Search Result  ::  Save as CSV :: Back

"ABSTRAKKontrak merupakan dokumen yang sangat penting dalam proyek. Kontrak dipandang sebagai hukum yang harus dipenuhi dan menjadi pengatur serta pengendali hak-hak dan kewajiban antara pengguna jasa dan penyedia jasa dalam proyek. Sejak diberlakukannya UU Migas No. 22 tahun 2001, dikenal istilah PTK sebagai panduan dan pedoman tata kerja dalam kegiatan di sektor migas Indonesia. PTK No. 007 sendiri merupakan PTK yang khusus mengatur mengenai kegiatan pengadaan barang dan jasa pada kegiatan usaha hulu migas. Di dunia Internasional sudah lama dikenal dokumen FIDIC yang merupakan aturan kontrak yang telah digunakan banyak negara. FIDIC juga telah banyak diadaptasi pada proyek-proyek migas di Indonesia. Analisis yang dilakukan adalah membandingkan antara standar dan prosedur FIDIC dengan PTK No. 007. Tujuan dari perbandingan ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi gap diantara kedua dokumen tersebut, kemudian mengevaluasi hasil gap yang telah ditemukan.

---

ABSTRACTContract is a very important document in the project. The contract is considered to be the law that must be completed and became a regulator and controller of the rights and obligations between owner and service provider in the project. Since the enactment of Oil and Gas Law No. 22 year 2001, PTK known as the terms and guidelines for the employment guidelines in the activities of oil and gas sector in Indonesia. PTK No. 007 is a PTK that specifically regulates activities of procurement in upstream oil and gas activities. In international, FIDIC document has long known as the contract rules that have be been used in many countries. FIDIC also has been widely adapted in oil and gas projects in Indonesia. The analysis is to compare standard and procedure between the FIDIC and PTK No. 007. The purpose of this comparison is to identify the gap between the two documents, and evaluate the gap results that has been found."

"ABSTRAKKontrak konstruksi merupakan jenis kontrak yang dinamis. Kompleksitaspekerjaan dan keterlibatan berbagai kepentingan menjadikan kontrak konstruksimemiliki potensi sengketa di setiap tahapan konstruksi. Oleh karena itu, para pihakdalam kontrak konstruksi harus mencari metode penyelesaian sengketa memastikantidak terhambatnya kegiatan konstruksi. Dalam FIDIC General Conditions ofContract For Construction (1st Edition, 1999) dikenal mekanisme penyelesaiansengketa dalam bentuk Dispute Adjudication Board yang putusannya bersifatmengikat dan harus dijalankan terlebih dahulu oleh para pihak meskipun adakeberatan dari salah satu pihak. Dari sini terdapat dua permasalahan yang dijadikanobjek penelitian, Pertama, kedudukan Dispute Adjudication Board dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif PenyelesaianSengketa; Kedua, sifat putusan Dispute Adjudication Board yang harus dijalankanterlebih dahulu dibandingkan dengan putusan pengadilan yang bersifat serta mertaberdasarkan Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia dan pelaksanaannya berdasarkan sifatputusan yang diterapkan oleh beberapa lembaga adjudikasi di Indonesia. Penelitianini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif yang ditopang oleh analisa terhadapperaturan perundang-undangan dan doktrin hukum. Berdasarkan penelitian,ditemukan bahwa mekanisme Adjudikasi yang melandasi Dispute AdjudicationBoard belum diatur oleh UU Arbitrase. Meskipun demikian, terdapat beberapaperaturan sektoral yang mengatur serta beberapa institusi alternatif penyelesaiansengketa menjalankan adjudikasi. Terkait dengan putusan serta merta DisputeAdjudication Board dalam FIDIC General Conditions of Contract ForConstruction (1st Edition, 1999) dapat disimpulkan hal tersebut merupakankewajiban kontraktual yang ditetapkan para pihak diawal kontrak. Hal ini yangmembedakannya dengan putusan serta merta yang dianut dalam Hukum AcaraPerdata Indonesia di mana putusan serta merta tersebut merupakan kewenanganhakim untuk menilai dapat atau tidaknya suatu putusan dijalankan terlebih dahulu.Disamping itu, baik dalam peraturan sektoral yang telah mengatur adjudikasimaupun peraturan institusi alternatif penyelesaian sengketa dan arbitrase yangmemberikan layanan adjudikasi pada umumnya menentukan putusan adjudikasibersifat mengikat namun tidak selalu bersifat serta merta.

---

ABSTRACTConstruction contract is a dynamic contract. The complexity of the work and theinvolvement of many interests make a construction contract has potential disputesat every stages. Therefore, the parties to the construction contract should seek themethod of dispute resolution which can ensure that the dispute does not hamper theongoing work. The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for Construction (1stEdition, 1999), recognized a mechanism of alternative dispute resolution by theform of Dispute Adjudication Board whose decision is binding and the parties shallgive promptly effect to it regardless any objections raised by one of the parties.From that point, there are two identified issues, as the object of this research, First,the position of Dispute Adjudication Board under The Law Number 30 of 1999Regarding Arbitration And Alternative Dispute Settlement; Second, comparison thenature of immediate binding effect decision between the the Dispute AdjudicationBoard's decision under The FIDIC General Conditions of Contract forConstruction (1st Edition, 1999) and court?s decision under the Civil ProcedureCode Indonesia. The comparison also considering the implementation ofadjudication?s decision by several adjudication institutions in Indonesia. The typeof research is legal reseach by analyzing the regulations and law doctrine relatedto the issues. The result of this research are, First, the underlying mechanism ofDispute Adjudication Board, has not been regulated and governed under theArbitration Act. Nonetheless, there are some sectoral rules which has govern theadjudication procedures and has also been conducted by several institutions ofalternative dispute resolution and arbitration in Indonesia as part of their services.Second, the immediate binding effect of Dispute Adjudication Board's decision canbe concluded as contractual obligations for the parties as set forth at the beginningof the contract. This is what distinguishes it from the immediate binding effect ofcourt?s decision as in the Civil Procedure Code Indonesia where the decision isunder the judges authority. Besides that, both in the sectoral regulations that havebeen set and/or institutional adjudication of alternative dispute resolution andarbitration rules, in general, determine that the adjudication decision is bindingbut does not necessarily have immediate binding effect"