Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Prompted by poor performance of most state-owned enterprises, the Indonesian government has made the partnership between state-owned and private firms as one of its `strategic' steps. However, partnership between business entities from different institutional backgrounds can cause uneasy relationship stemming from different characters and imbalanced position between partners. In the Indonesian context, partnerships between state and private firms show imbalance in which the former enjoy more prestige and power than the later. Dependency is reflected in the obligation of spending some cost by private companies, some of which become additional income or rent to the executives of state firms. The case study looks at the joint-operation in sugar production for the milling season of 2001-2002 between the state-owned PT Perkebunan Nusantara XIV (PTPN XIV) and the privately owned PT Kalpataru Semesta (PTKS). During the course of the joint-operation, relations between two partners have demonstrated lack of transparency and growing distrust. Complexities have intensified because of a persistent competition between key actors, namely president directors of the respective firms, in an attempt to show that each was more powerful than the other. This research tries to answer four questions. First, how is partnership between PTPN XIV and PTKS possible? Second, why are differences between both partners so wide and very difficult to reconcile? Third, how are the relationships between actors during the implementation of the partnership? Fourth, how do partners eventually agree on the termination of their joint-operation? In brief, this study attempts to reveal various processes, networks, and structures that affect the partnership. Due to his position as a member of the Monitoring Team of the joint-operation project, the researcher chooses to apply participant observation as the main method of data collection. Informal talks and interviews with other actors and informants also contribute to the process. This study takes into consideration three theoretical perspectives, namely Exchange, Exchange-Network, and Governance theories, but all lack of comprehension in describing the overall structures and processes behind the partnership. This has led to the formulation of a combination of relevant ideas and aspects of those theories by utilizing concepts and ideas of the dramaturgical and social capital perspectives. This attempt has resulted in the emergence of a pair of exchange network models of key actors; and a matrix of all relevant actors and elements. This research finds that in contrast to widespread practices in Indonesia, state firms are not permanently stronger than their private counterparts. The relative position between PTPN XIV and PTKS demonstrates a dynamic imbalance in the sense that either the state-owned or private firms may hold dominance over the other. In the initiation phase, the private partner gains strong position over the state-owned partner. During the implementation of the partnership, both demonstrate dominance interchangeably depending on the specific circumstances. At the final phase, the state-owned firm shows its strength and the private company has to accept that it is dependent on its state-owned counterpart. In general, the partnership between PTPN XIV and PTKS reflects a success and a failure simultaneously. It has succeeded in salvaging the ill-fated state-owned firm, or serving public interest, but at the same time it fails in delivering satisfactory profit to private partner. In addition to its failure, the project proves that a governance arrangement fails to perform well under a distrustful relationship between partners as a result of mysterious behavior of the PTPN XIV president director. However the involvement of a state official has served two functions; first, help make partnership possible in the first place, second, create a forum through which partners meet to discuss differences. The study recommends that state officials should . take a more active role in managing tensions and reducing unnecessary differences between partners. State-owned enterprises should be encouraged to open up their data and predictions that are highly relevant to the joint-project. This will help create trust and norm of mutual benefit between partners. Private companies, despite their strong position, should be well-prepared prior to entering into an agreement with state firms. They should obtain sufficient knowledge especially on the calculation methods of production costs and the familiarity with key actors from the other side in the partnership.

