Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Variations and Claims in International Construction Projects in the MENA Region from Last Decade

Altmetrics

Downloads

82

Views

31

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

supplementary.pdf (165.32KB )

Submitted:

16 July 2024

Posted:

17 July 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
This study delves into the dynamics of 'Variations' and 'Claims' within construction projects, specifically under the FIDIC-Red Book 1999 framework. The study aims to identify, categorize, and devise mitigation strategies for key types of variations and claims aligning with the FIDIC conditions of contract. The research is drawing on inputs from construction industry professionals including contract administrators and project managers, focusing on the MENA region. This choice is driven by the region's extensive adoption of FIDIC standards and its rapidly growing construction sector. Data collection encompassed a questionnaire distributed to 80 industry experts predominantly through interviews that focused on countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and Egypt. These locations were chosen to reflect diverse construction practices and the involvement of international firms. Utilizing SPSS-V.25 for statistical analysis, the study uncovers the most prevalent and impactful causes of variations and claims, highlighting the critical need for managerial intervention. A key feature is the integration of scientometric analysis for a quantitative finding. A significant addition to the methodology is the implementation of a k-means clustering analysis. The survey had high internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97, and respondents reported frequent and significant claims like delayed drawings, ambiguous documents, and client changes. The results showed that effective claims management requires clear communication and balanced contracts, while poor design and contract documentation cause variations and claims. Spearman's correlation showed strong positive relationships between certain claim types and causes, emphasizing the importance of dealing with these factors to reduce claims. Most respondents said the survey could predict and reduce claims.
Keywords: 
Subject: Engineering  -   Architecture, Building and Construction

1. Introduction

The construction industry plays a crucial role in gauging the economic health of a country; its success fosters development and stability, while its failure can negatively impact the economy [1,2,3]. According to market research conducted until 2020 for the “construction industry” worldwide, the study focuses on global construction forecasts up to the year 2020 and the evolution of the “construction industry” in all major countries. According to the CIC’s (Construction Intelligence Center) Global 50s (2010-2020), this encompasses over 50 of the world’s biggest and most significant markets. This is largely due to the significant investments made in infrastructure and buildings in these regions, despite fluctuations in oil prices and their vulnerability to economic growth [1]. The report also confirmed that the Asia-Pacific region accounts for a growing portion of the global construction industry, rising from 40% in 2010 to nearly 49% in 2020. “Variations” and “claims” are common in the construction industry due to requirements and needs, as well as the growing complexity of construction processes. However, construction industry contracts with huge funding values undergo many “variations” during the project’s, design, contracting, and construction stages [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. The primary objectives of this study are to identify and characterize contractual variants and raised claims, in compliance with the employer’s FIDIC-Red Book 1999 [9]. Additionally, we aim to identify the significant causes of these variations and claims and provide suggestions for their resolution.
Much research on construction project management has yet to address “variations” and “claims.” Abdelalim et al. [1,2,3,5,6] have improved risk management, quality control, and productivity. Still, there needs to be more focused research on systematically identifying and characterizing significant variations and claims under FIDIC contracts for construction conditions [9]. Existing studies [4,7,8] focus on risk factors rather than contractual issues, making it difficult to determine the causes of these variations and claims. Last, while some studies [9,10,11] suggest strategic management and risk mitigation, there is a clear need for targeted recommendations and practical solutions that directly address and prevent construction project variations and claims. This gap highlights the need for a more integrated and focused approach to studying variations and claims, aligned with contractual frameworks like FIDIC, to develop construction industry strategies. Based on feedback from construction professionals’ experience, clients, consultants, contractors, and experts advocate for the use of survey questionnaires. Other research has tried to find “variations” and “claims” in the terms of the contract for the construction of buildings and engineering works that have already been planned [9]. This study aims to find and describe the main types of “variations” and “claims” in construction projects by looking at the terms of construction contracts [9]. Therefore, the study develops the research objectives:
  • identification and characterization of the significant types of “variations” and “claims” in construction projects by the terms of the conditions of construction contracts [9].
  • Study the significant causes of the “variations” and “claims” in construction projects.
  • Suggest recommendations and proposed solutions to benefit from the study’s results and avoid the causes of “variations” and “claims.”
  • Investigate the causes of claims and variations in the MENA region, which recently has a booming construction market with the involvement of international AEC firms with tremendous budgets.
  • Extending the investigation to the last decade will be an advantage, as most current research concentrated on COVID-19 after 2019 and neglected other causes that had been started before the pandemic, which may have more significant effects on the construction industry.

2. Research Methodology

The research methodology adopts a multi-faceted approach, essential for comprehensively addressing the intricacies of Variations and Claims in International Contracts, specifically under FIDIC guidelines. The methodology is structured into distinct but interrelated stages, each contributing uniquely towards achieving our research objectives, as shown in Figure 1.

Scientometric Analysis

In the scientometric analysis phase of this research, a thorough and systematic examination of the existing scholarly literature on variations and claims in international contracts, with a specific focus on those under the Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils (FIDIC) framework in the MENA region for such period, is carried out. This examination is pivotal for pinpointing the dominant themes, trends, and notable gaps within this academic field. The research delves into a carefully curated collection of academic journals, conference papers, and industry reports using advanced data analysis tools.
To initiate this analysis, Scopus and Web of Science, a database known for its wide array of scientific publications and rapid indexing, was selected as the primary source for data retrieval. This choice enhances the likelihood of accessing relevant and recent literature in this field. In December 2023, a specific search query was employed to gather data. The query, formulated as “(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Construction” AND “FIDIC” AND “Claim”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Construction” AND “FIDIC” AND “Variation”) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”),” is designed to capture publications that focus on ‘Construction,’ ‘FIDIC,’ along with either ‘Claim’ or ‘Variation.’
Recognizing the enduring significance of ‘construction claims’ as a research topic in the construction sector, the authors decided against setting a time restriction for the publications. Initially, 62 articles are retrieved through this process. Inclusion and exclusion criteria ensure the review’s quality and relevance. Either articles not in English and those not categorized as ‘journal articles’ or ‘conference articles’ were excluded. This refining process narrows down the selection to 49 manuscripts, which are then downloaded and meticulously reviewed.

3. Literature Review

Variations and claims generally arise between the employer and the contractor due to their respective rights and obligations under the contract clauses or due to some events or circumstances.
The FIDIC Conditions of Contract tried to ensure the balanced rights of all parties, even when the employers, engineers, and contractors were exposed to claims, the following sections exhibit classification and causes of variations and claims.

3.1. Classification of Variations and Claims

According to the terms and conditions of the contract for the construction of building and engineering works designed by the employer [9], variations and claims between the employer and the contractor are classified into time, cost, and profit claims (Table 1).

3.2. Causes of Variations and Claims

According to the terms and conditions of the contract for the construction of building and engineering works designed by the employer [9], causes of variations and claims can be classified as shown in Table 2.

3.3. Significance and Avoidability

Significance and avoidability are two critical issues addressed in a real strategy for reducing variations and claims. Avoidability concerns the precautions and preventive procedures that can reduce the consequences of variations and claims. Both are essential in studying the causes of claims and recommended responses.
Avoidability as procedures that reduce the negative impacts of claims and variations can be considered as risk mitigation strategy for construction projects.

4. Results

For deeper analysis, visualization of similarities (VOS), an open-source tool acclaimed for its capability to construct and visualize bibliometric networks, is utilized. This software applies the VOS-viewer technique [10] for this analysis. The process includes examining all keywords in the selected publications, with a predetermined threshold set to include those appearing at least twice. Among 324 keywords, 54 meet this criterion, revealing six main thematic clusters in the analysis, as shown in Figure 2.
These clusters were visually represented in a keyword co-occurrence network, where each cluster is color-coded, and the size of each node (keyword) indicates its frequency of occurrence. The relationships between keywords were depicted through arcs, with the thickness of each line signifying the strength of the relationship. The clusters identified were the yellow cluster representing ‘contractors,’ the red cluster for ‘construction industry and EOT,’ the green cluster signifying ‘construction project management,’ the purple cluster for ‘civil engineering,’ the blue cluster denoting ‘construction and FIDIC,’ and the sky-blue cluster for ‘construction contracts.’ The most prominent keyword, serving as the central node in this network, is ‘construction projects.’
Despite not being constrained by strict keyword thresholds, this visualization highlights a critical observation: previous studies have yet to extensively explore the causes of claims and variations within the context of FIDIC contracts. This gap in the literature underscores the necessity for this research to delve deeply into these aspects, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of Variations and Claims in construction contracts under FIDIC regulations. There were no similar scholars covering the same period (10 years) in the MENA region in particular.

4.1. Characteristics of the Survey Targeted Participants and Statistical Investigation

The sample size for the survey was determined considering the limited availability of claims & disputes experts. To ensure a statistically representative sample of the population, the following formula was used for the initial calculation:
m = z 2 × p × 1 − p ε 2 = 1.96 2 × 0.5 × 1 − 0.5 0.05 2 = 384
Sample size.
This calculation is based on:
A confidence level value (z) of 1.96 indicates a 95% confidence level, and an estimated proportion (p) of 0.5 is commonly used when the exact proportion is unknown. A margin of error (ε) set at 0.05 equals 5%.
The initial sample size calculated using this formula was 384. However, a correction was applied to this initial figure due to the finite population of Claims & Disputes experts. The corrected sample size (n) was determined by the following equation, which accounts for the limited population size:
n = m 1 + m − 1 N = 384 1 + 384 − 1 110 ≈ 80
Correction for Limited Sample Population
In this equation, N represents the total population of Claims & Disputes experts. This adjustment resulted in a final sample size of approximately 80. This methodological approach is critical to ensure that the sample size adequately represents the expert population, enhancing the reliability of the survey results.
As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, the characteristics of respondents were classified and denoted into six groups: PC01, PC02, PC03, PC04, PC05, and PC06.

4.2. Participant Profiles and Group Classifications in the Survey

The survey categorized respondents into six distinct groups, each defined by specific criteria that captured various dimensions of their professional profiles. This categorization facilitated a detailed data analysis, allowing for nuanced insights into industry practices. The groups were as follows:
  • PC01—Role of the Respondent (Identity): This classification focused on the professional role of each respondent, identifying their specific position or function within their organization.
  • PC02—detailed Managerial Level: Respondents were classified based on their organization’s managerial level, offering insights into the decision-making hierarchy and leadership structure.
  • PC03—years of Experience: This category evaluated the individual professional experience of respondents, highlighting the depth and range of their expertise in the industry.
  • PC04—organization/Firm’s Experience (Firm’s Number of Years in Business): This group focused on the longevity and historical context of the organizations represented, providing an understanding of the firm’s experience and stability in the industry.
  • PC05—Organization/Firm’s Annual Number of Projects: This classification detailed the scale and scope of operations of the respondents’ firms based on the number of projects managed or undertaken annually.
  • PC06—Organization/Firm’s Number of Employees: This group provided insights into the organizations’ size and human resource capacity, highlighting the scale of their operations regarding personnel.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 follow to provide visual representations of these classifications, illustrating the diversity and distribution of the participant pool across these varied criteria.

4.3. Evaluation of Survey Validity and Reliability

The survey underwent a rigorous evaluation for validity and reliability, focusing on types of variations and claims regarding frequency, impact, and underlying causes. The validity was quantitatively established with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.97, indicating a high level of internal consistency since this value notably surpasses the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70. Furthermore, the lowest item-total statistic in the survey did not fall below 0.969, reinforcing the validity of the findings. Regarding reliability, the corrected item-total correlation for all dependent and independent survey factors exceeded 0.30.

4.4. Relative Importance Index Test (RII)

The survey incorporated the relative importance index (RII) to analyze participants’ perceptions of various factors. Respondents were requested to assign a rating to each factor, ranging from 1 (‘very rare’) to 5 (‘very high’). Absent responses were not assigned any weight in the RII calculation. This rating system facilitated categorizing responses into five levels of importance: extremely rare (deficient), rare (low), average, high, and very high.

