Klaim dan

Perselisihan

Materi Kuliah Manajemen Konstruksi

Dosen: Emma Akmalah, Ph.D
 Klaim
• Klaim dapat diartikan sebagai permintaan atau
tuntutan berupa kompensasi biaya atau jadwal di
luar kontrak.
• Klaim dapat datang dari pihak kontraktor maupun
pemilik.
• Pada umumnya klaim diselesaikan dengan cara
negosiasi. Jarang ditempuh proses arbitrase atau
litigasi.
 Klaim vs Change Order

• Persamaan klaim dan change order: terjadi setelah

kontrak ditandatangani.
• Untuk change order, lingkupnya telah diketahui
terlebih dahulu, kemudian diproses pelaksanaannya
sesuai prosedur.
• Untuk klaim, subyek yang menjadi persoalan telah
terjadi, sehingga tidak mudah untuk mencari titik
temu permasalahannya.
 Penyebab Klaim
• Dokumen kontrak yang tidak jelas
• Tidak lengkapnya spesifikasi/lingkup kerja
• Perbedaan interpretasi di antara pihak-pihak yang
terlibat
• Perubahan kontrak/lingkup pekerjaan
• Perbedaan/perubahan kondisi lapangan
• Keterlambatan dan faktor penyebabnya
• Pekerjaan tambahan
• Percepatan/penangguhan waktu proyek
• Perubahan peraturan
 Penanganan Klaim
• Lakukan antisipasi untuk mencegah terjadinya
klaim, misalnya dengan dokumentasi,
pemahaman kontrak, dan perencanaan yang
matang.
• Apabila terjadi klaim, lakukan analisis tentang
alasan klaim yang diajukan
• Bila terdapat cukup alasan, besarnya kompensasi
yang akan diberikan didasarkan kepada:
pencarian fakta, analisis yang mendalam,
estimasi biaya, & negosiasi
 Perselisihan

• Kontrak pada proyek konstruksi sangat rentan

terhadap terjadinya perselisihan.
• Penyebab utama terjadinya perselisihan adalah
keterlambatan
• Perselisihan yang terjadi di antara pihak-pihak
yang terlibat dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya
klaim.
• Perselisihan & klaim memerlukan tambahan
waktu, biaya, dan tenaga.
 Penyelesaian Perselisihan

Perselisihan bisa diselesaikan dengan cara:

• Negosiasi
• Mediasi
• Arbitrase
• Litigasi
 Negosiasi

• Negosiasi adalah cara penyelesaian yang hanya

melibatkan kedua belah pihak yang bersengketa,
tanpa melibatkan pihak-pihak yang lain.
• Dilakukan dengan cara musyawarah untuk mufakat
• Umumnya kontraktor dan pemilik menunjuk
arsitek/insinyur sebagai penengah, di mana
kontraktor diminta untuk mengajukan klaim kepada
insinyur sebagai negosiator.
• Keputusan yang diambil tidak mengikat
 Mediasi

• Merupakan cara untuk menyelesaikan masalah di

awal perselisihan.
• Melibatkan pihak ketiga yang tidak memihak dan
dapat diterima oleh kedua belah pihak
• Dapat menyelesaikan masalah dengan waktu yang
lebih cepat, murah, tertutup dan ditangani oleh para
ahli
• Keputusan yang dihasilkan tidak mengikat
 Arbitrase

• Merupakan metode penyelesaian masalah yang

dibentuk melalui kontrak dan melibatkan para ahli di
bidang konstruksi yang tergabung dalam badan
arbitrase.
• Penyelesaiannnya lebih cepat dan murah
dibandingkan dengan litigasi
• Dilakukan secara tertutup dan ditangani oleh para
ahli
 Litigasi

• Litigasi adalah proses penyelesaian masalah yang

melibatkan pengadilan.
• Proses ini sebaiknya dilakukan sebagai langkah
akhir apabila cara-cara yang lain tidak dapat
menyelesaikan masalah
• Memerlukan waktu yang lebih lama dan biaya yang
lebih tinggi
• Keputusannya bersifat mengikat
 UNDANG-UNDANG NO 18 TAHUN 1999
TENTANG JASA KONSTRUKSI
(penyelesaian sengketa )

1. PASAL 36
ayat (1) : penyelesaian sengketa dapat dilakukan
melalui pengadilan atau di luar pengadilan
ayat (2) : penyelesaian di luar pengadilan tidak
berlaku untuk tindak pidana.
ayat (3) : bila dipilih penyelesaian di luar
pengadilan, gugatan melalui pengadilan hanya
dapat dilakukan apabila upaya di luar
pengadilan dinyatakan tidak berhasil.
 UNDANG-UNDANG NO 18 TAHUN 1999
TENTANG JASA KONSTRUKSI
( penyelesaian sengketa )