Abstrak :
PT Adhi Karya (Persero) Tbk (“ADHI”) dan PT Karya Mitra Nugraha (“KMN”) membentuk ADHI-KMN Joint Operation dan menandatangani perjanjian Proyek Pembangunan Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Uap Tanjung Selor dengan PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) Proyek Induk Pembangkit dan Jaringan Kalimantan (“PLN”). Dalam pelaksanaan perjanjian, KMN sebagai partisipan Kerjasama Operasi ADHI-KMN dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga Semarang. Hukum Indonesia tidak mengatur secara khusus tentang kerjasama operasi, sehingga ketentuan mengenai akibat hukum dari partisipan kerjasama operasi yang pailit belum ada. Tesis ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui akibat hukum dari kepailitan KMN sebagai partisipan ADHI-KMN Joint Operation dan apakah perjanjian dapat dilanjutkan meskipun KMN pailit. Selain itu, Tesis ini menentukan apakah kepailitan partisipan kerjasama operasi dapat menjadi dasar untuk diberikannya Perpanjangan Waktu dalam kontrak konstruksi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode kualitatif, dimana Penulis menggunakan data primer dan data sekunder. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa KMN akan terikat pada akibat hukum dari kepailitan yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Kepailitan Indonesia dan kontrak; Kerjasama Operasi ADHI-KMN dan perjanjian akan tetap berlanjut meskipun KMN dinyatakan pailit; dan kepailitan KMN sebagai partisipan tidak dapat menjadi dasar untuk diberikannya Perpanjangan Waktu. ......PT Adhi Karya (Persero) Tbk (“ADHI”) and PT Karya Mitra Nugraha (“KMN”) formed ADHI-KMN Joint Operation and entered into an agreement on the Construction Project of Coal Fired Steam Power Plant in Tanjung Selor with PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) Kalimantan Proyek Induk Pembangkit dan Jaringan Kalimantan (“PLN”). During the commencement of the agreement, KMN was declared insolvent by the Semarang Commercial Court. Indonesian laws do not provide a specific regulation on joint operation; hence provisions on the legal consequences of an insolvent joint operation participant are absent. This thesis aims to determine the legal consequences of the insolvency of KMN as a participant in the ADHI-KMN Joint Operation and whether the agreement can continue despite KMN's insolvency. Additionally, this thesis determines whether the insolvency of a joint operation participant suffices as the grounds for an Extension of Time in construction contracts. The research method used is qualitative, whereby the Author uses primary and secondary data. The results of this research have shown that KMN will be entitled to legal consequences of insolvency stipulated within the Indonesian Insolvency Law and the contract; the ADHI-KMN Joint Operation and the agreement shall continue despite the insolvency of KMN; and the insolvency of KMN as a participant does not suffice as the condition of an Extension of Time.

Abstrak :
Kasus antara Karaha Bodas Company LLC (KBC) dengan PERTAMINA berawal dari ditandatanganinya Joint Operation Contract (JOC) antara KBC dan PERTAMINA pada tahun 1994. Namun pada pertengahan jangka waktu perjanjian tersebut, Indonesia telah mengalami krisis ekonomi sehingga Indonesia meminjam dana dari International Monetary Fund (IMF). IMF mensyaratkan agar Pemerintah Indonesia menangguhkan beberapa proyek di Indonesia, salah satunya adalah Proyek Karaha Bodas dengan mengeluarkan Keputusan Presiden. KBC yang merasa dirugikan menggugat PERTAMINA ke Arbitrase Jenewa, Swiss. Namun PERTAMINA dapat mengajukan pembelaan atas dasar force majure. Dalam hal ini Keputusan Presiden dapat mengintervensi perjanjian. Keputusan Presiden dalam hal ini merupakan wewenang atribut. ......The case between Karaha Bodas Company LLC (KBC) and PERTAMINA started from the signing of the Joint Operation Contract (JOC) between KBC and PERTAMINA in 1994. But in the mid-term of the agreement, Indonesia had economic crisis that had to borrow funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF required that the Government of Indonesia had to suspend some projects in Indonesia, one of which was Karaha Bodas project by issuing the Decree of Presidential. Therefore, KBC sued PERTAMINA on the basis of defult, to arbitration Geneva, Switzerland. PERTAMINA unable to performed obligations due to the issuance of Presidential Decree in order to conduct a defense on the basis of force majeure. In this case, it may intervene in the agreement because of the attribute authority of President.

