<![CDATA[Public construction procurement operates at the intersection of administrative governance, contractual relations, and criminal law, creating a persistent legal boundary problem when project irregularities are potentially criminalized as corruption. This study examines how judicial reasoning distinguishes administrative and contractual violations from conduct warranting criminal liability, focusing on the legal consequences of this boundary for accountability and legal certainty. Employing normative legal research with a socio-legal orientation, the study uses statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed through doctrinal thematic analysis focusing on administrative governance, contractual relations, criminal elements, causation, and judicial reasoning. The findings demonstrate that project delays, incomplete construction, procedural irregularities, and state financial losses do not, in themselves, establish criminal liability. Such failures may initially fall within administrative or contractual accountability, including sanctions, contract termination, delay penalties, performance guarantees, and blacklisting. Criminal liability requires proof of the statutory elements of corruption and a demonstrable causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and actual state financial loss. The study develops a boundary-based framework of graduated legal accountability, distinguishing administrative sanctions, contractual remedies, and criminal prosecution according to the legal character of the violation. This framework contributes to socio-legal scholarship by explaining how institutional interactions among government, market actors, contractual governance, and criminal justice shape the boundaries of criminalization.]]>
