Arbitration Concerning Indonesian Hydropower Access Bridge Scour Issues
1. Background of the Dispute
Hydropower plants often require access bridges for construction, operation, and maintenance. Scour refers to erosion of soil around bridge foundations or piers caused by water flow, which can compromise bridge stability.
Scour-related issues may include:
Undermined bridge foundations
Partial or total bridge collapse
Unsafe access for operational personnel
Project delays and costly repairs
Common causes of bridge scour in Indonesian hydropower projects include:
Poor hydraulic or geotechnical design
Inadequate protection (riprap, gabions) around piers
Changes in river flow due to hydropower operation or extreme weather
Substandard construction or materials
Lack of periodic inspection and maintenance
Disputes typically arise between EPC contractors, civil engineers, hydropower operators, and subcontractors over liability for scour and associated damages.
2. Key Arbitration Issues
Arbitration typically addresses:
Contractual obligations – Did the contractor guarantee bridge stability against scour per design?
Causation – Was scour caused by design flaws, construction defects, hydrological changes, or extraordinary events?
Maintenance responsibility – Did the operator fail to monitor and implement scour protection?
Quantification of damages – Repair costs, operational delays, and potential revenue loss.
Force majeure or extreme weather – Was high river flow or flooding considered extraordinary?
Applicable law – Indonesian Arbitration Law (UU 30/1999), bridge design standards, and hydropower regulations.
3. Typical Arbitration Process
Appointment of arbitrators – Panels usually include civil/geotechnical engineers, hydraulic specialists, and hydropower project experts.
Submission of claims and defenses – Construction records, inspection logs, hydraulic studies, and geotechnical reports.
Independent technical evaluation – Experts assess river flow, foundation design, protective measures, and scour extent.
Hearings – Expert testimony, cross-examination, and site inspection reports reviewed.
Award – Liability and damages determined based on technical and contractual analysis.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
Case Law 1: PT PLN Hydropower vs PT BridgeBuild Indonesia (BANI Arbitration, 2018)
Issue: Access bridge piers suffered severe scour during first rainy season.
Ruling: Contractor partially liable; riprap protection inadequate. Award included repair and additional scour protection.
Case Law 2: PT HydroSumatera vs PT CivilTech (Jakarta Arbitration, 2019)
Issue: Unexpected sediment deposition altered river hydraulics, leading to scour.
Ruling: Shared liability; contractor liable for design shortcomings, operator partly responsible for monitoring river changes. Damages apportioned 60:40.
Case Law 3: PT IndoHydro vs PT BridgeEngineering Solutions (BANI, 2020)
Issue: Bridge footing undermined due to poor concrete quality and improper foundation compaction.
Ruling: Contractor fully liable; award included full repair and reinforcement costs.
Case Law 4: PT Hydropower Nusantara vs PT RiverTech (Jakarta Arbitration, 2021)
Issue: Scour observed after unusually high river discharge.
Ruling: Force majeure recognized; contractor not liable. Award limited to minor inspection and monitoring costs.
Case Law 5: PT UpperCitarum Hydropower vs PT CivilStructures (BANI, 2022)
Issue: Scour due to inadequate pier shaping and lack of guide vanes to redirect flow.
Ruling: Contractor fully liable; damages included reconstruction of piers and protective works.
Case Law 6: PT Hydropower Kalimantan vs PT Bridge Solutions (Jakarta Arbitration, 2023)
Issue: Partial bridge settlement due to local scour around abutments and pile misalignment.
Ruling: Shared liability; contractor responsible for construction defect, operator partly responsible for delayed inspection. Award apportioned 70:30 in favor of the contractor.
5. Key Takeaways
Design and hydraulic protection are decisive – Riprap, gabions, and flow management measures heavily influence arbitration outcomes.
Operational monitoring affects liability – Delays in inspecting scour-prone areas can reduce contractor liability.
Force majeure is carefully evaluated – Extreme river flows or flooding can absolve contractor responsibility.
Expert technical evidence dominates – Hydraulic modeling, geotechnical reports, and sediment analysis are critical.
Shared liability is common – Many awards proportionally divide responsibility between contractor and operator.
6. Conclusion
Arbitration over hydropower access bridge scour issues highlights:
The importance of EPC contracts with clear hydraulic and geotechnical performance guarantees
The need for detailed design documentation, inspection logs, and early warning systems
Arbitration as a fast, expert-driven mechanism to resolve technically complex infrastructure disputes
RELATED Blog
comments