Regulation No. 28 of 2016

(1)

http://world.journal.or.id/index.php/wjit ISSN: 2963-1637 (online)

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for anypurpose, even commercially

15

Analysis Comparative of Costs on Structural and

Architectural Works for Shophouse Construction Projects Using the BOW Method and the Minister of PUPR

Regulation No. 28 of 2016

Syahrul Irawan, Koespiadi

Civil Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Engineering, Narotama University Surabaya, Indonesia

Syahrulirawan22@gmail.com, Koespiadi@narotama.ac.id

Abstract

This research is based on the estimated building cost budget plan, in Indonesia using the unit analysis of materials and wages based on the BOW method and the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing Regulation No. 28 of 2016. The SNI analysis does not issue the latest regulations, but now many are guided by the Minister of PUPR Regulation No. 28 of 2016. This research was conducted by analyzing the budget plan for the Ruko Nortwest Park Citraland Surabaya by determining the coefficient comparison between the BOW method and the method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 and recalculating the budget plan using the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 with the unit price of wages and the same material for the 2018 output year for the Surabaya area. The results obtained from the analysis carried out at the Northwest Park Citraland Surabaya Ruko, there are differences in the final results and each work sub-analysis of the two methods. The budget plan for Northwest Park Citraland Surabaya Ruko using the BOW method is Rp. 2,272,172,150.01, while using the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 is Rp. 1,878,516,217.05. From the results of the two methods there is a difference of Rp. 393,655,932.96. And of the two methods, the method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 is cheaper than the BOW method.

Keywords:

BOW, Minister of PUPR Regulation No. 28 of 2016.

1. Introduction

The building budget plan (RAB) is a way to calculate the budget that will be required for a construction and with this cost the building can be realized as planned. The budget plan for building costs is very necessary considering the size and area of the building that the budget must be calculated very carefully and diligently to prevent errors in cost calculations.

There are two factors that influence the planning of the budget for a building, including technical and non- technical factors. Technical factors are in the form of provisions and requirements that must be met in the implementation of building construction as well as building construction drawings. While the non-technical factors are the price of building materials and labor wages.

Analysis of the unit price of materials and workers' wages, which has been known as BOW. BOW analysis (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) is the coefficient of analysis of the unit price of building products from the Dutch East Indies era which is widely used in calculating RAB for the implementation of development at that time.

However, when examined from the times, it turns out that the BOW analysis (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) is not widely used because there is already an Indonesian national standard (SNI). which provides the latest material and energy coefficient values according to the current development situation. However, the SNI analysis does not issue the latest regulations, the SNI 1835:2008 regulation is no longer used, the latest one now uses the method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016. The analysis of the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 is a system of building unit price analysis coefficients issued by the Government and residential development. The basic principle in the method of the ministerial regulation of PUPR No. 28 of 2016 is that a list of building material coefficients, labor wages, and equipment rental has been determined to analyze the price or cost required to make one unit of building work.

In determining the unit price of work, there are still many who use the BOW (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) method to calculate the cost budget because the coefficients used are larger so that they get greater profits than using the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 in calculating the cost budget. The factor that influences the analysis of the unit price of the work is the coefficient number which indicates the need for materials, tools, and labor in a certain volume of work.

(2)

16

In reality in the field there is a difference in a cost calculation between the BOW method (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) and the method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016. So knowing whether the building cost budget plan uses the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 there is a difference in the coefficient difference price and calculation. And between the two BOW methods and the PUPR ministerial regulation No. 28 of 2016 which is the most efficient cost budget? So this research was conducted to find out the differences between the BOW method (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 in detail.

Based on the problems above, the formulation of the problem can be formulated as follows:

1. How is the material and wage coefficients compared using the BOW method and PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016?

2. How to do calculations using the BOW analysis method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016?

3. What is the difference in the results of the calculation of the budget between the BOW analysis method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016?

4. Which is the most economical value between the BOW method of budget analysis and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016?

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Methodology

This type of research is a case study research activity. The research conducted a case study on the construction project of the Nortwest Park Citraland Ruko to examine the construction costs in this case the author analyzed and recalculated the construction budget plan for the construction of the Nortwest Park Citraland Ruko with two methods, namely the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016.

2.2. Research Location

This author conducted research at the Northwest Park Citraland Surabaya

2.3. Collection Technique

1. Primary Data

a. Shop Drawing b. Employment data c. RAB

d. Etc

2. Secondary Data

a. Data obtained from literature studies with journals and the work or staff of the contractor company.

2.3. Data Analysis

In data analysis activities carried out several things related to data processing, among others:

1. Understanding of project RKS requirements.

2. Summarizing the required BOW (Burgerlijke Openbare Werken) analysis according to the list of existing work items.

3. Summarizing the coefficient index according to the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016 for the procedure for calculating the unit price of work.

