Administrative Justice in E-Purchasing Mini-Competitions: Legal Protection for Business Actors Against Performance-Based Specification Disputes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59261/jlsp.v4i4.269Keywords:
Administrative Justice, Digital Public Procurement, E-Procurement, Mini-Competition, Performance-Based SpecificationAbstract
Background: Performance-based specifications in e-purchasing mini-competitions can broaden technical evaluation discretion, while the studied 2025 workflow did not provide a dedicated, structured administrative objection channel for unsuccessful business actors.
Objective: This study examines the absence of a formal administrative objection mechanism in Indonesia’s e-procurement mini-competition scheme and its implications for administrative justice in digital public procurement. Although electronic catalogs aim to improve efficiency and transparency, practices within the Ministry of Law in 2025 revealed procedural gaps, particularly in procurements involving performance-based specifications.
Methods: This study employs a socio-legal empirical approach using grounded theory analysis, through semi-structured interviews with three Commitment-Making Officials (PPKs) and two business entities that filed objections, together with observation of administrative practices and review of official mini-competition documents from August to November 2025.
Results: The findings indicate that performance-based specifications expand the CMOs’ technical discretion. At the same time, the lack of formal objection channels encourages unsuccessful participants to submit informal objections via the system’s messaging feature. This practice reflects an unmet need for structured administrative safeguards within the digital procurement framework. Conceptually, this study introduces the “missing objection mechanism” to describe the structural imbalance between technological efficiency and procedural safeguards. In practice, the study’s findings recommend strengthening administrative objection mechanisms in mini-competitions with performance-based specifications.
Conclusion: Within the Ministry of Law mini-competitions examined, procedural legitimacy was strengthened when system traceability was accompanied by a clear opportunity for affected business actors to seek administrative correction; this case-specific finding requires validation in other procurement settings.
References
Alshallaqi, M. (2024). The complexities of digitization and street-level discretion: a socio-materiality perspective. Public Management Review, 26(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2042726
Amalia, R., Amirul Alfan, M., Aliefia, M., Radzi, M. S. N. bin M., & Kurniawan, F. (2023). Digitalization of the Public Procurement System in Indonesia: Challenges and Problems. Yuridika, 38(3), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v38i3.51874
Anto, D., Lubis, M., Abdurrahman, L., Mardoyo, E., & Safitra, M. F. (2023). Elevating Data Quality in University Procurement: Unveiling the Potential of e-Procurement Processes – A Case Study of Open University. Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Industrial and Business Engineering, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3629378.3629436
Ard, B., & Crootof, R. (2023). Legal responses to techlaw uncertainties. In Research Handbook on Law and Technology (pp. 28–44). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803921327.00010
Arrowsmith, S. (2014). The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement Volume 1 & 2: Regulation in the EU and the UK. Sweet and Maxwell.
Bayrashev, V. (2024). Cataloguing Procurement Items As A Key Condition For Successful Transition To Digital Government Contracts. Public Administration Issues, 3, 137–161. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2024-0-3-137-161
Bertelli, A. M., & Busuioc, M. (2021). <scp>Reputation?Sourced</scp> Authority and the Prospect of Unchecked Bureaucratic Power. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13281
Boechat, G., Cunha, M. A., & Gasser, U. (2023). Public procurement and technology: a research agenda. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1145/3614321.3614341
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework 1. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Brien, S. T. (2023). Foundations of public procurement. In Research Handbook on Public Financial Management (pp. 326–340). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800379718.00033
Brunjes, B. M., Abutabenjeh, S., Anguelov, L. G., Dimand, A.-M., & Rodriguez-Plesa, E. (2023). Future directions for research in public procurement and contract management. In Research Handbook on Public Financial Management (pp. 341–367). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800379718.00034
Cobbe, J. (2019). Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making. Legal Studies, 39(4), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.9
Darmawan, S. A. (2022). Mendeteksi Persekongkolan dari Pola Penawaran Harga. Jurnal Pengadaan Barang/Jasa, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55961/jpbj.v1i1.6
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. sage.