Abstrak :
Dengan semakin berkembangnya kebutuhan-kebutuhan pembangunan fisik di Indonesia, membuktikan bahwa Indonesia membutuhkan keahlian, pengalaman, bahkan kontraktor-kontraktor asing. Joint Operation (JO) merupakan salah satu bentuk kerjasama yang dapat digunakan oleh pelaku usaha, khususnya dalam melakukan pekerjaan konstruksi yang seringkali melibatkan pihak asing dengan pihak nasional. Namun tidak jarang dalam JO tersebut timbul perselisihan antar para pihak yang menyepakati kerjasama tersebut. Seperti dalam kasus antara Penta Ocean Co. Ltd. dengan PT. Bali Turtle Island Development, yang diselesaikan oleh Pengadilan Niaga Jakarta Pusat dan Mahkamah Agung. Kasus ini timbul karena adanya utang akibat wanprestasi oleh PT. Bali Turtle Island Development terhadap Penta Ocean Co. Ltd., sebagai salah satu kreditur yang juga merupakan rekan PT. Surya Prasudi Utama dalam JO. Adanya utang, utang tersebut telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih, serta adanya 2 (dua) kreditur; menjadi alasan bagi Penta Ocean Co. Ltd. untuk mengajukan permohonan pailit atas PT. Bali Turtle Island Development tersebut. Indonesia memiliki peraturan mengenai kepailitan, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. Sehingga syarat pengajuan permohonan pailit oleh Penta Ocean Co. Ltd terhadap PT. Bali Turtle Island Development, khususnya yang berkaitan dengan terpenuhinya syarat minimal 2 (dua) kreditur atau lebih dalam kaitannya dengan JO serta utang yang dimaksudkan telah jatuh tempo dan dapat ditagih, perlu ditelaah; apakah telah disesuaikan dengan peraturan yang ada. ......The physical development of the growing needs in Indonesia to demonstrate that Indonesia requires expertise, experience, and even foreign contractors. Joint Operation (JO) is one form of cooperation that can be used by businesses, particularly in construction jobs that often involve a foreign party with the national party. But often in JO difference arises between the parties that agreed on cooperation. As in the case of Penta Ocean Co. Ltd. and PT. Bali Turtle Island Development, this was completed by the Central Jakarta Commercial Court and the Supreme Court. This case arose because of debt of PT. Bali Turtle Island Development Co. Penta Ocean. Ltd., result in default. Penta Ocean is one of the creditors, which is also an associate of PT. Surya Prasudi Utama on Joint Operation. The existence of the debt, the debt is due and payable and the existence of 2 (two) creditors; reason to Penta Ocean to apply for bankruptcy on PT. Bali Turtle Island Development. Indonesia has regulations on bankruptcy, namely Undang-Undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang. So that the bankruptcy petition filing requirements by Penta Ocean Co. Ltd. against PT. Bali Turtle Island Development, particularly relating to the fulfillment of the requirements of at least 2 (two) or more creditors with respect to JO intended and debts were due and payable, it should be reviewed, whether it has adjusted to the existing regulations.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Dalam era globalisasi, sektor jasa konstruksi di Indonesia dapat melaksanakan proyek-proyek Penanaman Modal Dalam Negeri (PMDN) dan Penanaman Modal Asing (PMA) yang pada setiap aktivitasnya membutuhkan suatu bentuk usaha (corporate vehicle). Salah satu penerapan bentuk kerjasama yang banyak dipakai dalam pelaksanaan proyek-proyek konstruksi besar di Indonesia adalah Joint Operation (JO), yaitu kesepakatan antara dua badan atau lebih untuk mengerjakan pekerjaan tertentu selama waktu tertentu pula.

JO merupakan sumber pemajakan yang potensial bagi negara. Sehingga pihak Wajib Pajak (WP) JO akan berusaha agar jumlah pajak terutang dapat menjadi seefisien mungkin. Dalam melaksanakan kewajiban perpajakannya, selain terdapat (1) pajak terhutang (Conventional Cost) terdapat pula (2) biaya-biaya tambahan (Transaction Cost) yang dalam studi ini disebut sebagai total biaya pajak.