4. Compilation of price lists for materials, wages, and tools in accordance with the prices used by the contractor for the construction of Northwest Ruko.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Comparison of the Coefficient of Materials and Wages

To find the coefficient of unit price analysis in Indonesia can be done in various ways including:

Using the following formula:

material coefficient =

(1)

minimum duration =

(2)

From work analysis for 1 difference in wall pair coefficient.

(3)

VOLUME 2 │ NUMBER 1 │ APRIL 2021 http://world.journal.or.id/index.php/wjit

ISSN: 2963-1637 (online)

17

Table 1. Differences in Wall Pair Work Coefficients

1 wall pair OH Foreman 0.225 0.24

OH foreman 0.15 0.24

OH Craftsman 1.5 1.2

OH prentice 4.5 2.4

Bh Brick 720 500

Zak PC Cement 3.1663 2.13

Sand 0.406 0.37

So the difference in the coefficients of materials and wages in wall masonry work using the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016. The foreman gets a fee of 0.255 people a day (BOW method) and 0.24 people a day (the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016), the chief handyman 0.15 people a day (BOW method) and 0.24 people a day (the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016), bricks used 720 pieces (BOW method) and 500 pieces (method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016), PC cement used 3.1663 bags per (BOW method) and 2.13 zak per (method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016), sand uses 0.406 (BOW method) and 0.37 (method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 ).

3.2. Budget Plan Using the BOW Method

Analyze the unit price of work for each work item. The next step is to make a cost budget plan by multiplying the unit price of the work by the building volume of each work.

To see the results and more details, see table 2. The following.

Table 2. BOW Method Budget Plan

No Job Description Total Price

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

pack. Land pack. Foundation

pack. Concrete pack. Wall pair pack. Plastering pack. Floor pack. Roof pack. Ceiling pack. Painting pack. Frames and Doors

8,206,027.5 20,385,341.86 552,887,344.8 413,221,369.5 58,877,408.6 295,026,911.4 10,905,645.47 4,634,812.9 881,685,063 26,342,225

Amount 2,272,172,150.01

3.3. Budget Plan Method Regulation of the Minister of PUPR

Analyze the unit price of work for each work item. The next step is to make a cost budget plan by multiplying the unit price of the work by the building volume of each work.

To see the results and more details, see table 3. The following.

Table 3. Budget Plan Method Regulation of the Minister of PUPR

No Job Description Total Price

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

pack. Land pack. Foundation

pack. Concrete pack. Wall pair pack. Plastering pack. Floor pack. Roof pack. Ceiling pack. Painting pack. Frames and Doors

8,092,640.08 18,083,572.36 1,339,382,599 278,330,025.8 55,923,891.98 79,395,060.28 25,427,855.57

3,388,578 16,813,137.6

53,678,856

Amount 1,878,516,217.05

3.4. Comparison of Budget Plans

After obtaining the final results of the calculation of the budget plan using the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation. Next is to calculate the difference in the total cost of the entire building, namely:

(4)

18

The results of the budget plan are as follows: Graph of Budget Plan Results.

1. Cost budget plan using the BOW method of Rp. 2,272,172,150.01

2. Budget plan using the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 amounting to Rp.1,878,516,217.05

3. From the data above, the difference in the budget plan between the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016 is:

4. Formula = Budget plan for BOW Method – Budget plan for the method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 (3)

Formula = IDR 2,272,172,150.01 – IDR 1,878,516,217.05 = Rp. 393,655,932.96

3.5. Graph of Budget Plan Results

The results of the budget plan using the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016 can be made in a graph. The graph can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Graph of the Budget Plan

3.6. Reasons for the Budget Value Method of the Minister of PUPR Regulation No. 28 of 2016 is cheaper than BOW

Because BOW analysis (Burgeslijke Openbare Werken) it is necessary to make revisions or improvements. The guideline is felt to be no longer relevant because the BOW analysis can only be used if the work is a labor-intensive job using conventional equipment and an unprofessional workforce. And in the method of regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing No. 28 of 2016 has used modern equipment and a professional workforce, so that the analysis of cost planning becomes very cheap and efficient.

4. Conclusion

1. The difference in the coefficient of wages and building materials in the BOW method and the method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016 uses an analysis with the formula:

material coefficient =

(4)

minimum duration = (5)

2. So the difference in the coefficients of materials and wages in wall masonry work using the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016. The foreman gets a fee of 0.255 person day (BOW method) and 0.24 person day (method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016), bricks using 720 pieces (BOW method) and 500 pieces (method of PUPR ministerial regulation no 28 of 2016). So it is clear that the difference in coefficients in each work item, both the BOW method and the BOW method, is clear 3. From the calculation of the budget plan from the researcher, it shows that the calculation of the work budget

for the structure and architecture of the Northwest Park Citraland Surabaya office building. By using the BOW method of Rp. Rp. 2,272,172,150.01, while the results of the budget plan using the PUPR ministerial regulation method no. 28 of 2016 amounted to Rp. 1,878,516,217.05.