4.5. Assessment of Frequency for Types of Variations and Claims

Respondents from clients, consultants, and contractors were collectively evaluated in assessing the frequency of different variations and claims, as summarized in Table 3. This analysis identified fifty-one distinct types of variations and claims, initially detailed in Table 1. Ten types emerged as the most frequently encountered in projects, consistently reported across all respondent groups. The remaining forty-one types were notably less frequent, indicating a lower occurrence rate in construction projects.

4.6. Assessment of Impact for Types of Variations and Claims

The impact assessment of variations and claims is based on the collective feedback from clients, consultants, and contractors (Table 4). This evaluation aimed to understand the severity of different types of variations and claims as experienced in the industry.
The analysis revealed that 32 variations and claims were frequently identified as significantly impacting construction projects. In contrast, 19 types were perceived to have a less severe impact, suggesting that their occurrence typically results in less disruption or fewer consequences for the projects involved.

4.7. Causes of Variations and Claims (Perceived Agreement Assessment)

Every replying group affirmed the possibility that the majority of the causes listed above could result in claims and variances in construction projects. With varying degrees of agreement, each group concurred that 31 possible causes could lead to these construction variations and claims.
This illustrates the disparities in agreement as each group perceived it. The assessment of the cause by the different responding groups (i.e., clients, consultants, and contractors) was compared using Table 5. The generation of different construction variations and claims can be attributed to these thirty-one proposed causes. However, this bias is not unexpected; others have already noted [11].

4.8. Causes of Variations and Claims (Perceived Significance Assessment)

The responses for the cause’s significant assessment from the viewpoint of all respondents for the first ten categories of variations and claims are shown in Table 6.

4.9. Causes of Variations and Claims (Perceived Avoidability Assessment)

Analysis was done on the responses from the different groups about the avoidability of factors that can lead to or “trigger” the kinds of variations and claims.
Nonetheless, the analysis of the total response data is presented in Table 7. The answers for the top 10 avoidable causes of variations and claims are shown in Table 7.

5. Discussion

In this study, various statistical analysis methods were pivotal for comprehensively understanding the intricate dynamics of Variations and Claims in FIDIC contracts in the MENA region. Each method contributed uniquely to unraveling different facets of the data, starting with descriptive and inferential statistics. This allowed for establishing a foundational understanding of the data distribution and relationships among variables.
Advancing to more complex analyses like the relative importance index (RII) and Spearman’s correlation obtained more profound insights into the significance and interconnectedness of factors influencing variations and claims.

5.1. Analysis of the Findings (Statistical Hypothesis- Kruskal Wallis Test)

According to the null hypothesis, each population median is equal. A significance threshold 0.05 (represented as α or alpha) is typically adequate. A 5% chance of determining that a difference exists when there is not one is indicated by a significance level of 0.05. P-value < α indicates statistical significance in the discrepancies between some medians. The null hypothesis is true if the p-value is less than or equal to the significance level.
Most of the 6 group respondents to this statistical test said that except T12, which is statistically significant about personal experience (PC03) with a p-value of less than 0.05. The differences between the medians are not statistically significant. As a result, not all group medians are equal, and the null hypothesis was rejected. Furthermore, T14’s relationship to the organization/firm’s experience (PC04) was statistically significant with a p-value of 0.01. The null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that not all item medians are identical, and T16 was also statistically significant about organization/firm’s experience (PC04), with a p-value of =0.009 (lower than 0.05). T39 showed statistical significance about the organization’s or firm’s annual number of projects (PC05) with p-value =0.007. Regarding frequency, it is evident that most variations and claims have no statistically significant disparities between the medians; refer to Appendix B.

5.2. Kruskal Wallis Test (Types of Variations and Claims – Impact)

For this statistical test, most of the group respondents (PC01, PC02, PC03, PC04, PC05, PC06) responded that the differences between the medians are not statistically significant except for the PC01 group we find that T11, T49, T02, T21, T45, T27, T38 and T43 with p-value of 0.002,0.005,0.007,0.035,0.040,0.041,0.042 and 0.049 respectively. In addition, for the Managerial level PC02 group, it was found that T32, T29, T22, and T25 are statistically significant with p-value = 0.026, 0.028, 0.038, and 0.046, respectively. In addition, for the PC03 group, note that only one type, T49, is statistically significant with p-value =0.0.044. For the PC04 group, the T02 and T11 types are statistically significant, with p-values =0.012 and 0.021, respectively. For the PC05 group, the T16 and T39 types are statistically significant, with p-values =0.009 and 0.013, respectively. Finally, the PC06 group has three types, T16, T47, and T26 are statistically significant with p-value =0.032, 0.040, and 0.040.
Most variations and claims in terms of impact have no differences between the group respondents’ medians, which are not statistically significant, as shown in Appendix C.

5.3. Kruskal Wallis Test (Cause of Variations and Claims – Agreement)

For this statistical test, most of the group respondents (PC01, PC02, PC03, PC04, PC05, and PC06) responded that the differences between the medians are not statistically significant except for the PC01 group; it was found that one cause, C31 with a p-value of 0.029. In addition, in the PC02 group, no causes are statistically significant. However, for the PC03 group, note that only one type, C12, C11, C19, C20, C30, C14, and C10, are statistically significant with p-values equals 0.006, 0.009, 0.021, 0.024, 0.026, 0.026, and 0.027 respectively. For PC04 group C04, C06, C08, C10, C14, C07, C12, C29, C11, C17, C20, C25, C13, C28, C24, C03, C27 and C2 are statistically significant with p-value =0.00, 0.00, 0.001, 0.003, 0.005, 0.005, 0.005, 0.010, 0.011, 0.019, 0.021, 0.027, 0.027, 0.039, 0.041, 0.044, 0.048, 0.050 respectively. Too, PC05 group C06, C05, C12, C03, C11, C25, C09, and C29 are statistically significant with p-values =0.002, 0.003, 0.004, 0.011, 0.015, 0.023, 0.025 and 0.042 respectively. Finally, PC06 group C27, C24, C29, C25, C17, C14, C13, C03, C06, C16, C02, C20, C28, C18, C11, C09, C30, C19 are statistically significant with p-value lower than 0.05.
Most of the causes of variations and claims in terms of agreement have no differences between the group respondents’ medians that were not statistically significant, as shown in Appendix D.

5.4. Kruskal Wallis Test (Cause of Variations and Claims – Significance)

Similarly, most of the group respondents (PC01, PC02, PC03, PC04, PC05, PC06) responded that the differences between the medians are not statistically significant except for PC01 group we found that causes C29, C20, C12, C03, C01, C07, C23, C15, C28, C05, C11, C18 and C09 with p-value of 0.001, 0.004, 0.009, 0.011, 0.012, 0.012, 0.019, 0.025, 0.031, 0.0310, 035, 0.037 and 0.046 respectively. In addition, the PC02 group has no statistically significant causes. Although the PC03 group has three types, C04, C10, and C20 are statistically significant with p-values =0.025, 0.039, and 0.043, respectively. Also, The PC04 group has three causes: C04, C11, and C18, which are statistically significant with p-values =0.014, 0.020, and 0.039, respectively. Too, PC05 group C20, C15, C21, C10, C05, C01, C29, C16, and C29 are statistically significant with p-values =0.003, 0.006, 0.009, 0.009, 0.012, 0.013, 0.027, 0.027 and 0.048 respectively. Finally, for PC06 group; C17, C15, C05, C07, C10, C19, C21, C16, C08, C24, C13, C06 and C29 are statistically significant with p-value lower than 0.05.
Most of the causes of variations and claims in terms of significance have no differences between the group respondents’ medians that are not statistically significant (see Appendix E).

5.5. Kruskal Wallis Test (Cause of Variations and Claims – Avoid-Ability)

Similarly, most of the group respondents (PC01, PC02, PC03, PC04, PC05, and PC06) responded that the differences between the medians are not statistically significant except for the PC01 group; it was found that three causes, C06, C08, and C21 with a p-value of 0.011, 0.017 and 0.034 respectively. In addition, the PC02 group has no causes statistically significant. However, the PC03 group has three types, C09, C30, and C10 are statistically significant with p-values =0.010, 0.036, and 0.044, respectively. The PC04 group has three causes; C06, C13, and C02 are statistically significant with p-values =0.020, 0.029, and 0.032, respectively. However, the PC05 group has no statistically significant causes. Finally, the PC06 group has one statistically significant cause, C13, with a p-value lower than 0.05, which = 0.008.
Most causes of variations and claims regarding avoid-ability have no differences between the group respondents’ medians that were not statistically significant (see Appendix F).

5.6. Spearman’s Correlation Test

It is known that the relationship appears in 3 phases; the first phase was (- r < 0), meaning a negative relationship exists between the two variables. The second phase is that (+ r > 0), which means a positive relationship between the two variables. The third phase is (r = 0), meaning there is no relationship between the two variables.
To understand the Spearman correlation coefficient, if the correlation coefficient value (r) = 0, there is no relationship between variables. While the correlation coefficient value (0.0 < r < 0.25) indicated a weak positive relationship. The correlation coefficient value (0.25 ≤ r < 0.75) indicated an average positive relationship. However, there was a strong positive relationship if the correlation coefficient value (0.75 ≤ r < 1). The relationship is entirely positive if the correlation coefficient value equals 1 (r = 1).
Regarding the correlation hypothesis, if r = 0, there is no relation between the two variables and accepting the zero hypothesis (H0), but if r is not equal to 0, there is a relation between the two variables and rejecting the zero hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1). While if sig. > 0.05, accept the zero hypothesis (H0), but if sig. < 0.05 the zero hypothesis (H0) will be refused.

5.6.1. Spearman’s Correlation Test (Types-Frequency) & (Causes-Significance)

It appears that there was a highly positive correlation, denoted by red color, related to the p-value (see Appendix G). Moreover, those denoted by green revealed the correlation between significant causes: C21, C10, C05, and frequent types T16, T23, T38, and T31. While it was lower than 0.05, the H0 hypothesis was not accepted, and the H1 hypothesis was accepted alternatively. Similarly, for significant causes, C15, C16, and C17 correlated with frequented types T16, T23, and T31. Also, a significant cause of C19 is the correlation between frequent types T16, T23, T45, and T31. In addition, the significant cause of C20 correlated with frequent types T16, T23, T38, and T31.
The same is true for significant cause C01, which correlated with frequent types T16, T38, T31, T07, and T09.Finally, significant cause C06 had a correlation relationship with frequent types T16, T23, T38, T31, T34 and T10. For the correlation hypothesis, while the significance is lower than 0.05, reject the H0 zero hypotheses and accept the H1 alternative hypothesis in Appendix G.

5.6.2. Spearman Correlation Test (Types-Impact) & (Causes -Significance)

There appears to be a highly positive correlation for the mentioned correlation coefficient by red color, related to the p-value. The green color reveals that there was a correlation relationship between significant causes C21, C16, C17, C20, and C01 and Impacted types T39, T47, T16, T41, T27, T38, T33, T23, T26, while it is lower than 0.05. Therefore, the H0 was rejected, and the H1 hypothesis was accepted alternatively. Similarly, for significant cause C10 that had a correlation relationship with Impacted types T39, T47, T16, T41, T27, T38, T33 and T26.
In addition, significant causes C05, C15 have a correlation relationship with impacted types T39, T47, T16, T41, T27, T38, T33, T23, T26 and T48. In addition, the significant cause C19 had a correlation relationship with Impacted types T39, T47, T16, T41, T27, T38, T33, T26, and T48.Finally for significant cause C06 has a correlation relationship with Impacted types T39, T47, T16, T41, T27, T38, T33 and T26. For the correlation hypothesis, while the significance was lower than 0.05, we will not accept the H0 zero hypothesis and accept the H1 alternative hypothesis in Appendix H

5.6.3. Spearman Correlation Test (Types-Frequency) & (Causes –Avoid-Ability)

Similarly, there was a highly positive correlation for the mentioned correlation coefficients by red color, related to p-value (significant), which had green color revealing a correlation relationship between avoidable cause C10 and frequent types T23, T38. Also, for avoidable causes, C13 correlated with frequented types T38, T45, and T31. Also, avoidable cause C06 correlated with frequented types T16, T23, T38, and T31. In addition, the avoidable cause C05 correlated with frequented types T16, T31, and T09. Moreover, for avoidable causes, C01, C04, and C09 correlate with frequented type T09. On the other hand, the avoidable cause C05 correlated with frequent types T38 and T09. However, the avoidable cause C02 correlated with frequented types T38, T07, T09, and T10. Meanwhile, the avoidable cause C07 did not correlate with any frequent types.
Finally, the avoidable cause C08 correlated with frequent T38, T09, T45, and T10 types. For the correlation hypothesis, the significance was lower than 0.05 to exclude the H0 zero hypotheses and accept the H1 alternative hypothesis in Appendix I.

