PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 17, 2024Reformasi Hukum Trisakti0 citationsOpen Access

Alleged Tender Conspiracy in the Tanjung Pandan-Simpang Empat Road Widening Improvement Project, Bangka Province Based on Business Competition Law.

View Full Paper
MAMuhammad Ardin ArdiansyahSASharda Arbianti

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Based on the initiative, the KPPU conducted an investigation into the improvement and widening of the Tanjung Pandan-Simpang Empat Road (Package 3) of Bangka Belitung Province for alleged violations of Article 22 of Law No. 5/1999 regarding tender conspiracy. There are several indications of bid rigging, which is an indication of unfair business competition activities. The author analyzes the form and suitability of tender rigging decisions based on Law No. 5/1999. regarding applicable business competition law and procurement of government goods and services. This research uses normative research methods and data sources based on secondary data. As a result, the author found that there were forms of vertical and horizontal tender collusion and discrepancies in decisions with Law No. 5/1999. So it can be concluded that in this case there are indications of horizontal conspiracy in the form of (i) the same IP address, (ii) the same format and typing errors in the RK3K document, (iii) the existence of connections/affiliations between business actors, (iv) the deliberate omission of the batching plant document, and (v) the involvement of the tender committee in passing documents that indicated similarities between business actors as an indication of vertical conspiracy. This evidence fulfills the element of "cooperation or coordination" to "create false competition" between tender participants and/or other parties in the decision, thereby causing unhealthy business competition. So the Commission Council's decision declaring the respondents not guilty is not in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Law. No. 5/1999

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ardiansyah et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e69aefb6db643587620878https://doi.org/10.25105/refor.v6i2.19692
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Case Analysis of Tender Contracts in Violation of Law Number 5 of 1999 Concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2Alleged Violation of Article 22 of Law Number 5 of 1999 Regarding the Procurement of Road Construction Work Packages (Acceleration Program) Package 3 (Pelangan-Sp. Pengantap 3) and Package 4 (Pelangan-Sp. Pengantap 4) at the Public Works and Spatial Planning Service Working Unit West Nusa Tenggara Province APBD Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Decision: 35/KPPU-I/20202024
  3. 3POTENTIAL VULNERABILITY TO CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT: PROSPECTS FOR FAIR COMPETITION2024
  4. 4Indirect Evidence in Disclosing Cartel Violations Under Business Competition Law in Indonesia2024 · 1 citations
  5. 5Reformulation of Criminal Act of Corruption in Building Failure Within Procurement of Construction Services from Perspective of Legal Certainty2025