並兼評該制度在政府採購法所面臨之挑戰。

With the development of modern social economy, the pattern of civil disputes has become increasingly diversified. In practice, government procurement compliance disputes use arbitration procedures to maximize engineering cases. However, the system is two-in-one, and it is often difficult to balance the advantages and disadvantages. In particular, in recent years, the reputation of the authorities and manufacturers for the arbitration judgment is low, and the effectiveness is not as expected, which has caused the status of its compliance dispute to be questioned and challenged. Even mediation has joined the battleground for compliance dispute resolution, providing another option for dispute resolution mechanisms outside the lawsuit, and is one of the reasons for the volatility of arbitration in the government procurement law. Therefore, there is a mode of operation of "first mediation, then arbitration". This paper explores the legal function of arbitration and the operation of arbitration in the direction of the engineering procurement compliance dispute resolution mechanism, and also evaluates the challenges faced by the system in the government procurement law.