5.6.4. Spearman Correlation Test (Types-Impact) & (Causes –Avoid-Ability)

The correlation between the most impacted types and the most avoidable causes was investigated using Spearman’s test (see Appendix J). It appears that there was a highly positive correlation denoted by red color, related to p-value, which has green color reveals that there is a correlation relationship between avoidable cause C10 and impacted types T47, T16, T41, T27 while significant was lower than 0.05, so we will not accept the H0 and accept the H1 alternative hypothesis. For avoidable causes, C13 correlated with impacted types T47, T41, T27, and T38. In addition, avoidable cause C06 had a correlation with impacted types T39, T47, T18, T41, T27, T38, T33 and T26. In addition, avoidable cause C05 had a correlation with impact types T39, T47, T16, T27, T38, T33 and T26.
Moreover, for avoidable causes, C01 and C01 correlated with impacted types T47 and T33.On the other hand, the avoidable cause C24 correlated with impacted types T47, T27, T38, T33, T23, T26, and T48. However, the avoidable cause C02 correlated with impacted types T41, T27, T38, T33 and T26.In contrast, the avoidable causes C04 and C09 do not correlate with any impacted types. Moreover, the avoidable cause C08 had a correlation with impacted types T47, T16, T27, T38, T33, T26 and T48. Finally, the avoidable cause C07 correlated with impacted type T33.

5.7. Overall, the Questionnaire Participant’s Assessment

Respondents were asked to score the questionnaire’s overall coverage in this area and the variables under each section. Additionally, they provided any other remarks on the parts of the variable and any related issues.
Table 8 presents respondents’ responses regarding the types of variations and claims and their significance, where 94.1 % of the clients think that the common types of variations and claims are significant, for the consultants, 88.4 % think that it was significant, and 93.8% for the contractors.
Table 9 presents respondents’ responses regarding the causes of variations and claims and their significance, where 88.2 % of the clients think that the common types of variations and claims are significant, for the consultants, 95.3 % think that it was significant; finally, for the contractors, 93.8 think that it was significant.
Table 10 presents respondents’ responses and questions to help managers predict the significance of types and causes of variations and claims. 94.1 % of the clients think that the survey questions will help managers predict the significance of types and causes of variations and claims; 83.7% of the consultants think that it will help, and 93.8% of the contractors think it will help positively.
The questionnaire responses, shown in Table 11 below, will assist managers in forecasting and suggesting tactics to prevent or lessen variations and claims. Meanwhile, 76.5% of clients believe managers can anticipate and provide ways to prevent or lessen variations and claims. 79% of consultants believe it would be helpful, and eighty-seven percent of contractors believe it will be beneficial.

5.8. K-Means Analysis

This section delves into the K-means clustering algorithm, a pivotal tool in data analytics renowned for its simplicity and efficiency. This method is particularly valuable for the study as it complements the previously discussed Spearman’s Correlation and Kruskal Wallis tests, offering a unique perspective on understanding the dynamics of factors influencing variations and claims in construction contracts. K-means clustering is a widely embraced and substantiated technique in clustering [12].
To determine the appropriate number of clusters (k), various methodologies such as the Hubert statistic, Davies Bouldin index, Dunn index, score function, elbow plot, and silhouette plot have been devised [13]. In this study, the elbow plot method, known for its reliability [14], [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], was employed for cluster count determination.
The primary aim of the k-means algorithm is to minimize cluster inertia or the within-cluster sum-of-squares criterion, as delineated by Equation 3, wherein X i represents samples and U j stands for the mean of samples within each cluster. The determination of the suitable number of clusters is validated through the elbow plot, displaying distortion scores for a selected number of clusters as per Equation 3. The “elbow” point designates the cluster count at which further additions do not significantly reduce WCSS. Notably, in this analysis, the optimal number of clusters was identified as four, evident in Figure 5.
W C S S = ∑ i = 0 n m i n U j ∈ C X i − U j 2
Cluster 0—selective high-impact causes: This cluster includes causes T45, T40, T35, T25, and T24. It is characterized by a significant impact with fewer occurrences and demands focused attention due to its potential substantial effect on projects.
Cluster 1—diverse low-impact causes: With 17 causes (T1, T49, T44, T42, T41, T27, T50, T20, T18, T26, T51, T6, T5, T4, T3, T15, T14), this cluster represents varied and numerous issues of lower individual impact but requiring broad management strategies due to their collective presence.
Cluster 2 - frequent mid-impact causes: The largest cluster with 26 causes (T47, T48, T34, T2, T7, T39, T38, T37, T8, T46, T43, T33, T31, T17, T19, T13, T21, T22, T32, T12, T10, T9, T28, T29, T30, T11), posing a consistent challenge and requiring regular monitoring.
Cluster 3—critical high impact and high-frequency cause: Comprising T23, T36, and T16, these issues are high in impact and frequency, pivotal in the project lifecycle, and necessitating strategic management. Figure 7 visually supports this analysis by showing the network model colored by cluster and detailing the causes of claims within each cluster. Table 12 illustrates these findings, providing a granular view of each cluster’s characteristics.
Preprints 112408 g006
Figure 6. K-Means Clustering for Causes of Claims.
Figure 6. K-Means Clustering for Causes of Claims.
Preprints 112408 g006
Preprints 112408 g007
Figure 7. Assigned Causes of Claims for the Four Analyzed K-Means Clusters.
Figure 7. Assigned Causes of Claims for the Four Analyzed K-Means Clusters.
Preprints 112408 g007

6. Conclusions

6.1. Frequent Types of Variations and Claims

Using the types and causes, RII was applied to construction industry workers in this research. Fifty-one types of variations and claims have been identified in section 1-part two based on a questionnaire survey of 80 respondents. These 51 significant types have been ranked according to respondents’ perceptions, and the top ten are frequent and severe types.
Thus, these types require managerial attention and focus to avoid their frequencies, consequently providing positive benefits in managing construction projects, Table 13.

6.2. Concluding Remarks

Based on the presented results, it is recommended that contract clauses dealing with such issues be given special consideration. The best way to cope with the risk of construction variations and claims is to reduce or avoid them altogether.
Certain fundamental ways and methods can reduce the number of encountered variations and claims (see Appendix A).

6.3. Comparative analysis and correlations summary

The Kruskal-Wallis test in Appendix B shows that project-related issues vary by respondent characteristics. For example, “a failure to rectify defects” has a significant variation based on personal experience (PC03) with a p-value of 0.030, suggesting that people with different experience levels perceive this issue differently. The firm’s experience (PC04) and number of employees (PC06) also significantly affect “termination initiated by the contractor” (p-values of 0.039 and 0.004, respectively). These findings emphasize the importance of personal and organizational experience in addressing frequent project failures and contractor actions. Appendix C examines ways causes affect project outcomes. The Kruskal-Wallis test finds several significant results. For example, “failure to pay the agreed amount due” differs by respondents’ role (PC01) and firm experience (PC04), with p-values of 0.007 and 0.012, respectively. Additionally, “delayed drawings or instructions” significantly affect the firm’s number of projects (PC05) and employees (PC06), with p-values of 0.009 and 0.032. These findings suggest that financial issues and communication delays can significantly affect project performance, highlighting managerial improvement opportunities. The agreement analysis in Appendix D uses the Kruskal-Wallis test to identify significant causes of project issues. “Inadequate design” and “inadequate brief,” with p-values of 0.008 and 0.007, respectively, significantly affect employee numbers (PC06). With a 0.000 p-value, “unclear and inadequate specifications” are significant for the firm’s experience (PC04).
The significance analysis in Appendix E shows how causes affect project outcomes. With p-values of 0.012 and 0.001, “inadequate/inaccurate design” and “inappropriate contract type” affect the firm’s number of projects (PC05) and employees (PC06). With a p-value of 0.002, “inadequate contract administration” negatively impacts project outcomes, particularly employee numbers (PC06). These findings emphasize the importance of accurate design information and contract management for project success and problem mitigation. The Kruskal-Wallis test in Appendix F shows factors related to project issue avoidability. With a p-value of 0.032, “inadequate design” affects the firm’s experience (PC04), suggesting that better design processes could prevent related issues. “Inappropriate contact form” significantly affects respondents (PC01) and personal experience (PC03), with p-values of 0.011 and 0.223.
Appendix G examines variation/claim frequency and cause relationships using Spearman’s correlation. Strong correlations exist between “changes by the client” and “delayed drawings or instructions” (r =.397, p < 0.001) and “inappropriate contractor selection” and “delayed payments” (r =.411, p < 0.001). The interconnectedness of project variations and their causes suggests that addressing root causes could reduce related claims. Appendix H uses Spearman’s correlation to examine variations/claims and their causes. Significant correlations link “changes by the client” to “loss or damage to the works caused by employer’s risks” (r =.447, p < 0.001) and “inappropriate contractor selection” to “client breach of contract” (r =.417, p < 0.001). These findings demonstrate the importance of strategic risk management because specific causes can significantly affect project outcomes. Appendix I examines project issue avoidability and variation/claim correlations. Significant correlations include “inappropriate payment method” and “acceleration of works” (r =.334, p = 0.003) and “inadequate site investigation” and “ambiguous documents” (r =.250, p = 0.029). These correlations suggest better payment methods and site investigations could prevent related project issues. Appendix J compares impactful variations/claims to avoidability causes. Significant correlations exist between “inappropriate contractor selection” and “client’s breach of contract” (r =.307, p = 0.007) and “inadequate contract documentation” and “loss or damage to the works caused by employer’s risks” (r =.310, p).
In conclusion, Kruskal-Wallis’s test and Spearman’s correlation analysis across appendices reveal how respondent roles, personal and organizational experience, and project causes affect project variation and claim frequency, impact, agreement, and avoidability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim; Data curation, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Tantawy and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Formal analysis, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Funding acquisition, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Ruqaya Al-Sabah and Salah Omar Said; Investigation, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Salem, Mohamed Tantawy and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Methodology, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim; Project administration, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim; Resources, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim; Software, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Tantawy and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Supervision, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim; Validation, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Salem, Ruqaya Al-Sabah, Salah Omar Said, Mohamed Tantawy and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Visualization, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Salem, Ruqaya Al-Sabah, Salah Omar Said, Mohamed Tantawy and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Writing – original draft, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim and Mohamed Ezz Al Regal; Writing – review & editing, Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim, Mohamed Salem, Ruqaya Al-Sabah, Salah Omar Said and Mohamed Tantawy. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

There is no available funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Guidelines & Techniques to Control Significant and Avoidable Causes of Claims and Variations