2. PASAL 37
ayat (1) : penyelesaian sengketa di luar pengadilan
dapat ditempuh untuk masalah yang
timbul dalam PENGIKATAN dan
PENYELENGGARAAN pekerjaan konstruksi
serta dalam terjadi KEGAGALAN BANGUNAN

ayat (2) : dapat menggunakan jasa pihak ketiga

ayat (3) : pihak ketiga dapat dibentuk pemerintah
dan atau masyarakat jasa konstruksi.
Case Studies
 Case Study 1

• Owner was dissatisfied with the quality of

Contractor’s workmanship. Owner took the
position that the poor workmanship was a material
breach of contract which justified a change in the
payment terms of the contract.
• The Court of Appeals of Indiana disagreed.
Given the complexity of a construction project,
it would be unfair to treat every workmanship
as a material breach of contract. Contractor was
entitled to notice of the problem and a
reasonable opportunity to correct it.
• Defective workmanship is an immaterial breach
of contract unless and until Contractor fails to
correct the problem after a reasonable
opportunity to do so. At that point it becomes a
material breach of contract.
 Case Study 2

• Owner’s on-site representative inspected

Contractor’s installation of a roof. Contractor’s
work was later accepted and final payment was
made.
• After final acceptance and payment, Owner sued
contractor for defective workmanship in the roof
installation. Contractor responded that Owner’s
claim had been waived by final acceptance.
The California Court of Appeal agreed. The
Court said that Owner’s on-site representative
knew or should have known of the defects prior
to final acceptance. The knowledge of Owner’s
agent is imputed to Owner. Therefore, Owner
accepted the project with imputed knowledge of
patent, or apparent, defects and thereby waived
the right to bring a claim against Contractor for
those defects.
 Case Study 3

Owner awarded Contractor a lump-sum

construction contract. Contract called for Owner
to make a monthly progress payments to
Contractor based on Architect’s certification of
Contractor’s percentage of completion.
Architect certified a particular percentage of
completion, but Owner refused to make a
progress payment for that amount unless certain
changes were made in the terms of contract.
Contractor sued Owner for breach of contract.
The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that Owner
did breach the contract. When a contract
establishes Architect as the party responsible for
determining Contractor percentage of completion,
that determination is binding on both Owner and
Architect. Owner was not entitled to ignore
Architect’s certification or to impose additional
preconditions before making the progress
payment.
 Case Study 4
Owner awarded highway construction contract to
Contractor. Owner made irregular progress
payments, violating the terms of the contract.
Contractor experienced severe cash-flow
problems and went out of business. Contractor
sued Owner for the destruction of the business.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied
the claim, saying that the destruction of an entire
business is simply not a foreseeable result of the
failure to make timely progress payments.
Therefore, these were not recoverable
consequential damages.
 Case Study 5

Contractor awarded subcontract calling for

monthly progress payments. Contractor then
refused to pay Subcontractor until Subcontractor’s
work was complete.

Subcontractor refused to perform any more work

on the grounds that was not being paid. Contractor
claimed the refusal to work was a breach of the
subcontract.
• The Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled that
the Contractor’s failure to make progress
payments was a material breach of the
subcontract, as payment was fundamental to
the purpose of the agreement.
• Contractor material breach justified
Subcontractor’s refusal to perform.
Subcontractor was not liable for breach of the
subcontract.
 Case Study 6

• Contractor completed a project. Owner

inspected and accepted the project and made
final payment to Contractor.
• Contractor then brought a claim against Owner
for additional compensation due to unforeseen
site conditions encountered during construction.
Owner responded that under the terms of the
contract, acceptance of final payment operated
as a waiver and release by Contractor of any
claim relating to the contract.
The Court of Appeals of Ohio agreed with
Owner. The contract made it clear that
acceptance of final payment precluded
Contractor from asserting any new claims. The
clause, which is quite standard, is enforceable.
Once Contractor accepted final payment, it
could not claim any additional compensation.
 Case Study 7

Contract allowed Owner to retain 10 percent of

each progress payment until “all work” was
completed.
Contractor finished all work except some minor
“punch list” items. Owner continued to hold 10
percent retainage and was challenged by
Contractor.
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana ruled that the
retainage provision should not be interpreted
literally. The purpose of retainage is to protect
the owner against incomplete work. Therefore,
an owner should not be allowed to hold 10
percent of the total contract price to secure the
completion of few minor items. The Court said
that once a contractor achieves substantial
completion of the work, the retainage should be
reduced to reflect the cost of the remaining punch
list items.
 Case Study 8
• Owner awarded Contractor a contract for
construction of an apartment building. The
contract stated that Contractor would comply with
the provisions of the “Manual of Accident
Prevention in Construction” of the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC).
• An employee of a subcontractor was injured when
he fell from an upper floor. Contractor said it was
not responsible for the safety of subcontractor’s
employees.
• The Court of Appeals of Iowa ruled that the
AGC manual had been incorporated by
reference into Contractor’s agreement. The
manual gave Contractor overall responsibility
for job site safety and required Contractor to
erect and maintain proper barricades.
Contractor had failed to do this, so Contractor
was liable for the injury
 Case Study 9

