政府採購法第101條規定：「機關辦理採購，發現廠商有下列情形之一，應將其事實及理由通知廠商，並附記如未提出其議者，將刊登政府採購公報：1、容許他人借用本人名義或證件參加投標者。2、借用或冒用他人名義成證件，或以偽造、變造之文件參加投標、訂的或履約者。3、擅自減省工料情節重大者。4、偽造、變造投標、契約或履約相關文件者。5、受停業處分期間仍參加投標者。6、犯第87條至第92條之罪，經第一審為有罪判決者。7、得標後無正當理由而不訂約者。8、查驗或驗收不合格，情節重大者。9、驗收後不履行保固責任者。10、因可歸責於廠商之事白，致延誤履約期限，情節重大者。11、違反第65條之規定轉包者。12、因可歸責於廠商之事由，致解除或終止契約者。13、破產程序中之廠商。14、歧視婦女、原住民或弱勢團體人士，情節重大者。廠商之履約連帶保證廠商機關通知履行連帶係證責任者，適用前項之規定。」則辦理採購之機關依據政府採購法規定，於政府採購公報上刊登參標廠商名稱時，該刊登政府採購公報之行為，性質上，究竟是否屬於行政罰，實務見解相當分歧，至於學者意見亦非一致。對此，本文提架構採購法第101條第1項各款事由與行政義務問之關係，並解析採購法第101條第1項與同法第103條間之關聯性，復立於行政罰之本質，以不同觀點，重新詮釋刊登政府採購公報之性質，期望激起學界及實務界對此議題再次審視。

When Procuring entities publish the names of all tenderers on the Government Procurement Gazette according to the regulations of the Government Procurement Act, the nature of publishing on the Government Procurement Gazette is divergence in court practices as well as in scholars' opinions. Therefore, this essay is planned to structure the relations between all paragraphs of sectionI of Article 101 of the Government Procurement Act and administrative obligations, and to analyze the relations between section I of Article 101 and Article 103, and from the perspective of the nature of administrative penalty to explain the nature of publishing on the Government Procurement Gazette in a new different point of view, with the expectation to arouse both the expert legal academics and practitioners to review this issue again.