# Avoidable Causes of Variations and Claims Recommended Mitigation/ Response Strategy
1 Changes by Client (C21)
  • Ensure that the Project brief is comprehensive & Clear / Ensure agreement on the project brief
  • Ensure the early discussion with other authorities to anticipate their requirements
  • Spend adequate time in project planning
  • Ensure & Approve the full Development & Coordination of the design
  • Identify allocated risks & adopt suitable criteria like value for money to evaluate & manage risk
  • Adopt change control procedures & try to minimize changes as possible.
2 Inappropriate Contractor Selection (C10)
  • Selection of the contractor should be based on a set of multiple decision criteria; both price and non-price related.
  • Consider financial ability, past performance, experiences and key personnel availability.
  • Consider contractor’s current workload, past experience in terms of size of completed projects, management resources in terms of formal training regime, past performance.
  • Consider technical ability, management capability, and health and safety performance.
  • Consider Contractor’s reputation including claims & Disputes.
3 Contract Type/
Strategy - C05
  • (Feasibility) Link strategic business goals to initial project goals and justify facility.
  • (Concept) Translate the business objectives to initial scope of work and select alternatives (project delivery, contracting).
  • (Detailed Scope) Design decisions and delivery & contracting strategy.
  • (Design) Full determined project delivery & contracting strategy and control plans.
  • (Construction) Explain construction methodology, operations, contracting strategy and procedures.
  • (Commissioning, start-up & operate) Finalize commissioning, start-up and update operations contracts and handover of operations.
  • Consider attributes of optimal contracts:
  • Align (owner and contractor) objectives
  • Value for money contractor
  • Quality (valued or truthful) Information/ Trust and Relationship management Long term commitment and renegotiation/
  • Optimal risks sharing.
  • Optimal wage scheduling/ optimal incentive contracting.
4 Inappropriate/
Unexpected Time Control (Target)-(C15)
  • Establish Schedule Control Procedures/System
  • Establish a Time Border : by fixing the overall project duration either by specific constraints or by contract strategy to use it as a key parameter
  • Assure Time Auditing System : Monitor actual time spent on each activity against planned time
  • In case of any exceeds of time allowance:
  • Allow the re-sequencing of later activities
  • Allow the shortening of time by increasing the resource (Crashing will result in extra cost)
  • Allow the program for the time impacts of identified risks occurring
  • Assess & Revise Contractor’s Program of Work
5 Inappropriate/
Unexpected Cost Control (Target)- C16
  • Run efficient planning of strategies and management of site and supervision of the project.
  • Keep organized regulatory mechanism; and using proper methods for construction, the organizational strategies include:
  • Appropriate prominence on previous experience;
  • Regular coordination between the associated parties;
  • Increasing human resources in the industry; and
  • Conduct administration of contracts
  • Regular meetings on development,
  • Employ proficient subcontractors and suppliers, attributing less weight to prices, and more weight to abilities and earlier performance of contractors to improve the contracts and their reactive and organizational strategies/ procedures.
  • Use channels for perfect information and communication.
  • Utilization of latest technology is a proactive and reactive strategy.
  • Undertake a preconstruction planning regarding the procedures and resources of project.
6 Lack of Information for Decision-Making;
Decisiveness-(C19)
  • Define and clarify the issue - does it warrant action? If so, now? Is the matter urgent, important or both?
  • Gather all the facts and understand their causes.
  • Think about or brainstorm possible options and solutions.
  • Consider and compare the ‘advantages and disadvantages ‘ of each option - consult others if necessary or useful - and for bigger complex decisions where there are several options, create a template which enables measurements according to different strategic factors.
  • Select the best option - avoid vagueness and weak compromises in trying to please everyone.
  • Explain your decision to those involved and affected, and follow up to ensure proper and effective implementation.
7 Inappropriate
/Unexpected Quality Control (Target)-(C17)
  • Improve interactions and processes between the Project knowledge areas
  • Ensure project objectives are met
  • Reduce expenses due to avoidance of mistakes
  • Less rework is necessary which leads to save time
  • Result in better working conditions and wellbeing of the workforce
  • Improve communication between team members through well-defined processes
  • Lead to good quality of products as it becomes a company minimal requirement
8 Slow Client Response- (C20)
  • Develop Project Monitoring Mechanism
  • Establish regular Meetings.
  • Seek assistance to obtain information from others and experts to expedite the response.
9 Inadequate/
Inaccurate Design Information- (C01)
  • Planning: Describe who does what, when, at what cost & with what specification?
  • Final Design Kick-Off Meeting to review: Project requirements; Project Schedule; All Project significant Decisions & Assure that all parties clearly understand issues indicated by the approved Preliminary Design
  • Assure Completeness of All Drawings & fully define the work as required.
  • Assure Coordination of All Drawings with the specifications required.
  • Incorporate all Adjustments as per the approved design drawings.
  • All Drawings should be Drafted Clearly.
  • Include all Composite Drawings for clarifications.
  • Assure inclusion of Borings & other subsurface / Geotechnical information in the drawings.
  • Use Graphic & Alphanumeric Scales to avoid confusion on reduced prints & appropriate drafting scale and include symbols, legends and abbreviations.
  • Assure Preparation of Final Specifications including: Format of Specifications, Coordination of Specifications, Revision of final submission and commissioning specifications for HVAC, Plumbing & electrical system …
  • Insure Conformity of final Design Drawings & Specification with requirements in terms of: Drawing Format, Conformity with comments, Stamps, Signatures, Approvals of Regulatory Agency & clarity & Completeness of Specifications.
  • Insure the production & Review of Final Cost Estimate.
  • Develop, review & follow Final Design Procedures such as: submittal & Reviews; Utility & Regulatory Agency Approval; Resolution of Questions.
  • Prepare the Bid Form, General Condition & Special condition of contract, and include any contractor special experience requirements.
  • Conduct A Constructability Review to facilitate production of contract documents including technical Specification that are clear, coordinated and complete
  • Conduct a Design Review to plans, specifications, bid booklet &Addendums
10 Inappropriate Contract Form- (C06)
  • The contract should describe the following:
  • What will be done/ How long it will take to complete/ How much it will cost and the payment terms;
  • What will be done if either party defaults;
  • The extent to which the common law, which would usually apply, is adhered to.
  • Determine the construction contract parties:
  • Employer: Requires the construction work and provides payment
  • Employer’s Representative: Acts on behalf of the employer and may be referred to as engineer, project manager, principal agent, etc.
  • Contractor: Commissioned to construct the works
  • Subcontractor: Appointed by the contractor to perform a part of the construction works under a subcontract
  • Adjudicator/ Arbitrator/ Court: Settles disputes between the parties
  • Decide contract form:
  • Bespoke contract/ Standard form contracts
  • identify way of contracting:
  • Main contractor/ Joint venture partner/ Subcontractor
  • Decide Construction contract arrangement:
  • Pure construction contract/ Design-build/ Engineer, procure and construct
  • Define contract party’s rights:
  • Timeous payments/ Extensions of time/ Access to site/ Upon termination of the contract/ Appointment of subcontractors
  • Draw contract party’s responsibilities:
  • Completing works/ Guarantees / Insurances/ Administrative procedures/ compliance with all applicable laws
  • Response to communications/ Substantiation of claims/ Subcontracts
  • Balance contract party’s risks:
  • Errors in calculations/ Poor management/ Delays/ Penalties/ Insolvency of employer
11 Inappropriate Payment Method- (C13)
  • Define the stakeholders & supply chain
  • Identify project program
  • Define the project process mapping, Responsibility Assignment Matrix.
  • Define the products, services, management, design, engineering and prefab & assembly needed to a project.
  • Approve a common framework for managing and controlling project in order to meet the client’s business needs.
  • Refine and improve continually such processes (framework for managing and controlling).
  • Detail all the required actions that must be taken under the common framework of a process map.
  • Analyze such a detailed process map to simulate the payment requirements within design and construction stages in order to analyze the effect of using alternative payment mechanisms on the cash flow of the stakeholders and supply chain members.
  • Note that the concept of the stakeholders & supply chain is emerging as a significant performance enabler for construction industry.
  • After payment mechanism was defined, start plan your cash flow lifecycle,
  • Compare your payment mechanism with preferable forms of payment:
  • reimbursable cost-plus a percentage-fee/ reimbursable cost-plus a fixed-fee/ target cost (shared over-run and/or under run)/ unit-rate (including re-measure)/guaranteed maximum price/ lump-sum services and materials with reimbursable construction/ Lump-sum (i.e., wholly lump-sum)/ open-book accounting/ stage payments/ incentive contracting/ direct payment/ trust accounts/funds/ mobilization advance payment
12 Inadequate Site Investigations- (C24)
  • Define building Design Concept/ Set Terms of Reference
  • Describe Preliminary Site Characterization
  • Test Holes and Sampling/ Test Hole Number and Depth/ Test Hole Stratigraphic Description and Sampling
  • Laboratory Testing/ Soil Classifications/ Take Photographs/ Ground Temperature Measurement
  • Determine Report including:
  • Restate project definition;
  • Characterize the site so that surrounding conditions that may impact on the design and performance of the building foundation are understood and designed for;
  • State the present and the projected end of the building service life, climate and ground temperatures;
  • Classify the soil strata according to recognized ASTM Standards, based on quantitative laboratory results;
  • Identify foundation options appropriate for the proposed service life of the building; and
  • Provide guidance for the construction scheduling of the foundation for the building/ Peer Review.
13 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications- (C04)
  • Be aware of Different Type of Specifications including; Output Based, Performance or Prescriptive
  • Developing the Project Specifications According to; Scope of Users Requirement; Quality & Performance Characteristics; Technical Characteristics.
  • Apply Value Management
  • Proper Structuring of the Project Specifications
  • Assess the Whole Life Cost Implications of Specifications
  • Obtain Final Approval of the Specifications
  • Proper Coordination with other contract documents.
14 Inadequate Design Documentation- (C02)
  • Establishment of well-defined client brief comprising key drivers and parameters such as: budgets, functions, quality, sustainability, urban issues and commercial returns.
  • Better articulation of requirements by the client equates to better consultant response.
  • Client brief to include any requirements for document checking and coordination.
  • Client may require additional advice in brief preparation, budgeting and programming and engage specialists’ expertise, as in the case of highly complex projects. This may include engagement of facilities planners and/or independent cost advisors that may not necessarily be part of the project team.
  • Clearly articulate client expectations of the consultant in the request for proposal and state criteria for selection.
  • Clearly articulate the conditions of contract and obligations on the consultant i.e., quality control, assurances.
  • Consultant Selection based on technical abilities and past experiences in addition to financial offers.
  • Clients may insist on demonstrable quality control consultants. Consultant Obligations and Functions
  • Consultants to articulate the project methodologies including design approaches and quality controls in response to invitations to submit proposals.
  • Primary consultants should select any secondary consultants on a value for money basis and submit with their proposals the rationale for selection of their consultant team.
  • Team Formation and Project Integration
  • At the commencement of the project, client and project team should ensure that roles, responsibilities and obligations of all parties are clearly understood.
  • Establish and agree a design and documentation review process including review points and agree milestones for client and project team sign-off.
  • Develop a quality plan including procedures for communication, document control and coordination.
  • Client may create obligations on consultants to report on risk and options for managing risk.
  • Obtain approvals and sign off progressively throughout the project.
  • Encourage project teams and clients to utilize tools to assist e.g., value management.
  • Encourage establishment of integrated teams and articulate procedures for problem resolution.
  • Encourage design and documentation teams to bring construction expertise to the team to provide greater confidence e.g., early use of contractors on build-ability decisions.
  • Quality Management Incorporating Project Implementation, Design and Documentation.
  • Actively consider total cost of project (over the life cycle) as part of the design and documentation process.
  • Develop a range of Quality Management Tools including checklists, review procedures and audit processes.
  • The client and project team to consider the role of independent reviewer or value management.
  • Consultants to provide advice on the quality of documentation that could be reasonably expected from the agreed resources allocated and timelines established for the period.
  • Consultants to warrant that they have undertaken the design and documentation consistent with the quality plan.
  • Use of technology by consultants to assist in documentation control and coordination.
  • Project team to agree upon and nominate an experienced person responsible for documentation coordination.
  • Obtain approvals and segmental sign off.
  • Advise the client on the adequacy of the brief and the risks associated with any inadequate allowance for proper documentation in both budgets and programs.
  • Coordinate secondary consultants, obtain their sign-off on completeness of their documentation, and provide overall sign-off to the client that project documentation is comprehensive.
  • Ensure version control of documents to secondary consultants.
  • Create design and documentation coordination roles within project team.
15 Inadequate Contract Documentation-
(C08)
  • Clearly Define Contract Documentations
  • Assure that the Contract conveys a clear Understanding of the Scope of the Project
  • Carefully Define the Responsibilities, Authorities, Roles & line of Communications of the contract parties
  • Develop & Monitor progress according to preset monitoring
  • Assure adequacy & accuracy of Design Information
  • Assure adequacy & accuracy& Consistency of Tender Information
  • Conduct Constructability Review
  • Review Contract Documentation for consistency & clear ambiguities before tendering
  • Correct ambiguities & Inconsistencies when discovered during tender stage by issuing addenda
  • Use Clear words when defining terms especially the terms “Works” & “Approved
  • Carefully draft the definitions section of the contract
  • Assure Completion of all final contract Documentation.
16 Inadequate Contract Administration-(C07)
  • Project Management Discipline: All work to be performed should be appropriately led, planned, scheduled, coordinated, communicated, tracked, evaluated, reported and corrected, as necessary.
  • Contract Analysis and Planning: Before contract award, each party should develop a contract administration plan and assign the responsibility of administering the contract to a contract manager.
  • Kick-off Meeting or Pre-performance Conference: Before performance begins.
  • Performance Measuring and Reporting: During contract performance; the project manager, contract manager, and responsible business managers all must observe performance, collect information, and measure actual progress.
  • Payment Process: Every contract must establish a clear invoicing and payment process.
  • Contract Change Management Process: As a rule, any party that can make a contract can agree to change it. Changes are usually inevitable in contracts for complex undertakings.
  • Dispute Resolution Process.
  • Contract Closeout Process: Contract closeout refers to verification that all administrative matters are concluded on a contract that is otherwise physically complete.
17 Incomplete Tender Information-
(C09)
  • Perform careful review/audit of all tender documents prior to tendering to avoid ambiguities & discrepancies
  • Assure Clarity, consistency & completeness
  • Adequate information for Solicitation such as: Project brief; place of collecting & reviewing bids; bid security requirements; bid due date, time & location
  • Ensure adequate Instructions’ information to bidders such as: Type of bid; Preparation of the bid; bid bonds & Security; Permits; bid’s opening
  • Arrange a Pre-tender site visit for potential bidders
  • Ensure adequate bid Response forms’ information such as: Project Identification; To whom the bid is directed; Person submitting the bid; validity of the bid Acknowledgments; Pricing; Start & completion date
  • Provide Specifications; Drawings; Contract forms; General & Specific Conditions & Bill of Quantities
  • Identify the award Criteria and the essential requirements of a complete bid
  • Clarify areas of concerns within the tender document
  • Send all clarified questions and answer, to all bidders
  • Avoid all unofficial communication with bidders
  • All communication should be in writing.
  • Make a written notice of award after the evaluation
  • Keep accurate records of the tender process in case.

