Analisis Gugatan Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara Dalam Sengketa Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa

Abstract

Government procurement of goods and services plays a strategic role in national development and the improvement of public services. However, the procurement process frequently gives rise to legal disputes, particularly at the stages of supplier selection and the determination of the winning bidder, which are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. This study analyzes lawsuits against State Administrative Decisions (KTUN) in government procurement disputes, focusing on judicial reasoning at various levels of the judiciary and the legal protection afforded to tender participants. Although procurement regulations have been updated from Presidential Regulation Number 54 of 2010 to Presidential Regulation Number 16 of 2018 and its amendment under Presidential Regulation Number 12 of 2021, these provisions have not fully ensured legal certainty in dispute resolution. Interpretative ambiguities remain regarding the limits of authority of the Procurement Working Group (Pokja) and the administrative remedy mechanisms, which may lead to litigation before the State Administrative Court. This research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, case, conceptual, and limited comparative approaches. The object of the study consists of three court decisions at the first instance, appellate, and cassation levels concerning disputes over the determination of the winning bidder. The data, comprising primary and secondary legal materials, were analyzed qualitatively through examination of the judges’ ratio decidendi and their conformity with principles of administrative law and procurement law. The findings reveal differing judicial considerations across court levels, unclear limits of Pokja authority, and weak legal protection, particularly regarding compensation. Strengthening regulatory frameworks and emphasizing substantive justice are necessary to ensure legal certainty and protection.