Purpose: Projects in the construction industry have been confronted with an unprecedented volume of claims, which negatively impact the construction business environment. The purpose of this paper is to identify and assess the major causes of claims and disputes, from the perspectives of three key stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach: An online and paper-based questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 250 professionals. Responses from 86 construction professionals were obtained. The significance index was employed to rank the factors and hence assess their relative significance. Results were analyzed from both the individual stakeholder, and collective perspectives. Test of agreement was also conducted. Findings: The research found the following causes to be the most significant contributors to claims and disputes in Saudi Arabia: “change or variation orders due to new requirements from client” (78 percent), “variations in quantities due to new requirements from client” (74 percent), “delay caused by contractor” (74 percent), “design errors or omissions” (72 percent) and “inconsistencies in the drawings and specifications” (70 percent). Originality/value: The research provides an in-depth assessment of the causes of claims and disputes, in the setting of a fast growing industry, in which strong performance is essential to continued success. Unlike several of the reviewed studies which reported “delay caused by the owner” or “delayed in payment” as a major cause of claims and/or disputes, the findings of the current study indicated that this cause was not the most significant. Instead, it was determined that the top causes of claims and disputes were attributed to all parties, including consultants, contractors and clients.

Many construction projects exceed time and budget. The Saudi Arabian construction projects are not an exception to this phenomenon. However, the causes of time and cost overrun of Saudi Arabian oil and gas construction projects have never been studied. Thus, this paper endeavors to investigate the main causes of time and cost overrun in Saudi Arabian oil and gas construction projects. Thirty-eight causes of time and cost overrun were identified through the literature and an interview. Responses from 48 professionals based in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia were obtained. The respondents were solicited to evaluate the significance of the causes, which were then ranked and a test of agreement was conducted. All survey participants agreed that the five major causes of time and cost overrun, combined, were found to be “changing of design and scope by client during construction”, “poor planning and scheduling of project”, “design errors”, “Inadequate comprehension of scope of work at the bidding stage”, and “underestimating of cost and schedules/overestimating of benefits”. On the other hand, the major cause of time overrun was found to be “changing of design and scope by client during construction”. Finally, the major cause of cost overrun was found to be “underestimating of cost and schedules/overestimating of benefits”, respectively. The findings of this study will be beneficial to project stakeholders who must operate in an industry that is highly sensitive. The findings will also facilitate organizations planning to conduct construction projects in the Saudi Arabian oil and gas industry.

One of the critical decisions taken by contractors is whether or not to bid for a project. This is due to the complexity and uncertainty surrounding this decision, which is influenced by many factors. Given the above challenge, this study aimed to uncover the critical factors affecting the contractors’ bidding decisions in Saudi Arabia-based construction projects. A questionnaire survey, which consisted of 31 factors, was distributed to first-, second- and third-grade contractors. In total, 67 responses were obtained. Median and relative importance index (RII) techniques were adopted for ranking the most critical factors. Based on the received responses, the top six critical factors were “size of the job”, “type of the job”, “company’s strength in the industry”, “designer/design quality”, “rate of return”, and “project cash flow”. The least significant factors were “job start time” and “labor environment (union/nonunion/cooperative)”. The findings of this study show a level of agreement among all contractors about the critical factors. The findings would benefit contractors and subcontractors by increasing their understanding of the major factors affecting the bidding decision process. Contractors armed with such valuable information will be better able to enhance their bidding decision-making process in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.

Purpose: Design documents’ deficiencies (DDDs) are a major issue that plagues the construction industry in many countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the major causes of DDDs in a fast expanding economy, where errors can translate to an adverse impact on the economy. This paper aims to identify and assess the causes of DDDs for large construction projects from the consultants’ perspective.Design/methodology/approach: In total, 20 causes of DDDs were shortlisted through an extensive literature survey. In total, 37 consultants based in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia participated in the study. The respondents were requested to provide their opinion with respect to the relative importance of the identified causes. The result of their responses was then used to rank the causes.Findings: Based on their significance indices, the most significant causes of DDDs were “assigning design tasks to designers who lack work experience,” “team members’ communication skills,” “the level and quality of the design professional’s education,” “cross-disciplinary coordination,” “effective design team,” and “lack of knowledge transfer mechanism.”Practical implications: Recommendations were provided to mitigate the issues of DDDs. It is envisioned that through a better understanding of the major causes of DDDs, design firms will be better positioned to recognize DDDs’ causes and establish appropriate measures for reducing their occurrence. The findings of this paper are beneficial to all project stakeholders, including design firms, clients, contractors, and end users.Originality/value: This paper contributes to the literature by providing an assessment of the various causes of DDDs in the context of a rapidly expanding economy, where any inefficiency can lead to massive losses to the economy.

Properly prepared design documents are crucial to the success of construction projects. Poor design documents can have a range of adverse effects on various construction project stakeholders. This research explored the significance of various consequences of Design Documents’ Deficiencies (DDDs) on large construction projects. A comprehensive literature review, and questionnaire survey were conducted. Overall, 15 consequences were identified. Based on responses from 41 designers and 30 contractors, a significance index was assigned to each of the identified consequences of DDDs. The most significant consequences of DDDs were ‘design changes’ and ‘frequent change orders’, respectively. The test of agreement revealed a moderate-high level of agreement between designers and contractors. The findings were used to recommend an action plan for preventing the occurrence of DDDs. It is envisioned that this research will increase the awareness of the consequences of DDDs, and hence, contribute to their reduction. The study contributes to the literature by identifying various consequences of DDDs from diverse sources and synthesizing them into a single study. The study also provides separate and combined viewpoints of two key stakeholders of construction projects on the impact DDDs can have on themselves, and the project as a whole. The study contributes to the literature by identifying the various consequences of DDDs in a fast-growing economy in which minor design errors can translate to substantial financial losses. Further, the identified consequences can be employed as performance measures for assessing an organizations’ progress towards continuous improvement of their design practice.