Appendix B. Kruskal Wallis test and p-value (Types of variations and claims – in terms of Frequency)

Code Type Role of the Respondents (PC01) Managerial Level (PC02) Personal Experience (PC03) Organization/ Firm’s
Experience (Years)
(PC04) 		Organization/ Firm’s Annual Number of Projects (PC05) Organization/ Firm’s Number of Employees (PC06)
Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value) Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value) Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value) Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value) Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value) Kruskal-
Wallis H 		(P-Value)
T12 A failure to rectify defects 3.757 0.153 0.880 0.644 10.716 0.030 .0.27 0.866 1.495 0.828 1.233 0.873
T14 Contractor’s failure to insure 0.389 0.823 1.935 0.380 4.351 0.361 12.058 0.017 6.596 0.159 2.853 0.583
T16 Delayed drawings or instructions 0.741 0.690 2.696 0.260 1.402 0.844 13.614 0.009 6.451 0.168 1.103 0.894
T36 Termination initiated by the contractor 5.676 0.059 2.776 0.250 3.372 0.498 10.077 0.039 2.345 0.673 15.413 0.004
T39 Loss or damage to the works caused Employer’s Risks 1.232 0.540 0.949 0.622 6.340 0.175 7.578 0.108 14.220 0.007 6.147 0.188

Appendix C. Kruskal Wallis test and p-value (Types of variations and claims – in terms of Impact)

Code Type Role of the Respondents (PC01) Managerial Level (PC02) Personal Experience (PC03) Firm’s Experiencein business) (PC04) Firm’s Annual Number of Projects (PC05) Firm’s Number of Employees (PC06)
Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value)
T02 Failure to pay agreed amount due. 9.810 0.007 0.853 0.653 5.711 0.222 12.868 0.012 1.668 0.797 0.941 0.919
T11 Failed tests on completions 12.143 0.002 0.980 0.613 1.286 0.864 11.567 0.021 4.106 0.392 1.291 0.863
T16 Delayed drawings or instructions 4.236 0.120 1.286 0.526 6.177 0.186 5.823 0.213 13.615 0.009 10.538 0.032
T21 Fossils, archaeological or geological 6.722 0.035 0.806 0.668 0.793 0.939 7.127 0.129 1.836 0.766 4.559 0.336
T22 Additional tests by the engineer 4.437 0.109 6.532 0.038 4.671 0.323 1.841 0.765 3.470 0.482 1.201 0.878
T25 Shortage of personnel or goods 4.334 0.115 6.174 0.046 6.841 0.145 2.121 0.713 2.726 0.605 1.870 0.760
T26 Employer’s delay or impediment 2.120 0.346 4.185 0.123 0.414 0.981 1.632 0.803 2.038 0.729 10.035 0.040
T27 Delays caused by authorities 6.376 0.041 1.003 0.606 1.882 0.757 4.640 0.326 11.746 0.019 5.343 0.254
T29 Employer using works partially 0.105 0.949 7.149 0.028 3.864 0.425 4.435 0.350 5.405 0.248 2.994 0.559
T32 Adopt value engineering proposal 2.326 0.312 7.327 0.026 0.248 0.993 2.123 0.713 3.247 0.517 0.491 0.974
T38 Ambiguity in Documents 6.357 0.042 0.663 0.718 2.917 0.572 1.028 0.906 0.964 0.915 4.404 0.354
T39 Loss or damage to the works caused Employer’s Risks 3.103 0.212 2.344 0.310 5.551 0.235 3.117 0.538 12.596 0.013 9.185 0.057
T43 Refusal of contractor objection to nomination 6.020 0.049 2.210 0.331 6.101 0.192 3.929 0.416 2.498 0.645 1.374 0.849
T45 Acceleration of Works 6.446 0.040 1.929 0.381 7.492 0.112 4.239 0.375 3.131 0.536 2.153 0.708
T47 Client’s Breach of Contract 4.435 0.109 0.294 0.863 1.745 0.783 5.417 0.247 8.780 0.067 10.051 0.040
T49 Currency Fluctuation 10.413 0.005 2.801 0.246 9.776 0.044 6.154 0.188 2.455 0.653 3.481 0.481

Appendix D. Kruskal Wallis test and p-value (Types of variations and claims – in terms of agreement)

Code Cause Role of the Respondents (PC01) Managerial Level (PC02) Personal Experience (PC03) Organization/ Firm’s Experience (PC04) Organization/ Firm’s Annual Number of Projects (PC05) Organization/ Firm’s Number of Employees (PC06)
Kruskal-Wallis H .(P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H .(P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H .(P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H .(P-Value)
C02 Inadequate Design. 1.221 0.543 2.181 0.336 5.071 0.280 4.855 0.303 6.433 0.169 13.818 0.008
C03 Inadequate Brief 0.997 0.608 0.045 0.978 4.924 0.295 9.823 0.044 12.967 0.011 14.055 0.007
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specs. 4.941 0.085 1.826 0.401 2.462 0.651 21.749 0.000 5.655 0.226 5.367 0.252
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type 2.773 0.250 1.178 0.555 7.109 0.130 7.520 0.111 16.349 0.003 4.917 0.296
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 2.015 0.365 2.237 0.327 6.817 0.146 20.442 0.000 17.144 0.002 14.043 0.007
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration 5.267 0.072 1.334 0.513 2.020 0.732 14.674 0.005 4.553 0.336 0.854 0.931
C08 Inadequate Contract Documents 2.433 0.296 2.508 0.285 8.510 0.075 18.180 0.001 8.729 0.068 9.314 0.054
C09 Incomplete Tender Information 1.577 0.455 0.046 0.977 5.389 0.250 6.898 0.141 11.187 0.025 11.288 0.024
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 2.707 0.258 3.805 0.149 10.949 0.027 15.995 0.003 7.654 0.105 6.037 0.196
C11 Unrealistic Tender Pricing 2.557 0.278 3.768 0.152 13.541 0.009 13.012 0.011 12.290 0.015 11.334 0.023
C12 Unrealistic Client Expectations 3.224 0.199 2.811 0.245 14.404 0.006 14.668 0.005 15.187 0.004 7.866 0.097
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method 4.218 0.121 1.526 0.466 6.919 0.140 10.975 0.027 9.080 0.059 16.076 0.003
C14 Inappropriate Document Control 2.581 0.275 1.700 0.427 11.051 0.026 15.091 0.005 7.038 0.134 16.094 0.003
C16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target) 2.024 0.364 1.731 0.421 7.469 0.113 5.733 0.220 5.949 0.203 13.823 0.008
C17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Quality Control (Target) 4.758 0.093 0.106 0.948 8.535 0.074 11.844 0.019 9.188 0.057 19.021 0.001
C18 Poor Communications 3.506 0.173 0.358 0.836 6.813 0.146 4.159 0.385 2.665 0.615 13.069 0.011
C19 Lack of (Decisiveness) 1.221 0.543 0.804 0.669 11.500 0.021 7.138 0.129 7.686 0.104 10.905 0.028
C20 Slow Client Response 3.472 0.176 4.648 0.098 11.252 0.024 11.589 0.021 8.602 0.072 13.742 0.008
C21 Changes by Client 3.959 0.138 1.537 0.464 6.285 0.179 9.489 0.050 5.426 0.246 4.777 0.311
C24 Inadequate Site Investigations 0.464 0.793 0.011 0.995 6.324 0.176 9.965 0.041 7.853 0.097 23.056 0.000
C25 Unrealistic Expectations ( By the Contractor) 2.574 0.276 0.726 0.696 6.848 0.144 10.994 0.027 11.313 0.023 19.155 0.001
C27 Personality Clashes of Participants 2.463 0.292 0.866 0.648 5.909 0.206 9.581 0.048 9.259 0.055 25.707 0.000
C28 Poor Management By Participants 0.738 0.692 0.047 0.977 8.442 0.077 10.064 0.039 5.525 0.238 13.343 0.010
C29 Adversarial Cultural Affairs 2.141 0.343 0.640 0.726 6.980 0.137 13.252 0.010 9.925 0.042 19.660 0.001
C30 Uncontrollable External Events 1.213 0.545 0.857 0.651 11.095 0.026 7.143 0.129 3.248 0.517 10.913 0.028
C31 Exaggerated Claims 7.108 0.029 1.228 0.541 7.047 0.133 7.527 0.111 7.732 0.102 4.664 0.324

Appendix E. Kruskal Wallis test and p-value (Types of variations and claims – in terms of significance)