Berdasarkan pengamatan, ada beberapa variabel terikat yang diduga mempengaruhi tinggi rendahnya biaya transaksi wajib pajak JO, yaitu (1) Jumlah pajak yang terutang (2) jarak tempat kerja WP dengan bank, kantor pos, kantor pajak dan kantor konsultan yang diukur dengan waktu (3) lama proyek (4) frekuensi kontrak sebagai manifestasi dari reputasi, dan (5) nilai proyek.

Berdasarkan penelitian yang berlangsung pada JO yang memiliki head office di Jakarta, diketahui ada dua model yang paling sesuai yaitu, regresi antara 5 variabel independen dengan total biaya transaksi dan regresi antara 5 variabel independen dengan subvariabel biaya "ucapan terima kasih" dan commitment fee. Terlihat bahwa dari lima variabel independen yang dianalisis, 3 (tiga) di antaranya terbukti signifikan terhadap total biaya transaksi. Ketiga variabel tersebut adalah variabel-variabel frekuensi kujungan WP ke fiskus dan nilai proyek dan total waktu yang dihabiskan oleh WP untuk mengurus permasalahan perpajakannya.

Selain itu, dalam hubungannya terhadap total biaya "ucapan terima kasih" dan commitment fee kepada fiskus, terlihat bahwa dari lima variabel independen yang dianalisis, 3 (tiga) diantaranya terbukti signifikan. Ketiga variabel yang signifikan tersebut adalah variabel-variabel waktu yang dihabiskan WP untuk mengurus masalah perpajakan, frekuensi kunjungan WP ke fiskus dan nilai proyek. Selain itu, dikemukakan juga arah hubungan yang menjelaskan bentuk hubungan yang tejadi. Sedangkan dalam hubungannya dengan total biaya "ucapan terima kasih" dan commitment fee, terdapat tiga variabel yang mempunyai hubungan signifikan, yaitu total waktu yang dikeluarkan WP dalam mengurus perpajakan, frekuensi kunjungan WP ke fiskus dan total nilai proyek .

Rata-rata biaya transaksi yang dikeluarkan WP dalam melaksanakan kewajiban perpajakannya sebesar 4,15 % dapat digunakan sebagai referensi bagi WP dalam menyusun budget proyek untuk lebih mendekatkan forecast cost to complete proyek kepada kenyataan yang akan dihadapi di lapangan dan menjadi referensi bagi fiskus dalam melakukan perbaikan institutional arrangements yang ada.

Abstrak :
Dari fakta-fakta yang diperoleh pada salah satu kontraktor BUMN Nasional, didapat kinerja waktu proyek yang dikerjakan secara mandiri lebih buruk dibandingkan dengan proyek yang dikerjakan secara joint operation dengan kontraktor Jepang. Dalam penelitian ini, akan dianalisis pengaruh faktor nilai budaya, kepemimpinan, dan etos kerja terhadap kinerja waktu pelaksanaan proyek yang dikerjakan secara joint operation dengan kontraktor Jepang. Metode yang akan digunakan adalah metode kuantitatif dengan validasi pakar dan kuisioner responden. Analisis data yang akan digunakan pada penelitian ini meliputi korelasi, regresi, dan uji model, serta akan dilakukan observasi lapangan dengan wawancara terstruktur. Hasil analisis akan digunakan untuk memperbaiki kinerja waktu proyek Non JO = From the facts obtained from the one of the Indonesian Contractors, the time performance in the non-joint operation project was not better than in a joint operation with the Japanese contractor. In this study, the factors that affect the performance of the projects were done in a joint operation with the Japanese contractor will be studied, and how its influence. The quantitative method with validation from the expert and the respondents questionnaire will be applied on this study. Analysis of the data will be used in the study include correlation, regression, and test models, and field observations will be made with a structured interview. The Analysis result will be used as recommendation to improve the project time performance on the Non JO project.

