On 2 November 2023, laying the first stone of the BPJS Ketenagakerjaan social security office in Indonesia's new capital, Nusantara, the President said that project workers there were already enrolled with BPJS Ketenagakerjaan and that he hoped all construction would proceed without accidents. The same event noted that hotels, a hospital, schools, an airport, a mall, apartments and offices were already being built in the area (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan, 2023).
Social insurance protects workers after an accident. Prevention starts much earlier, when the project owner sets the construction safety risk level of a work package. This article explains how that level is set under Minister of Public Works and Housing (PUPR) Regulation No. 10 of 2021 on Construction Safety Management System (SMKK) Guidelines, with a worked example and the limits of the method.
Two Layers of Assessment
PUPR Regulation 10/2021 sorts construction safety risk into small, medium and large, set by the project owner according to criteria in its annex (Article 34). Small risk covers work judged low-hazard in the Construction Safety Plan (RKK), an owner's estimate (HPS) of up to Rp10 billion, fewer than 25 workers and/or simple technology. Medium risk covers an HPS above Rp10 billion up to Rp100 billion, 25 to 100 workers and/or intermediate technology. Large risk covers an HPS above Rp100 billion, more than 100 workers, use of lifting equipment, blasting methods and/or high technology. Where a job meets more than one criterion, the higher level is chosen (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, 2021).
The second layer is hazard identification, risk assessment, risk control and opportunity (IBPRP). The risk value of each work stage is the product of likelihood and severity, each rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Article 5).
Setting the Level
- Break the work down according to the construction method, from mobilisation to handover.
- Identify the hazards of each stage, including hazards to the public around the site.
- Rate likelihood and severity, then multiply them to get a risk value for each hazard.
- Check the package criteria: HPS, peak workforce, lifting equipment, blasting and level of technology.
- Take the highest level met, then work out what follows from it.
What follows is concrete. A large-risk package needs a principal-level construction OHS expert or construction safety expert, or an intermediate-level one with at least 3 years of experience; a medium-risk package needs intermediate level, or junior level with 3 years of experience; a small-risk package can use junior level or a construction safety officer. A Construction Safety Analysis (AKK) is mandatory for medium and large-risk work and for special work (Article 26), and medium and large-risk packages must also prepare an environmental management plan and a traffic management plan (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat, 2021).
A Worked Example
Picture a four-storey building with an HPS of Rp8 billion, a peak workforce of 40 and one tower crane to lift materials. The example is constructed to explain the method and is not a real project. By HPS, the package is small-risk. By workforce, it is medium-risk. By its use of lifting equipment, it is large-risk. The final result is large risk, so safety staffing, the AKK and the supporting documents have to be prepared at that level.
In the IBPRP layer, lifting formwork to the fourth floor with the tower crane might be rated likelihood 3 and severity 5, giving 15 out of a maximum of 25. With controls such as an exclusion zone under the load, a competent rigger and tag lines, likelihood might drop to 2 and the value to 10, while severity stays the same because an object falling from height can still kill. In a real application on the Simpang Pudak - Suak Kandis road works, Hairi et al. (2022) obtained a risk value of 3.83 with the same IBPRP method, placing the work at small risk with a junior-level expert or construction safety officer.
Limits of the Method
A likelihood-times-severity matrix is easy to use but has long-known weaknesses. Cox (2008) showed that risk matrices can give the same rating to risks of very different size, can even rank a smaller risk above a larger one, and that severity categories for uncertain consequences cannot be assigned objectively. In our assessment, a 1-to-5 scale also leaves room for "negotiated" scores that make the documents look safe.
The criteria based on project attributes in Article 34 partly close that gap, because the presence of lifting equipment, the workforce size and the HPS can be checked by anyone. The easy mistake is to set the level from HPS alone, as the example shows. Nor does the decision end with the tender documents. The RKK must be adjusted when the scope or site conditions change, with the owner's approval (Article 25), consistent with the principle that risk assessment is systematic, iterative and collaborative (International Organization for Standardization [ISO], 2018). A change of method, such as moving from a mobile crane to a tower crane, is a reason to reassess.
How Nusa Safety Helps
Nusa Safety helps contractors and project owners build IBPRP and AKK documents that match the actual work method through its Risk Assessment and JSA Workshop, and supports risk studies for special work through Engineering Studies and Risk Assessments. Participants receive an internal training certificate, not a construction competency certificate.
This article is general information and not legal or professional advice for any specific case.
References
- BPJS Ketenagakerjaan. (2023, November 6). Jokowi jamin keselamatan di IKN, semua masuk BPJS Ketenagakerjaan [Jokowi assures safety in IKN, all workers enrolled in BPJS Ketenagakerjaan]. https://www.bpjsketenagakerjaan.go.id/berita/28616/Jokowi-Jamin-Keselamatan-di-IKN,-Semua-Masuk-BPJS-Ketenagakerjaan-
- Cox, L. A., Jr. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
- Hairi, M. J. M., Handayani, E., & Dwiretnani, A. (2022). Evaluasi risiko sistem manajemen keselamatan konstruksi berdasarkan Permen PUPR No. 10 Tahun 2021 pada pekerjaan konstruksi jalan [Construction safety management system risk evaluation under PUPR Regulation No. 10 of 2021 on road construction work]. Jurnal Talenta Sipil, 5(2), 361. https://doi.org/10.33087/talentasipil.v5i2.139
- International Organization for Standardization. (2018). Risk management - Guidelines (ISO Standard No. 31000:2018). https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html
- Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat. (2021). Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Nomor 10 Tahun 2021 tentang Pedoman Sistem Manajemen Keselamatan Konstruksi [Minister of Public Works and Housing Regulation No. 10 of 2021 on Construction Safety Management System Guidelines]. https://pasal.id/peraturan/permen/permen-pupr-no-10-tahun-2021