4. Comparison of the cost budget between the BOW and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016 is Rp.

393,655,932.96. The price difference is obtained due to the difference in the use of the wage coefficient and materials in the two analyzes, while the prices and materials remain the same using the prices and wages issued by the Surabaya City Government.

5. The results of the analysis use the BOW method and the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016. The most efficient budget plan for the construction of the Northwest Park Citraland Surabaya shophouse uses the budget method of the PUPR ministerial regulation no. 28 of 2016 with a budget of Rp.

1,878,516,217.05.

6. BOW analysis (Burgeslijke Openbare Werken) needs to be revised or improved. The guidelines are felt to be no longer relevant because the BOW analysis can only be used if the work is in the form of labor- intensive work using conventional equipment and unprofessional labor, so that if the analysis is still used purely, the planning costs will be very expensive. And in the method of regulation of the Minister of Public

(5)

VOLUME 2 │ NUMBER 1 │ APRIL 2021 http://world.journal.or.id/index.php/wjit

ISSN: 2963-1637 (online)

19

Works and Public Housing No. 28 of 2016 has used modern equipment and a professional workforce, so that the analysis of cost planning becomes very cheap and efficient.

Referencess

anonymous (2019, September 03), Analysis of BOW and SNI in the Preparation of the Construction Budget.

Picked on May 28, 2021, https://www.pengadaan.web.id/2019/09/analisa-bow-dan-sni.html.

Anonymous (2010, May 05), How to Calculate the coefficient of Building Unit Price Analysis. Taken on May 25, 2021, https://www.ilmusipil.com/cara-menghitung-koefisi-analisa-harga-satuan-building.

Anonymous (2019, May 09), Budget Plan (RAB), Functions and Objectives in the Project, Picked on April 19, 2021, https://www.builder.id/plan-anggaran-cost/.

Agus WS, Yakin, K., Abiarto N., & Wisnu (2020), ―Comparative Analysis of Project Values with Indonesian National Standards (SNI) and Prices of Basic Units of Activities (HSPK)‖, He-STRAM: Journal of Civil Engineering and Planning, 3(1), 10-12.

Andi A. P. MH., & Ellysa (2019), ―Budget Analysis Between the SNI Method and Contractors in Hospital Construction in Tangerang‖, Proceedings of the National Seminar ―Innovation and Integration in Infrastructure Development, 1(1), 1-2.

Arbana, I., (2017), "Analysis of the Budget Plan for Housing Work Executors by Comparing the Unit Prices of Materials Based on a Field Survey (Thesis)", University of North Sumatra, Medan (IDN).

Cahyo K., D., & Rofiqi A. H., (2020), ―Comparison of the Budget for Building Construction Using BOW Value, SNI and Market Price‖, JCEBT, 4(2), 3-5.

Hartati, G., (2019), ―Cost Comparative Analysis Using SNI, BOW and Modern Methods (Thesis)‖, Galuh University, Ciamis (IDN).

Juansyah, Y., Oktarina, D., & Zulfiqar, M., (2017), "Comparative Analysis of Building Budget Plans Using the BOW and SNI Methods (Case Study: Budget Plans for the Kwarda Pramuka Building in Lampung", Journal of Engineering Technology and Science, 1(1), 1-3.

Mufaris, M.A., Prihesnanto, F., & Darma, E., (2017), "Comparison of Budget Estimates for the Pulo Gebang Flats Project, East Jakarta", Journal Article, 1(1),13.

Putra Mahardika, R., & Affandy, Nur A., (2017), "Comparison of Budget Estimates with BOW and SNI Methods", CivilLa Journal, 2(1),12-13.

Rahman, A., (2015), ―Comparison of Cost Estimates Between BOW and SNI Methods on the Joang Building/Veterans Legion of the Republic of Indonesia Construction Project (Thesis)‖, University of 17 August 1945 Samarinda, Samarinda (IDN).

Yuan, R. T., (2019), ―Comparative Analysis of the Budget Plan for the Construction of the Widuri Mall Using the BOW Method, SNI 2008 and AHSP 2016 (Thesis)‖, University of Muhammadiyah North Sumatra.

Medan (IDN).

Biography

Syahrul Irawan The author has taken formal education at SDN Tambak Rejo 1 Waru Sidorjo (2011), Pondok Modern Selamat Kendal Junior High School (2014), Pondok Modern Selamat High School (2017), the author continues his undergraduate education in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Narotama University in class 2017 and registered with NIM 03117022 to study S-1 at the Department of Civil Engineering, Narotama University is a matter of pride.

Dr. Ir. Koespiadi, M.T. Completed S-1 at the Sepuluh November Institute of Technology (1991), S-2 at the University of 17 August 1945, Surabaya (2005). Currently serving as Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Narotama University Surabaya, and actively teaching at Narotama University since 2002 until now, concentrating on Steel Construction, Concrete Construction and Concrete Structures courses.