Abstrak :
Penyelesaian sengketa melalui mekanisme Kepailitan di Pengadilan Niaga adalah merupakan salah satu alternatif penyelesaian sengketa melalui Pengadilan untuk menyelesaikan sengketa utang piutang yang efektif mengingat jangka waktu penyelesaian melalui Pengadilan Niaga yang relatif cepat dimana putusan Pengadilan atas permohonan pernyataan pailit harus diucapkan paling lambat 60 (enam puluh) hari sejak tanggal pernyataan pailit didaftarkan. Untuk dapat dinyatakan pailit harus memenuhi unsur-unsur yang terdapat dalam Pasal 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 37 tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UU Kepailitan dan PKPU) yaitu Debitor yang mempunyai dua atau lebih kreditor dan tidak membayar lunas sedikitnya satu utang yang telah jatuh waktu dan dapat ditagih. Dalam hal terjadi suatu sengketa dalam bidang jasa konstruksi yang mana pihak Bouwheer selaku Pemberi Kerja tidak melaksanakan kewajibannya melakukan pembayaran kepada Kontraktor yang membentuk Joint Operation selaku Penerima Kerja, maka pihak Kontraktor tersebut dapat mengajukan permohonan pernyataan pailit ke Pengadilan Niaga. Namun demikian agar pihak Bouwheer dapat dinyatakan pailit oleh Pengadilan Niaga, maka dalam hal Bouwheer tidak memiliki kreditor lain, maka Kontraktor yang membentuk Joint Operation tersebut harus membuktikan di depan Persidangan, bahwa Kontraktor yang membentuk Joint Operation tersebut dapat memenuhi unsur yang ditetapkan dalam Pasal 2 UU Kepailitan dan PKPU. Selain daripada itu, di dalam hal Bouwheer telah dinyatakan pailit oleh Putusan Pernyataan Pailit, UU Kepailitan dan PKPU tetap memberikan kesempatan kepada para pihak yang bersengketa untuk melakukan perdamaian yang waktunya ditentukan oleh UU Kepailitan dan PKPU. Oleh karena itu dalam penelitian ini Penulis berupaya untuk mengkaji apakah Kontraktor yang membentuk Joint Operation termasuk dalam kreditor yang dapat memenuhi syarat-syarat dalam kepailitan dan apakah upaya perdamaian tetap dapat dilaksanakan oleh para pihak yang bersengketa meskipun jangka waktu yang ditetapkan dalam UU Kepailitan dan PKPU telah terlampaui. ......Dispute settlement through bankruptcy mechanism in Commercial Court is one of the most effective alternative dispute resolution through the courts to resolve disputes of debts considering the period of completion through commercial court which relatively fast where the verdict of bankruptcy declaration petition shall be made at the latest 60 (sixty) days since the date of bankruptcy declaration petition has been registered. To be declared bankrupt must fulfill the elements which mentioned in Article 2 of Law No. 37 of 2004 about Bankruptcy (Bankruptcy Law) that is Debtor who has two or more one debt which maturity and billable. In the case of disputes in the field of construction services which Bouwheer (Owner) as employer did not fulfill their obligation to make payment to Contractors which make Joint Operation as employer, then the Contractors may submit a bankruptcy declaration petition to Commercial Court. However, in order to the owner can declared bankrupt by Commercial Court, then in terms of the owner did not has another creditors, the creditors which make Joint Operation should prove in front of the court that the contractors which make Joint Operation can comply the elements which mentioned in Article 2 of Bankruptcy Law. Moreover, in term of the owner has been declared bankrupt by the verdict of bankruptcy, the bankruptcy of Law in Indonesia still provide the opportunities to the disputing parties to make settlement or conciliation which the time prescribed by law. Therefore, in this study the author seek to assess whether the contractors which make Joint Operation included in creditors which can fulfill the elements in bankruptcy of law and whether the settlement effort still can be implemented by the disputing parties even though the period which mentioned in bankruptcy of law have been exceeded.

