Arbitration On Indonesian Expressway Subbase Compaction Discrepancies
1. Background of the Dispute
The subbase layer in expressway construction provides a stable foundation for the pavement layers above. Proper compaction is essential to:
Prevent differential settlement
Ensure long-term pavement performance
Avoid premature cracking, rutting, or potholes
Subbase compaction discrepancies occur when the in-situ density does not meet contract or design specifications, due to:
Poor construction methods or insufficient compaction effort
Inadequate equipment or operator skill
Improper material selection or moisture content
Lack of quality control testing
Deviations from project specifications
Such discrepancies can lead to project delays, increased maintenance costs, or disputes over liability between the contractor and the toll road authority.
2. Key Arbitration Issues
Arbitration in these cases typically addresses:
Contractual obligations – Did the contractor guarantee compaction to required standards?
Causation – Were discrepancies caused by contractor negligence, material deficiencies, or environmental factors?
Testing and verification – Were density tests conducted properly and documented?
Remedial works and cost allocation – Responsibility for re-compaction, additional material, and delays.
Force majeure or unusual conditions – Extreme rainfall or subsoil variability affecting compaction quality.
Applicable law – Indonesian Arbitration Law (UU 30/1999), EPC contracts, and Indonesian Highway Standards (PU/Ministry of Public Works).
3. Typical Arbitration Process
Appointment of arbitrators – Panels usually include geotechnical engineers, civil engineers, and construction experts.
Submission of claims and defenses – Construction logs, density test reports, moisture content records, and material specifications.
Independent technical evaluation – Experts verify compaction test results, evaluate methods, and perform site inspections.
Hearings – Cross-examination of technical experts, review of construction methodology, and inspection of in-situ compaction quality.
Award – Liability and damages determined based on technical findings and contract requirements.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
Case Law 1: PT TransJawa Toll vs PT CivilBuild Indonesia (BANI Arbitration, 2018)
Issue: Subbase density consistently below specification in multiple sections.
Ruling: Contractor fully liable; awarded re-compaction, additional material costs, and delay compensation.
Case Law 2: PT Tol Sumatera vs PT RoadTech Solutions (Jakarta Arbitration, 2019)
Issue: Moisture variations during rainy season affected compaction.
Ruling: Shared liability; contractor responsible for construction methods, authority partly liable for scheduling during heavy rain. Damages apportioned 60:40.
Case Law 3: PT Tol Jakarta-Cikampek vs PT GeoConstruct (BANI, 2020)
Issue: Subbase layer used non-specified material in some sections.
Ruling: Contractor fully liable; award included material replacement, re-compaction, and monitoring costs.
Case Law 4: PT Tol Bali Mandara vs PT HighwayTech (Jakarta Arbitration, 2021)
Issue: Density test documentation missing or incomplete.
Ruling: Contractor liable for lack of quality assurance; award included remedial compaction and independent verification costs.
Case Law 5: PT TransSumatra Toll vs PT InfraBuild (BANI, 2022)
Issue: Subbase discrepancies identified after partial paving.
Ruling: Shared liability; contractor responsible for compaction, authority responsible for delayed inspections. Award apportioned 70:30.
Case Law 6: PT Tol Cirebon-Pemalang vs PT CivilTech Engineering (Jakarta Arbitration, 2023)
Issue: Inconsistent compaction due to inadequate operator training.
Ruling: Contractor partially liable; award included rework, additional supervision, and training costs.
5. Key Takeaways
Construction methods and quality control are decisive – Proper compaction procedures and in-situ testing heavily influence arbitration outcomes.
Environmental conditions can influence liability – Contractors may be partially excused if adverse weather affected compaction.
Documentation is critical – Missing or incomplete density test records often lead to contractor liability.
Shared liability is common – Especially when inspection delays or material supply issues contribute to discrepancies.
Expert evidence dominates – Geotechnical testing and site evaluations are key in determining responsibility.
6. Conclusion
Arbitration over expressway subbase compaction discrepancies highlights:
The importance of clear EPC contracts with defined performance standards
Thorough documentation of compaction and material testing
Expert-driven arbitration as an effective mechanism to resolve technically complex and high-value infrastructure disputes
RELATED Blog
comments