Eriksen, A. (2021). Accountability and the Multidimensional Mandate. Political Research Quarterly, 74(2), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920906880
Foley, G., Timonen, V., Conlon, C., & O’Dare, C. E. (2021). Interviewing as a Vehicle for Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920980957
Gorgun, M. K., Kutlu, M., & Tas, B. K. O. (2025). Information is essential for competitive and cost-effective public procurement. Journal of Information Science, 51(2), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221141042
Gunawan, E., & Mutaqin, M. I. (2024). Strategic Initiatives for Digital Transformation in Inclusive Procurement Ecosystems of UKPBJ Kemenkeu. Help: Journal of Community Service, 1(3), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.62569/hjcs.v1i3.75
Hakim, M. A., & Amnesti, S. K. W. (2022). Problematika Penanganan Gugatan Perbuatan Melanggar Hukum oleh Pemerintah (onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) pada Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara. De Jure: Jurnal Hukum Dan Syar’iah, 14(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v14i1.15833
Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, E-Government, and Accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360404
Han, Y. (2023). The contribution of evaluation to accountability mechanisms. In Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation (pp. 104–116). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800884892.00014
Hoekman, B., & Onur Ta?, B. K. (2024). Discretion and public procurement outcomes in Europe*. European Journal of Political Economy, 82, 102525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2024.102525
Jiménez, A., Hanoteau, J., & Barkemeyer, R. (2022). E-procurement and firm corruption to secure public contracts: The moderating role of governance institutions and supranational support. Journal of Business Research, 149, 640–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.070
Kunarti, S., & Kartono. (2018). Discretion as Freedom of Action in Administering Governance. SHS Web of Conferences, 54, 03018. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185403018
Langer, C. (2024). Decision-making power and responsibility in an automated administration. Discover Artificial Intelligence, 4(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-024-00152-1
Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah (LKPP). (2025). Rekap Paket Nasional.
Lumaing, E. Y., Nasirun, I. O., Runtunuwu, Y. B., Mongdong, N., Rusyandi, R., & Mesra, R. (2023). Legal Responsibility of PPK As An Agency In The Procurement of Goods and Services. JURNAL PARADIGMA?: Journal of Sociology Research and Education, 4(2), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.53682/jpjsre.v4i2.8069
Morais, C., & Santos, A. (2024). Lessons for a Fairer, More Transparent, and More Competitive Public Procurement in the European Union. Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_012.001_0001
Morgan, H. (2024). Using Triangulation and Crystallization to Make Qualitative Studies Trustworthy and Rigorous. The Qualitative Report. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6071
Nida, S. (2022). Legal Protection Urgency for MSMEs Actors as well as Partnership Program which are Regulated according to Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. Walisongo Law Review (Walrev), 4(2), 257–284. https://doi.org/10.21580/walrev.2022.4.2.11675
Noor, A. (2023). Socio-Legal Research: Integration of Normative and Empirical Juridical Research in Legal Research. Jurnal Ilmiah Dunia Hukum, 7(2), 94. https://doi.org/10.56444/jidh.v7i2.3154
OECD. (2024). Government at a Glance: Latin America and the Caribbean 2024. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4abdba16-en
Permata, B. P. (2024). Potensi Melemahnya Prinsip Terbuka Dan Bersaing Dalam Pengadaan Dengan Metode E-Purchasing. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), 10(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v10i1.76057
Pradhani, S. I. (2023). Various Insights Highlighting the Significance of Empirical Studies in Customary Legal Research. The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2023v3n1.2
Puspita, A. C., & Gultom, Y. M. L. (2024). The Effect of E-Procurement Policy on Corruption in Government Procurement: Evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Public Administration, 47(2), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2093900
Ruder, A. I., & Woods, N. D. (2020). Procedural Fairness and the Legitimacy of Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(3), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz017
Safitri, E. D., & Sa’adah, N. (2021). Penerapan Upaya Administratif Dalam Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 3(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v3i1.34-45
Sinaga, P. R. C., & Erliyana, A. (2022). Relevansi Teori Oplossing dalam Penanganan Sengketa Terkait Keputusan Pengadaan Barang dan Jasa Pemerintah. Jurnal Konstitusi, 19(2), 431. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1928
Sukri, I. F., & Erliyana, A. (2022). Konsep Pelaksanaan Keputusan Tata Usaha Negara: Menguji Asas Presumtio Iustae Causa Dalam Sengketa Tata Usaha Negara. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.21143/jhp.vol52.no1.3323
Utami, D. G., Syam, S., & Nurachmah, A. E. (2024). Procurement In Indonesia: A Systematic Literature Review Of Practices And Challenges. Business Journal?: Jurnal Bisnis Dan Sosial, 10(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.25124/businessjournal.v10i2.7512
UU No. 30 Tahun 2014 Tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (2014).
Wang, H. (2020). Quality manipulation and limit corruption in competitive procurement. European Journal of Operational Research, 283(3), 1124–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.11.053
Welinder, O. (2024). Interactive accountability in the case of digital governance. In Handbook of Accounting and Public Governance (pp. 116–127). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800888456.00016
Wibawa, D. A. (2024). KMS:: E-Purchasing, E katalog Mini Kompetisi.
Wibowo, R. A. (2023). Penyelesaian Sengketa Pada Rancangan Aturan Pengadaan Barang Jasa Publik: Apresiasi, Kritik, Rekomendasi. Media Iuris, 6(3), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.20473/mi.v6i3.44731
Winata, K. H., & Samangun, C. (2024). Challenges and Opportunities In Government Procurement Law In The Digital Era. Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies, 4(1), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i1.1033
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Anggara Rawijayadi, Martitah, Ristina Yudhanti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