Abstrak :
Model kerja sama operasi (joint operation) kerap menjadi pilihan umum dalam pengerjaan proyek bidang konstruksi di mana terdapat bentuk perkumpulan dua badan hukum atau lebih yang bergabung untuk menyelesaikan suatu proyek dengan jangka waktu tertentu hingga proyek tersebut selesai dilaksanakan. Dalam hal penyelesaian utang piutang, diperlukan pedoman proses dan sarana hukum yang mendukung bagi joint operation, demi penyelesaian yang adil, cepat, terbuka dan efektif. Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (PKPU) pun hadir sebagai solusi dengan cara memberikan kesempatan kepada Debitor dan Kreditor untuk melakukan perdamaian yang meliputi tawaran pembayaran baik seluruh atau sebagian utangnya kepada Kreditor dengan syarat pengajuan adanya utang yang telah jatuh tempo dan harus terdapat 2 (dua) atau lebih Kreditor. Undang-undang Nomor 37 Tahun 2004 tentang Kepailitan dan Penundaan Kewajiban Pembayaran Utang (UUK-PKPU), belum dapat menjadi pedoman yang efektif bagi joint operation terutama yang berperan sebagai Kreditor dalam hal pengajuan permohonan PKPU. Hal ini dapat terlihat dalam Putusan Nomor75/Pdt.Sus/PKPU/2013/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst di mana Pengajuan PKPU yang dilakukan oleh ADHI-KMN joint operation ditolak karena tidak terbukti adanya 2 (dua) atau lebih Kreditor. Dengan menggunakan bentuk penelitian yuridis-normatif, yakni mengacu pada norma hukum yang terdapat di dalam peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan pengadilan, maupun norma-norma yang hidup di masyarakat, membahas mengenai bagaimana kedudukan hukum ADHI-KMN selaku Kreditor yang berbentuk joint operation dalam permohonan PKPU serta bagaimana akibat hukum apabila permohonan PKPU yang diajukan oleh ADHI-KMN terhadap PT Albok dikabulkan. ......The joint operation model is often a common choice in construction projects where there is an association of two or more legal entities that join forces to complete a project for a certain period of time until the project is completed. In the case of settlement of debts and receivables, a process guideline and legal means that support the joint operation are needed, for a fair, fast, open and effective settlement. Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is also present as a solution by providing opportunities for Debtors and Creditors to make peace which includes an offer to pay all or part of their debts to Creditors on condition that there is a debt that is due and there must be 2 (two) or more Creditors. Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligations for Payment of Debt (UUK-PKPU), has not been able to become an effective guideline for joint operations, especially those acting as creditors in terms of submitting PKPU applications. This can be seen in Court Ruling Number 75/Pdt.Sus/PKPU/2013/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst where the PKPU submission made by the ADHI-KMN joint operation was rejected because there were no proven 2 (two) or more creditors. By using a juridical-normative research form, namely referring to legal norms contained in laws and regulations, court decisions, as well as norms that live in society, discussing how the legal position of ADHI-KMN as Creditors in the form of a joint operation in the application PKPU and what are the legal consequences if the PKPU application submitted by ADHI-KMN against PT Albok is granted.