Code Cause Role of the Respondents (PC01) Managerial Level (PC02) Personal Experience (PC03) Organization/ Firm’s Experience (Firm’s Number of Years) (PC04) Organization/ Firm’s Annual Number of Projects (PC05) Organization/ Firm’s Number of Employees (PC06)
Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value Kruskal-Wallis H P-Value
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design 8.92 0.012 0.372 0.830 2.069 0.723 4.038 0.401 12.699 0.013 8.493 0.075
C03 Inadequate Brief 9.09 0.01 1.894 0.388 7.387 0.117 7.114 0.130 3.263 0.515 6.746 0.150
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications 5.04 0.080 2.802 0.246 11.111 0.025 12.551 0.014 6.064 0.194 7.515 0.111
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type 6.95 0.031 0.702 0.704 7.852 0.097 7.395 0.116 12.882 0.012 18.944 0.001
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 3.002 0.223 2.110 0.348 5.036 0.284 3.565 0.468 9.563 0.048 11.976 0.018
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration 8.91 0.012 0.579 0.749 3.059 0.548 4.436 0.350 7.796 0.099 17.400 0.002
C08 Inadequate Contract Docs. 1.83 0.400 2.267 0.322 4.009 0.405 4.619 0.329 4.800 0.308 12.948 0.012
C09 Incomplete Tender Information 6.14 0.046 2.411 0.300 6.970 0.138 7.981 0.092 3.713 0.446 4.670 0.323
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 2.00 0.367 2.025 0.363 10.113 0.039 8.103 0.088 13.516 0.009 16.415 0.003
C11 Unrealistic Tender Pricing 6.71 0.035 0.233 0.890 8.069 0.089 11.710 0.020 2.540 0.637 8.474 0.076
C12 Unrealistic Client Expectations 9.49 0.009 1.183 0.554 1.880 0.758 5.153 0.272 5.957 0.202 9.015 0.061
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method 4.63 0.099 0.846 0.655 3.483 0.480 2.253 0.689 7.175 0.127 12.042 0.017
C14 Inappropriate Document Control 1.72 0.421 0.108 0.947 4.141 0.387 1.238 0.872 5.515 0.238 4.552 0.336
C15 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control (Target) 7.34 0.025 0.011 0.995 7.869 0.096 7.247 0.123 14.352 0.006 21.28 0.000
C16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target) 4.14 0.126 1.456 0.483 5.846 0.211 5.821 0.213 10.956 0.027 13.44 0.009
C17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Quality Control (Target) 4.85 0.088 2.925 0.232 5.286 0.259 7.227 0.124 7.661 0.105 21.705 0.000
C18 Poor Communications 6.59 0.037 1.379 0.502 3.132 0.536 10.064 0.039 3.327 0.505 2.739 0.602
C19 Lack of Decisiveness 4.63 0.099 2.345 0.310 3.896 0.420 4.594 0.332 8.482 0.075 15.25 0.004
C20 Slow Client Response 10.96 0.004 0.819 0.664 9.864 0.043 4.353 0.360 16.149 0.003 6.914 0.140
C21 Changes by Client 4.271 0.118 1.245 0.536 6.882 0.142 7.331 0.119 13.584 0.009 15.214 0.004
C23 Poor Workmanship 7.948 0.019 0.668 0.716 3.692 0.449 7.843 0.098 4.764 0.312 1.142 0.888
C24 Inadequate Site Investigation 0.837 0.658 0.320 0.852 1.904 0.753 8.113 0.088 5.419 0.247 12.387 0.015
C28 Poor Management 6.953 0.031 0.240 0.887 8.590 0.072 3.515 0.476 2.022 0.732 6.483 0.166
C29 Adversarial Cultural Affairs 15.06 0.001 0.075 0.963 4.051 0.399 7.528 0.110 10.968 0.027 10.025 0.040

Appendix F. Kruskal Wallis test and p-value (Types of variations and claims – in terms of avoid ability)

Code Cause Role of the Respondents (PC01) Managerial Level (PC02) Personal Experience (PC03) Organization/ Firm’s Experience (Firm’s Number of Years) (PC04) Organization/ Firm’s Annual Number of Projects (PC05) Organization/ Firm’s Number of Employees (PC06)
Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value) Kruskal-Wallis H (P-Value)
C02 Inadequate Design 0.336 0.845 0.989 0.610 3.995 0.407 10.590 0.032 9.109 0.058 2.490 0.646
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 9.055 0.011 5.086 0.079 5.691 0.223 11.693 0.020 6.923 0.140 6.264 0.180
C08 Inadequate Contract Documents 8.158 0.017 1.232 0.540 3.889 0.421 1.588 0.811 2.193 0.700 5.175 0.270
C09 Incomplete Tender Information 2.093 0.351 2.717 0.257 13.175 0.010 4.111 0.391 1.753 0.781 2.316 0.678
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 2.769 0.250 2.121 0.346 9.798 0.044 1.463 0.833 3.212 0.523 2.881 0.578
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method 1.031 0.597 0.153 0.927 5.576 0.233 10.797 0.029 7.427 0.115 13.673 0.008
C21 Changes by Client 6.743 0.034 4.693 0.096 1.210 0.876 1.191 0.880 2.101 0.717 5.204 0.267
C30 Uncontrollable External Events 0.378 0.828 1.468 0.480 10.300 0.036 2.847 0.584 2.727 0.604 3.585 0.465

Appendix G. Spearman coefficients and p-values between the most frequented: types of variations/claims and causes

TYPE (Frequency) T16 T23 T38 T45 T31 T34 T25 T07 T09 T10
CAUSE (SIGNIFICANCE) Correlation (Coefficients) Delayed drawings or instructions A variation or significant change to the quantities Ambiguity in Documents Acceleration of Works An omission of work forming Delayed payments Shortage of personnel or goods Rejection of defective plant and / or materials Revised methods of working due to slow progress Delay damages
C21 Changes by Client Correlation .397** .242* .280* .148 .366** .046 .033 .054 -.025 .114
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .035 .014 .202 .001 .694 .780 .644 .830 .325
C10 Significance Inappropriate Contractor Selection Correlation .346** .279* .236* .126 .411** .018 .070 -.002 -.005 .179
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .015 .041 .277 .000 .880 .546 .984 .969 .122
C05 Significance Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) Correlation .291* .328** .251* .102 .460** .034 -.038 .066 .049 .140
Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .004 .028 .382 .000 .768 .742 .574 .674 .227
C15 Significance Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control Correlation .229* .258* .146 .135 .320** .037 -.005 .140 .093 .187
Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .025 .209 .244 .005 .748 .968 .229 .423 .106
C16 Significance Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control Correlation .268* .306** .133 .220 .426** .157 .084 .200 .204 .240*
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .007 .253 .056 .000 .175 .472 .083 .078 .037
C19 Significance Lack of Decisiveness Correlation .320** .333** .179 .266* .426** .019 -.036 .125 .147 .119
Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .003 .123 .020 .000 .868 .760 .281 .206 .306
C17 Significance Inappropriate/ Unexpected QC (Target) Correlation .304** .250* .142 .077 .297** .021 -.085 .051 .039 .096
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .029 .223 .507 .009 .855 .463 .662 .736 .408
C20 Significance Slow Client Response Correlation .389** .321** .334** .099 .457** .211 .132 .142 -.016 .196
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .005 .003 .393 .000 .067 .256 .222 .890 .089
C01 Significance Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information Correlation .297** .192 .237* .062 .317** .177 .168 .236* .240* .207
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .096 .039 .595 .005 .127 .146 .040 .037 .073
C06 Significance Inappropriate Contract Form Correlation .263* .291* .265* .197 .440** .259* .004 -.015 -.025 .246*
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .011 .021 .088 .000 .024 .975 .897 .827 .032

Appendix H. Spearman coefficients and p-value between frequented: Types of variations/claims and causes.

TYPE (Impact) T39 T47 T16 T41 T27 T38 T33 T23 T26 T48
CAUSE (SIGNIFICANCE) Correlation (Coefficients) Loss or damage to the works caused Employer’s Risks Client’s Breach of Contract Delayed drawings or instructions Force Majeure Delays caused by authorities Ambiguity in Documents Changes in legislation A variation or change of quantities Employer’s delay or impediment Inflation / Price
Escalation
C21 Changes by Client Correlation .447** .424** .470** .389** .548** .468** .529** .252* .392** .136
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 0.000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .028 .000 .240
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection Correlation .559** .417** .385** .462** .595** .490** .432** .174 .479** .189
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .133 .000 .102
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type Correlation .501** .481** .433** .438** .560** .507** .542** .295** .457** .276*
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .010 .000 .016
C15 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control Correlation .461** .492** .487** .398** .581** .391** .410** .256* .383** .313**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .026 .001 .006
C16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control Correlation .438** .453** .453** .390** .539** .469** .519** .345** .357** .136
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .002 .243
C19 Lack of Information for (Decisiveness) Correlation .556** .561** .377** .309** .538** .448** .486** .207 .462** .336**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001 .007 .000 .000 .000 .073 .000 .003
C17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected QC Correlation .447** .413** .489** .412** .455** .457** .474** .287* .404** .098
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .012 .000 .402
C20 Slow Client Response Correlation .360** .398** .438** .331** .539** .503** .445** .280* .451** .162
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .004 .000 .000 .000 .014 .000 .162
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information Correlation .402** .473** .312** .420** .486** .355** .418** .273* .417** .224
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .002 .000 .017 .000 .052
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form Correlation .566** .414** .443** .304** .557** .585** .499** .182 .455** .115
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .116 .000 .324

Appendix I. Spearman coefficients and p-value between the most frequented: Types of variations/claims and causes

TYPE (Frequency) T16 T23 T38 T45 T31 T34 T25 T07 T09 T10
CAUSE AVOIDABILITY CORRELATION
(Coefficients) 		Delayed drawings or instructions A variation or significant change to the quantities Ambiguity in Documents Acceleration of Works An omission of work forming Delayed payment Shortage of personnel or goods Rejection of defective plant and / or materials Revised methods of working due to poor progress Delay damages
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection Correlation .066 .231* .283* .064 .100 -.075 -.034 .141 .127 .114
Sig. (2-tailed) .570 .045 .013 .584 .390 .521 .772 .225 .273 .325
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method Correlation .096 .084 .268* .334** .405** -.022 .208 .101 .133 .136
Sig. (2-tailed) .411 .473 .019 .003 .000 .852 .072 .385 .251 .243
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form Correlation .229* .318** .294** .142 .458** .083 -.010 .082 .173 .286*
Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .005 .010 .221 .000 .478 .933 .479 .135 .012
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type Correlation .333** .170 .168 .157 .264* .096 -.081 .046 .348** .192
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .142 .147 .175 .021 .412 .489 .695 .002 .097
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Correlation -.067 .020 .149 .162 .109 .077 .024 .198 .262* .173
Sig. (2-tailed) .566 .863 .198 .163 .348 .509 .834 .086 .022 .136
C24 Inadequate Site Investigation Correlation .055 .197 .250* .012 .162 -.080 -.076 .214 .259* .212
Sig. (2-tailed) .635 .088 .029 .920 .161 .494 .513 .064 .024 .066
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications Correlation -.041 .027 .068 .035 -.025 .012 -.067 .117 .235* .070
Sig. (2-tailed) .724 .814 .560 .765 .831 .915 .567 .313 .041 .546
C02 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information Correlation .148 .175 .290* .091 .181 .109 .032 .393** .361** .373**
Sig. (2-tailed) .202 .131 .011 .432 .117 .350 .782 .000 .001 .001
C08 Inadequate Contract Documentation Correlation .139 .162 .227* .276* .176 .170 .008 .211 .397** .335**
Sig. (2-tailed) .230 .163 .048 .016 .129 .141 .945 .068 .000 .003
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration Correlation .055 -.163 .148 -.062 .201 .010 .022 .169 .094 -.032
Sig. (2-tailed) .639 .158 .203 .597 .082 .930 .852 .145 .421 .782
C09 Incomplete Tender Information Correlation .101 .216 .051 .192 .180 .022 .056 .164 .329** .167
Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .060 .664 .096 .120 .851 .629 .156 .004 .150
** indicates the statistically highly positive correlation.