• Owner awarded a contract for highway

construction. Elevations indicated in the drawings
were higher than the actual elevations in the field.
This forced Contractor to bring in additional fill.
• Contractor brought a claim for additional
compensation. Owner argued that contract stated
that elevations were for informational purposes
only and could not be relied on without
independent verification.
• The Appelate Division of the Superior Court
of New Jersey held that notwithstanding the
contractual disclaimer, Owner extended an
implied warranty of the accuracy of all
affirmative representations in the contract
documents. The elevations were inaccurate,
and this was a breach of the implied warranty.
 Case Study 10
• Contractor awarded subcontract using
Contractor’s standard, preprinted subcontract
form. Subcontract stated that payment to
Subcontractor would be due 10 days after
Contractor received payment from owner.
• Owner didn’t pay Contractor, so Contractor
refused to pay Subcontractor. Subcontractor
argued that clause in subcontract was intended
only to give Contractor a reasonable time to make
payment, not to excuse payment altogether if
Contractor didn’t get paid by Owner.
• The Court of Appeal of Louisiana ruled that the
intended meaning of the payment clause was
ambiguous. The preprinted subcontract form
had obviously been drafted by Contractor.
Therefore, the clause was construed against
Contractor and Subcontractor’s interpretation
prevailed.
 Case Study 11
• Owner awarded Contractor a contract for
construction of bridges over a canal. Contract
included construction of concrete barrier rail at a
unit price of $42 or linear foot.
• Rather than using fixed forms, as Owner expected,
Contractor used slip forms to build the barrier rail.
Owner claimed it was entitled to a price reduction,
because the use of slip forms save Contractor a
great deal of money.
• The Court of Appeals of North Carolina ruled
that the Owner had no right to take a credit. The
contract simply referred to the use of “forms”.
When a contract does not specify a particular
method of performance, the contractor is free to
choose any method as long as it achieves
compliance with the specifications. If the
contractors complies with the specifications, the
owner cannot reat the contractor’s method of
performance as a deductive change in the work.
 Case Study 12

Owner rejected completed industrial building

because the metal siding had an uneven finish when
view from an angle in strong sunlight. Owner relied
on contract clause giving its architect the final
decision regarding “artistic effect”.
• In response to Contractor’s suit, the U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that Owner was not entitled to
reject the building on these grounds.
• The court said that aesthetic factors must be
considered in a reasonable commercial context.
The building was intended as a functional,
industrial facility, not a thing of beauty. When
considered in that context, Owner’s rejection due
to an uneven finish was unreasonable.
 Case Study 13
• Contract for construction of condominium project
included clause requiring prior written
authorization from the project owner before the
contractor performed any extra work.
• Owing to errors in Owner’s plans, it was necessary
for Contractor to make changes in the roof and
trusses. Owner’s superintendent orally directed
Contractor to proceed and assured Contractor that
the extra work will be paid for. No written change
order was issued, however.
• When Contractor sought to recover payment for
the extra work, Owner argued that it was not
obligated to pay in absence of a written change
order.
• The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed. By
issuing an oral directive and standing by while
Contractor followed that directive, Owner
waived the contract requirement that all
changes be authorized in writing in advance.
 Case Study 14
• Subcontractor called for binding arbitration, with
Contractor and Subcontractor each selecting one
arbitrator and those two arbitrators selecting a
third member of the arbitration panel.
• A dispute developed and was submitted to
arbitration. The arbitrators made an award in
favor of Contractor. Subcontractor then learned
that the arbitrator selected by Contractor was an
individual who owed Contractor money and had
ongoing business dealing with Contractor.
Subcontractor went to court to have the
arbitration award vacated.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appelate Division,
said that the arbitration award are normally not
subject to appeal. A conflict of interest or evident
partiality on the part of an arbitrator is a basis for
reversing an award, however. The Court therefore
vacated the arbitration award.
 Case Study 15

• Contract contained an express warranty of the

Contractor’s materials and workmanship. Owner
informed Contractor that it was dissatisfied with
the quality of Contractor’s work and would be
forced to withhold future progress payments.
• Contractor treated this as a breach of contract and
walked off the job. Owner argued that Contractor
breached the contract first by breaching the
express warranty of the workmanship.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled that
Owner breached the contract. Before a
workmanship warranty problem becomes a
material breach of contract, the contractor must
be given a reasonable opportunity to correct the
problem. Owner never gave Contractor that
opportunity. Therefore, Owner was not justified
in unilaterally changing payment terms of the
contract. Owner, rather than Contractor,
breached the contract.