Abstrak :
Joint Operation adalah salah satu cara dalam mengelola suatu proyek konstruksi, yang mana dalam pembentukannya dapat terjadi antara sesama perusahaan konstruksi nasional maupun dengan perusahaan konstruksi asing. Berdasarkan sebuah penelitian Internasional yang dilakukan oleh Li Bing & L.K Tiong (1999) tentang faktor faktor berisiko dalam sebuah Joint Venture, terdapat tiga faktor utama yang dapat menimbulkan risiko yaitu, faktor internal, faktor spesifik proyek dan faktor eksternal, adapun faktor internal yang berisiko dapat dibagi kedalam sepuluh faktor, yaitu kondisi keuangan perusahaan induk perhitungan laba/rugi proyek sikap saling tidak percaya antara karyawan, adanya perubahan kebijakan perusahaan induk, kurangnya kemampuan manajemen dan sumber daya partner, adanya intervensi yang berlebihan dari salah satu pihak, ketidakpuasan dalam penempatan staf, ketidakpuasan dalam pengalokasian pekerjaan, alih teknologi dan adanya perbedaan budaya, sosial dan kepercayaan dari partner. Dalam penelitian yang telah dilakukan oleh penulis terhadap beberapa perusahaan konstruksi nasional yang pernah melaksanakan proyek konstruksi yang dikelola secara Joint Operation, dengan jalan menyebarkan kuesioner, dan mengkaji dokumen proyek terkait. Kesimpulan yang diperoleh adalah sebagian besar dari responden beranggapan bahwa kondisi keuangan perusahaan induk, sikap saling tidak percaya antara karyawan dan kurangnya kemampuan manajemen dan sumber daya partner merupakan faktor faktor internal yang sangat berpengaruh dalam sebuah Joint Operation yang mana hal-hat diatas dapat mempengaruhi kinerja dari proyek konstruksi tersebut.

---

Joint Operation is one of the way in managing a construction project, which is the establishment could be formatted between the National Construction Companies itself or with the International Construction Companies. Based on an international research by Li Bing & Robert Lee-Kong Tiong (1999), the risk factors are grouped into three main groups: Internal Factor, Project-specific Factor and External Factor, the risk of internal factors can he categorized into fen factors: Partner 's parent company in financial problems, disagreement on accounting of profits and loss, employees from each partner distrust each other, policy changes in your partner 's parent company, partner's lack of management competence and resourcefulness, overinterference by parent company of either partner, disagreement on allocation of staff positions, disagreement on allocation of works, technology transfer dispute and different social, culture, and religious_ Research by distributing questionnaires and document studies to some of the National Construction companies, who have performed Joint Operation of a construction project, can be concluded that mostly of the respondents are agree that the partner 's parent company in financial problems, employees from each partner distrust each other and partner's lack of management competence and recourcefulness, they are the main internal factors that influence to the Joint Operation and will create a bad impact to the performance of the construction project.

Abstrak :
The economic development may result in physical development growth that has to be done by construction service provider. This service may be provided locally or in other country area. While doing this construction service, the provider often faces a big safety risk and extra ordinary investment together with efficiency challenges. That is why the construction companies are always found to provide the big job in a joint operation form in order to share risks and benefits one another in a same level of quality. There are some key problems: (1) how to apply a good accounting process in a joint operation form (2) tax consequences of establishing a false form of joint operation (3) tax consequences of establishing a true form of joint operation in tax accounting view. In order to answer those key problems, the research was taken on Truba - Daewoo Joint Operation case. The focus of this research would be a study of literatures related to construction services in a Joint Operation form. As a result of data analysis and discussion, the conclusion of this process is (1) Truba - Daewoo Joint Operation was not established in a good Joint Operation form. There was no accounting process so you would not know the performance of this establishment immediately. There was also no tax return made as requested. Actually, based on this research, this Joint Operation should have accounting process because this form is really the same as Partnership, especially for tax purpose (2) there are some risks that could be happened. These risks are tax fines and penalties because of no accounting process. This condition could make tax auditors confuse because they would find no financial report so they could not determine tax payable amount (3) there are no clear tax rules as a guide for Joint Operation. The recommendations for these problems are (1) there is a need of having a clear tax rule for Joint Operation so there would be no disputes and no confusion of being a good taxpayer for Joint Operation. Government should pay attention on this matter (2) Construction Service Providers should have awareness on the terms that have same meaning with Joint Operation, such as consortium, joint operation, joint venture. This awareness is needed in order to avoid any unlimited disputes (3) Construction Companies should understand what client needs and wants related to commercial aspect (4) Construction Companies from the very beginning of construction service (from contract preparations) should be well prepared in order to understand the contract in detail.