Appendix J. Spearman coefficient and p-value between the most impacted types of variations/claims and most avoid ability causes

CAUSE AVOIDABILITY TYPE (IMPACT) T39 T47 T16 T41 T27 T38 T33 T23 T26 T48
CORRELATION Loss of works caused Employer’s Risks Client’s Breach of Contract Delayed drawings or instructions Force Majeure Delays caused by authorities Ambiguity in Documents Changes in legislation A variation or significant change to the quantities Employer’s delay or impediment Inflation / Price Escalation
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection Correlation Coefficient .222 .307** .305** .244* .308** .185 .359** .227* .179 .294**
Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .007 .007 .034 .007 .109 .001 .048 .121 .010
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method Correlation Coefficient .143 .370** .206 .240* .271* .360** .226* .205 .190 .042
Sig. (2-tailed) .216 .001 .074 .037 .018 .001 .050 .076 .099 .717
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form Correlation Coefficient .301** .354** .330** .237* .510** .520** .434** .186 .459** .150
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .002 .004 .039 .000 .000 .000 .109 .000 .195
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) Correlation .251* .275* .295** .183 .388** .298** .352** .145 .258* .198
Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .016 .010 .113 .001 .009 .002 .212 .025 .087
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information Correlation .070 .295** .055 .066 .073 .176 .299** .132 .165 .088
Sig. (2-tailed) .548 .010 .635 .572 .533 .128 .009 .256 .153 .449
C24 Inadequate Site Investigation Correlation .164 .266* .222 .184 .302** .254* .306** .303** .248* .241*
Sig. (2-tailed) .156 .020 .054 .111 .008 .027 .007 .008 .030 .036
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications Correlation .043 .166 .006 -.008 .073 .064 .160 .210 .063 .104
Sig. (2-tailed) .712 .151 .957 .949 .531 .580 .169 .069 .590 .369
C02 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information Correlation .178 .183 .142 .325** .381** .229* .415** .145 .344** .116
Sig. (2-tailed) .125 .115 .221 .004 .001 .046 .000 .212 .002 .318
C08 Inadequate Contract Documentation Correlation .219 .310** .227* .191 .434** .278* .483** .193 .305** .342**
Sig. (2-tailed) .058 .006 .048 .099 .000 .015 .000 .094 .007 .003
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration Correlation .016 .190 .086 .048 .152 .127 .277* .071 .171 .183
Sig. (2-tailed) .893 .099 .458 .679 .190 .276 .015 .540 .140 .113
C09 Incomplete Tender Information Correlation .097 .095 .062 .176 .116 -.033 .164 .214 .135 .115
Sig. (2-tailed) .403 .414 .592 .128 .317 .779 .157 .063 .247 .322
** indicates the statistically highly positive correlation.

References

  1. Amin Sherif, Abdelalim, A.M., 2023, “Delay Analysis Techniques and Claim Assessment in Construction Projects,” International Journal of Engineering, Management, and Humanities (IJEMH), Vol.10, Issue.2, 316-325. [CrossRef]
  2. Kumaraswamy, M.M. Conflicts, Claims and Disputes in Construction Engineering. Constr. Archit. Manag. 1997, 4, 95–111.
  3. Abdelalim, A.M. Risks Affecting the Delivery of Construction Projects in Egypt: Identifying, Assessing and Response. In Project Management and BIM for Sustainable Modern Cities; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 125–154. [CrossRef]
  4. FIDIC. Conditions of Contract for Construction for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Employer. 1999; ISBN 2-88432-022-9.
  5. Abdelalim, A.M.; El Nawawy, O.A.; Bassiony, M.S. Decision Supporting System for Risk Assessment in Construction Projects: AHP-Simulation Based. IPASJ Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2016, 4, 22–36. [CrossRef]
  6. Khedr, R.; Abdelalim, A.M. Predictors for the Success and Survival of Construction Firms in Egypt. Int. J. Manag. Commer. Innov. 2021, 9, 192–201.
  7. Abdelalim, A.M.; Abo. Elsaud, Y. Integrating BIM-Based Simulation Technique for Sustainable Building Design. In Project Management and BIM for Sustainable Modern Cities; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 209–238. [CrossRef]
  8. Hassanen, M. A. H., & Abdelalim, A. M., 2022, A Proposed Approach for a Balanced Construction Contract for Mega Industrial Projects in Egypt, International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations ISSN 2348-7585, Vol.10, Issue.1, pp: 217-229. [CrossRef]
  9. Abdelalim, A.M.; Said, S.O.M. Dynamic Labour Tracking System in Construction Project Using BIM Technology. Int. J. Civ. Struct. Eng. Res. 2021, 9, 10–20.
  10. Van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOS-viewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538.
  11. Abdelalim, A.M.; Eldesouky, M.A. Evaluating Contracting Companies According to Quality Management System Requirements in Construction Projects. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Hum. 2021, 2, 158–169.
  12. Ostrovsky, R.; Rabani, Y.; Schulman, L.J.; Swamy, C. The Effectiveness of Lloyd-Type Methods for the K-Means Problem. J. ACM 2013, 59, 1–22.
  13. Pai, S.G.; Sanayei, M.; Smith, I.F. Model-Class Selection Using Clustering and Classification for Structural Identification and Prediction. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2021, 35, 04020051.
  14. Yuan, C.; Yang, H. Research on K-Value Selection Method of K-Means Clustering Algorithm. J. 2019, 2, 226–235.
  15. Yousri, E.; Sayed, A.E.B.; Farag, M.A.M.; Abdelalim, A.M. Risk Identification of Building Construction Projects in Egypt. Buildings 2023, 13, 1084. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13041084 (accessed on [Date of Access]).
  16. Sherif, A.; Abdelalim, A.M. Delay Analysis Techniques and Claim Assessment in Construction Projects. Jan. 2023. [CrossRef]
  17. Younis, R.E.A.; Abdelkhalek, H.; Abdelalim, A.M. Project Risk Management During Construction Stage According to International Contract (FIDIC). Feb. 2023. [CrossRef]
  18. Abdelalim, A.M.; Elbeltagi, E.; Mekky, A.A. Factors Affecting Productivity and Improvement in Building Construction Sites. Int. J. Prod. Qual. Manag. 2019, 27, 464–494. [CrossRef]
  19. Abdelalim, A.M.; Khalil, E.B.; Saif, A.A. The Effect of Using the Value Engineering Approach in Enhancing the Role of Consulting Firms in the Construction Industry in Egypt. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2021, 8, 16531–16539.
  20. Khedr, R.; Abdelalim, A.M. The Impact of Strategic Management on Project Performance of Construction Firms in Egypt. Int. J. Manag. Commer. Innov. 2021, 9, 202–211.
  21. Hassanen, M. A. H., & Abdelalim, A. M. (2022). Risk Identification and Assessment of Mega Industrial Projects in Egypt. International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovation (IJMCI), 10(1), 187-199. [CrossRef]
  22. Medhat, W., Abdelkhalek, H., & Abdelalim, A. M. (2023). A Comparative Study of the International Construction Contract (FIDIC Red Book 1999) and the Domestic Contract in Egypt (the Administrative Law 182 for 2018). [CrossRef]
  23. Abdelalim, A.M.; Sherif, A.; Abdelalkhaleq, H. Criteria of selecting appropriate Delay Analysis Methods (DAM) for mega construction projects. J. Eng. Manag. Competitiveness 2023, 13, 79–93. [CrossRef]
Preprints 112408 g001
Figure 1. Research Methodology.
Figure 1. Research Methodology.
Preprints 112408 g001
Preprints 112408 g002
Figure 2. Co-occurrence of the top keywords.
Figure 2. Co-occurrence of the top keywords.
Preprints 112408 g002
Preprints 112408 g003
Figure 3. Respondent’s Profile (Groups PC01, PC02, PC03).
Figure 3. Respondent’s Profile (Groups PC01, PC02, PC03).
Preprints 112408 g003
Preprints 112408 g004
Figure 4. Respondent’s Profile (Groups PC04, PC05, PC06).
Figure 4. Respondent’s Profile (Groups PC04, PC05, PC06).
Preprints 112408 g004
Preprints 112408 g005
Figure 5. Elbow plot for the distortion score for the number of clusters.
Figure 5. Elbow plot for the distortion score for the number of clusters.
Preprints 112408 g005
Table 1. Classification of Claims according to FIDIC 1999.
Table 1. Classification of Claims according to FIDIC 1999.
No. FIDIC Sub-Clause Claim Description Claim Party Sort of Claim (Additional)
Employer
(E) 		Contractor (C) Cost
(C) 		Profit (P) Time
(T)
1 4.2.a Failure to extend validity of the performance security E C
2 4.2.b Failure to pay agreed amount due. E C
3 4.14 Avoidance of Interference E C
4 4.16 Damages, losses and expenses resulting from Transport E C
5 4.19 Payment of electricity, water or gas E C
6 4.2 Employer’s equipment or free-issue materials E C
7 7.5 Rejection of defective plant and / or materials E C
8 7.6 Contractor’s failure to remedy defects E C
9 8.6 Revised methods of working due to poor rate of progress E C
10 8.7 Delay damages E C
11 9.4 Failed tests on completion E C
12 11.4 A failure to rectify defects E C
13 15.4 Termination by employer E C
14 18.1 Contractor’s failure to insure E C
15 18.2 Contractor’s inability to insure E C
16 1.9 Delayed drawings or instructions C C P T
17 2.1 Right of access to, or possession of the site C C P T
18 4.2 Delay of performance security payment after performance certificate issuing C C P T
19 4.7 Errors in setting out information C C P T
20 4.12 Unforeseen physical conditions C C T
21 4.24 Fossils, ancient artefacts, archaeological or geological items C C T
22 7.4 Additional tests instructed by the engineer C C P T
23 8.4.a A variation or significant change to the quantities C T
24 8.4.c Unusual bad weather C T
25 8.4.d Shortage of personnel or goods C T
26 8.4.e Employer’s delay or impediment C T
27 8.5 Delays caused by authorities C T
28 8.9 Suspension and/or resuming work after suspension C C T
29 10.2 The Employer using part of the works C C P
30 10.3 Prevention from undertaking tests on completion C C P T
31 12.4 An omission of works C C T
32 13.2 An adopted value engineering proposal C C P
33 13.7 Changes in legislation C C T
34 14.8 Delayed payment C C
35 16.1 Suspension initiated by the contractor C C P T
36 16.4 Termination initiated by the contractor C C P
37 17.1 Damage or injury caused by Employer’s personnel agents C C
38 17.4 Ambiguity in Documents C C P T
39 17.4 Loss or damage to the works caused by Employer’s Risks (poor design etc.) C C P T
40 18.1 Insurances supplied by the Employer’s C C
41 19.4 Force Majeure C C P T
42 19.6 Optional payment and release due to termination C C P
43 5.2 Refusal of contractor objection to nomination C C P T
44 11.8 An instruction to search for defect C C P T
45 8.3 Acceleration of Works C C P T
46 8.10 Payment for plant and material in event of suspension C C
47 16.2 Client’s Breach of Contract C C P
48 16.2 Inflation / Price Escalation C C P
49 16.2 Currency Fluctuation C C P
50 5.2 Default of Nominated Subcontractor or Suppliers C C P T
51 19.6 Rectification of Damage Due to Unexpected Risk C C P T
Table 2. Causes of Claims [9].
Table 2. Causes of Claims [9].
No. List of Causes No. List of Causes
01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information 16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target)
02 Inadequate Design Documentation 17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Quality Control (Target)
03 Inadequate Brief 18 Poor Communications Among Project Participants
04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications 19 Lack of Information for Decision Making; (Decisiveness)
05 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) 20 Slow Client Response
06 Inappropriate Contract Form 21 Changes by Client
07 Inadequate Contract Administration 22 Lack of Competence of Project Participants
08 Inadequate Contract Documentation 23 Poor Workmanship
09 Incomplete Tender Information 24 Inadequate Site Investigation
10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 25 Unrealistic Information Expectations (By Contractor)
11 Unrealistic Tender Pricing 26 Lack of Team Spirit Among Participants
12 Unrealistic Client Expectations 27 Personality Clashes Among Project Participants
13 Inappropriate Payment Method 28 Poor Management By One or More Project Participants
14 Inappropriate Document Control 29 Adversarial Culture Among project Participants
15 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control 30 Uncontrollable External Events
31 Exaggerated Claims
Table 3. Classification of claims.
Table 3. Classification of claims.
Code# Type Type Frequency Type Frequency Index
Very Low Low Average High Very High Mean RII Rank
T16 Delayed drawings or instructions 1 5 48 16 6 3.28 65.53 1
T23 A variation or significant change to the quantities 3 4 44 19 6 3.28 65.53 2
T38 Ambiguity in Documents 5 13 43 11 4 2.95 58.95 3
T45 Acceleration of Works 3 10 54 9 0 2.91 58.16 4
T31 An omission of work forming 3 18 48 7 0 2.78 55.53 5
T34 Delayed payment 2 25 43 4 2 2.72 54.47 6
T25 Shortage of personnel or goods 2 38 29 4 3 2.58 51.58 7
T07 Rejection of defective plant and / or materials 3 36 30 7 0 2.54 50.79 8
T09 Revised methods of working due to slow progress 3 38 28 6 1 2.53 50.53 9
T10 Delay damages 3 36 33 2 2 2.53 50.53 10
Table 4. Causes of Claims according to Respondents.
Table 4. Causes of Claims according to Respondents.
Code# Type Type Impact Type Impact Index
Very Low Low Average High Very High Mean RII Rank
T39 Loss or damage to the works caused Employer’s Risks (War, riots, munitions, poor design. 6 2 4 18 46 4.26 85.26 1
T47 Client’s Breach of Contract 4 5 2 21 44 4.26 85.26 2
T16 Delayed drawings or instructions 1 3 7 34 31 4.20 83.95 3
T41 Force Majeure 3 7 7 24 35 4.07 81.32 4
T27 Delays caused by authorities 2 4 3 46 21 4.05 81.05 5
T38 Ambiguity in Documents 1 4 7 42 22 4.05 81.05 6
T33 Changes in legislation 7 3 2 40 24 3.93 78.68 7
T23 A variation or change of the quantities 2 1 16 42 15 3.88 77.63 8
T26 Employer’s delay or impediment 4 1 23 41 7 3.61 72.11 9
T48 Inflation / Price Escalation 3 2 27 34 10 3.61 72.11 10
Table 5. Causes of Claims Assessment.
Table 5. Causes of Claims Assessment.
Code Cause Description Clients Consultants Contractors Overall
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information 100.00% 100.00% 93.80% 98.68%
C21 Changes by Client 100.00% 97.70% 87.50% 96.05%
C19 Lack of Information for Decision Making; (Decisiveness) 100.00% 93.00% 93.80% 94.74%
C23 Poor Workmanship 100.00% 90.70% 100.00% 94.74%
C30 Uncontrollable External Events 100.00% 93.00% 93.80% 94.74%
C02 Inadequate Design Documentation 94.10% 95.30% 87.50% 93.42%
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications 94.10% 97.70% 81.30% 93.42%
C16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target) 100.00% 93.00% 87.50% 93.42%
C09 Incomplete Tender Information 88.20% 95.30% 87.50% 92.11%
C15 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control (Target) 100.00% 93.00% 81.30% 92.11%
C22 Lack of Competence of Project Participants 94.10% 93.00% 81.30% 92.11%
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) 88.20% 95.30% 81.30% 90.79%
C08 Inadequate Contract Documentation 94.10% 93.00% 81.30% 90.79%
C18 Poor Communications Among Project Participants 100.00% 90.70% 81.30% 90.79%
C20 Slow Client Response 100.00% 90.70% 81.30% 90.79%
C31 Exaggerated Claims 100.00% 93.00% 75.00% 90.79%
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration 88.20% 95.30% 75.00% 89.47%
C11 Unrealistic Tender Pricing 100.00% 86.00% 87.50% 89.47%
C14 Inappropriate Document Control 100.00% 86.00% 87.50% 89.47%
C24 Inadequate Site Investigation 94.10% 88.40% 87.50% 89.47%
C03 Inadequate Brief 94.10% 88.40% 81.30% 88.16%
C12 Unrealistic Client Expectations 100.00% 86.00% 81.30% 88.16%
C17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Quality Control (Target) 100.00% 81.40% 93.80% 88.16%
C26 Lack of Team Spirit Among Participants 94.1% 90.70% 75.00% 88.16%
C28 Poor Management By One or More Project Participants 94.1% 86.00% 87.50% 88.16%
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 94.1% 88.40% 75.00% 86.84%
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 88.20% 88.40% 75.00% 85.53%
C25 Unrealistic Information Expectations ( By the Contractor) 94.10% 86.00% 75.00% 85.53%
C27 Personality Clashes Among Project Participants 94.10% 86.00% 75.00% 85.53%
C29 Adversarial (industry) Culture Among project Participants 94.10% 86.00% 75.00% 85.53%
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method 94.10% 86.00% 68.80% 84.21%
Table 6. Assessment of claims significance (Top 10).
Table 6. Assessment of claims significance (Top 10).
Code # Cause Description Cause Significance Cause Significance Index
Very Low Low Average High Very High Mean RII Rank
C15 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control (Target) 3 3 7 16 47 4.33 86.58 1
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 1 3 8 23 41 4.32 86.32 2
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type 4 3 8 12 49 4.30 86.05 3
C16 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target) 3 4 7 15 47 4.30 86.05 3
C21 Changes by Client 3 3 6 20 44 4.30 86.05 3
C19 Lack of (Decisiveness) 2 6 5 18 45 4.29 85.79 4
C20 Slow Client Response 2 5 5 28 36 4.20 83.95 5
C17 Inappropriate/ Unexpected QC 5 2 10 22 37 4.11 82.11 6
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design 2 3 7 38 26 4.09 81.84 7
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 5 4 6 25 36 4.09 81.84 7
Table 7. The Top Ten Avoidable Causes of Variations and Claims.
Table 7. The Top Ten Avoidable Causes of Variations and Claims.
Code # Cause Description Cause Avoid-ability Cause Avoid-ability Index
Very Low Low Average High Very High Mean RII Rank
C10 Inappropriate Contractor Selection 2 5 23 41 5 3.55 71.05 1
C13 Inappropriate Payment Method 4 3 20 47 2 3.53 70.53 2
C06 Inappropriate Contract Form 3 7 25 31 10 3.50 70.00 3
C05 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) 3 6 31 24 12 3.47 69.47 4
C01 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information 2 5 34 31 4 3.39 67.89 5
C24 Inadequate Site Investigation 1 5 39 26 5 3.38 67.63 6
C04 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications 1 7 40 25 3 3.29 65.79 7
C02 Inadequate Design Documentation 1 8 44 19 4 3.22 64.47 8
C08 Inadequate Contract Documentation 1 10 42 21 2 3.17 63.42 9
C07 Inadequate Contract Administration 4 4 51 15 2 3.09 61.84 10
C09 Incomplete Tender Information 1 8 53 11 3 3.09 61.84 10
Table 8. Respondents’ responses regarding the types of variations and claims and its significance.
Table 8. Respondents’ responses regarding the types of variations and claims and its significance.
Identity (Role of the Respondents) Frequency Percent Valid % Cumulative %
Client Not Sure 1 5.9 5.9 5.9
Yes 16 94.1 94.1 100.0
Total 17 100.0 100.0
Client Representative/Consultant No 3 7.0 7.0 7.0
Not Sure 2 4.7 4.7 11.6
Yes 38 88.4 88.4 100.0
Total 43 100.0 100.0
Contractor No 1 6.3 6.3 6.3
Yes 15 93.8 93.8 100.0
Total 16 100.0 100.0
Table 9. Respondents’ responses regarding the causes of variations and claims and its significance.
Table 9. Respondents’ responses regarding the causes of variations and claims and its significance.
Identity (Role of the Respondents) Frequency Percent Valid % Cumulative %
Client No 1 5.9 5.9 5.9
Not Sure 1 5.9 5.9 11.8
Yes 15 88.2 88.2 100.0
Total 17 100.0 100.0
Client Representative/Consultant No 1 2.3 2.3 2.3
Not Sure 1 2.3 2.3 4.7
Yes 41 95.3 95.3 100.0
Total 43 100.0 100.0
Contractor No 1 6.3 6.3 6.3
Yes 15 93.8 93.8 100.0
Total 16 100.0 100.0
Table 10. Will questions help managers predict the types and causes of variations and claims?
Table 10. Will questions help managers predict the types and causes of variations and claims?
Identity (Role of the Respondents) Frequency Valid % Cumulative %
Client No 1 5.9 5.9
Yes 16 94.1 100.0
Total 17 100.0
Client Representative/Consultant No 1 2.3 2.3
Not Sure 6 14.0 16.3
Yes 36 83.7 100.0
Total 43 100.0
Contractor Not Sure 1 6.3 6.3
Yes 15 93.8 100.0
Total 16 100.0
Table 11. Can questions help managers predict strategies for reducing variations and claims?
Table 11. Can questions help managers predict strategies for reducing variations and claims?
Identity (Role of the Respondents) Frequency Valid % Cumulative %
Client No 2 11.8 11.8
Not Sure 2 11.8 23.5
Yes 13 76.5 100.0
Total 17 100.0
Client Representative/Consultant No 1 2.3 2.3
Not Sure 8 18.6 20.9
Yes 34 79.1 100.0
Total 43 100.0
Contractor Not Sure 2 12.5 12.5
Yes 14 87.5 100.0
Total 16 100.0
Table 12. Causes of claims and variations assigned to K-means clusters.
Table 12. Causes of claims and variations assigned to K-means clusters.
Cluster Cause Count
0 T45, T40, T35, T25, T24 5
1 T1, T49, T44, T42, T41, T27, T50, T20, T18, T26, T51, T6, T5, T4, T3, T15, T14 17
2 T47, T48, T34, T2, T7, T39, T38, T37, T8, T46, T43, T33, T31, T17, T19, T13, T21, T22, T32, T12, T10, T9, T28, T29, T30, T11 26
3 T23, T36, T16 3
Table 13. Causes of Claims and Variations.
Table 13. Causes of Claims and Variations.
No. Significant Causes of Variations and Claims No. Avoidable Causes of Variations and Claims
01 Changes by Client (C21) 01 Inappropriate Contractor Selection (C10)
02 Inappropriate Contractor Selection (C10) 02 Inappropriate Payment Method (C13)
03 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) (C05) 03 Inappropriate Contract Form (C06)
04 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Time Control (Target) (C15) 04 Inappropriate Contract Type (Strategy) (C05)
05 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Cost Control (Target) (C16) 05 Inadequate/Inaccurate Design Information (C01)
06 Lack of Information for Decision Making; (Decisiveness) (C19) 06 Inadequate Site Investigation (C24)
07 Inappropriate/ Unexpected Quality Control (Target) (C17) 07 Unclear & Inadequate Specifications (C04)
08 Slow Client Response (C20) 08 Inadequate Design Documentation (C02)
09 Inadequate/ Inaccurate Design Information (C01) 09 Inadequate Contract Documentation (C08)
10 Inappropriate Contract Form (C06) 10 Inadequate Contract Administration (C07)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Variations &amp; Claims in International Construction Contracts (FIDIC) from Statistical Perspective in MENA Region for the Last Decade

Ahmed Mohammed Abdelalim

et al.

,

2024

Assessing the Delay, Cost and Quality Risks of Claims on Construction Contract Performance

Fani Antoniou

et al.

,

2023

An Investigation of BIM Advantages in Analyzing Claims Procedures Related to Extension of Time and Money in the KSA Construction Industry

Reda Abdelshafy Abougamil

et al.

,

2023

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated