Claims Causes and Management Process in the …Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip ة˙˝ ع˚˜...

The Islamic University – Gaza Deanery of Graduate Studies

Faculty Of Engineering Civil Engineering Department

Construction Management

-ـ,ة–ا*()!'� ا%$ـ"! � 4ـ3ـــ)دة ا*ـ1را$ـــ)ت ا*'. ــ)

آ.ــ � ا*56ــ1$ـــ� ;:9 ا*156$� ا*813 �

إدارة =ـ>ــ ــ1

Claims Causes and Management Process in the Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip

�ت *( )��ع ا'&%�ءات ! ��ع ��ة+,� أ3+�ب وإدارة ا,-�

Prepared by

Said Nihad Elghandour

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Adnan Enshassi

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Degree of Master of Science in Construction Management

December, 2006

�� ا�� ا�� ا��

�� وآ�ن (�� ا��!�ب وا�� و��وأ$#ل ا�� &��(� ��113113113113-النساء )*( ا��

" "صدق اهللا العظيم

II

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this work to my Wife and

Family for their endless and generous support.

Said N. Elghandour

III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• I would like to express my deep appreciation to my supervisor Professor Adnan Enshassi for his professional guidance,

useful advice, continuous encouragement, and motivated

support to make this thesis possible.

• Special thanks go to the staff of construction management for their keen academic supervision during my study at The

Islamic University-Gaza.

• Many thanks are due Dr. Samir Safi for his support in analyzing the study survey data.

• Special thanks are for Dr. Akram Habeeb for his assistance in editing the whole thesis.

• My best wishes to the expert panel Eng. Khalil Ismail, Eng. Tariq Alassar, Eng. Ali Abuzomar, Eng. Nsser Kgtheer, Mr.

Rafat hassona, Advocate Abdalah Abuata and Advocate Jamal

Abu Jable.

• Kind gratitude and sincere acknowledgment go to All Ministries, Public institutes and Municipalities engineers in

the Gaza Strip who participated with valuable information for

this study.

• My sincere gratitude acknowledgment to Palestinian

Contractors Union-Gaza Govern orates and all the

contracting companies in the Gaza Strip who participated

valuable information for this study.

IV

ABSTRACT

Construction industry is considered an important sector for the development in Gaza Strip.

A key factor to successful construction project is to complete the project without any claims

occurrences. The aim of this research is to identify and evaluate the existing claim

management process in construction industry sector, and then propose recommendations.

To achieve the goal of this study, 83 contractor questionnaires and 101 owner

questionnaires have been distributed, filled, completed by the informants, and then

analyzed by the researcher. In addition, four actual case studies have been collected from

construction project implemented in the Gaza Strip.

The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part dealing with the causes of claims

occurrence; these causes have been categorized into four groups (1. Claims Factors Caused

by Owner, 2. Design and Bill of Quantity, 3. Contractual Relationship Factor, and 4.

Emergency Cases).

The second part is searching identification of claim management procedure followed in

claims process, the claims management procedures are classified into six groups (1.

Claim Identification, 2. Claim Notifications, 3. Claim Examination, 4.

Claim Documentation, 5. Claim Presentation and 6. Claim Negotiation)

and the particular claims (Time Extension Claims, Claims form of Change Orders, and

Related Claims of Design). Relationship among the above mentioned factors (variables) is

investigated by using statistical tests.

In the first part of the questionnaire, the study has showed that one of the important in

claims with regard to owners group is the residence interference during project

implementation ; a factor which led to suspending the project activities. As for the group of

design and bill of quantity, the study has showed vagueness in project design and bill of

quantity led claim occurrence between the contractor and owner. Regarding the third group

which is concern with contractual relationship, the study has revealed that awarding

contract to the lowest offer resulted in claim occurrence between the contractor and owner.

As far as the fourth group is concerned, the emergency cases the study has showed that the

border closure and main road closure resulted in delaying project activities and increasing

materials price, which caused the contractor to present claims to the owners.

V

In the second part of the questionnaire, regarding the administrative procedures followed to

handle claims, the study revealed that both contracting parties, the owner and the

contractor, are having problems in handling claims. The supervision team of the former was

lacking the proper experience to handle claims, and the latter party, the contractor failed to

notify the owner side in the suitable time. The study has also showed that there had been

no documented procedures that could be tracked when checking claims. In addition, the

study has concluded that both the contractor and the owner had shared the same view

concerning the lack of documentation during the project implementation activities; many of

those activities had not been formally and professionally documented. Also, the study has

demonstrated that the contractor did not present claims within a certain period of time nor

did he presented it in a clear- cut manner. Finally, the study has concluded that neither the

owner's side nor the contractor's had the qualified team to run negotiations about claims.

From the four actual collected case studies the study concluded that direct negotiation

between the two parties has been found out to be the best means of solving claim issues

because recourse to arbitration or court deliberations was found out to be time consuming

and costly for both parties.

Therefore the study recommends that there is a need to standardize construction

engineering contract, especially public construction project contracts through establishment

of a committee that consists of related ministries working in construction public projects,

contracting union, engineering syndicate, lawyer syndicate and specialist engineering

consulting firms. Moreover, the study recommends that it is essential that contracting

companies of various classifications and owners of public organization take training

program especially on construction and claim management in order to assist them in setting

up their organizations. Finally; it is recommended that the two parties document and keep

records of all agreement and activities in order to prove claim.

VI

BCــE,ــــاF

n; stu'v)ع 5r)4� ا%8>)ءات !j ا*np)4)ت ا*!(6� n; bo)ع -,ة، و!j أه9 ا*'gا!_f ا _$($e� b_.4 9_cd.* 8(_)ح =5` _

3uاآ gه � w(<8%ا xv1 ا*3>)ر_;('u*ا b_osy *1ي �ت !)* (t*(n! د أيg{دون و }* 1دةd3*ا �ة ا*,!5 su`*ا j3~ وعs<3*ل ا(

. �"ل دورة =5` ^ ا*s<3وع

أن ا*6__1ف ا*j__! b:__ ws ه__^� ا*1را$__� ه__g ا*b__o �__dt أ$__t)ب �__1وث ا*t*(n3__)ت b__o ا*3__>)رxv ا*156$__ �، وأv__�) ا*s__'uف

.1$ � وf34 ا*rgu )ت �)*��gص و=p 9 إدارة ا*t*(n3)ت n; bo)ع ا%8>)ءات ا*56

1_;('u*ا b_osy "_آ j_! x_3{ 9_= �_ � �_�g.n3*8_)ت ا( t*ا x_3)* �8( tu_$%ب اg._$أ �_dt*1ام ه_^ا ا�u$1 اp* )83 ول و(_p!

�_)�ت درا$_ � ) !)*� 101 xض أر�s4و �9 درا$= (�vع -,ة، وأ(n; bo �!('*ا �ا*156$ xvا*3>)ر bo j .!('*ن اg.�3v

.'o ت(t*(n3* j *و(_p3*ا f_t; j! �!1p! � . b_o �_dtv ولeء ا,_)*ا �_ � j _$($أ j w,_{ b_*ن إ( tu_$و;_1 =_9 =_�5 � ا�

b*(_uت آ(_4g3)! x_أر� b*إ f!اg'*ب وا(t$eو=9 =�5 � ا �ت ا*156$ (t*(n3*1وث ا� f!اg4ب و(t$-1: أ �ب 8)�_�(t_$أ

أ$_t)ب - t4)ب �_�(8� ��t:_ ا*'";_)ت ا*v1;('u_�، أ$_ -3 أ$t)ب ��(8� ��t: ا*3�u 9 و}1ول ا*3c )ت، -�t:�2 ا*3)*�،

}wر(n*ت ا�(d*وف واs�*ا �t:� ��(8.

ا%دارv� ا*_'tu3� �t*(n3*(_)ت ا*156$_ �، و=_g= 9زx_v و=p_: 9 ا%}_sاءات ت وا*(,ء ا*�)bo �dtv b8 ا*s'uف b.4 ا%}sاءا

b*(uزع آg= أ;:)م �u$ b*إ �t*(n3.* �v1: ا%دار- t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u*، ا�2- ،�_t*(n3*ا j_4 3 ا%4_"م- ،�_t*(n3*ا �_d`=

4- ،�t*(n3*ا � �g= 5- ،�t*(n3*9 اv1p=ض وs4 6- �_t*(n3*ا b_.4 وض(`u*ا*�_)ص . ا x�(_n*ت ذات ا(_t*(n3*ا �o(_~و =_9 إ

b_$156*3 9 ا�_u*ا fv1_'= أو s �= j! �t*(n3*ا ،�vs �= s!أوا j! �t*(n3*ا ،�;g*1 اv13u� �t*(n3*ا f�! . 9 ا_= �_ �$_1�uام

w(u5*ا ��s* � w(��. وا*s �u3ات *.1را$� !')!"ت إ

�1وث ا*t*(n3_)ت ا*�)_r� �3(4g3_� ا*3)*_� أن f!اg4 ب(t$أه9 أ j! )ن أن tu$eا j! ولe(,ء ا.* w(u5*ا �d~1 أوp*

و!_) . وا*3)*_� ا*')!f ا*�)ص �f�1u ا*:c)ن bo و;� =5` ^ ا*s<3وع !j أه9 أ$t)ب �1وث ا*t*(n3)ت ا* *(3� � j ا*p3_)ول

��v !(4g3� اt$e)ب ا*�)r� �3�u*( 9 و}1ول ا*3c )ت أs6¢ت ا*1را$_� �_¡ن و}_gد f_!(4 ا*�g_3ض و4_1م و~_gح

:__ ws*ا f__!اg'*ا j__! 3 __)تc*د اg__5�� __*(3*ول وا(__p3*ا j __� ت(__t*(n3*1وث ا__d* . ا*'";__)ت �__�*(�*ا �4__g3)3*(� �__.'uv (__!و

ا*tt:_3� d*_1وث ا*t*(n3_)ت �_ j �ت b_.4 أ;_f اe$_')ر !_j ا*'gا!_f ا*ws _: ا*v1;('u� أs6¢ت ا*1را$� �)ن =s$ � ا*'n)ءا

و!) b_o �.'uv ا*3(4g3_� ا*sا�'_� أs_6¢ت ا*1را$_� أن إ-";_)ت ا*s�(_'3 وا*s_nق ا* :_ws� j_! ا*'gا!_f . ا*p3)ول وا*3)*�

: ws*ا� s �¡= 1وث� (6 .4 �=suv (3! � $($eاد اg3*دة أ$')ر ا(v34)ل وزe5` ^ ا= s�¡u* دي¤_v 34_)ل ا*_^يe5` ^ ا= bo

�1وث !t*(n)ت !)* � � j ا*p3)ول وا*3)*� b*إ.

1_;('u*ا b_osy ت أن(_t*(n3*دارة ا¥_� �_'tu3*ا �_vاءات ا%دارs{%(_� ن ا*�_)ص( tu_$ا� j_! b8(_�*ء ا,).* �$ت ا*1راs6¢أ

u.* افs_�%1ي }6_)ز ا_* � o(c*ة اst�*ا sog= 1م'� x;g3*ا bo ول(p3*ف اsy (rgو�� ،x_;g3*ا b_o �_t*(n3*ا b_.4 فs_'

و;_1 أs_6¢ت . آ3) أs6¢ت ا*1را$� �¡ن ه5)ك !>c.� *1ي }6� ا*p3)ول t= bo. ¦ وإ4"م syف ا*bo �*(3 ا*g;_� ا*53)$_�

�_.'uv (_3و� ،�_t*(n3*ا �_do b_o (_64(t=إ j_c3v }_p�g! اءاتs_{1 ه5_)ك أي إ{gv � }8¡� �t*(n3*ا �do ��v (3� w(u5*ا

;_1 ا=`g_pا أن ه5_)ك �g= b_o �_p8 _� ا*g.'3!_)ت أ�5_)ء ) ا*3)*_� وا*p3_)ول ( sت ا*1را$� �¡ن ا*�gu� j os_n � ا*n3)*t� أ6¢

�d d�_*ا �pvsn*(و� ( n� }p �g= 9uv � (65! s وع وأن آ�s<3*9 . =5` ^ اv1_p=ض وs_4 صg�_�� _$ت ا*1راs_6¢آ3_) أ

. وأg_c= (�_vن - _s آ)!._� و- _g6`! s!_� *.3)*_� ا*t*(n3� �¡ن ا*p3)ول � gpvم �'sض ا*_t*(n3� s_uo j3_~ة ز!5 _� !' 5_�

VII

~_j3 إ}_sاءات ا*u`_)وض إ*_b اpuo_)ر ا*j os_n ا*3)*_� وا*p3_)ول إ*_b أ�_�)ص �و!j أه9 ا*p5)ط ا*s6¢ buت bo ا*1را$_

!__¤ه. 96v1__* j !6__)رات ا*u`__)وض، آ3__) أs__6¢ت w(__u8 ا*d__)�ت ا*1را$__ � اeر�__x �__¡ن أf�__o ا*s__nق *f__d ا*t*(n3__)ت

.� b*إ frgu*وا b_*ء إg_).*ول وا*3)*_� ، آ3_) أن ا(_p3*ا j _� s_�(t3*وض ا(_`u*ا �vsy j4 bاف هsyeا fc* � ~s! لg

1p'*ا bosn* ( *(! �`.c!و �.vgy � 5!ة زsuo ^�¡v ء(�p*أو ا j 3cd3*ا .

=>f c و*1p �.�� ا*1را$� إ*b ا* rgu� �d*()}� %4)دة ا*bo s�5 درا$� ا*'gpد اw(<8% � ا*156$ � وذ*� !j �"ل

j 8g8(p*ا jvر(<u:3*وا j $1563*ا ��(p8و j *و(p3*د ا(d=وإ �زارات ذات ا*'";g*ا j! �8gc! ��u! �5)*

j $156*وا . tvا! =1رs� b*و�ت ا(p3*آ)ت اsو� �ا*')! �ا*156$ xvب ا*3>)ر(drأ �{(� bo �آ3) أ�sزت ا*1را$�

. ل دورة =5` ^ ا*s<3وع وأن 9uv ا�ه3u)م �'3. � ا*�gu � ا*( 1 �".إدارة ا*3>)رxv ا*156$ � وا*t*(n3)ت 154 �1و�6)

Table of Contents DEDICATIO ……………………………………………………………………………... П

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………… III

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………................................ IV

ABSTRACT (ARABIC) ……………………………………………………………….. VI

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………. XII

LIST OF FIGURES ...…………………............................................................................. XIV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ….………………………………………………………… XV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………. 1 1.1 Background …………………………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Profile of the Gaza Strip ………………………………………………………. 1 1.3 Gaza Strip Governorates ……………………………………………………… 3 1.4 Gaza Strip Funding Agencies …………………………………………………. 3 1.5 Government Agency …………………………………………………………... 5 1.6 Palestinian Construction Industry Data ……………………………………….. 5 1.7 Construction Contractors ……………………………………………………… 7 1.8 Palestinian Contractors Union(PCU) in the Gaza Strip ……………………... 9 1.9 Problem Definition ……………………………………………………………. 10 1.10 Research Aim …………………………………………………………………. 11 1.11 Research Objective ……………………………………………………………. 11 1.12 The Importance of this Study ………………………………………………… 11 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………..…….... 12 2.0 Introduction …… ……………………………………………………………... 12 2.1 Claims Definition ……………………………………………………………... 13 2.2 Construction Claims Categories ………………………………………………. 14 2.3 Changes ……………………………………………………………………….. 14 2.4 Delay …………………………………………………………………………... 15 2.5 Development Claims Management …………………………………………... 19 2.6 Common Causes of Construction Claims ……………………………………... 22 2.6.1 Contracts ………………………………………………………………………. 22 2.6.2 Designers ……………………………………………………………………… 22 2.6.3 Contractors ……………………………………………………………………. 23 2.6.4 Subcontractors and Suppliers …………………………………………………. 23 2.6.5 Owners ………………………………………………………………………… 24 2.6.6 The projects …………………………………………………………………… 25 2.6.7 Outside Forces ……………………………………………………………….. 25 2.7 Analyzing of Claims …………………………………………………………... 25 2.7.1 Initial Investigation ……………………………………………………………. 25 2.7.1.1 Contract Review ………………………………………………………………. 26 2.7.1.2 Document Overview …………………………………………………………... 26 2.7.1.3 Site Visit ………………………………………………………………………. 26 2.7.1.4 Interviews ……………………………………………………………………... 27 2.7.1.5 Initial Finding …………………………………………………………………. 27 2.7.2 Information gathering and analysis …………………………………………… 27 2.7.3 Establishing Entitlement ………………………………………………………. 28 2.7.4 Calculation Damages ………………………………………………………….. 28 2.7.5 Claims Procedure …………………………………………………………….... 29 2.7.6 Claims Identification ………………………………………………………….. 29 2.7.7 Claims Notification …………………………………………………………… 29

IX

2.7.8 Claims Examination …………………………………………………………... 30 2.7.9 Claims Documentation ………………………………………………………... 30 2.7.10 Claims Negotiation …………………………………………………………… 31 2.8 Minimizing and Avoiding Claims …………………………………………….. 32 2.8.1 Managing Risk .……………………………………………………………….. 32 2.8.2 Avoiding Claims before Construction ………………………………………… 33 2.8.3 Avoiding Claims During Construction .……………………………………….. 33 2.8.4 Recognizing Problems ………………………………………………………… 34 2.8.5 Responding to Problems ………………………………………………………. 34 2.9 Ethic of Claims ………………………………………………………………... 35 2.10 Settlement of Claims …………………..……………………………………… 35 2.11 Claim Process used in Local Contracts, FIDIC,AIA and ECC ……………….. 37 2.11.1 Claim Process used in FIDIC,AIA and ECC …………………………………. 37 2.11.2 Claim Process used in Local Contracts ……………………………………….. 39 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………… 42 3.1 Research Design ………………………………………………………………. 42 3.2 Research Population ………………………………………………………….. 43 3.3 Sample Size …………………………………………………………………… 44 3.4 Research location ……………………………………………………………… 45 3.5 Case Study …………………………………………………………………… 45 3.6 Pilot Study …………………………………………………………………… 46 3.7 Questionnaire Design and Content ……………………………………………. 46 3.8 Validity of the Research .……………………………………………………… 48 3.8.1 Content Validity of the Questionnaire ………………………………………… 48 3.8.2 Statistical Validity of the Questionnaire ………………………………………. 48 3.8.2.1 Criterion - related Validity ……………………………………………………. 48 3.8.2.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire………………………………………... 49 3.9 Reliability of the Research ……………………………………………………. 49 3.9.1 Half Split Method ……………………………………………………………... 49 3.9.2 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha ………………………………………………… 50 3.10 Data Measurement Scales ……………………………………………………... 51 3.11 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………………….. 51 3.12 Study Limitation ………………………………………………………………. 52 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...…………………………………… 53 4.1 Population Characteristics …………………………………………………….. 53 4.1.1 Classification and Response Rat……………………………………………… 53 4.1.2 Company and Firm Experience in Construction Projects……………………... 54 4.1.3 Number of Staff ……………………………………………………………….. 55 4.1.4 Already Implemented Projects Last 5 Years ………………………………… 55 4.1.5 Cost of Implemented Projects last 5 years in dollars………………………….. 56 4.1.6 Distribution of Respondent’s Occupation……………………………………... 56 4.1.7 Respondents Experience ………………………………………………………. 57 4.1.8 Contract Value of Implement Projects…..…………………………………….. 58 4.2 Causes of Construction Claim …………… …………………………………... 58 4.2.1 Group 1 Construction Claim Causes Caused by Owners ……………………... 61 4.2.1.1 Contractor Points of View …………………………………………………….. 61 4.2.1.2 Owner Points of View ………………………………………………………… 65 4.2.1.3 General Comments Regard Group 1 (highest and lowest factors) …………… 68 4.2.2 Group 2 Designs and Bill of Quantity ………………………………………… 70

X

4.2.2.1 Contractor Points of View for Design and Bill of Quantity …………………... 70 4.2.2.2 Owner Points of View for Design and Bill of Quantity ……………………… 72 4.2.2.3 General Comments Regard Group 2 (highest and lowest factors) …………… 74 4.2.3 Group 3 Contractual Relationship Factor ……………………………………... 76 4.2.3.1 Contractor Points of View for Contractual Relationship Factor ……………... 76 4.2.3.2 Owner Points of View for Contractual Relationship Factor ………………….. 78 4.2.3.3 General Comments Regard Group 3 (highest and lowest factors) …………… 81 4.2.4 Group 4 Emergency Cases ……………………………………………………. 82 4.2.4.1 Contractor Points of View for Emergency Cases Factors ……………………. 82 4.2.4.2 Owner Points of View for Emergency Cases Factors ………………………… 84 4.2.4.3 General Comments Regard Group 4 (highest and lowest factors) …………… 86 4.3 Common Procedures Categories ……………………………………………. 87 4.3.1 Claim Identification …………………………………………………………… 87 4.3.1.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………… 87 4.3.1.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Identification ……………………… 89 4.3.1.3 Open Questions for Investigation the Practice During Claim Identification?..... 90 4.3.1.4 Owner Points of View for Process of Claim Identification …………………… 91 4.3.2 Claim Notifications …………………………………………………………… 93 4.3.2.1 Contractor Points of View …………………………………………………… 93 4.3.2.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Notification ……………………… 95 4.3.2.3 Open Questions for Investigation the Practice During Claim Notification? ...... 96 4.3.2.4 Owner Points of View ………………………………………………………... 97 4.3.3 Claim Examination ……………………………………………………………. 99 4.3.3.1 Contractor Points of View ……………………………………………………. 99 4.3.3.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Examination……………………… 101 4.3.3.3 Owner Points of View ………………………………………………………... 103 4.3.4 Claim Documentation …………………………………………………………. 104 4.3.4.1 Problems Associated With the Process of Claim Documentation ……………. 104 4.3.4.2 Unavailability of Documents When Required.………………………………... 106 4.3.5 Claim Presentation …………………………………………………………….. 109 4.3.5.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………… 109 4.3.5.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Presentation ……………………… 111 4.3.5.3 Open Questions for Investigation the Practice During Claim Presentation? ..... 112 4.3.5.4 Owner Points of View ………………………………………………………... 112 4.3.6 Claim Negotiation …………………………………………………………….. 115 4.3.6.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………. 115 4.3.6.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Negotiation ……………………….. 116 4.3.6.3 Open Questions for Investigation the Practice During Claim Negotiation? ...... 118 4.3.6.4 Owner Points of View ………………………………………………………... 119 4.3.7 Comparisons Based on the Relative Index Formula ………………………….. 121

4.3.7.1 Contractor Employee Experience Based in Common Claim Procedures Categories. ……………………………………………………………..............

121

4.3.7.2 Contractor Employee Highest Contract Value Implemented Based in Common Claim Procedures Categories. ………………………………………

121

4.3.7.3 Owner Employee Experience Based in Common Claim Procedures Categories. …………………………………………………………………..

122

4.3.7.4 Owner Employee Highest Contract Value Implemented Based in Common Claim Procedures Categories. ………………………………………………

122

4.4 Particular Claims …………………………………………………………….. 123 4.4.1 Time Extension Claims ……………………………………………………….. 123 4.4.1.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………… 123

XI

4.4.2 Claims of Change Orders ……………………………………………………... 125 4.4.2.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………. 125 4.4.3 Design Related Claims ………………………………………………………... 127 4.4.3.1 Contractor Point of View ……………………………………………………… 127 4.5 Degree of Agreement Among the Contractors and Owners ………………. 129 4.5.1 Owner Employee Experience and Contract Value Implemented... …………… 130 4.5.2 Owner Experience and Contract Value …………………... 130 4.5.3 Contractor Employee Experience and Contract Value Implemented …………. 131 4.5.4 Company Experience and Contract Value …………………...……………….. 131 4.5.5 Agreement Between Contractor and Owners Regarding to Causes of Claims... 132 4.5.6 Agreement Between Contractor and Owners Regarding Claims Process……... 132

4.5.7 Test of Rank Mean of Respondents Agreement Between Contractors and Owners………………………………………………………………………….

133

4.5.7.1 Causes of claims ………………………………………………………………. 133 4.5.7.2 Claims process ………………………………………………………………… 134 4.5.7.3 Causes of Claims and Common Procedures ………………………………… 134 4.6 Differences of the Respondents Agreements…………………………………. 135 4.6.1 Employee experience …………………………………………………………. 135 4.6.2 Highest Contract Value for Employee ………………………………………... 135 4.6.3 Contractors and Owners Experiences …………………………………………. 136 4.6.4 Highest Contract Value for Contractor and Owners …………………………. 137

4.7 General Comment Regards Contractor and Owner Personal and Firm Experience and Cost …………………………………………………………...

137

CHAPTER 5: CASE STUDIES …………………………………….…………………. 138 5.1 Case Study 1 …………………………………………………………………... 138 5.2 Case Study 2 …………………………………………………………………... 148 5.3 Case Study 3 …………………………………………………………………... 156 5.4 Case Study 4 …………………………………………………………………... 165 5.5 All Cases Studies Conclusions ………………………………………………... 175 CHAPTER 6: CLAIM MANAGEMENT PROCESS…………...…………………. 176 6.0 Claim Management Process …………………………………………………... 176 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………... 180 7.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 180 7.2 Recommendations …………………………………………………………….. 185 7.3 Proposed Further Studies ……………………………………………………… 186 REFERENCES ….………………………………………………………………………. 187 LIST OF ANNEXES ...………………………………………………………………….. 190 Annex 1: Data Criterion Related Validity ………………………………………………... 190 Annex 2: Data Structure Validity ………………………………………………………… 204 Annex 3: Contractor Employee Experience and Highest Contract Value ……………… 207 Annex 4: Owner Employee Experience and Highest Contract Value …………………… 215 Annex 5: Questionnaire for Contractors (English / Arabic) …………………………... 222 Annex 6: Questionnaire for Owners (English / Arabic) ……………………………..... 247

XII

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Ministry of local Government,2004 …………………………………………… 3 Table 1.2 Represents Donor Contribution to the Construction Sectors………………....... 4 Table 1.3 Summarizes the distribution of contracting companies by grade …………....... 9 Table 2.1 Summarized common causes of delays by the contractor performance ………. 18 Table 2.2 Summarized Checklist of Project Record……………………………………… 26 Table 3.1 Classification of sample size of contracting companies and owners firms…. 48 Table 3.2 Half split Method……………………………………………………………….. 53 Table 3.3 Cronbach’s coefficient alpha………………………………………………........ 53 Table 4.1 Company and Firm Experience ………………………………………………... 54 Table 4.2 Company and firm number of staff ……………………………………………. 55 Table 4.3 Number of project implemented last 5 years ………………………………… 55 Table 4.4 Cost of implemented projects last 5 years. …………………………………….. 56 Table 4.5 Respondent Experience………………………………………………………… 57 Table 4.6 Respondent Contract Value worked ($ ) ………………………………………. 58 Table 4.7 Contractor points of view for causes and factors resulting in claims ………….. 59 Table 4.8 Owner’s points of view for causes and factors resulting in claims ……………. 60 Table 4.9 Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ……………….. 61 Table 4.10 Contractor points of view for causes and factors resulting in claims ………….. 61 Table 4.11 Owner points of view for causes and factors resulting in claims ……………… 65 Table 4.12 Highest causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects……….. 68 Table 4.13 Lowest Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ……… 69 Table 4.14 Contractors points of view for design and bill of quantity…………………….. 70 Table 4.15 Owner points of view for design and bill of quantity …………………………. 72 Table 4.16 Highest causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ……… 75 Table 4.17 Lowest Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ……… 75 Table 4.18 Contractors points of view for Contractual relationship factor ……………….. 76 Table 4.19 Owners points of view for contractual relationship factor …………………….. 78 Table 4.20 Highest causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ………. 81 Table 4.21 Lowest Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ………. 81 Table 4.22 Contractors points of view for Emergency cases …………………………….. 82 Table 4.23 Owners points of view for emergency cases ………………………………… 84 Table 4.24 Highest causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ………. 86 Table 4.25 Lowest Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects ……… 86 Table 4.26 Contractor points of view for claim identification ……………………………. 87 Table 4.27 Contractor points of view for claim identification …………………………… 89 Table 4.28 Owners points of view for claim identification ………………………………. 91 Table 4.29 Contractor points of view for claim notification ……………………………… 93 Table 4.30 Contractor points of view for claim notification ……………………………… 95 Table 4.31 Owners points of view for claim notification …………………………………. 97 Table 4.32 Contractor points of view for claim examination ……………………………… 99 Table 4.33 Contractor points of view for claim examination ………………..…………….. 101 Table 4.34 Owners points of view for claim examination ………………………………… 103 Table 4.35 Contractor and 0wner points of view for claim documentation ……………...... 104 Table 4.36 Contractor and owner points of view for claim documentation ……………….. 105 Table 4.37 Contractor points of view for claim presentation ……………………………… 109 Table 4.38 Contractor points of view for claim presentation ……………………………… 111 Table 4.39 Owners points of view for claim presentation …………………………………. 112 Table 4.40 Contractor points of view for claim negotiation ………………………………. 115

XIII

Table 4.41 Contractor points of view for claim negotiation ………………………………. 117 Table 4.42 Owners points of view for claim presentation …………………………………. 119 Table 4.43 Contractor points of view for time extension claims ………………………….. 123 Table 4.44 Contractor points of view for claims from change orders ……………………... 125 Table 4.45 Contractor points of view for claims from design related claims ……………... 127 Table 4.46 Owner employee person experience and person highest contract value ………. 130 Table 4.47 Owner firm experience and highest contract value ……………………………. 130 Table 4.48 Contractor employee person experience and person highest contract value …... 131 Table 4.49 Company experience and highest contract value ……………………………… 131 Table 4.50 Values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values …………. 132 Table 4.51 Values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values …………. 132 Table 4.52 Mann-Whitney test of the fields and their P-values between contractor and

owner …………………………………………………………………………... 133

Table 4.53 Mann-Whitney test of the fields and their P-values between contractor and owner …………………………………………………………………………...

134

Table 4.54 Kruskal- Walllis test person experiences for contractor and owners ………… 135 Table 4.55 Kruskal- Walllis test person highest contract value for contractor and owners.. 136 Table 4.56 Kruskal- Walllis test firm experiences for contractor and owners …………….. 136 Table 4.57 Kruskal- Walllis test firm highest contract value for contractor and owners….. 137

XIV

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1.1 GAZA Strip Profile The Governorates of Gaza Strip………………. 2 Figure 1.2 Output of the Construction Sector, 1994-2002………………………. 6 Figure 1.3 Percentage Contribution to Gross Domestic Produce By the ……….. 6 Figure 1.4 Number of Enterprises Working in Construction Contractor …….…. 7 Figure 1.5 Distribution (%) of Contractors by Region, July 2003. …………….. 7 Figure 1.6 Number of Contractors by Governorate, 2003. ……………………... 8 Figure 1.7 Number of Persons Engaged in Construction Contractor Activities ... 8 Figure 1.8 Percentage of Contractor Specializations In the Palestinian ………… 9

Figure 2.1 Shows a typical claims management life cycle based on the requirements of FIDIC ( 4th edition,1999)…………………………...

20

Figure 3.1 Shows the methodology flowchart …………………………………... 46 Figure 4.1 Contractor classification …………………………………………….. 53 Figure 4.2 Owner classification …………………………………………………. 54 Figure 4.3 Respondent position percentages…………………………………….. 57 Figure 6.1 Claim Management Process …………...…………………………….. 179

XV

List of Abbreviations

EU European Union FIDIC International Federation of Consultant Engineering GDP Gross Domestic Produce IDB Islamic Development Bank PCBS Palestinian Center Bureau of Statistics PCU Palestinian Contractors Union PNA Palestinian National Authority MLG Ministry of Local Government MOHPW Ministry Of Housing and Public Works SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United Nations Development Program WB World Bank

Claim Causes and Management Process in the Construction Industry

in the Gaza Strip

CHAPTER 1

INTRDOUCTION

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Construction Industry has been one of the main Palestinian industries. Since the

establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) in 1994. Construction projects

implemented by the governmental and private sectors have supported the development of

numerous related industries in the local market. The construction industry’s share 3.3% of

the total Palestine local production is significant, and influences other economic, social,

educational and other professional sectors. (Palestine Contractors Union – PCU, 2004).

The construction industry is a major supporter of employment and contributes 10.8 % to

employment directly and 30 % indirectly by supporting related industries that work in

production services to support the construction industry. Following the breakout of the

second Intifada in 2000, the construction and other majors industries have been affected

negatively as a result of borders closures, this preventing the supply of critical material in

all different industrial, commercial sectors, cities and towns. Closure have badly affected

the construction industry and that has contributed to increasing the already high rate of

unemployment in Palestine. (Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics – PCBS, 2004).

1.2 Profile of the Gaza Strip The Gaza Strip has an area of 365 Km2, the population in 1998 was 1.1 million (Palestine

Central Bureau of Statistics–PCBS, 2004). The distance from north is about 45 km and

from west is varying from 6 to 12 km. The topography of the area is flat, and in some

regions, it is rising to a maximum height of 65 m above the sea level. The climate is typical

of that of the eastern Mediterranean with mild wet winters and hot dry summers. Monthly

average temperature reaches 35°C at maximum, and 4 °C at minimum. Sand dunes are the

main feature along the costal line. In contrast the soil in the east of Gaza town consists of

dark brown clay loams, and there are nor permanent surface water sources. Annual rainfall

is between 150 and 350 mm. Ground water is the only significant source of water in the

Gaza Strip. Figure 1.1 Gaza Strip (Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics–PCBS, 2004).

2

Figure 1.1 Gaza Strip Profile (Governorates of Gaza Strip)

3

1.3 The Gaza Strip Governorates Gaza Strip is divided into five Governorates, which are the North Gaza Governorate –

Gaza Governorate – Middle area Governorate – Khan Younis Governorate – Rafah

Governorate, with the total of 25 Municipalities distributed by governorate, as shown in

Table 1.1 . (Ministry of local Government ,2004).

North Gaza Governorate

Gaza Governorate

Middle area Governorate

Khan Younis Governorate

Rafah Governorate

1. Jabalia 2. Bait Lahia 3. Bail Hanoun 4. AL Naserr

1. Gaza 2. Mughraqa 3. Zahara 4. Wadi Gaza

1. Nusirat 2. Buraij 3. Maghazi 4. Zuwaida 5. Deir Al Balah 6. Wadi Alsaqa 7. Al Mossadar

1. Khan youins 2. Ban Suhaila 3. Absan Al Kabera 4. Absan Al Jadida 5. Khozaa 6. Qarara 7. Fukhari

1. Rafah 2. Shouka 3. Naserr

The Gaza Strip Governorates, with their municipalities, most of which have been newly

established by the Palestinian Authority, lead the main construction industry projects in the

Gaza Strip. During the past years many construction projects have been implemented in

the different Gaza Strip Governorates, these projects cost millions of dollars. The

construction industry plays a major part in the development of these municipalities by

construction of all kinds of facilities such as Roads, Sewages networks, water, bridges,

schools, clinics, public buildings, sport centers …etc.

1.4 Gaza Strip Funding Agencies The construction industry in the Gaza Strip depends on and is funded by different donors or

funding agencies which supervise, coordinate, or implement construction projects through

the local government agency. The role of these funding agencies is very important in the

types of project implemented and in amount of budget available to develop the local areas.

The World Bank (WB) is one of the biggest funding agencies in the Palestine Authority.

This funding agency has been playing an important role in the development of the

Palestinian economy. Millions of $US have been distributed to different project locations in

the Gaza region and West Bank region which have result in development of construction

Industry activity and consequently national development. In addition, there are other

donors, such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United State American

International Development (USAID), Islamic Development Bank (IDB), and the European

Union (EU). Each donor or funding agency has its own procedures and project procurement

4

systems, which in some cases creates conflicts between the owners and contractors during

the project implementation stage. Table 1.2 represents Donor Contribution to the

Construction Sectors.(Ministry of Planning, retrieved on 28.Aug.2005 )

Table 1.2 Represent Donors Contribution to the Construction Sectors Source : .(Ministry of Planning , retrieved on 28.Aug.2005 )

Donor Infrastructure

Institution Building

Multiple Sector

Private Sector

Development

Water and Sanitation

1 Austria $1,558,150 $4,865,175

2 Belgium $2,854,826 $845,122 $210,733 $4,857,045

3 Denmark $7,330,858 $1,399,844 $35,919,893 $3,836,498

4 EC $118,922,964 $128,464,586 $1,212,855,211 $34,373,570 $5,798,585

5 EIB $19,951,200 $14,083,200 $12,674,880

6 Finland $20,019,804 $1,971,648

7 France $5,358,658 $7,235,344 $30,521,520 $9,217,220 $3,238,432

8 Germany $24,154,748 $12,889,253 $1,505,903 $8,795,525 $73,667,206

9 Greece $5,445,504 $1,694,246

10 Ireland $586,800 $624,986 $305,136

11 Italy $162,617 $91,823,304 $10,442,080 $8,596,570

12 Spain $5,147,660 $7,404,396 $740,000 $1,756,793

13 Sweden $28,011,500 $526,164 $76,954,170 $1,226,349 $13,262,706

14 Netherlands $8,488,929 $43,240,888 $2,036,078 $9,823,946

15 UnitedKingdom $87,117,502 $195,128,582 $14,177,088

16 Australia $9,000,000

18 Canada $63,000,000

19 Japan $14,799,086 $10,777,986 $368,201,093 $3,161,846 $13,831,466

20 South Korea $3,149,838

21 Norway $9,599,695 $11,816,248 $316,245,459 $14,583,225

22 South Africa $500,450

23 Switzerland $11,362,974 $1,003,880 $2,586,207

24 Turkey $179,875

25 UNDP TRAC $3,034 $2,865,355 $2,075,602 $2,625,087 $650,000

26 USA $61,774,947 $15,176,139 $63,574,621 $34,534,264 $101,473,021

27 The World Bank Group

$82,081,646 $6,429,001 $584,834,639 $6,520,000 $58,140,055

28 Algeria $79,522,390

29 Bahrain $7,299,952

30 Egypt $7,992,910 $200,678

31 Kuwait $444,997,546

32 Libya $17,112,549

33 Qatar $123,398,224

34 Saudi Arabia $3,179,628 $280,672,767 $250,000

35 United Arab Emirates

$47,899,854

36 Tunisia $5,774,936 $24,510

Total 383,757,250 308,602,140 4,148,034,919 132,056,275 346,473,694

5

1.5 Government Agencies Local governments contribute to the sound performance in the construction industry in the

Gaza Strip. Most donors are working or coordinate their funds through the local Authorities

as follows : Ministry of Local Government (MLG) , Ministry of Housing and Public

works , Ministry of Health , Ministry of Education , Ministry of Industry contribute or

coordinate with other donors in distributing and following up the implantation of these

projects .

The Palestinians play an important role in the construction industry, through the contracting

procedures according to the Palestinian contracting law, and in some cases, according to the

donors’ procedures. Sometimes the same ministry deals with more than one fund at the

same time with different procedures; this creates, in some cases, a conflict that results in

claims.

Until now the Palestinian Contracting Law has not been precede, the Ministry of Housing

and public works is studying to establish the uniform contract which can assist the two

parties the contractor and owners in solving problems and conflicts arising during the

construction stage . .(Ministry of Housing and Public work 2005 )

1.6 Palestinian Construction Industry

The construction industry is one of the main Palestinian industries/economic activities, and

is a precursor/prerequisite to other industries/economic activities as it lays the foundations

for most, if not all of them.

The construction industry has witnessed remarkable expansion in the period 1994-1999,

following the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The output of the

construction sector increased from $US million 886.4 in 1994 to $US million 1,540.8 in

1999 (73.8% increase). Due to the second Intifada (which started on 28/9/2000), however,

the output of the sector decreased from the peak of $US million 1540.8 in 1999 to $US

million 481.2 in 2002. This is shown in Figure 1.2 (Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics –

PCBS, 2004).

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, ComplexScript Font: Not Bold

Deleted: Figure 1

6

886.4 860.1 873.7984.9

1,205.50

1,540.80

867.8

651.5

481.2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Per year

$US Million

Figure 1.2 Output of the Construction Sector, 1994-2002.

$US million, Constant Prices: Base Year 1997. Source: PCBS.

In addition, the construction sector’s contribution to Gross Domestic Produce has been

significant and reached a peak of 11% in 1999. Due to the second Intifada (which started on

28/9/2000), however, the sector’s contribution to the Gross Domestic Produce decreased

from the peak of 11% in 1999, to 3.8% in 2002. This is shown in Figure 1.. Nonetheless,

the construction sector’s contribution to GDP remains to be significant, and has acquired a

national/political significance, in the light of the Israeli measures against infrastructure and

buildings during the course of the Intifada, and the Palestinian counter measures. (Palestine

Central Bureau of Statistics – PCBS,2004).

10.5

8.79.2

7.7 7.9

11

5.6

4.43.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Per Year

Percentage Contribution GDP

Figure 1.3 Percentage Contribution to Gross Domestic Produce

By the Construction Sector, 1994-2002. Source: PCBS.



Deleted: Figure 1.

7

1.7 Construction Contractors Enhancements to the contractors construction practice have been both quantitative and

qualitative, following the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority in 1994. The

number of enterprises working in construction contractor activities was 292 in 1994,

reaching a peak high of 488 in 1997 and then it stabilized to 348 contractors in 2003 as a

result of closures which affected the movement of goods and people, this making it

impossible to contractors to works under this circumstances. This is shown in Figure 1.4.

(Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics–PCBS, 2004).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Per Year

Number of Enterprises

# 292 456 455 488 408 337 430 356 348 348

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 1.4 Number of Enterprises Working in Construction Contractor Activities in the Palestinian Territories, 1994-2003. Source: PCBS.

Construction contracting enterprises to a large extent are distributed equally between the

West Bank and Gaza Strip, as shown in Figure 1.5.

West Bank

54%

Gaza Strip

46%

Figure 1.5 Distribution (%) of Contractors by Region, July 2003. Source: Palestinian Contractor Union.

8

In addition, contracting enterprises are more concentrated in the two urban centers of the

Gaza Strip (Gaza City and Khan Younis) than in any other governorate in the Palestinian

Territories, Figure 1.6 shows that there are 86 contractors in Gaza City, 60 in Khan Younis

and 54 in Ramallah. (Palestinian Contractor Union, 2005)

86

60

54

46

38

33

27

24

23

20

11

6

5

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Gaza City

Khanyounis

Ramallah

Nablus

Hebron

Bethlehem

Jenin

Northern Gaza

Tulkarem

Rafah

Middle Region

Jerusalem

Qalqilya

Jericho

Region

Number of Contractors

Figure 1.6 Number of Contractors by Governorate, 2003.

Source: Palestinian Contractor Union. With regard to the number of persons directly engaged in construction contractor activities

Figur1.7 shows the development of the number of persons engaged in construction

contractor activities in the Palestinian Territories, in the period 1994-2003.

Figure 1.7 Number of Persons Engaged in Construction Contractor Activities In the Palestinian Territories, 1994-2003. Source: PCBS.

Figure 1.7 shows an increase in the number of persons engaged increased from 4665 in

1994 to 5911 in 1998. The period between 1999 to 2003 witnessed significant differences

in the number of persons engaged, but the number of persons engaged is increasing in the

period 2001-2003 to reach 3693 in 2003; this remains to be lower than the number of

persons engaged in 1994 (4665). (Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics retrieved

on.Jun.2005 ).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Per Year

Number of persons

# 4665 4743 5358 5538 5911 4153 5864 3362 3505 3693

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

9

1.8 Palestinian Contractors Union (PCU) in Gaza Strip

According to the data collected from Palestine Contractors Union ( PCU) in the Gaza Strip

there are total of 190 registered Contracting Companies in the Gaza Strip .

The contractors are classified according to their specialty as follows :-

1. Building contractors.

2. Road Construction contractors.

3. Water and sewer contractors.

4. Electro-mechanics contractors.

Each specialty is classified into five grades first, second, third, fourth, and fifth category.

which in most classification the each company has different grade according to sector type.

Table 1.3 Summarizes the distribution of contracting companies by grade and sector.

Classification Roads Building

Water & Sewage

Electro Mechanic

1 Grade 1 A 4 20 22 5 2 Grade 1 B 11 30 -------- -------- 3 Grade 2 22 37 21 14 4 Grade 3 43 28 16 12 5 Grade 4 10 24 12 1 6 Grade 5 41 33 24 -------- Total 131 172 95 32

Table 1.3 shows that most of those contracting companies are working in the road and

building construction projects.

69%

90%

50%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Roads Building Water & Sewage Electro Mechanic

Contractors Companies specializations

Per

cent

age

Figure 1.8 Percentage of Contractor Specializations

In the Palestinian Gaza Strip. Source: PCU 2003.

10

1.9 Problem Definitions The Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip is a very important sector. When the

Palestine National Authority (PNA) was formed many of construction projects were

executed in all Gaza strip governorates, these projects were funded by donors or by the

private sector . The construction industry is still facing management difficulties through out

the project life cycle.

The local Palestinian authorities which deal with different donor funds carry out the donor

regulations which in some cases is difficult to be used by the local contractors or even

difficult to be compatible with local construction standards. In recent years the local

construction industry has experienced major changes in its methods and procedures; almost

every aspect of the construction process has undergone broad and basic modification.

The construction industry is characterized by the increasing number and cost of claims

disputes between the contractors and the project owner. These claims stem out from many

causes, including varied interpretation of contract specifications, unpredictable and

uncontrollable delays, and non performance of various firms involved in the construction

process. Dispute over cost and claims jeopardizes a contractor's profitability and the

financial success of the project for the project owner.

Construction claims and disputes can occur in both publicly and privately funded projects,

and in projects of small, as well as large currency amounts. In effect, no project can be

considered shielded from a potential claim. This fact, that lots of claims can be significant

financial damages, this making it crucial that all parties including project owner, designer

and contractor should fully understand the claim process. Owners and contractors can take

one of the two positions relative to the claim process. Their efforts can center on taking

steps to prevent a claim from even happening. On the other hand, they can focus on how to

create, prepare, or defeat a claim. Therefore the claim management process in the local

construction industry should be clear and understood by all construction parties especially

the local contractor in order to know how to present claims in a way to ensure receiving

their rights.

11

1.10 Research Aim The aim of this research is to study claims causes and management process in the

construction industry in the Gaza Strip.

1.11 Research Objectives

The main objectives of this research are the following:-

1. To identify the causes of claims and rank them according to their importance in the

construction industry.

2. To identify and rank the problems associated with claim process (Claim identification,

Claim notification, claim examination, claim documentation, claim presentation,

claim negotiation).

3. To conduct some practical case studies to check how actual claim procedures performs.

4. To provide recommendations for contractor and owners about claim management

practice in the Gaza Strip construction industry.

1.12 The Importance Of This Study The Construction Industry is one of the main industries in the Gaza Strip. Most of the

performed construction projects are implemented through the local Authorities by using the

experts of local consultants and local contractors. During the previous years many

construction projects had completed on time but some of these projects had been delayed

because of forces out of the contractors and owners control. This has created conflicts and

problems to all project parties.

The importance of the research is for the following reasons:

1. The study will check up causes of claims in the Gaza Strip local construction industry.

2. It will investigate the understanding of claim procedure used by the owners and

contractors in the local construction industry.

3. This study will assist in indicating the actual problems facing contractors and owners

during dealing with claims, and how to assist in reaching a good claims management

process.

Claim Causes and Management Process in the Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

12

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter focuses on subjects that are available in literature and related to the

construction industry claims.

2.0 Introduction

Claims are a common occurrence in construction industry. Most claims are legitimate and

do not give rise to dispute or confrontation between the owner and the contractor. Two

situations can arise. The owner and contractor can come to an agreement on the claim and

then the owner issues a change order. If the parties disagree a dispute arises which must be

resolved. It is important to remember that most contracts stipulate a claim procedure where

claims must be submitted within a prescribed period of time. Recently, the construction

industry has experienced an increase in claims and disputes that require dispute resolution

when the parties cannot resolve their differences by negotiation (Ahuja, 1994 ).

Problems usually arise everyday in construction projects. Indeed, the entire design and

construction process involves resolving challenges and managing the risk inherent in

building. However, certain problems go beyond the expectations and risks initially accepted

by the parties. At least, that is what the parties may argue in the face of such problems. The

problems may involve design errors, subsurface conditions, defective material, performance

delays, additional work, and a host of other events and conditions which may affect the

time, cost, and method of performance of the contractor, designer, suppliers, managers,

subcontractors, owner, or others involved in a project. The parties affected by the problem

may deal with it, resolve it, ignore it, or absorb the cost involved or try to pass the problem

on to others.

The mere occurrence of problems may not be significant. However, a construction problem

becomes a claim when someone asks for money, additional performance time, or a change

in the method of its performance although eventually, it all comes back to money. The

additional time involved may directly or indirectly cost the parties more money. The

change in the manner or method of performance may be more costly. The affected parties

will try to pass the additional cost on to others and thus, the claim process begins

( Bramble, 1990 ).

13

In contractual obligation and construction management of project operations, claim

consciousness is the knowledge that even seemingly insignificant problems can be and will

escalate through neglect or mismanagement to sizable liquidated damages. Each player in

the project has an investment of time and capital in the project and each has something to

lose if the project is not completed according to contract (Hutchings, 1998).

2.1 Claim Definitions

A Claim is defined as a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting

parties seeking as a matter of right, the payment of money in sum certain, the adjustment or

interpretation of contract terms or other relief arising under or related to a given contract

(Mitchell, 1998). Most of the standard forms of contract used in the building and civil

engineering industry recognize the fact that where the actions of the employer and his

agents result or likely to result in the contractor incurring additional cost, there must be

adequate contractual mechanism for reimbursing the contractor (Vidogah and Ndekugri,

1998).

A construction claim arises when a party to a construction contract believes that in some

way, by act or omission, the other party has not fulfilled its part of the bargain. To put it in

other words, a claim arises when one party to the contract has suffered a detriment for

which that party be compensated by the other party (Kartam,1999).

A claim may be defined as the seeking of consideration or change by one of the parties

involved in the construction process (Arditi and Patel, 1989). Also claims can be

described as a general term for the assertion of the right to money, property or remedy

(Powell, Smoth and Stephenson 1993).

14

2.2 Construction Claim Categories

Other researchers classify the main categories (types) of construction claims as extensions

of time, variation in quantities, variations in specification and drawing changes

(Heath,1994).

Unrealistic expectations by the parties, ambiguous contract documents, poor

communication among project participants, lack of team spirit among participants and

failure of participants to deal promptly with changes and unexpected conditions causes of

claims arise in construction project (Bristow & Vasilopoulous, 1995).

Bramble (1990) asserts that construction claims typically fall into one of two major

categories changes and delays, where the two areas encompass nearly all types of

construction contract disputes.

2.3 Changes

The first major category of claims involves changes: when a contractor is required to under

take any type of work that deviates from the original bargain of the contract or from the

scope of work or plan of action reasonably anticipated under the contract, the change

increases the cost or time of performances and the contractor may seek an adjustment. The

various type of changes can be classified as; Formal Changes, Constructive Changes,

Cardinal Changes, Design-related Changes, Termination, Payment Changes,

Coordination Duties, Owner-Furnished Items, Higher Standards (Bramble, 1990).

A change order can be defined as “written authorization provided to a contractor approving

a change from the original plans, specification, or other contract document, as well as a

change in the cost ( Means,1991). A change or changes made by an owner are so extensive

or of such magnitude as to be outside the scope of the original contract, the owner has made

such a change. The contractor may refuse to perform the work and would be permitted to

abandon the project. (Mitchell, 1998 ).

The formal changes can be identified as the owner or his agents direct the contractor to

make specific changes to the work required by the project plans and specification,

acknowledging that the change is being made. In this case the contractors benefit when the

specified changing procedures are followed (Bramble,1990).

15

A constructive change is an informal act authorizing or directing a modification to the

contract, caused by the owner or architect through an act or a failure to act. Certain acts or

failures to act by the owner, that increase the contractor costs and/ or time of performance

may be considered grounds for a change order (Hutchings, 1998 )

The constructive changes may result from the action or inaction of the owner agents that

affects either the cost or the time of performing the construction regardless of whether a

formal change order is issued, where the owner may not intend or even recognize that the

matter may result in an adjustment to the contract time or cost (Bramble, 1990)

Constructive changes occur when the owner or his authorized representative acts in such a

way that causes a contractor to perform additional work. There are seven typical categories

of constructive change orders: changes in the method of performance, misinterpretation of

specification, defective specifications, over inspection, rejection of or equal” submissions,

defective specification, and defective- furnished property or equipment ( Hutchings, 1998).

The constructive change may be the result of the owner or his agents’ failure to fulfill a

contractual obligation. Alternatively, it may result from design problems, clarifications, and

owner interference with the contractor’s responsibilities, owner delays to the project

(Bramble, 1990). A constructive change orders result when the owner or their authorized

representatives give or fail to give directions that interfere with the normal contract

development and have such an effect as if a formal change order has been issued (Bshait

and Manzanera, 1998 )

A cardinal change is when the changes (either formal or constructive) are so extensive as to

change the entire character of the work required under the contract. In such cases, it is

alleged that the changes have so altered the general scope of the work that the original

contract is no longer valid (Bramble, 1990).

2.4 Delays

It is common for a construction project to encounter delays. There are several reasons that

can contribute to delaying a project. Analyzing the various causes that contribute to project

delay is an important task towards resolving them. Determining, in a scientific manner, the

impact, timing, and the contributing effect of each of those causes to the overall delay

should assist in helping the parties settle the delay without litigation (Kartam, 1999).

16

Many construction claims involve allegations of project delay. Delay is easy to allege, but

often difficult to prove. Project delay may be caused by any of the parties to the

construction and design process. Most delay claims are submitted by the contractors who

allege that delays were caused by the owner or the owner agents, such as the architect or

construction manager. Delay to project completion may result from a number of underlying

causes. These causes may include changes, different site conditions, poor performance by

sub contractor, design problems, tardy shop drawing approvals, lack of coordination by the

owner, late delivery of owner- furnished items and bad weather. Another common problem

is the delayed approval of change order, performance specification (Bramble, 1990).

Different site conditions are the most recurring causes of contract problems. Strikes,

adverse weather, third parties, contractor errors, change orders and owner directed

suspensions all can cause delay. These delays can be a few hours, or extend several years,

and they almost always cause additional direct and indirect costs (Mitchell, 1998).

Delays are a major cause of claims. A review of the many causes of claims will

immediately identify which causes give rise to delays. Standard Construction Contracts

recognize the following delays:

1. Excusable delay-entitles a contractor to a time extension. These arise because of owner-

initiated actions or changes, severe weather and other force majeure considerations, and

design problems. Some contracts contain a "no damages for delay" clause which attempts

to prevent a contractor from recovering any cost of delay for any reason.

2. Inexcusable delay –caused by events which should have been reason ably expected or

generally of the contractors own making.

3. Compassable delay - entitles a contractor to both an extension of time-and additional

impanation. Some examples include scope changes, late supply of owner materials or

information, impeded site access, out of sequence work requested by owner, and differing

site conditions (Ahuja, 1994).

Delay should not be confused with the concepts of suspension or disruption of the work.

Suspension is a temporary work stoppage that may not delay the project. Disruption is the

interruption of the contractor's planned work flow, but may not involve any delay. Claims

due to the concepts are based on other factors, in addition to delays caused by productivity

related issues (Ahuja, 1994). Delays to the progress of a construction job fall into two basic

classes excusable and no excusable. Non excusable delays are those that are within the

17

control of the contractor, are the result of the contractors’ actions, or are due to the failure

of the contractor to anticipate expected conditions.

Excusable delays or that which are beyond the control of the contractor entitle the

contractor to extensions of contract time (Mitchell, 1998). The main categories of delays in

construction projects are the engineering equipment, external delays, labor, management,

material, owner, subcontractors, and weather (Yates, 1993).

Delays causes can be identified as financing of and payment for completed works, poor

contracting management, changes in site conditions and shortages in materials (Mansfield

1994). Delay also can classified as the causes of delay via project participants and

extraneous factors. Client –related identified include variation orders, slow decision-

making and cash flow problems while contractor –related delays include financial

difficulties, materials management problems, planning and scheduling problems,

inadequate site inspection, equipment management problems and shortage of man power.

Extraneous causes of delay identified were inclement weather, Acts of Cod, labour disputes

and strikes (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997).

Delays are the major causes of construction claims, the word delays means the time

overrun either beyond the contractor date or beyond the date that the parties agreed upon

for delivery of projects. In term of financial consideration, delay related claims are big

money items in the field of litigated construction matters. To the owners delay can mean

loss of revenue through lack of production facilities and retable space, or continuing

dependence on present facilities. To the contractor delays means higher overhead cost

because of the longer construction period, higher material costs through inflation, and

escalation costs due to wage increases.( Riad, Arditi and Mohammad, 1991)

The most important causes of delay include approval of shop drawings, delays in payments

to contractors and resulting cash problem during construction, design changes, conflicts in

work schedules of subcontractors, slow decision making and executive bureaucracy in the

owners organization, design errors, labor shortage and inadequate labor skills( Mezhere,&

Tawil 1998 ). The main causes of delays in the construction projects are designers, user

changes, weather, sit conditions, late deliveries, economic conditions, and increase in

quantities (AL Momani 2000).

18

Delays are categorized into excusable and non-excusable, where the excusable category

relieves the contractor of liability for liquidated damages where most of the excusable

delays cases can rise from inclement weather, variation order, substantial increase in

quantity of any work item not resulting from a variation, delayed possession of site,

disruption to regular progress due to late instruction, variation, opening for inspection,

delay cased by any person or organization employed by the employer, and late delivery of

materials by the employer (Yogeswaran, Kumaraswamy and Miller, 1998).

Contractor delay categories and causes are presented in Table 2.1. Where the contractor

performance depends on his capacity to deliver sufficient resources when needed to meet

project requirements. The contractor performance category is divided into five sub

classifications, which are resources, materials, equipment, labors, project management, and

project finance ( Alkhalil and Alghafly 1999).

Table no.2.1 Summarized common causes of delays by the contractor performance ( Alkhalil and Alghafly 1999) No. Causes of delay 1 Shortage of materials required 2 Delay in materials delivery 3 Changes in materials prices 4 Changes in materials specification 5 Shortage and failure of equipment required 6 Inadequate equipment used for the work 7 Shortage of man power ( skilled, semiskilled, unskilled labour ) 8 Low skill of man power 9 Shortage of contractors administrative personal

10 Shortage of technical professional in the contractors organization 11 Poor communication by the contractor with the parties involved in the project 12 Contractor’s poor coordination with the parties involved in the project 13 Slow preparation of change orders requests by the contractors 14 Ineffective contractor head office involvement in the project 15 Delay in mobilization 16 Lose safety rules and regulation within the contractors organization 17 Poor qualification of the contractors technical staff assigned to the project 18 Improper technical study by the contractor during bidding stage 19 Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor 20 Delay of filed survey by the contractor 21 Ineffective control of the project progress by the contractor 22 Inefficient quality control by the contractor 23 Delay in the preparation in the contract submission 24 Improper construction method implemented by the contractor 25 Difficulties in financing the project by the contractor 26 Cash flow problem faced by the contractor 27 Problems between the contractor and his subcontractors with the regard to payment

19

Construction delays are classified according to liability into two major types, namely

excusable or noexcusable delays. Excusable delays are those not attributable to the

contractors actions or inactions, and typically include unforeseen events. These even are

beyond the contractors control and are without fault or negligence on his/her part.

Nonexcusable delays are delays which result from the contractors or sub-contractors

actions or inactions(AlKass,Mazerolle& Harris, 1996).

2.5 Development of Claims Management

Claims management is the process of employing and coordinating resource to progress a

claim from identification and analysis through preparation, and presentation, to negotiation

and settlement (Keane,1994). The aim of claims management is to ensure that the client

pays a fair price for interfering with the contract in the execution of the work (Bramble and

Callahan,1992). Besides the management activities at the construction phase, claims

management are also heavily dependent on the legal principles and other management

theories at pre-construction phase, which mainly includes standard construction contract

forms, risk management theory and project procurement systems. These principles and

theories are vital to avoid construction claims and disputes in the first place, and to ensure

that claims management starts right if claims cannot be avoided (Ren, Anumba and Ugwu,

2001). However, most of the available literature on claims management, by way of defining

remedial measures, does not go beyond general exhortations to the contract to identify

clearly the causes of claims and maintain adequate information to support claims (Vidogah

and Ndekugri, 1998). The current framework for construction claims management is based

on the industry practice of the past few decades. Figure 2.1 shows a typical claim

management life cycle based on the requirement of International Federation of Consulting

Engineers FIDIC (4th edition, 1999).

20

No, explain reasons and check the

problem

Yes, instruct to keep further records

Submit the account with break down and

state any further evidences

Engineer

Contractor

Client

Project Contracts ( Basis of Claims ) Agreement, condition of contract, special provisions, BOQ, drawings , specification

Event which cause claims Additional work not specified in the contract documents, work different from that specified, work in a particular manner different from that originally anticipated, work resulting from changed, amended, or clarified contract drawing or specification, suspension, ………, strikes, force of nature, etc.

Fig.2.1 shows a typical claims management life cycle based on the requirements of FIDIC ( 4th edition,1999).

Re-quantify the claim and

collect evidences

Continue the work,

document all the events

Quantify the interim

account (for continuing

effect)) or final account as

required by the engineer

Arbitration Or Litigation

Notify the possible claim

Inspect the

Contemporary records, and decide whether

to require the contractor keep further records

Disagree, explain the reasons

Joint the negotiation if necessary

Reach agreement ad inform the client for the payment

Examine the evidences accounts

Negotiation

Accept, inform client for payment

21

Figure 2.1 shows a typical claims management life cycle based on the requirements of

FIDIC (4th edition). Levin(1998) standardizes the management process as:

(a) Recognition and identification.

(b) Notification to engineer and the client.

(c) Systematic and accurate documentation.

(d) Analysis of time and cost impact

(e) Pricing.

(f) Negotiation.

(g) Dispute resolution and settlement

The current industry practice shows that the main challenge of claims management is not

from the overall management process, but from the ineffectiveness of management activity

at each stage. The key aspects include how to justify a proposed claim, how to quantify and

present it with full and detailed documentation, and how to negotiate successfully with the

client and his agent (Levin, 1998).

For example, identification of causes of claims and proper documentation have been

recognized as the two most important and difficult factors to justify a claims. The complex

causes and effects of construction claims make it difficult to clearly address the claim event

and liabilities, which is one of the major reasons for disputes. Meanwhile, documentation is

extremely important for the justification of claims as well as the whole claims management

process although it is time consuming, and is rarely directly rewarded ( Wilson,1982).

Proper records are crucial for justifying the identified claims, analyzing the project scope

change and addressing the cost of the identified claim. Following the justification of a

claim, the next task is to quantify the claim, which includes both the direct costs or delays

caused by the unanticipated events, and the cumulative impacts of such events. However,

arguments are often generated a bout the rates of compensation, quantity of the impacts,

and especially the composition of the cumulative effects of the claim event, such as loss of

productivity, disruption and indirect costs. These items, by nature, are ambiguous and

sensitive. Some of them are impossible to quantify with precision even with the best

information available. Therefore it is very difficult to reach a satisfactory solution between

project participants. In most cases, negotiations are the main approaches to resolve such

conflicts before they finally become disputes. ( Z. ren, C.J. anuma and O.O. ugwu,2001)

22

2.6 Common Causes of Construction Claims

Sizeable claims harm both the employers and the contractors. An employer may suffer loss

of income, problems with funding and delayed occupancy; a contractor may face financial

instability due to loss of payments. Since it is far less costly to prevent claims than to

litigate them, it is wise for anyone involved in the industry to become familiar with claims

management (Richter, 2000).

The common causes of construction claims can be summarized as follows: contracts,

designers, owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers (Bramble, 1990).

2.6.1 Contracts

The construction contract itself may be a source of the problems that lead to disputes and

claims. For construction projects, it is very difficult to state expectations and requirements

with precision in any written agreement. Potential problem areas include ambiguities,

omissions, conflicts, adjustment clauses, multiple prim contracts fast-track construction,

and unrealistic performance time (Bramble, 1990).

There are a variety of different type of designers: architects, interior designers, geotechnical

consultants, and engineers with different specialties. Any of these types can play a crucial

role in minimizing and resolving disputes. Tensions may arise due to the quality of their

professional performance, their professional obligation to the owner and their financial

interests. Potential problem areas include Design errors, lack of design coordination,

inadequate design review, construction phase services, inadequate investigation, project

cost estimates, performance specification (Bramble, 1990).

Architects and engineers (A/E) are the causes of many claims. Incomplete information on

drawings and design errors are the leading causes of claims. Also, the failure of (A/E) to

perform, and in a timely manner, such services as shop drawing review, change order

approval, in sections, clarification of drawing and specification, and correction of design

errors. A lack of design coordination and inadequate design review also are manifested in

errors, omissions, schedule conflicts and interferences between the various system

designers (Ahuja, 1994).

23

2.6.3 Contractors

There are many acts and omissions of contractors which lead to construction claims. One of

the most frequent problems concerns the preparation of the project estimates and bids,

evaluation of the site and design review, failure to effectively manage the construction

process, lack of experience in the locale or the project type, poor quality construction,

labor problems, equipment problems, financial problems (Bramble, 1990).

Because contractors often bear the financial burden of project problems, they must

aggressively seek relief through claims. A common cause of distress to contractors is

mistakes in estimating the cost of work. Underbidding leads to a claim mentality because

the contractor will attempt to mitigate the forecast loss if the bid price is below the

anticipated cost. Poor construction quality is a common source of claim. Correction of

defective materials and workmanship increases cost and may cause schedule delays.

Inadequate performance by the contractor to recover the cost overruns through Claims

(Ahuja, 1994).

Claims by owners to contractors usually concern the materials out of specification,

defective work where the contractors are responsible for the quality of their work as

Specified in contractual terms, property damage as a result from such sources as damage to

owners installations when performing the contract, contractor late completion where

contracts usually call for a completion date on the assumption that the owner is in need of

the facility by that date. A late finish by the contractor may bring inconvenience and /or

financial losses to the owner ( Bshait and Manzanera, 1998).

Contractor-induced situations which may entitle the owner to be compensated are failure to

man the project, failure to provide sufficient equipment, cash flow limitations, poor

workmanship, poor planning and low bid offering (Riad,Arditi and Mohammad, 1991).

2.6.4 Subcontractors and Suppliers

Subcontractors may be subject to the same problems as contractors, there are certain unique

situations involving subcontractors that may be the cause of construction disputes. often

there are problems with the coordination of work packages among the various trade

contractors (Bramble, 1990). The lack of coordination of contractors and suppliers is often

a problem which creates conflicts and claims (Ahuja, 1994).

Comment [TA1]: Unclear

24

2.6.5 Owners

Like the others parties in a construction project, owners also may be the source of problems

that result in claims. Owners may be unaware that they are legally responsible for certain

problems. Potential problem areas include preconstruction where the owner may fail to

obtain permits, easements, or right-of-way. Owner changes frequently are the cause of

construction disputes. Owner interference may be manifested by excessive changes, oral

directives affecting the means and methods of performance, over inspection, removal of

subcontractors, and the takeover of certain portions of work. Owner design responsibility

this is often stated in terms that the owner “ warrants the adequacy” of the design to the

construction contractors, or the owner is “ vicariously liable” for the contractor’s costs of

dealing with any design problems (Bramble 1990).

Owners have contractual responsibilities such as the need to obtain permits and licenses,

timely a ward of the contract, and adequate financial resources to meet progress billings.

Changes result in claims. Owners must control changes and process change orders in a fair

and equitable manner (Ahuja 1994).

The most frequent reasons for filing a claim against the owner of a projects as result of

poor project planning when planning is not taken seriously enough to produce an adequate

environment to develop a project. Scope changes when usually initiated by a change order,

letter of intent, or field directive, constructive change order, errors and omissions don by

the owner or their authorized representative, contract acceleration and expediting, work

suspension and stoppages, site access or availability other contractors interference and

delays, strikes and acts of god, low bidders( Bshait and Manzanera, 1998).

The contractor will claim for loss and expense incurred or likely to incur resulting from

failure of the owner to make the site available t the contractor to commence work, late

issue of instruction and drawing by the architect, changes made by the owner to the

original design during construction, owners failure to supply materials or equipment

(Vidogah and Ndekugri, 1998).

Delays caused by owners can result from the failure to provide access to property, or right

of way, failure to fund the project on time, owner furnished material not made available, or

interference by other prime contractors working for the owner (Riad, Arditi and

Mohammad,1991).

25

2.6.6 The projects

Often the project itself s the origin of the problems that lead to claims. Difficulties may be

inherent in the type of project or project site ( Bramble, 1990 ). Projects that are complex,

large, remotely located, in congested areas, or require technology at the cutting edge are

subject to construction claims. Some examples are nuclear power plants, process plants,

unique structures, underground construction, earthwork, and renovation projects (Ahuja,

1994).

2.6.7 Outside Forces

There are outside forces beyond the reasonable control of any party to the project which

may impact construction progress and result in construction claims. These forces are often

called “Force Majeure” or “acts of God”. Force Majeure contract clauses refer to

occurrences which are beyond the reasonable control of any party to the construction

contract.These are stated as “Acts of God” or “Unavoidable Casualty”. Claims for a time

extension are usually permitted. These claims are due to severe weather conditions, such as

floods, fires, or even sabotage, and so on ( Ahuja, 1994 ).

2.7 Analyzing Claims

2.7.1 Initial Investigation

The first phase in analyzing a claim involves developing an overview of the project, the

participants, the contract, the available documentation, the work site, and the disputes.

After completing the overview, one can develop initial findings and conclusions. The basic

goals of this phase are:-

1. To obtain an understanding of the project

2. To identify problem areas and issues.

3. To determine the opposing parties interests

4. To develop a management plan to deal with the claim in an economic and efficient

manner (Bramble, 1990).

26

2.7.1.1 Contract Review

The first step is to review the contract documents. This will include not only the formal

agreement, but the general conditions, drawing, specifications, addenda, addenda changes,

instructions to bidders, and other items.

The general conditions contain the rules for dealing with claims, such as notice time

requirement, submission format, content, and certification. The general conditions also

contain the specific clauses which deal with the ability to recover claims, changes, differing

site conditions, suspension of work, delays, and time extension clauses (Bramble, 1990).

2.7.1.2 Document Overview

On many construction projects, there are an overwhelming number of project records.

Table 2.2 is a checklist of the various types of records which typically may be kept on a

project. During the initial overview, it is not necessary nor is there time to examine all of

the documentation in detail. A preliminary review of certain basic documents may provide

insight into the issues that are either in dispute or should be in dispute (Bramble, 1990).

Table no.2.2 Summarized Checklist of Project Record No. Checklist of Project Record 1 BID DOCUMENTS [ 2 CONTRACTS 3 CORRESPONDENCE 4 SPECIFICATIONS & DRAWING 5 MEETING MINUTES 6 COST RECORDS 7 SCHEDULES 8 PHOTOGRAPHS 9 CERTIFICATES

10 PEMITS - BUILDING 11 MISCELLANEOUS

2.7.1.3 Site Visit

It is Important to visit the project site for the sole purpose of focusing on the claim or

mutter in dispute. One may be on the job every day, or one may never have been on site.

Either way, a great deal can be learned by the job with just that particular problem in mind.

All persons preparing or analyzing the claim should have benefit of this site visit. There are

other reasons for visiting the project site, during the visit one can talk with the on –site staff

about their opinions on the problems. Further, documents in the job trailer can be

27

examined, and if inadequate, the field staff can be encouraged to keep better records.

(Bramble, 1990). The importance of the site investigation should not be treated lightly. In

addition to aiding the contractor in preparing a bid and planning the work, the site

investigation (and Bid estimate) can play a crucial role in claim situations (Mitchell, 1998).

2.7.1.4 Interviews

The individual performing the claims analysis should meet with key project personnel from

both the field and home office. Normally, one would have access only to the party’s own

personnel, or related firms with common interests that are not antagonistic. In interviewing

project personnel, it is important to get their perspective on the issues in dispute (Bramble

1990).

2.7.1.5 Initial Findings

One of the main purposes of the initial investigation is to identify the issues in claims,

which are often not readily apparent. A checklist of problems should be prepared and then

developed into more generalized issues. From a review of the basic project documentation

and the contract, a site visit, and interviews with the project personnel, one may perform a

preliminary analysis of the key issues in disputes. Tentative findings and conclusions may

also be developed. In many instances, the conclusion may be premature, but an attempt

should be made to evaluate the true causes and responsibility for the claimed problems. The

primary purpose of the preliminary investigation is to analyze facts and develop

conclusions, not merely to recount the project history (Bramble 1990).

2.7.2 Information Gathering and Analysis

The analysis of major construction claims may require more extensive information

gathering than is possible in the preliminary analysis period. After the issues have been

identified in the initial investigation stage, more documentation may be necessary to

perform a detailed analysis of responsibility, impact and damages. In the first phase, an

overview or inventory of the documents may have been prepared.

The purpose of this phase is to gather relevant information and organize it into a usable and

accessible system or format. There are many sources of information, and many ways to

obtain this information (Bramble, 1990).

28

2.7.3 Establishing Entitlement

The ultimate purpose of the analysis is to determine whether there is any merit to the claim.

To determine the claimant’s entitlement to any recovery, it is necessary to evaluate the facts

and analyze each issue in detail. One must determine the merits of the overall position of

the party relating to the dispute. The first step is to compare the parties expectation with

what actually occurred. The next step is to apply various entitlement factors to the issues,

and determine who is at fault (Bramble, 1990).

2.7.4 Calculation of Damages

Calculating and documenting the cost impact of the alleged problems is a very important

aspect of dealing with construction claim. The ultimate recovery on a claim can be

simplified as follows: if entitlement, then damages. Both must be proved. Proof of

entitlement a lone is not enough. Many claimants focus too much on liability. Frequently

they are certain that they have incurred costs and, therefore, necessarily will recover

damages However, damages are not automatic; they must be proved. Further, the claimant

must prove that it incurred unanticipated costs as a result of the claimed events

(Bramble 1990).

Pricing of Claims is divided into two types: forward pricing -where the price is negotiated

before the work is done, and post pricing - pricing during or after performance of the work.

In either case, the pricing elements of the claim itself are the same, and include direct cost

of performing the changed work, impact and/or delayed performance costs, and markups.

There are no magic approaches or secret formulas for the successful pricing of claims.

What is important is that the various pricing elements be carefully calculated and

substantiated (Mitchell, 1998).

The claim must be properly allocable to the cost objective involved. Direct costs include

any cost specifically identified with one particular final cost objective. Indirect costs

include costs identified with more than one particular final cost objective, and these are

allocated in proportion to the a mount of direct costs allocated to each of the final cost

objectives. Impact damage (consequential) cost which may be effect the cost of changed

work, the otherwise unchanged wok, or the overall project. The most common impact

claims are dye to delay, acceleration and lost productivity.

29

2.7.5 Claim Procedure

An important first step in any type of claim procedure is to get a feel for the situation, and

an effective way of doing this is to interview all parties involved, provided that they are

available and that time permits. Second, it is important to review and assess the current

status of the construction. The third and most important step is to review the contract

document (Richter 2000).

2.7.6 Claim Identification

Identification of a claims situation is the first and most important phase of the entire claims

process. One cannot remedy a problem unless it phases of the entire claims process. One

cannot remedy a problem unless it is known to exist. Most claim situations, however, arise

out of subtle differences in field conditions, from job site delays or as a result of differences

of contract interpretation. In these and in all other instances, a claim situation must be

recognized and identified as soon as it occurs (Mitchell 1998).

Construction Claim identification involves “timely” and “accurate” detection of a

construction claim.This is the first and critically important ingredient of the claim process.

For example some construction claims of excellent merit are lost solely due to failure of

identify them. Thus an awareness of job factors, which give rise to construction claims, is a

skill that generally has to be specially acquired. Such learning not only sensitizes

construction managers to potential construction claims, but also exposes company –wide

problems to contract management (Easton 1989).

2.7.7 Claims Notification

Identification of claims must be followed by notification. The owner or a representative

must be formally notified of a claim or a change order if the contractor intends to seek

equitable adjustment for additional time or costs. Notification allows both parties to verify

conditions to assemble facts, and resolve disputes while the times are fresh in their minds

(Mitchell, 1998).

Construction claim notification involves alerting the other party of a potential problem in a

manner that is non adversarial time limit requirements are very crucial, for example, a

30

typical contract provision such as “ shall be confirmed in writing as soon as practicable and

no later than twenty days (Sawyer and Gillot, 1990).

An initial letter of a claim notice to the other party should be short, clear, simple,

conciliatory, and cooperative. It should indicate the problem and alert the other party of the

potential increase in time or cost (Kululanga, Kuotcha,and McCaffer, 2001).

2.7.8 Claim Examination

Claim examination involves establishing the legal and factual ground on which the claim is

to be based. This should also involve the estimate of the potential recovery. Such issues

may have to be investigated by interviewing staff who worked on the project. The primary

sources for claim examination could deal with project files, video, memos, etc, that must be

used to prove the time and cost elements of the claim (Kululanga, Kuotcha,and McCaffer,

2001).

2.7.9 Claim Documentation

Claim documentation is the collection of the hard facts that give the actual history of the

construction claim. A well prepared defendant quickly demolishes evidence and claim costs

that are not supported by accurate records. For example, minute inaccuracies can be seized

upon to cost doubt on the entire claim. The documented facts are the glue that holds the

legal framework together. If these are insufficient the claim will not hold (Kululanga,

Kuotcha, and McCaffer 2001).

Good documentation by both the owner and contractor is essential and avoids unproductive

confrontation. An open dialogue and prompt attention to problems will avoid many claims

and disputes; good documentation fosters cooperation. One of the most inexpensive and

efficient methods of protecting a against claims is to maintain a diary of the work. When

the owner has to refute a contractors claim, the dairy helps to substantiate such refutation.

Documented evidence forms the best basis for a contractor’s claim. Careful maintenance of

records throughout the project is a must to provide this data. A contractor should record all

change order affecting the contracted work, date of notice to proceed, amount estimated,

date of submission, time and amount requested, time and amount approved, and date of

approval. The contractor should also maintain a record of his or her claims with their

description, date of submission, time and amount requested, time and amount granted in

negotiated settlement, and documented decision of the owner. The contractor daily records,

31

letters, interoffice memos, telegrams, notes of messages and telephone conversations, and

other forms of oral and written communication may substantiate subtle owner imposed

changes.

Good, accurate records are a great help when negotiating change and disputes this will help

the contractor have the burden of proving for his claim where the needed records to

substantiate a claim are progress schedule, daily and weekly reports, change order log,

photographs, minutes of daily and weekly meetings ( Bshait and Manzanera, 1998 ).

A document management system is a tool for the storage and retrieval of unstructured

information. these can include faxes, scanned images, or document, drawing, word

processed documents, spreadsheet, data base report, letters, specifications, and any kind of

document; these will be a good supporting and evidence to the contractor claims (Vidogah

and Ndekugri 1998 )

When a party claims financial damages due to another party’s direction or negligence, the

claimant must prove costs as well as entitlement. With proof of a cost system, a party has

already done the ground work should the need arise to file for or defend against a claim. to

be successful in recovering al the costs incurred due to the improper actions of others, the

claimant must maintain records that are as accurate and complete as possible (Bramble,

1990).

2.7.10 Claim Negotiation

The construction contract administration process provides the parties with several

opportunities to negotiate and resolve construction problems before they become claims.

There are several procedures which are well suited to the review, consideration, and

settlement of construction disputes. They include the change order process, determining

progress payment; schedule (Bramble, 1990).

A structured and proper negotiation preparation includes (1) ascertaining that all

information is current and complete. (2) minimizing the scope of negotiation beforehand so

that insignificant points should not precipitate a violent argument and disrupt progress.(3)

Knowing one’s weaknesses and trying to utilize weak points by conceding them in return

form the other party.(4) foreseeing problems and (5) anticipating the oppositions next

move. (Easton 1989).

32

Negotiation involves two parties who agree to communicate with each other and make

decisions. The parties reach an agreement which is a modification to the contract (Ahuja,

1994).

Claim negotiation plays an important role in resolving claims, preventing disputes, and

keeping a harmonious relation between project participants. Most project managers

consider negotiation as the most time and energy consuming activity to claim management.

( Ren, Anumba and Ugwu 2003).

The most economical, practical, simplest and fastest method of settling claims is

negotiation where in this process, the two parties involved discuss the problem and try to

compromise on the claim (Arditi and Patel 1989).

2.8 Minimizing and Avoiding Claims

All participants in the design and construction process have a keen interest in avoiding and

minimizing the problems which lead to claims. the key is to anticipate and prevent

problems in advance. If a problem has already surfaced, the chance of a claim is minimized

if each party responds to the problem and resolves it before it gets out of hand.. (Bramble,

1990)

Sizeable claims harm both the employer and the contractors. An employer may suffer loss

on income, problems with funding and delayed occupancy, a contractor may face financial

instability due to loss of payments. Since it is far less costly to prevent claims than to

litigate them, it is wise for anyone involved in the industry to become familiar with claims

management ( Richter 2000 ).

2.8.1 Managing Risk

To minimize and avoid claims, one must first recognize the recurrent causes of construction

claims. Each of the different causes may be thought of as a risk that must be managed.

There are various ways to deal with the risk of the recurrent causes of construction claims.

Certain matters can be addressed in the contract so as to avoid specific problems. Another

way of dealing with risk is to allocate the risk to another party in the construction or design

contract (Bramble, 1990).

33

2.8.2 Avoiding Claims Before Construction

Many construction claims can be avoided or minimized if all of the parties involved in the

design and construction process review and critique the project plan and program before

commencing construction. This includes not only the drawings and specification, but also

the contractors’ plan of action for building the project (Bramble, 1990).

Avoidance of Claims is the best approach for all participants. To avoid claims, it is

necessary that thorough consideration be given to the contracting method before proposals

are accepted. The project management should take the time to review thoroughly each

contractors schedule and a activity net work in view of the contractors capacity for timely a

achievement of interface events. Fair allocation of risk and incentives for cooperation are

also good prevention methods (Ahuja, 1994). Claims avoidance are very important aspect,

it can be achieved by understanding the contract document and value of proper examination

and review of the specification and reviewing, ensuring that all document are

understandable, unambiguous and consistent (Richter, 2000).

2.8.3 Avoiding Claims During Construction

Even during the course of construction, the parties can act to minimize and perhaps even

avoid some problems which often result in construction claims. The design should be

involved during the construction phase in the following ways :

• Providing services, such as the review and evaluation of shop drawings

• Clarifying the design

• Reviewing proposed material substitutions

The owner should also provide for a realistic inspection of the quality of the construction

contractors work. All parties should endeavor to facilitate communication, a process that

includes a variety of meetings [ pre-bid, pre-construction, periodic job, especial and

coordination meeting ]. The parties should also freely correspond with each other by letters,

memo, routing reports, and other documents in an informative –as opposed to –

accusatory manner. Even is significant problems are encountered in the field, the problems

need not lead to claims and lawsuit. However, there are two important aspects to

minimizing claims once problems have arisen:

1. recognizing that indeed problems have occurred

2. responding in away to resolve the problems before they get out of hand (Bramble,

1990)

34

An owner can prevent claims by creating a climate of cooperation on a projects. An

increasingly popular execution technique is to adopt the partnering concept where all

parties are viewed as key participants and contributors. A modus operandi is established

where all parties work diligently to minimize conflict and avoid claims by an open attitude

and honest approach toward the solution of the problems (Ahuja,1994).

2.8.4 Recognizing Problems

Problem recognition must begin with accurate initial documentation as to the project plan,

estimate, expectation and requirement. The next step is the monitor and maintain relevant

information throughout the course of the project in such a way that it can be used and

reviewed at various management level in a meaningful and timely fashion, information

management should include both field and home office for owners, contractors, and

designers. Problem may be recognized by comparing the actual information, and watching

for any significant variations (Bramble, 1990).

2.8.5 Responding to Problems

Once a construction problem has been recognized, a variety of actions may be necessary.

This includes notice, documentation, communication, and problem resolution. Again the

purpose is to minimize cost, delays, and disruption to the project, whether you are the

owner, contractor, or architect.

* Notice the first action that should be taken by the claimant when encountering a problem

that may lead to a claim is to notify the appropriate parties.

* Documentation : Notice alone is not enough. The owner, contractor, and designer all

must endeavor to document any relevant information relating to a potential claim or serious

problem. This may be a accomplished through daily reports, progress meeting,

photographs, job meeting minutes, correspondence, project schedule, and perhaps even

special diaries or reports.

Communication: Notice, documentation, and accumulation of cost records are often over-

emphasized, and communication between the parties under-emphasized. It is very

important for the parties to seek ways to resolve the problem, the potential impact and the

responsibility. The discussion could take place as part of a regular job meeting. In

maintaining communication, it is important to respond to all letters and written

35

documentation. Problem Resolution should be the focus of the parties to found a resolution

rather the claim advocacy. This should also be the orientation of management. All parties

will come out a head if the cause of the problem is identified and the impact mitigated. In

dealing with the construction problems, it must be kept in mind that it is better to achieve a

compromise resolution of the problem than to have a good claim. The goal is not to prove

that you are right, but rather to obtain a common resolution (Bramble, 1990).

2.9 Ethics of Claims

The owner- contractor relationship has a great effect on the settlement of claims. For an

owner, fairness pays off in the long run. If he/she is fair and maintains a reputations for it,

the contractor will not add an additional a mount to their bids to cover unfairness. Fairness

begins with the specification, which must avoid “weasel” clauses. In the long run, fairness

will result in lower job costs. If contractor can be confident that they will be treated fairly

and paid promptly by owners, they will be willing to submit lower bids because they can be

sure that if extra work arises they will be paid for it (Ahuja, 1994).

2.10 Settlement of Claims

Claims can be settled by the following methods:

1. Negotiation. 2. Dispute review boards 3. Mediation

4. Minitrials 5. Arbitration 6. Litigation

Negotiation involves two parties who agree other and make decisions. The parties reach an

agreement which is a, modification to the contract.

Dispute review boards (DRB) are formed at the inception of the project and remain

throughout construction. Disputes are heard as they arise and resolutions are arrived at in a

timely manner. These boards consist of industry experts who make nonbonding

recommendations for the settlement of each dispute. The Dispute Review Board fosters co-

operation between the contractor and the owner, and provide a means for prompt and

equitable resolution of claims and disputes (ASCE, 1991). The DRB does not supplant the

owner's dispute settlement methods, but rather is an intermediate step aimed at avoiding

more expertise and less satisfactory procedures. A DRB emphasizes dispute prevention.

36

Dispute Review Board is composed of three members. One is selected by the owner, one by

the contractors, and the third one is selected by both. The board members are sent weekly

progress reports and visit the project site. The findings and recommendations of the Dispute

Review Board are not legally binding (Riad, Arditi and Mohammad, 1991) .

The provision for mediation is unusually provided for by the contract. A neutral third party

acts as a communicator and facilitator as the parties make decisions themselves. An

agreement is reached which is nonbinding, but one to which the parties are morally

committed (Ahuja 1994).

Mediation consists of the effort of an individual to assist the parties in reaching a settlement

by direct negotiation between themselves, the mediator selected by the parties participates

impartially in the negotiation, advising and consulting the various parties involved. The

mediator cannot impose a settlement, but can only seek to guide the parties to the

achievement of their own settlement (Arditi and Patel, 1989).

Minitrials are also a nonbinding resolution procedure which follows a structured process

similar to litigation and is usually conducted by a judge

Arbitration is stipulated by contract or legislation or is simply agreed upon by the parties.

A neutral third party acts as a decision maker for a panel which consists of representatives

from the opposing sides of the dispute. The decision by the arbitrator is final and binding

(Ahuja 1994). Arbitration is a consensual forum; it must be entered into by mutual a

agreement of the parties. In arbitration, hearing are conducted not quite as formally as in a

court of law (Riad, Arditi and Mohammad, 1991).

The most expensive process for resolving disputes is litigation. There usually are no

winners in this process. A decision is rendered by a judge which is final and binding.

In spite of the pitfalls and shortcomings of the alternate dispute methods, they are preferred

to litigation, which is a lengthy and expensive process. Except for litigation, avoid the

presence of attorneys which can inhibit free and open exchange and may create an

adversarial mood (Ahuja 1994). Litigation at court of law, juries decide the outcome based

on witness opinions and expert testimonials. The decision are subject to appeal at higher

court (Riad, Arditi and Mohammad,1991).

The first method is the simplest and least expensive. A major disadvantage of litigation is

that an engineering decision may be placed in the hands of people who have no engineering

knowledge. The other alternative dispute methods lie in between (Ahuja, 1994).

37

2.11 Claim Process Used in Local Contracts, FIDIC, AIA, and ECC

In this research the study investigates, status of local construction projects contracts, used

in the Gaza Strip public construction projects in relation to claim. The local contracts used

compared to International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), American Institute

of Architects (AIA), and European Commission Contract (ECC) contracts in order to get

more information regards claim procedures presenting in the local contracts, and to

diagnose weakness point. The local contracts considered in this study presenting ministerial

institution level [Ministry of local Government (MLG)] and nongovernmental level [

Palestinian Housing Council (PHC), United Nations Relifs and Works Agency (UNRWA),

Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction PECDAR , United

Nation Development Program (UNDP), Municipalities in the Gaza Governorates].

2.11.1 Claim Process Used in FIDIC, AIA, and ECC Contracts

International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) ( First Edition 1999)

- Article 20 Claim, Disputes, and Arbitration : • If the contractor considers himself to be entitled extension of time and\or additional

payment, under any clause of these conditions or otherwise in connection with the contract, the contractor shall give notice to the engineer, describing the even or circumstances giving rise to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance.

• If the contractor fails to give notice of a claim within such period of 28 days, the time for completion shall not be extended, the contractor shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim. Otherwise, the following provisions of this sub-clause shall apply.

• The contractor shall also submit any other notices which are required by the contract, and supporting particulars for the claim, all as relevant to such event or circumstance.

• The contractor shall keep such contemporary records as may be necessary to substantiate any claim, either on the site or at another location acceptable by the engineer. Without admitting the Employers liability, the Engineer may, after receiving any notice under this sub-clause, monitor the records. The contractor shall permit the engineer to inspect all these records, and shall (if instructed) submit copies to the engineer.

• Within 42 days after the contractor became aware ( or should have become aware) of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim, or within such other period as may be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer, the contractor shall send to the engineer a fully detailed claim which includes full supporting particulars of the basis of the claim and of the extension of time and\or additional payment claimed. If the event or circumstance giving rise to claim has a continuing effect:

(a) This fully detailed claim shall be considered as interim. (b) The contractor shall send further interim claim at monthly intervals, giving the

accumulated delay and\or amount claimed, and such further particulars as the

38

engineer may reasonably require; and (c) The contractor shall send a final claim within 28 days after the end of the effects

resulting from the event or circumstance, or within such other period as may be proposed by the contractor and approved by the engineer.

• Within 42 days after receiving a claim or any further particulars supporting a previous claim, or within such other period as may be proposed by the engineer, and approved by the contractor, the engineer shall respond with approval, or with disapproval and detailed comments. He may also request any necessary further particulars, but shall nevertheless give his response on the principles of the claim such time.

American Institute of Architects (AIA) (June 2001)

• The contractor must refer the claim to the architect with in 21 days of the occurrence of the event that leads to the claims.

• Until the claim is resolved, the contractor must continue to work on the project and the owner must continue payments to the contractor.

• With in 10 days after it has received the contractors claim, the architect must take one of the five actions :

1) Request more information about the claim from the contractor. 2) Notify the contractor when it will take action on the claim. 3) Reject the claim. 4) Recommend approval of the claim. 5) Propose a compromise.

• Depending upon the architect’s response, the contractor is then given a notes 10 days to submit more information, modify the claim to make it more acceptable or respond that the original claim remains unchanged.

• If this response does not lead to resolution, the architect must then state in writing that it will render a final and binding decision with in 7 days.

European Commission Contract (ECC) (April 2004)

- Article 40 Amicable dispute settlement : • The parties shall make every effort to settle a amicably any dispute which may arise

between them. Once a dispute has arisen , the parties shall notify each other in writing of their positions on the dispute and any solution which they consider possible. If either party deems it useful, the parties shall meet and try and settle the dispute. A party shall respond to a request for amicable settlement with in 30 days of such a request. The Maximum period laid down for reaching such a settlement shall be 120 days from the commencement of the procedure. Should the attempt to reach an amicable settlement fail or party fail to respond in time to requests for a settlement, either Party shall be free to proceed to the next stage of the dispute settlement procedure by notifying the other.

• If the amicable dispute-settlement procedure fails, the Parties may in the case of decentralized contracts, agree to try conciliation through the European Commission. If no settlement is reached within 120 days of the start of the conciliation procedure, each Party shall be entitled to move on the next state of the dispute-settlement procedure. Each party may seek: A) either a ruling from a national court, B) or an arbitration ruling

39

2.11.2 Claim Process Used in Local Contracts

(United Nations Relifs and Works Agency) UNRWA (September 2002)

- Article 21 Dispute – Arbitration :

• In the event of any dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of the term of this Contract shall, unless settled by direct negotiation, be referred to an arbitrator who shall be appointed jointly by the parties. Should the parties not agree within thirty (30) days after request for arbitration by either party as the choice of the Arbitrator, the appointment shall be made by the president of the Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber upon request of either party. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding up the parties. It is understood, however; that the provisions of this Article and submission of the AGENCY to an a ward of an Arbitrator do not constitute a waiver by the AGENCY of its immunity from legal process.

(Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction) PECDAR (December 2003)

- Article 24.0 Dispute :

• If the contractor believes that a decision taken be the project Manager was either outside the authority given to the Project Manager by the contractor or that the decision was wrongly taking, the decision shall be referred to the Adjudicator with in 14 days of the notification of the Project Manager.

• The Adjudicator shall give a decision in writing within 28 days of receipt of a notification of a dispute.

• The Adjudicator shall be pays by the hour at the rate specified in bidding date and contract data, together with reimbursable expenses of the type specified in the contract data, and the cost shall be divided equally between the Employer and the Contractor, whatever decision is reached by the Adjudicator. Either party may refer a decision of the Adjudicator to an Arbitrator within 28 days of the Adjudicator’s written decision. If neither party refers the dispute to arbitration within 28 days, the Adjudicator’s decision will be final and binding.

• The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the arbitration procedure published by the institution named and in the place shown in the contract data.

(July 2004) ت�ghi+,وا )ij-,ا klj,وزارة ا no pqrst,�! USAID qlguovا F,��yo ا,xآ&u!FFq,وh,ا Fq-sti,

: الحماية والتعويض 25.2

مس أي شـخص أو ينبغي علي المقاول أن يحمي البرنامج من أية خسارة ويدفع التعويض عن أية مطالبات تتعلق بأضرار وخسائر ت •وعلي المقاول وعلي نفقته الخاصة تسوية أية مبـالغ أو رسـوم أو . لعمل المقاول في تنفيذ التزاماته بموجب العقد ةأية ممتلكات نتيج

.نفقات يتعرض لها البرنامج في كافة ما يتعلق بإنجاز وصيانة األعمال المطلوبة بهذه االتفاقية

مقاول بأن يدفع التعويض الالزم إليه عن كل خسارة أو ضرر يلحقان به نتيجة ألي عمل أو إهمال وعلي البرنامج أن يؤمن الحماية لل •من مستخدمي جهاز البرنامج وأي متعهد أخر لم يجر استخدامه من قبل المقاول، كما يتحمل البرنامج مسئولية تعارض تنفيـذ أعمـال

. بالماء والكهرباء أو الهاتف وما شابه ذلكالمقاول الدائمة والمشمولة باالتفاقية مع الخطوط الخاصة

40

Palestinian Housing Council (PHC) ن�l3{, )sq�ri|,ا }i~-,ا (June 2000)

: تسوية المنازعات 58.2

ثناء تنفيـذ سواء حدث الخالف أ -حدث نزاع أو اختالف ذو طبيعة فنية أو غير فنية بين المقاول والمالك أو بين المقاول والمهندس •األشغال أو بعد انتهائها فعلي المقاول أن يرفع هذا الخالف ورأيه فيه الي المالك عن طريق المهندس ويقوم المهندس بإبداء رأيه فـي الخالف وإقترحاته لحله مع المؤيدات النظامية ويرفعه إلي المالك إلتخاذ قرار نهائي بشأنه وتبليغه الي المقاول خالل مـدة ال تتجـاوز

في حال إعتراض المقاول علي قرار المالك خالل مدة ال تتجاوز الستيين يوما مـن تـاريخ . من تاريخ تسلم القضية ) 60(الستين يوما إستالم قرار المالك تعتبر القضية منتهية والقرار ملزم علي الطرفين، أما إذا لم يرض المقاول بما قرره المالك له أن يطلـب خـالل

وال يحق للمقاول التوقف عن العمل أثناء النظر في الخـالف وعليـه . الموضوع الي لجنة التحكيم كما هو مبين أدناه يوما إحالة ) 60( .المتابعة في تنفيذ األشغال وفقا لتعليمات إيضاحات وتحديدات المهندس

وإذا لـم يوفـق . تسمية الـرئيس تتألف لجنة التحكيم من عضوين ويعين كل من المالك والمقاول عضوا يمثله ويتفق العضوان علي •من تاريخ تعينهم يطلب من المحكمة المختصة تعيـين ) 30(العضوان في انتخاب الرئيس لهذه اللجنة في مدة ال تتجاوز الثالثين يوما

سواء تقـديم الرئيس ويكون لهذه اللجنة الحق في مراجعة جميع القرارات التي سبق واتخذها المهندس أم المالك ويحق للطرفين علي ال . أي إثباتات جديدة

لن تبت اللجنة بأي موضوع خالف قبل إنجاز األعمال إال إذا طلب كم من المالك المقاول علي السوء اللجوء إلـي التحكـيم بـدون • .ويتحمل كل من المالك والمقاول علي السواء أتعاب اللجنة وجميع المصاريف المترتبة مناصفة .االنتظار حتى إنجاز األعمال

1. Gaza Municipalities / Ministry of Local Government (MLG) (August 2002)

2. Gaza Municipalities / United Nation Development Program (UNDP) ) (August 2004)

: تسوية المنازعات 58.2

سواء حدث الخـالف أثنـاء -الك أو بين المقاول والمهندس إذا حدث نزاع أو اختالف ذو طبيعة فنية أو غير فنية بين المقاول والم •

تنفيذ األشغال أو بعد انتهائها فعلي المقاول أن يرفع هذا الخالف ورأيه فيه الي المالك عن طريق المهندس ويقوم المهندس بإبداء رأيـه ئي بشأنه وتبليغه الـي المقـاول خـالل مـدة ال في الخالف وإقترحاته لحله مع المؤيدات النظامية ويرفعه إلي المالك التخاذ قرار نها

في حال اعتراض المقاول علي قرار المالك خالل مدة ال تتجاوز الستين يومـا مـن . من تاريخ تسلم القضية ) 60(تتجاوز الستين يوما ا قرره المالك لـه أن يطلـب تاريخ إستالم قرار المالك تعتبر القضية منتهية والقرار ملزم علي الطرفين، أما إذا لم يرض المقاول بم

وال يحق للمقاول التوقف عن العمل أثناء النظر فـي الخـالف . يوما إحالة الموضوع إلي لجنة التحكيم كما هو مبين أدناه ) 60(خالل .وعليه المتابعة في تنفيذ األشغال وفقا لتعليمات إيضاحات وتحديدات المهندس

وإذا لـم يوفـق . المالك والمقاول عضوا يمثله ويتفق العضوان علي تسمية الـرئيس تتألف لجنة التحكيم من عضوين ويعين كل من •من تاريخ تعينهم يطلب من المحكمة المختصة تعيـين ) 30(العضوان في انتخاب الرئيس لهذه اللجنة في مدة ال تتجاوز الثالثين يوما واتخذها المهندس أم المالك ويحق للطرفين علي السواء تقـديم الرئيس ويكون لهذه اللجنة الحق في مراجعة جميع القرارات التي سبق

. أي إثباتات جديدة

لن تبت اللجنة بأي موضوع خالف قبل إنجاز األعمال إال إذا طلب كم من المالك المقاول علي السوء اللجوء إلـي التحكـيم بـدون • .االنتظار حتى إنجاز األعمال

.ء أتعاب اللجنة وجميع المصاريف المترتبة مناصفةويتحمل كل من المالك والمقاول علي السوا •

41

Form the presented different type of conditions of contract. It's clearly that FIDIC contract

described the claims procedures in comprehensive way. Where the existing local contracts

used in the Gaza constructions project are various, and changeable according to the owner

vision. From the revised different conditions of contract, its notices that claims procedures

are described in non comprehensive way, some of it did not indicate any issues regard

claims and some of these contract indicates the claims procedure in ambiguous way, which

create difficulties to the contractor in haw to present and discussed his claim with the

owner, where this issues can affect the contractor in losing his right to the claim.

Also its notices from the revised conditions of contract that there are more then one

language used. For example some owners used English languages contracts, which this

issue can create difficulties to the local contractors to understand it completely because of

English languages difficulties, and in some cases its presented in Arabic languages in a

short way and non comprehensive.

Also it can be observed from the collected local contracts and revised data that:

• Construction contract used in Gaza are one sided, unfair and unbalanced.

• All risks are shifted to the contractor side.

• Local contracts do not facilitate claim conditions and procedures.

• In some cases the owner practices its power by disposing special conditions which it

can be unfair and costly to the contractor.


CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

42

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methodology that was used in this research. The adopted

methodology to accomplish this study uses the following techniques: review of literature

related to claim management, claim case studies, the information about the research design,

research population, research sample size, research location research, questionnaire design,

statistical data analysis, content validity and pilot study.

3.1 Research Design

The first phase of the research thesis proposal included identifying and defining the

problems and establishment objective of the study and development research plan. The

second phase of the research included a summary of the comprehensive literature review.

Literatures on claim management was reviewed. The third phase of the research included a

field survey which was conducted with firm owners and contractor managers, also some

actual claims cases were collected during the field survey. The forth phase of the research

focused on the modification of the questionnaire design, through distributing the

questionnaire to pilot study, where expert local contractors and owners' firm's managers

were contacted. The purpose of the pilot study was to test and prove that the questionnaire

questions are clear to be answered in a way that help to achieve the target of the study. In

addition, it was important to ensure that all information received from contractors and

owners would be useful in achieving the research objective. The questionnaire was

modified based on the results of the pilot study.

The fifth phase of the research focused on distributing questionnaire. This questionnaire

was used to collect the required data in order to achieve the research objective. A hundred

contractor and 120 owner questionnaires were distributed to the research population but 83

contractor (83%) and 101 owner (84%) were received. The sixth phase of the research was

data analysis and discussion. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, (SPSS) was used

to perform the required analysis. The final phase includes the conclusions and

recommendations. Figure 3.1 shows the methodology flowchart, which leads to achieve the

research objective.

43

3.2 Research Population

This research targets 100 contractor companies and 120 owner working in the construction

projects in the Gaza strip. The selected contractors are classified under the first, second and

third classes in the various types of work fields by the Palestinian Contracting Union-PCU.

Contractors that are registered under the fourth and fifth classes were neglected due to the

low practical and administrative experience of their companies in construction works. The

studied population was the contractor companies that have a valid registration in the PCU

in the following fields: building, roads, water and sewage, electro-mechanics and public

works.

The owner agencies consist of all government agencies, ministries, municipalities,

international agencies, public project owners.

Topic Selection

Literature Review

Identify the Problem

Define the Problem

Establish Objective

Develop Research Plan

Questionnaires

Questionnaires Design

Results and Data Analysis

Conclusion & Recommendation

Figure 3.1 illustrates the methodology flow chart.

Field Surveying

Thesis Proposal

Literature Review

Interviews experts contractors

Interviews experts Owners

Cases Studies

Pilot Questionnaires

Questionnaires Validity

Questionnaires Reliability

44

3.3 Sample Size Determination

Wood and Haber (1998) defined the sampling as the process of selecting representative

units of a population for the study in research investigation. The objective of the sampling

is to provide a practical means of enabling the data collection and processing the

components of the research to be carried out whilt ensuring that the sample provide a good

representation of the population (Fellowes and Liu,1997). A sample is a small proportion of

a population selected for observation and analysis. The samples were selected randomly

from each type of the target groups (owners, contractors).

Statistical equations were used in order to calculate the sample size for the contractors.

Equation 3.1 was used to determine the sample size of the unlimited population (Creative

Research System, 2001):

SS = 2

2

C

P)(1*P*Z − Equation 3.1

Where SS = Sample size

Z = Z value ( e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)

P = percentage picking a choice, expressed as a decimal (0.50 used for sample size needed)

C = margin of error (8%)

SS = 1500.08

)5.0(1 0.5 1.962

2

=−××

contractors

Correction for Finite Population:

SS new

POP

1-SS 1

SS

+

= Equation 3.2

Where pop is the population = 139 match the proposed classes contracting companies

SS new 733.72

139

15011

150≈=

−+

=

The targeted 73 contractors were selected according to Equation 3.2.

Regarding owner population sample size in this study cover all government institutions in

Gaza Strip dealing with public construction projects.

45

To ensure good representation of each stratum, the percentage of representation within

strata was calculated as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Classification of sample size of the contracting companies and owners

Title Number of (population)

Number of sample

Number of distributed

questionnaires

Number of respondents

Number of valid

respondents

Contractors 100 73 100 90 83

Owners 120 80 120 106 101

3.4 Research Location

The research was carried out in the Gaza Strip, which consists of five governorates :

namely 6 contractors from north, 44 from Gaza, 10 from the middle Area, 20 from Khan-

Yunis and 10 contractors from Rafah governorates were interviewed. Owner including

local consultant firms were distributed according to location of the firm in all governorates.

3.5 Case Study

In this research four case studies were carefully selected and investigated. The aim of these

cases was to obtain in-depth information regarding the causes of claims in the construction

projects and to check the procedures and actions taken by both parties (owners/contractors)

in the identification, notification, examination, documentation, presentation and negations

the claims. Each case will be analyzed individually and classified according to the type of

claims.

46

3.6 Pilot Study

It is customary practice that the survey instrument should be piloted to measure its validity

and reliability and test the collected data. The pilot study was conducted by distributing the

prepared questionnaire to panels of experts having experience in the same field of the

research to have their remarks on the questionnaire.

Twenty two expert representing two panels were contacted to assess the questionnaire

validity. The first panel, which consisted of twenty experts (owners, consultants,

contractors), was asked to verify the validity of the questionnaire topics and its relevance to

the research objective. The second panel, which consisted of two experts in statistics, was

asked to identify that the instrument used was valid statistically and that the questionnaire

was designed well enough to provide relations and tests among variables.

Expert comments and suggestions were collected and evaluated carefully. All the

suggested comments and modifications were discussed with the study’s supervisor before

taking them into consideration. At the end of this process, some minor changes,

modifications and additions were introduced to the questions and the final questionnaire

was constructed.

3.7 Questionnaire Design and Content

According to the review of literature and after interviewing experts who were dealing with

the subject at different levels, all the information that could help in achieving the study

objectives were collected, reviewed and formalized to be suitable for the study survey and

after many stages of brain storming, consulting, amending, and reviewing executed by the

researcher with the supervisor, a questionnaire was developed with closed and open-ended

questions.

The questionnaire was designed in the Arabic language (Annex 5 and Annex 6), as most

members of the target population were unfamiliar with the English language and to be more

understandable. An English version was attached in (Annex 5 and Annex 6). Unnecessary

personal data, complex and duplicated questions were avoided. The questionnaire was

provided with a covering letter which explained the purpose of the study, the way of

responding, the aim of the research and the security of the information in order to

encourage high response.

47

The questionnaire design was composed of five sections to accomplish the aim of the

research, as follows:

1. The first section contained firm profile.

2. The second section contained the causes of claims in construction projects.

3. The third section is about common procedures included six main subsections as

follows:

• The first subsection (field) was about the claim identification.

• The second subsection (field) was about the claim notifications

• The third subsection (field) was about the claim examination

• The fourth subsection (field) was about the claim documentation

• The fifth subsection (field) was about the claim presentation

• The six subsection (field) was about the claim negotiation

4. The fourth section was about particular claims included three main question as

follows:

• The first question was about time extension claims.

• The second question was about the claims form change orders.

• The third question was about the design related claims.

5. The fifth sections was about general questions

With regard to the owner questionnaire, it is the same as the contractor questionnaire except

section four, which was excluded.

48

3.8 Validity of the Research

Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to be

measuring (Pilot and Hungler,1985). Validity has a number of different aspects and

assessment approaches. There area two ways to evaluate instrument validity: content

validity and statistical validity, which include criterion-related validity and construct

validity.

3.8.1 Content Validity of the Questionnaire

Content validity test was conducted by consulting two groups of experts. The first was

requested to evaluate and identify whether the questions agreed with the scope of the items

and the extent to which these items reflect the concept of the research problem. The other

was requested to evaluate that the instrument used is valid statistically and that the

questionnaire was designed well enough to provide relations and tests between variables.

The two groups of experts did agree that the questionnaire was valid and suitable enough to

measure the concept of interest with some amendments.

3.8.2 Statistical Validity of the Questionnaire

To insure the validity of the questionnaire, two statistical tests should be applied. The first

test is Criterion-related validity test (Spearman test) which measure the correlation

coefficient between each paragraph in one field and the whole field. The second test is

structure validity test (Spearman test) that used to test the validity of the questionnaire

structure by testing the validity of each field and the validity of the whole questionnaire. It

measures the correlation coefficient between one filed and all the fields of the questionnaire

that have the same level of similar scale.

3.8.2.1 Criterion Related Validity

Internal consistency of the questionnaire is measured by a scouting sample, which consisted

of twenty three questionnaires (eleven questionnaires from contractor and twelve from

owner), through measuring the correlation coefficients between each paragraph in one field

and the whole filed. The tables in Annex 1 show the correlation coefficient and p-value for

each field paragraph. As show in Annex 2 for the contractor and owner tables, the p-

Values are less than 0.05 or 0.01,so the correlation coefficients of this field are significant

at α = 0.01 or α = 0.05, so it can be said that the paragraphs of this field are consistent and

valid to be measure what it was set for.

49

3.8.2.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire

Structure validity is the second statistical test that used to test the validity of the

questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each field and the validity of the whole

questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between one filed and all the fields of

the questionnaire that have the same level of liker scale.

As shown in Annex 2 for the contractor and owner tables for all fields, the significance

values are less than 0.05 or 0.01, so the correlation coefficients of all the fields are

significant at α = 0.01 or α = 0.05, so it can be said that the fields are valid to be measured

what it was set for to achieve the main aim of the study .

3.9 Reliability of the Research

The reliability of an instrument is the degree of consistency which measures the attribute;

it is supposed to be measuring (Polit & Hunger,1985). The less variation an instrument

produces in repeated measurements of an attribute, the higher its reliability. Reliability can

be equated with the stability, consistency, or dependability of a measuring tool. The test is

repeated to the same sample of people on two occasions and then compares the scores

obtained by computing a reliability coefficient (Polit & Hunger, 1985).

It is difficult to return the scouting sample of the questionnaire-that is used to measure the

questionnaire validity to the same respondents due to the different work conditions to this

samples. Therefore two tests can be applied to the scouting sample in order to measure the

consistency of the questionnaire. The first test is the Half Split Method and the second is

Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha.

3.9.1 Half Split Method

This method depends on finding Pearson correlation coefficient between the means of odd

questions and even questions of each field of the questionnaire. Then, correcting the

Pearson correlation coefficients can be done by using Spearman Brown correlation

coefficient of correction. The corrected correlation coefficient ( consistency coefficient) is

computed according to the following equation :

Consistency coefficient = 2r/(r+1), where r is the Pearson correlation coefficient. The

normal range of corrected correlation coefficient (2r/ r+1) is between 0.0 and + 1.0 As

shown in Table 3.1, all the corrected correlation coefficients values are between 0.0 and

50

+1.0 and the significant (α ) is less than 0.05 so all the corrected correlation coefficients are

significance at α = 0.05. It can be said that according to the Half Split method, the dispute

causes group are reliable.

Table 3.1 Half Split Method Contractor Owner

2. Causes group

Cor

rela

tion

Significance / Not

Significance

Cor

rela

tion

Significance / Not

Significance

1 Causes of claims 0.7097 * 0.9033 ** 2 Common procedures of claims 0.8485 ** 0.9515 ** 3 Particular claims 0.8108 **

* Correlation coefficient is significant at the α = 0.05 * * Correlation coefficient is significant at the α = 0.01

3.9.2 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha

This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field and

the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of Cronbach’s

coefficient alpha value between 0.0 and + 1.0, and the higher values reflects a higher

degree of internal consistency. As shown in Table 3.2, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was

calculated for the first field of the causes of claims, the second field of common

procedures and the third field of the Particular claims. The results were in the range from

0.7796 and 0.9520. This range is considered high; the result ensures the reliability of the

questionnaire.

Table 3.3 Cronbach’s Cofficient Alpha Contractor Owner

2. Causes group No. of Items

Cronbach’s

coefficient

alpha

No. of Items

Cronbach’s coefficient

alpha

1 Causes of claims 41 0.8761 41 0.9498 2 Common procedures of claims 99 0.7796 50 0.9520 3 Particular claims 16 0.8720

Thereby, it can be said that the researcher proved that the questionnaire was valid, reliable,

and ready for distribution for the population sample.

51

3.10 Data Measurement

In order to be able to select the appropriate method of analysis, the level of measurement

must be understood. For each type of measurement, there is/are an appropriate method/s

that can be applied and not others ( Naoum,1997 ). In this research, ordinal scales were

used. Ordinal scale is a ranking or a rating data that normally uses integers in ascending or

descending order. The numbers assigned to the agreement or degree of influence (1,2,3,4,5)

do not indicate that the interval between scales are equal, nor do they indicate absolute

quantities. They are merely numerical labels(Naoum, 1998). Based on Likert scale we have

the following:

Item Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly

Agree 1

Scale 1 2 3 4 5

Item No Low Medium Always Very always

2 Scale 1 2 3 4 5

Formula Relative Index: Regards the needed formula its show as following: (Odeh and

Battaineh,2002)

Total Score = Frequency × Weight

Average Score = answer Missing - srespondent of No

1) -Score Total (

Relative Index = 4

1)-Score (Average

3.11 Data Analysis

The questionnaire quantitative statistical analysis was done by using the Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The analysis of data was done to rank the severity of causes

and factors resulting in construction claims, claim identification, claim notification, claim

examination, claim documentation, claim presentation, claim negation, and particular

claims (time extension claims, change order claims, design claims) in construction industry

in the Gaza Strip.

52

The following statistical analyses were used:

1. Spearman Correlation Coefficient for data

2. Kendalls Coefficient of Concordance which is a measure of agreement among raters

3. Chi-Square test 2χ to test if there is a significant a agreement in ranking among

different perception.

4. Mann-Whitnay test to examine if there is a statistical significant difference in rank

mean between the contractors and owners.

5. The Kruskal-Wallis test is used to check and if there are any significant difference

in point of view of the respondents ( contractors, owners) regarding the claim fields

and affected by person experiences, person highest contract value, firm

experiences, firm highest contract value.

3.12 Study Limitation

The study has the following limitations:

1. The research was concerned with the relation between the owners (working in

public projects) and the contractors.

2. This research was limited to contractors who have a valid registration through the

Palestinian Contractors Union only. Other contractors who are not registered into

the contracting union were neglected.

3. Contractors, who have valid registration in the PCU in the first, second and third

classes, represented the population of the study were included. The fourth the fifth

classes were excluded.

4. This research was concerned with the owners of public sector only which limited

the area of the research.

5. The study was limited to the construction industry only in the Gaza Strip and did

not take the West Bank into consideration.

6. The surveyed questionnaires inherit another limitation related to the fact that they

direct the participant to give opinions with regard to certain given statements.


CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

53

CHAPTER 4: RESULT and DISCUSSION

This chapter describes the results that have been obtained from 83 contractor questionnaires

and 101 owner questionnaires. For this purpose the statistical package for social sciences

SPSS was used. The information about the sample size, response rate, owner and

contracting companies’ characteristics in the Gaza Strip is presented.

The survey results, in this chapter, illustrated population characteristics, ranking of causes

of claims, comparing of relative index values for the common procedure categories (claim

identification, claim notifications, claim examination, claim documentation, claim

presentation, claim negotiation ) and the particular claims (time extension claims, form of

change claims order, related claims of design). Relationship between the mentioned factors

(variables) is investigated by using statistical tests.

PART I

4.1 Population Characteristics

The population members of this research were selected randomly to cover the study

population of the first, second, and third class groups of the contracting companies and all

owners who consist of the Governmental agencies, Ministries, Municipalities, International

agencies, public project owners and local consultants.

4.1.1 Classification and Response rate

Figures 4.1, 4.2 show the numbers and classification contracting firms and owners.

Contractor Classification

34%

20%

46%

First class (A) Second class (B) Third class (C )

Figure 4.1 Contractor classification

54

As shown in Figure 4.1, the total respondents’ were 83 contracting companies consisting of

38 companies of the first class(46 %), 28 companies of second class (34 % ) and 17

companies of third class contracting companies (20%).

Owners Classification for funding public project

69%

31%

Public ow ners Private ow ners

Figure 4.2 Owner classification

As shown in figure 5.2, the total owner respondents are 101 consisting of 70 public owners

firms working in public projects services (69%), and 31 private owners firms working in

funding public projects (31%).

4.1.2 Company and Firm Experience in Construction Projects

Table 4.1 Shows company and owner experience in construction projects. It illustrates that

42.2% of contractors and 43.6% of owners' have experience between eleven to twenty

years, 34.9% of contractors and 31.7% of owners have six to ten years of experience.

Table 4.1 shows that 15.7% of companies and 3% of owners have less than five -year of

experience. Based on the previous statistics, it can be inferred that the majority of the

contracting companies and the owners have more than ten years of experience. Therefore,

the points of view of the surveyed persons are expected to be convergent.

Table 4.1 Company and Firm Experience Contractor Owner

Company / firm Experience No. Percentage % No. Percentage %

Less than 5 years 13 15.70 3 3.00 6-10 years 29 34.90 32 31.70 11-20 years 35 42.20 44 43.60 More than 20 Years 6 7.20 22 21.80

Total 83 100.00 101 100.10

55

4.1.3 Number of Staff

Table 4.2 shows that 59% of the contracting companies have less than 10 employees, while

46.50% of surveyed owners have more than 40 employees, this indicates that the majority

of contracting companies are small-sized, where the majority employ less than 10 persons

and owner can be considered medium sized because they employ more then 40 people of

person.

Table 4.2 Company and firm number of staff Contractor Owner

Average number of Employees No. Percentage % No. Percentage %

1 - 10 persons 49 59.00 22 21.80 11 - 20 persons 26 31.30 20 19.80 21 - 30 persons 3 3.60 12 11.90 More than 40 persons 5 6.00 47 46.50

Total 83 100 101 100

4.1.4 Already Implemented Projects Last 5 Years

Table 4.3 illustrates the number of executed projects by the surveyed companies and

owners during the last five years

Table 4.3 Number of project implemented last 5 years Contractor Owner Number of project

implemented last 5 years No. Percentage % No. Percentage % Less than 10 projects 14 16.90 11 10.90 10 - 20 projects 30 36.10 15 14.90 21 - 30 projects 28 33.70 15 14.90 31 - 40 projects 4 4.80 11 10.90 More than 40 projects 7 8 49 49

Total 83 100 101 100

The above Table shows that around one a third of the contracting companies (36.10 %)

have executed up to 20 projects, and around half of the owners (49 %), have executed more

than 40 projects during the last five years. On the other hand, the majority of the surveyed

contracting companies and owners have executed a different number of project as shown in

the above Table. We conclude that the local contracting companies and the owners have

worked in a significant number of projects during the past five years.

56

4.1.5 Cost of Implemented Projects Last 5 Years in Dollars

Table 4.4 illustrates the cost of implemented projects by the surveyed companies and owner

organization during the last five years.

Table 4.4 Cost of implemented projects last 5 years ( Dollars currency $) Contractor Owner Cost of implemented projects

last 5 years(US$) No. Percentage % No. Percentage % Less than $1 Million 6 7.20 6 5.90 $1Million - 2Million 20 24.10 13 12.90 $2.1Million - 3Million 15 18.10 15 14.90 $3.1Million - 4Million 14 16.90 8 7.90 More than 4 Million$ 28 33.70 59 58

Total 83 100 101 100 The above Table shows that around one third of the contracting companies (33.70 %), and

more then a half of owner respondents (58 %) have executed projects worth more than 4

million US dollars during the last five years. Only around 7.20 % of the contracting

companies and 5.90 % of the owners have executed projects worth less than one million US

dollars during the last five years.

4.1.6 Distribution of the Respondents Occupation

Figure 4.3 indicates that around a half of surveyed contracting company respondents'

(52%) are managers of the companies, while 49% of the surveyed owner respondent's are

project managers, only around 24% of the surveyed contracting companies are project

managers and 11% of surveyed owner are organization managers. This indicates that the

majority of respondents of the surveyed contracting companies and owner organization are

high positions, organization managers, and project managers and this means that the data

given by respondents of high positions is considered more accounTable and credible than

that provided by lower ranking officials.

57

Respondents Postions Percentage

52%

24%19%

5%11%

49%

28%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Organization

Manager

Project manager Site Engineer Others

Contractors Owners

Figure 4.3 Respondent position percentages

4.1.7 Respondents Experience

With regard to the respondents’ experience, Table 4.5 indicates that almost half of the

surveyed contracting companies (45.8 %) have experience of 10 years or more, while 63.4

% of surveyed owner have experience of 10 years or more, and only around 18.1 % of the

surveyed contracting companies have experience of less than 5 years and 10.9 % of

surveyed owner had experience of less than 5 years, the remaining respondents of the

surveyed contracting companies 36.1 % have experience from 5 to 10 years, while 25.7 %

of the surveyed owner have experience from 5 to 10 years. This indicates that most of

respondents have more than 5-10 years experience which shows the validity of the obtained

data and results.

Table 4.5 Respondent Experience Contractor Owner

Respondent Experience No. Percentage % No. Percentage %

Less than 5 years 15 18.10 11 10.9 5-10 years 30 36.10 26 25.7 More than 10 Years 38 45.80 64 63.4

Total 83 100 101 100

58

4.1.8 Contract Value of Implemented Projects

Table 4.6 indicates that around half of the surveyed contracting companies (47.00 %) and

more than half of surveyed owners (55.4%) have implemented projects of values more than

one million US dollars throughout the experience period, while 14.50% of the surveyed

contracting companies and 16.8 % of surveyed owner firms have implemented projects of

values USD 760,000-1000,000 throughout their experience period, while the remaining

respondents of the surveyed contracting companies and firm owners have completed

projects of values less than USD 750,000. This indicates that the majority of the surveyed

respondents of contracting companies and organization owners executed projects of value

more than one millions dollars.

Table 4.6 Contract value of implemented projects US$ Contractor Owner Contract Value of

Implemented Projects US$ No. Percentage % No. Percentage % Less then 250,000 9 10.80 5 5 250,000 - 500,000 14 16.90 14 13.9 510,000 - 750,000 9 10.80 9 8.9 760,000 - 1 Million 12 14.50 17 16.8 More then one Million 39 47.00 56 55.4

Total 83 100 101 100

PART II

4.2 Causes of Construction Claim

Claim causes have been categorized into four groups. The first group is related to claim

factors caused by owners, the second group is related to the design of bill quantity. The

third group is related to the contractual relationship factor, and the fourth group is related to

emergency cases. Forty one causes have been identified through the literature review and

consultation with owners, contracting companies and local consultants, and these causes

have been distributed into four groups. Tables 4.7 and 4.8 show causes of claims in

construction projects. Table 4.9 shows a summary of each group relative index (R.I) that

rank to each group’s relative index to the main field of construction claim causes.

Each group will be discussed individually with some of the causes of high relative index

value. Some of the causes of low relative index value of the same group will be also

discussed.

59

Table 4.7 Contractor points of view concerning causes of claims

Causes of Claims in Construction Projects R.I Sub-Field Rank

All Field Rank

Group 1.0- Claims factors caused by Owners :- 1 Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay. 0.660 1 3 2 Unexpected increase in material prices 0.642 2 5 3 Material rejection because of Quality and specification 0.608 3 8 4 Continuous oral instructions to contractor 0.605 4 9 5 Site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation etc...) 0.602 5 10 6 Delay contractor progress payments 0.575 6 15 7 Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus 0.575 6 15 8 Changes in material type and specification during construction 0.572 8 17 9 Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed 0.569 9 18

10 Owner's slow decisions 0.566 10 19 11 Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and resources 0.563 11 20

12 The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract 0.554 12 23

13 Changes of Currency Value [Index Value ] 0.548 13 24 14 Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in decisions 0.515 14 26

15 Owner's direct interfering in project without any coordination and ignoring his supervision team

0.497 15 29

16 Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team 0.458 16 34

17 low Quality assurance and control in the project 0.458 16 34 18 Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his supervision team 0.455 18 36 19 lack of supervision team experience in project supervision 0.443 19 37 20 lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.440 20 38 21 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team 0.416 21 39 22 Chang in Site location or conditions 0.416 21 39 23 Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation. 0.398 23 41

Group 2.0 - Design and Bill of Quantity :-

24 Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification 0.623 1 6

25 Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site 0.602 2 10 26 Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity 0.599 3 12

27 Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction 0.596 4 13

28 Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market 0.530 5 25

29 Over design 0.467 6 33 Group 3.0- Contractual relationship factor :-

30 Awarding bid to the Lower bidder 0.744 1 1 31 Payment requests are not followed when submitting invoices 0.617 2 7 32 Awarding process take long period after bid open process 0.593 3 14 33 Poor contract management and ambiguities 0.563 4 20 34 Different type of contracts 0.560 5 22 35 Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law 0.485 6 30 36 Chang in the legislation and process (as Tax free or changing in the Tax Value.) 0.476 7 32

Group 4.0- Emergency cases :- 37 Main borders closures 0.690 1 2 38 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between, Cities and Governorate Occupation 0.645 2 4 39 Natural conditions factors (Bad weather, ect…) 0.512 3 27 40 Unforeseen material arise in the site 0.512 3 27 41 Demonstrations and strikes 0.479 5 31 Over all Average of the Relative Index = 0.547

60

Table 4.8 Owners points of view concerning causes of claims

Causes of Claims in Construction Projects R. I Sub-Field Rank

All Field Rank

Group 1.0 - Claims factors caused by owners :- 1 Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay. 0.569 1 4 2 Unexpected increase in material prices 0.540 2 5 3 Site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation etc...) 0.507 3 7 4 Material rejection because of Quality and specification 0.498 4 9 5 Changes in material type and specification during construction 0.475 5 11 6 Continuous oral instruction to contractor 0.468 6 12 7 Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus 0.463 7 14 8 Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed 0.453 8 16 9 Delay contractor progress payments 0.443 9 18

10 Changes of Currency Value [Index Value ] 0.406 10 22 11 lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.401 11 23 12 Owner's slow decisions 0.399 12 24

13 Owner's direct interfering in project without any coordination and ignoring his supervision team 0.384 13 26

14 Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in decisions 0.379 14 27

15 The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

0.364 15 29

16 Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his supervision team 0.359 16 31 17 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team 0.356 17 32 18 Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and resources 0.349 18 33 19 low Quality assurance and control in the project 0.342 19 34 20 Chang in Site location or conditions 0.324 20 36

21 Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team 0.292 21 38

22 Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation. 0.290 22 39 23 lack of supervision team experience in project supervision 0.290 22 39

Group 2.0 - Design and Bill of Quantity :- 24 Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity 0.517 1 6 25 Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site 0.505 2 8

26 Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction 0.465 3 13

27 Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification 0.453 4 16

28 Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market 0.364 5 29

29 Over design 0.290 6 39 Group 3.0- Contractual relationship factor :-

30 Awarding bid to the Lower bidder 0.658 1 2 31 Payment requests are not followed when submitting invoices 0.493 2 10 32 Awarding process take long period after bid open process 0.436 3 20 33 Poor contract management and ambiguities 0.399 4 24 34 Different type of contracts 0.369 5 28 35 Chang in the legislation and process (as Tax free or changing in the Tax Value …….) 0.327 6 35 36 Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law 0.302 7 37

Group 4.0- Emergency cases :- 37 Main borders closures 0.698 1 1 38 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between , Cities and Governorate Occupation 0.614 2 3 39 Natural conditions factors (Bad weather, ect…) 0.460 3 15 40 Unforeseen material arise in the site 0.443 4 18 41 Demonstrations and strikes 0.436 5 20 Over all Average of the Relative Index = 0.429

61

Table 4.9 Causes of claims in construction projects Contractor Owners

Groups R.I Rank R.I Rank

1. Claims factors caused by owners 0.528 4 0.406 4 2. Design and Bill of Quantity 0.570 2 0.432 2 3. Contractual relationship factor 0.577 1 0.426 3 4. Emergency Cases 0.567 3 0.530 1 Over all average of Relative Index (R.I) 0.547 0.429

4.2.1 Group 1: Causes of Construction Claim Caused by Owners

The contractors and owner were asked regarding their points of view about the construction

claim causes caused by owners. The following Tables 4.10 and 4.11 below show the

statistical results including relative index (R.I), sub field rank and field rank respondents by

the contractors and owners points of view.

4.2.1.1 Contractor Points of View

Table 4.10 Contractor points of view for causes of claims

Causes of claims caused by owners R.I Sub-Field Rank

All Field Rank

Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay.

0.660 1 3

Unexpected increase in material prices 0.642 2 5 Material rejection because of Quality and specification 0.608 3 8 Continuous oral instruction to contractor 0.605 4 9 Site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation etc..) 0.602 5 10 Delay contractor progress payments 0.575 6 15 Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus 0.575 6 15 Changes in material type and specification during construction 0.572 8 17 Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed 0.569 9 18 Owner's slow decisions 0.566 10 19 Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and resources 0.563 11 20 The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

0.554 12 23

Changes of Currency Value [Index Value ] 0.548 13 24 Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in decisions 0.515 14 26 Owner's direct interfering in project without any coordination and ignoring his supervision team

0.497 15 29

Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team

0.458 16 34

low Quality assurance and control in the project 0.458 16 34 Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his supervision team 0.455 18 36 lack of supervision team experience in project supervision 0.443 19 37 lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.440 20 38 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team 0.416 21 39 Change in Site location or conditions 0.416 21 39 Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation.

0.398 23 41

Subfield 1.0 Average of Relative Index = 0.528

62

The result shows that the average of group 1 relative index was 0.528 with fourth position

of the rank order among the four groups as shown in Table 4.10, while the average of

relative index of the over all construction claim causes was 0.547. The claim causes caused

by owners resulting in claims have the relative index less than the average of relative index

of claim causes of the all field contractor points of view. This means that this filed can be

considered as the lowest groups causes of claims in constructions projects.

As shown in Table 4.10 the respondents rank “the residents interfering during project

implementation caused delay in the contractor activities “in the first position with a relative

index value (0.660) under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) in the

third position. This means that the residents interfering during project implementation

caused delay in contractor activities, and this can be considered as the main source of claim

factors caused by owners. Most contractors agree that this issue affects their activities and

results in work progress delays, and in some cases; resident interference stopped the project

implementation for a long time; this should be the owner responsibility to assist the

contractor by preventing any residents interference during project implementation and to

remove any obstacles facing the contractor during the project implementation period.

The respondents rank “the unexpected increase in material prices “in the second position

with a relative index value of 0.642 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all

field ranks) it is listed as the fifth position. This means that unexpected increase in material

prices caused delay in the contractors activities, and loss in profits can be considered as a

main source of claim factors caused by owners as illustrated in Table 4.10. Most

contractors agree that this issue affects their activities and causes delay in work progress, in

most cases, contractors will not be able to request the extra cost resulting from material

price increases during project implementation. Because contractors are responsible for

supplying project required materials, and it is mentioned in the contract as a provision that

contractor will not be reimbursed for any additional cost as a result of increase in material

prices. The owners were aware about material price increase problems as a result of the

border closures, and because of this they include this condition in the contract.

63

The respondents rank “material rejection because of unacceptable quality and

specifications” in the third position with a relative index value 0.608 under this group and

in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed in the eighth position. This means that

material rejection due to low quality and wrong specification caused delays to contractor

activities and losses in profits. Also these issues can be explained as in some cases, because

the specifications are not comprehensible and have ambiguous provisions. The material

specifications can be considered as a main source of claim factors caused by owners as

illustrated in Table 4.10. Most contractors agree that these issues affect their activities and

cause delays in work progress and performance and in most cases contractors will not be

able to request the extra cost or time resulting from material rejection during project

implementation. This problem can be tracked to unavailability of construction material as a

result of border closures, a factor which lead the contractors to present the available

materials to the supervision team.

The contractors respondents rank "continuous verbal instruction to contractor" in the fourth

position with a relative index value of 0.605 under this group and in the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) is listed as ninth position. This means that the continuous verbal

instruction to contractors can be considered a source of claim factors caused by owners as

illustrated in Table 4.10. Most contractors agree that these issues affect their activities and

causes delay in work improvement and performance, and in some cases, the contractor will

be instructed by owner manager to start new activities that cause delay in project

performance; these issues create disagreement between the two parties.

The contractors’ respondents rank “site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation

etc...)” As the fifth with a relative index value of 0.602 under this group and in the overall

claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the tenth position. This means that the site

handling with obstacles can be considered as a source of claim factors caused by owners as

illustrated in Table 4.10. Most contractors agreed that these issues affect their work

activities and cause delays in work progress or performance as result of the site handling

obstacles, especially land occupation. This is a major concern of all contractors during

tender stage. The owner representative informed contractors that all land obstacles will be

removed before starting project activities. However in most cases, the owner fails to

remove these obstacles as result of weakness of law force as result of these obstacles the

64

contractor will be delayed to perform the required activities which create a major delay

which forced the contractor to present claims.

The contractors respondents rank “adversarial relation between the contractor and owner /

supervision team) as the twenty one position with a relative index value of 0.416 under this

group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty nine position

as illustrated in Table 4.10. This result proves that the adversarial relation between the

contractor and owner parties is not always found. The respondents give this factor lowest

rank: also from this result, it can understood that the contractor prefers to have a good

relation with the owner supervision team instead of the adversarial relation which can affect

contractors work performance.

The contractors respondents rank “change in site location or conditions” as the twenty one

positions with a relative index value of 0.416 under this group and in the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty nine position as illustrated in Table 4.10. This

result proves that change in the site location or conditions is considered as the lowest

factors resulting in claims because if the project owner changes project site locations under

any circumstances after contract signed with contractor, this issue may result in changing

project conditions and create problems to contractor because it is not the same site, where

the contractor did his cost estimating in the first site where it may result in delaying

contractor activities and increasing contractor operating expense. In this case, the contractor

has the right to request reimbursement from the owner.

The contractors respondents rank “project termination or suspension of some main

activities during project implementation” in the twenty three position with a relative index

value of 0.398 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as

the forty one position as illustrated in Table 4.10. It can be concluded that this factor is less

affective in rising in claim issues.

65

4.2.1.2 - Owner Points of View

The owner respondents were asked regarding their points of view about causes of claims

caused by owners, the following Table 4.11 shows the statistical results including relative

index (R.I), rank respondents by owner points of view

Table 4.11 Owner points of view for causes of claims

Causes of Claims Caused by Owners R.I Sub-Field Rank

All Field Rank

2.1Claims factors caused by owners :- Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay.

0.569 1 4

Unexpected increment in material prices 0.540 2 5 Site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation etc...) 0.507 3 7 Material rejection because of Quality and specification 0.498 4 9 Changes in material type and specification during construction 0.475 5 11 Continuous oral instruction to contractor 0.468 6 12 Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus 0.463 7 14 Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed 0.453 8 16 Delay contractor progress payments 0.443 9 18 Changes of Currency Value [Index Value ] 0.406 10 22 lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.401 11 23 Owner's slow decisions 0.399 12 24 Owner's direct interfering in project without any coordination and ignoring his supervision team

0.384 13 26

Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in decisions 0.379 14 27 The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

0.364 15 29

Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his supervision team 0.359 16 31 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team 0.356 17 32 Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and resources 0.349 18 33 low Quality assurance and control in the project 0.342 19 34 Chang in Site location or conditions 0.324 20 36 Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team

0.292 21 38

Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation.

0.290 22 39

lack of supervision team experience in project supervision 0.290 22 39 Average of Relative Index = 0.406

Table 4.11 illustrates the result of the average of relative index 0.406 with the fourth

position of the rank order among the fourth groups as shown in Table 4.10 while the

average of relative index of the over all construction claim causes is 0.429.

As shown in Table 4.11 the owner respondents rank, in the first position “the residents

interference during project implementation causing contractor activities delaying “with a

relative index value of 0.569 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field

ranks) it is listed in the third position.

66

This means that residents interfering during project implementation cause delays in

contractor activities and this can be considered as the main source of claim factors caused

by owners in Table 4.11. Most owners agree that this issue affects their activities and

results in delay of work progress and performance; in most cases, residents' interference

stops contractor project activities implementation for long period, when it is out of the

owner’s control. In this case the owner’s main responsibility is to assist contractor by

preventing the residents from interfering during project implementation and removing any

obstacle facing contractor during the project implementation period. Because of owner

legal support weakness in most cases the owners fail to stop residents interference during

project implementation, an interference that results in delayed contractor’s performance,

where it directs contractor to present claims to the project owner

The respondents rank “unexpected increases in material prices “ as the second most

important cause position with a relative index value of 0.540 under this group and in the

overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as fifth position as illustrated in Table

4.11.This means that the unexpected increases in material prices cause owner project cost

increases. In some cases contractors request compensation by the owners, but the request

may be rejected because the Gaza construction industry suffers from a shortage of raw

materials; this leads to increases in material prices.

The respondents rank “site handling obstacles (license, land occupation etc)” as the third

most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.507 under this group and in

the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as seventh position as illustrated in

Table 4.11. This means that site handling including obstacles (license, land occupation etc)

is considered a main source of claim factors caused by owners in this field. Most owners

agree that this issue affect project activities and results in work activities delays, in some

cases; the contractor is not able to start any activity due to these obstacles. This was

checked with the owners for some cases in some public project where the land location

occupied by residents and owner take the responsibility to remove all obstacles before

starting up project implementation. In most cases, the owners failed to remove these

obstacles, and that create difficulties to owners in implementing the project, and on the

other hand the contractor will lose time and he will present claim to the owners requesting

compensation.

67

The respondents rank “material rejection because of quality and specification” as the

fourth most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.498 under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as ninth position as illustrated in

Table 4.11. This means that material rejection because of unaccepted quality and

specification causes delay in contractor activities and loss in profit margin. Most owners

agree that this issue affects their activities and results in delay of work progress and

performance. In most of these cases the contractor is responsible for providing site material

according to the specification. Also, this issue clarifies, in some cases, that the contractor

try to pass up work required conditions and material specification to get additional profit or

to minimize his loss as result of price reductions.

The respondent rank “changes in material type and specification during construction” as the

fifth most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.4475 under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the eleventh position as

illustrated in Table 4.11. This means that the changes in material type and specifications

during construction can be considered as a main source of claim factors caused by owners

in this field. Most owners agree that this issue affect their activities and causes delays in

work progress and performance; and in some cases, the contractor will not be able to start

or perform any activity because of this obstacle, in some projects this issue resulted from

lack of proper planning and design; most public projects have the same typical criteria and

design, but in some cases, owners designer commit mistakes in investigating the site

condition and the local market condition regarding the availability of required material.

During the project implementation, changes in specifications and material quality may

occur, and as a result, the contractor will lose time and consequently requests price change

reimbursement for the new materials.

On the other hand the owner respondents rank the lowest factors for this field 2 as

illustrated in Table 4.11, where the owner respondents rank “un cooperative owner with the

contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team” as the

twenty one most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.4475 under this

group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty eight position

as illustrated in Table. 4.11. This means that owner respondents agree that this factor is not

serious resulting in claim issues because nearly all owners and their representative

68

cooperate with the contractor during project implementation period and the negative

influence on their relationship result in low quality performance by the contractor or

delaying in project activities, where this issues lead to claims between the two parties.

The owner respondents rank “project termination or suspension of some main activities

during project implementation” as the twenty second positions with a relative index value

of 0.290 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the

thirty nine position as illustrated in Table 4.11. This result proves that this factor can

considered as the lowest factor in this field. In some cases according to the contract

conditions the sequences of these cases are enough explained in the contract provision. We

can conclude that this factor is less affective in determining claim issues because any

projects termination should be followed by paying the contractor rights.

The owner respondents rank “lack of supervision team experience in project supervision ”

as the twenty second positions with a relative index value of 0.290 under this group and in

the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty nine position as illustrated

in Table 4.11. This means that owner respondents agree that this factor is not serious and

indicated as the last factors for this filed because the owner respondents agreed that most of

their supervision team has the capability to supervise projects.

4.2.1.3 - General Comments Regarding Group 1 (Highest and Lowest Factors):

Its is clear from previous Tables 4.10 and 4.11 that the contractor and owner points of view

are very similar and give high ranks for the same questions, especially for the first six

questions as in the following Table :

Table 4.12 Highest causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects Contractor Owners

Claims factors caused by owners R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay.

0.660 1 3 0.569 1 4

Unexpected increment in material prices 0.642 2 5 0.540 2 5 Material rejection because of Quality and specification

0.608 3 8 0.498 4 9

Continuous oral instruction to contractor 0.605 4 9 0.468 6 12 Site handling with obstacles (license, land occupation etc.)

0.602 5 10 0.507 3 7

69

Table 4.12 illustrates the first five causes of the highest rank in group 1 in which claim

factors are caused by owners from the contractor’s and owner’s points of view. The result

shows that the contractor’s respondents and owners agree and give similar ranks for the

residents interfering during project implementation as factor which delays contractors’

progress and increment of material prices factors as the highest relative indexes. This

proves that these two issues are out of contractor’s and owner’s controls, a cause that gives

rise to claims between the two parties.

Table 5.13 Lowest Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects Contractor Owners

1.Claims factors caused by owners R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

lack of supervision team experience in project supervision

0.443 19 37 0.290 22 39

lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.440 20 38 0.401 11 23 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team

0.416 21 39 0.356 17 32

Chang in Site location or conditions 0.416 21 39 0.324 20 36 Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation.

0.398 23 41 0.290 22 39

Table 4.13, illustrates the five causes with the lowest relative index value and the last rank

in this group (claim factors caused by owners) as the contractors and owners point of view.

The result shows how contractor respondents and owner respondents agreed that project

termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation, change of

the site location or conditions have the lowest relative indexes. This means that the

consensus agreement between the contractor and the owners regarding these factors is the

lowest rank. Also from previous Table 4.13 the result shows the contractor and owner

respondents disagree over the “lack of owner support to his supervision team” factor, where

contractors rank this factor as the twentieth position and owners rank this factor as the

eleventh position. Maybe the owner respondents consider this factor of more value than the

contractor because, in most cases, the owner supervision team always faces the problem in

sites and in some cases the owner does not give any support to his team. But in general

there is a similar agreement on the lowest ranks factors between contractor and owner.

70

4.2.2 Group 2 Designs and Bill of Quantity

The contractors and owners were asked regarding their points of view about the dispute

resulted due to the design and bill of quantity group. Tables 4.14 and 4.15 respectively

show the statistical results including relative index (R.I), rank respondents in accordance

with the contractor and owner points of view.

4.2.2.1 Contractor Points of View Towards the Design and Bill of Quantity

Table 4.14 Contractors points of view for design and bill of quantity

2.Design and Bill of Quantity Relative Index

Subfield Rank

All Field Rank

Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification

0.623 1 6

Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site

0.602 2 10

Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity 0.599 3 12 Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction

0.596 4 13

Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market

0.530 5 25

Over design 0.467 6 33 Average of Relative Index = 0.569

Table 4.14, illustrates the result of the average of relative index 0.569 with second position

of the rank order among the four groups as shown in Table 4.9, while the average of

relative index of the over all construction claim causes was 0.547. As previously illustrated

in Table 4.7, it can be inferred that the contractor respondents’ opinions are acceptable in

regard to the classification of the causes of claims according to their opinion.

The contractors respondents rank “different description for the item in the bill of quantity

from what has been mentioned in the specification “in the first position with a relative

index value of 0.632 under this group and in the overall causes it is listed as sixth position

as illustrated in Table 4.14. This means that different description of any item in the bill of

quantity which is mentioned in the specification can be considered as the main source of

claim factors in this field. Most contractors agreed that this issue affects their activities and

causes delay in work progress and performance, and in some cases, the contactor estimated

cost as described in the tender document (bill of quantity). During project implantation the

owner supervisor may reject the presented material because its not in accordance with

specification requirement where this issue can lead to conflict between the two parties.

71

The contractors respondents rank “drawing and bill of quantity as not fitting the

construction site “as the second most important cause position with a relative index value of

0.602 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as tenth

position as illustrated in Table 4.14. This means that the drawing and bill of quantity are

not fitting with the construction site and this caused delay in the agreed contractor

activities. Most contractors agreed that these issues affect their activities and cause delays

in work progress and performance. In most cases the contractors request owners

supervision to clarify the accurate drawing, where these issues create time consuming and

productivity reduction. Contractor will claim compensation for the extra cost resulting from

change of design and bill of quantity.

The respondent rank “ambiguous, incomplete drawing and bill of quantity" as the third

most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.602 under this group and in

the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as twelfth position as illustrated in Table

4.14. This means that ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity cause delay

in contractor activities and loss in profit margin, which in some case leads to

misunderstanding between the contractor and owner representative concerning accepting

drawing, and it may lead to reduction or increase in some items of the bill of quantity where

it ends in conflict between the contractor and owners.

The respondent rank “cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction" as the

fourth most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.602.under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as thirteen position as illustrated

in Table 4.14. This means that the cardinal changes or modifying the design during

construction can be considered as the main source of claim factors in this field. Most

contractors agreed that these issues negatively affected their activities and cause delay in

work progress and performance, and in most cases, the contractor will execute other

activities as it is instructed by owner representative and the supervision team that delays

project implementation activities. These issues create conflict between the two parties, a

conflict which demands presentation of claims by the contractor.

On the other hand the contractor respondents the lowest rank factors for this field as

illustrated in Table 4.14.Where The contractors respondents rank “Using over quality

specification or international specification that are not available at the local market” as the

fifth position with a relative index value of 0.530 under this group and in the overall claim

72

causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the twenty five position as illustrated in Table 4.14.

This means that respondent contractor agreed that this factor is not serious in determining

claim issues. Because nearly all public projects have typical design and the local

consultants (designer) use typical design in accordance with the local conditions.

The contractors’ respondents rank "over design" as the sixth position with a relative index


the thirty three position as illustrated in Table 4.14. This result proves that this factor can be

considered as the lowest factor in this field, because over design in public projects is not a

permanent issue, it rarely occurs. The owner will be responsible for to carrying out the over

design cost.

4.2.2.2 Owner Points of View for Design and Bill of Quantity

Table 4.15 Owner points of view for design and bill of quantity

2. Design and Bill of Quantity Relative Index

Subfield Rank

All Field Rank

Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity 0.517 1 6 Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site 0.505 2 8 Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction 0.465 3 13 Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification

0.453 4 16

Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market 0.364 5 29

Over design 0.290 6 39 Average of Relative Index = 0.366

As illustrated in Table 4.10, the respondents' opinions could be inferred. The result shows

that the average of relative index was 0.366 with a third position of the rank order among

the four groups as shown in Table 4.9, while the average of relative index of the overall

claim causes (all field ranks) was 0.429 as shown in Table 5.9.

Most of the previous causes are considered as the most important causes for claims

especially in the design and bill of quantity in this field. The owner respondents rank

“Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity “in the first position with a


ranks) it is listed as sixth position as illustrated in Table 4.15. This means that the

ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity can be considered as the main

source of claim factors in this field, Most owners agree that these issues affect their

73

activities and causes delays in work progress and performance and in some cases, the

contactors will request owners for compensation of the other items found during clarifying

the drawing and bill of quantity.

The respondent rank “drawing and bill of quantity as not fitting the construction site “as the

second most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.505 under this group

the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as eighth position as illustrated in Table

4.15. This means that the drawings and bill of quantity are not in compliance with the

construction site, thus causing delay to contractor activities, Most owners agree that these

issues affect their activities and cause delays in work progress and performance, and in

most of cases, the owners will not be able to cover the extra cost resulting from change in

design and bill of quantity because of the limitation of the project budget.

The respondents rank “cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction” as

the third most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.465 under this

group, in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirteen position as

illustrated in Table 4.15. This means that the cardinal changes or modification of the design

during construction can be considered as the main source of claim factors in this field. Most

owners agree that this issues affect their activities causing delay in work progress and

performance, and in some cases, the contractor will execute, new activities as it was

instructed by the owner supervision, and this delays project implementation activities. It is

an issue that creates conflict between the two parties.

The respondents rank “different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is

mentioned in the specification” as the fourth most important cause position with a relative

index value of 0 453 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is

listed as sixteen position as illustrated in Table 4.15. This means that different description

for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification can be considered

as the main source of claim factors in field 2.2. Most owners agree that these issues affect

their activities and cause delays in work progress and performance, and in some cases, the

contractor will supply materials different from the specified materials and with low quality,

a thing that could be rejected by the owner supervision. These issues will create conflict

between the two parties.

74

On the other hand, the owner respondents rank the lowest factors for this field as illustrated

in Table 4.15. The owner respondents rank “using over quality specification or international

specification where are not available in the local market” as the fifth position with a relative

index value of 0.364 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is

listed as the twenty fifth position as illustrated in Table 4.15. This means that owner

respondents agree that this factor is not serious in causing claim issues, because nearly all

public projects have typical design and the local consultants (designer) use typical design

according to the local market conditions where the owner will give final approval for the

project and over quality specification will affect the owner budget in some cases because

the owner is aware of the best and most economical specification.

The owner respondents rank “over design” as the sixth position with a relative index value


thirty third position as illustrated in Table 4.15. This result proves that this factor can be

considered as the lowest factor in this field. Because over design in public projects is not

permanent, the owner scarcely carries out over design cost.

The owner respondents rank "over design" as the sixth position with a relative index value


thirty ninth position as illustrated in Table 4.15.This factor has very low value there for the

result proves that this can be considered as the lowest factor in this field. Because over

design in public projects is not permanent issue and may happen in rarer case, the owner

will be responsible to carry out the over design cost.

4.2.2.3 - General Comment Regarding Group 2 (Highest and Lowest Factors)

It is clear from previous Tables 4.14 and 4.15 that contractors’ points of view and owners’

points of view are nearly similar and give high ranks for the same questions.

75


2. Design and Bill of Quantity R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification

0.623 1 6 0.453 4 16

Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site

0.602 2 10 0.505 2 8

Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity

0.599 3 12 0.517 1 6

Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction

0.596 4 13 0.465 3 13

Table 4.16, illustrates the four causes of the highest rank in group 2 (design and bill of

quantity) from contractor and owner point of view. The results show that contractor give

attention to the factor of “different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is

mentioned in the specification” as the highest rank in this group and the owner give

attention to the factor of “ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity “as the

highest rank in this group. The owner and contractor agreed that “drawing and bill of

quantity are not fitting the construction site, a factor that ranks it as the second position in

this group and also they agreed in all field as they rank as the 10th position by contractor

and 8th position from the total fields factors, we can conclude from the above Table that the

second rank factor has the highest agreement between the two parties.


2. Design and Bill of Quantity R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market

0.530 5 25 0.364 5 29

Over design 0.467 6 33 0.290 6 39

Table 4.17 illustrates the two factors of the last rank in group 2 (design and bill of quantity)

from contractor and owner point of view. The result shows that using over quality

specification or international specification will create a problem of the material un

availability in the local market, and, over design has the lowest ranks in group. This means

that these two issues are considered as the lowest factors causing claims for this group and

the agreeability between the contractors and owners regarding these factors as the lowest

rank. This proved that these two factors can be considered as the lowest factors causing

claims for this group.

76

4.2.3 Group 3: Contractual Relationship Factor

The contractor respondents and owners were asked regarding their points of view about the

dispute causes regarding contractual relationship factor group, the following Tables 4.18

and 4.19 below show the statistical results including relative index (R.I), rank respondents

by the contractor and owner points of view.

4.2.3.1 – Contractor Points of View for Contractual Relationship Factor

Table 4.18 Contractors points of view for Contractual relationship factor

3. Contractual relationship factor R.I Sub field

Rank All Field

Rank Awarding bid to the Lowest bidder 0.744 1 1 Payment requests are not followed up when submitting invoices 0.617 2 7 Awarding process take long period after bid open process 0.593 3 14 Poor contract management and ambiguities 0.563 4 20 Different type of contracts 0.560 5 22 Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law

0.485 6 30

Chang in the legislation and process (as Tax free or changing in the Tax Value.)

0.476 7 32

Average of Relative Index = 0.577

Table 4.18, illustrates the results of the average of relative index 0.577 with a first position

of the rank order among the four groups as shown in Table 4.9, while average of relative

index of the overall claim causes (all field ranks) was 0.547. As illustrated in Table 4.18, it

can be inferred that the contractor respondent opinions are positive in classifying the causes

of the claims according to there opinion. Most of the previous causes are considered as the

most important causes that result in claims especially in the contractual relationship factor

group. Table 4.18 shows that respondents rank “awarding bid to the Lowest bidder “in the

first position with a relative index value of 0.744 under this group and in the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) it is listed as first position. This means that awarding bid to the

lowest bidder can be considered as the main source of claim factors in this field.

Most contractors agreed that these issues affect them in winning bids in a fair cost, where

most contractors complain that there is no pre-qualification to contractors before tender

stage; most owners award bids to the lowest bidder and, in some cases, this contractor is

not qualified to perform this project. Also, in most cases, these contractors when estimating

the project items cost they reduce their bid value to the actual cost without any

consideration of unexpected event during project implementation.

77

The contractors respondents rank “payment requests are not followed up when submitting

invoices “as the second most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.617

under this group and in the overall causes for this field it is listed as the seventh position.

This means that payment requests are not followed up when submitting invoices. Most

contractors agree that this issue affects their activities and cause delays in work progress

activities because most contractors depend on payments in time; any delay in payment

causes financials difficulties to the contractor and leads to slow down project progress or, in

some cases, project suspension as result of payment delay; this issue pushes some

contractor to request compensation by owners.

In the third position, The contractors respondents rank “awarding process take long

period after bid open process ” as the third most important cause position with a relative


listed as fourteenth position. This means that delay of awarding process after bid opening

process causes difficulties to contractor in starting up the project implementation in time;

delay affects the contractor estimated cost of material due to un stability in the prices of the

local market, and in most cases scarcity of materials and unexpected material price

increment oblige some contractors to request extra prices and that may be turned down by

the owners.

The contractors respondents rank “poor contract management and ambiguities” as the

fourth most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.563 under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the twenty position as

illustrated in Table 5.18. This means that poor contract management and ambiguities can be

considered as the main source of claim factors in this field. Most contractors agreed that

this issue affects them as result of poor contract management and ambiguities in some

provisions, where in most cases the contract management supports the owners’ side and

creates unfairness between the two sides. Also, in some contracts there are ambiguous

provisions that lead contractors misunderstanding of these provisions, or the poor contract

management leads most contractors to explain and understand the provisions according to

their own interests and benefits, and, that could be rejected by the owners, and in most

cases, this result in conflict and claims presented by contractors.

78

On the other hand, The contractors respondents rank the lowest factors for this field as

illustrated in Table 4.14.where The contractors respondents rank “Interpreting for some

items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law” as the sixth position with a


ranks) it is listed as the twenty thirty position as illustrated in Table 4.18. This means that

contractor respondents agree that this factor is not serious in causing claim issues, because

nearly all public contract are compatible with the Palestinian law

The contractors respondents rank "Chang in the legislation and process (as Tax free or

changing in the Tax Value.) " as the seventh position with a relative index value of 0.476

under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty two

position as illustrated in Table 5.18. This result proves that this factor can be considered as

the lowest factor in this field. Because the change in the legislation and process, are rarely

happens. In general, this factor doesn't affect directly the construction process.

4.2.3.2 Owner Points of View for Contractual Relationship Factor

Table 4.19 Owners points of view for contractual relationship factor

3. Contractual relationship factor R.I Subfield Rank

All Field Rank

Awarding bid to the Lower bidder 0.658 1 2 Payment request are not followed up when submitting invoices 0.493 2 10 Awarding process take long period after bid open process 0.436 3 20 Poor contract management and ambiguities 0.399 4 24 Different type of contracts 0.369 5 28 Chang in the legislation and process (as Tax free or changing in the Tax Value …….)

0.327 6 35

Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law

0.302 7 37


As illustrated in Table 4.19. The result shows that the average of relative index was 0.426

with a first position of the rank order among the four group as shown in Table 4.9.while

average of relative index of the overall claim causes (all field ranks) was 0.429. As

illustrated in Table 4.19. Most of the previous causes are considered as the most important

causes of resulting claims especially in the contractual relationship factor in this field. The

owner respondents rank “awarding bid to the lower bidder “in the first position with a


ranks) it is listed as second position as illustrated in Table 4.19 This means that awarding

79

bid to the lowest bidder can be considered as the main source of claim factors in this field.

Most owners agree that this issue of awarding contract to the lowest price as is requirement

of ministry of local government, donors or international fund agencies affects them,

whereas result of these regulations, and in some cases will result in secreting the bid to the

lower qualified contractors. Also, as result of low prices some contractors try to change the

specification to reduce the cost. In some cases, the contractor will not be able to perform

activities as required and hire unskillful labors or use poor equipment. As result of his low

prices, all these issues can result in conflict between the two parties.

The owner respondents rank “payment requests are not followed up when submitting

invoices “ as the second most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.493

under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the tenth

position as illustrated in Table.4.19. This means that payment requests are not followed up

when submitting invoices. Most owners agree that this issues affect there activities and

resulting delay of work progress and performance, because most of the local contractor

depend on the invoice payment and payment delay will result in financials difficulties to the

contractor , a difficulty which leads to slowing down the project progress or in some cases,

stopping the project, as result of payment delay most owners representative clarify that all

public projects funded by donors or international fund agency have different procurement

and financial procedures; this issue leads some contractor to request compensation from

owners.

In the third position, the owner respondents rank “awarding process take long period after

bid opening process ” as the third most important cause position with a relative index


the twenty position as illustrated in Table 4.19. This means that awarding process take long

period after the bid opening process, this causing owners difficulties in starting the project

implementation as result of local market conditions, availability of construction materials

and the unexpected material price increase all these factors leads the contractor to request

the owner to consider the new changes. Also, most of public project procedures take long

period as result of donors different procurement procedures.

80

The respondent rank “poor contract management and ambiguities” as the fourth most

important cause position with a relative index value of 0.399. Under this group and in the

overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the twenty four position as illustrated in

Table 4.19. This means poor contract management and ambiguities can be considered as

the main source of claim factors in this field. Most owners agree that this issue affect them

as results in poor contract management and ambiguities in some provisions, where, in most

cases, the contract management supports the owner’s side without any consideration of the

contractors’ side and lack of fairness between the two sides. Also in some contracts, there

are ambiguous provisions that cause misunderstanding by the owners’ representative of

these provisions. That leads to conflicts issues between the two side and leads to claim

request.


in Table 4.20 where the owner respondents rank "change in the legislation and process (as

tax free or changing in the tax value.) as the sixth position with a relative index value of

0.327 under this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the

thirty fifth position as illustrated in Table 4.19. This result proves that this factor can be

considered as the lowest factor in this field, because the change in the legislation and

process are rare, where in general this factor doesn't affect directly the construction process.


in Table 4.19.where the owner respondents rank “Interpreting for some items in the

contract with no reference in the Palestinian law” as the seventh position with a relative


listed as the thirty seven position as illustrated in Table 4.19. This means that owner

respondents agreed that this factor is not serious in making claim issues, because almost all

public contracts are compatible with the Palestinian law.

81

5.2.3.3 - General Comment Regard Group 3 (Highest and Lowest Factors)

It is clear from the previous Tables 4.18 and 4.19 that contractor point of view and owner

point of view are similar and give high ranks for the same questions especially for the first

six questions as the following:

Table 4.20 Highest causes of claims in construction projects Contractor Owners

3. Contractual relationship factor R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Awarding bid to the Lower bidder 0.744 1 1 0.658 1 2

Payment requests are not followed up when submitting invoices

0.617 2 7 0.493 2 10

Awarding process take long period after bid open process

0.593 3 14 0.436 3 20

Poor contract management and ambiguities

0.563 4 20 0.399 4 24

As illustrated in Table 4.20, the four causes with the highest rank in group 3 (Contractual

relationship factor) from contractor and owner point of view. The result shows that the

contractors and owners give attention to the factor “Awarding bid to the Lower bidder” as

the highest rank in this group and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) the result

shows that this factors has the highest rank and " payment requests are not followed up

when submitting invoices" a factor ranked as the second position in this group. In this

group the result shows that the contractor and owner agreed upon this factor and ranked it

according to their beliefs which proved the agreement between contractors and owners

about these issues.

Table 4.21 Lowest causes of claims in construction projects Contractor Owners

3. Contractual relationship factor R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Interpreting of some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law

0.485 6 30 0.302 7 37

Change in the regulations and process (as VAT) or (zero VAT)

0.476 7 32 0.327 6 35

As illustrated in Table 4.21, the two factors of the last rank in group 3 "interpreting for

some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law" and change in the

regulations and process (as VAT or zero VAT.). This means that these two issues are

considered as the lowest factors causing claims for this group and the agreeableness

between the contractors and owners regarding these factors as the lowest rank. This proved

that these two factors are considered as the lowest factors causing claims for this group.

82

4.2.4 Group 4: Emergency Cases

The respondents’ contractors and owners were asked regarding their points of view about

the dispute causes regarding the emergency cases of the factor group. Tables 4.22 and 4.23

below show the statistical results including relative index (R.I) rank respondents by the

contractor and owner points of view.

5.2.4.1 - Contractor Points of View for Emergency Cases Factors

Table 4.22 Contractors points of view for Emergency cases

4. Emergency Cases R .I Sub field

Rank All Field

Rank Main borders closures 0.690 1 2 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities, Cities and Governorate Occupation 0.645

2 4

Natural conditions factors (Bad weather. .etc) 0.512 3 27 Un foreseen issues arise in the site 0.512 3 27 Demonstrations and strikes 0.479 5 31


As illustrated in Table 4.22, the result shows that the average of relative index was 0.567

with a third position of the rank order among the four groups as shown in Table 4.11, while

the average of the relative index of the overall claim causes (all field ranks) was 0.547,

most of the previous causes are considered as the most important causes resulting claims

especially in the emergency cases in this field. The respondents rank “Main borders

closures “in the first position with a relative index value of 0.690 under this group and in

the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the second position as illustrated in

Table 4.22.

The border closures can be considered as main source of claim factors in this field; most

contractors agree that this issue affects them during project implementation because all

projects activities depend on the availability of construction material. As result of closure,

most contractors will not be able to perform project activities and waste their time and

money, contractors in this case will request compensation from owners.

The contractors respondents rank “Road blockage and difficulties to pass among cities,

occupied cities and governorate as the second most important cause position with a relative

index value of 0.645 under this group and in overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed

as the fourth position, as illustrated in Table 4.22, most contractors agree that this issue

affects their activities and causes delay in work progress and performance because the Gaza

83

Strip was occupied by the Israeli army and divided into three or four areas by establishing

check points preventing contractor facilities from passing through to project sites. This

issue causes delay in the project implementation, in addition to causing over budget and

financials difficulties to contractors.

The contractors respondents rank “natural conditions factors (bad weather, etc) ” as the

third most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.512 under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as twenty seven position as

illustrated in Table 4.22. This means that the natural conditions factors (bad weather, etc…)

oblige contractors to stop project activities as result of bad weather, where all of these

issues were not expected during tender stage, and this issue is out of the contractors’

control. This will result in increasing contractor running expenses and if weather conditions

continue for long period or resulting damages for implemented works approved by owner

supervisions team, the contractor will present a claim for compensation.

Also the respondent rank “unforeseen issues arise in the site” as the third most important

cause position with a relative index value of 0.512 under this group and in the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the twenty seven position as illustrated in Table 4.22..

This means that the unforeseen issues arising in site can be considered as a main source of

claim factors in this field. Most contractors agree that these issues affect them as result of

unexpected activities that need to be done as result of unforeseen issues arising in site; this

issue will result in delaying project activities. Also it will be an ambiguous work

demanding extra cost acceptance of both sides. The contractor will request additional costs

for the unforeseen issues arise in site, and that could cause delay of work progress.

On the other hand, The contractors respondents rank the lowest factors for this field as

illustrated in Table 4.22.where The contractors respondents rank “demonstrations and

strikes” as the fifth position with a relative index value of 0.479 under this group and in the

overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the thirty one position as illustrated in

Table 4.22. This means that contractor respondents agree that this factor is not serious in

causing claim issues because Gaza construction industry is not controlled by any internal

unions as labor union where this union can affect the construction industry by strikes or

demonstrations.

84

4.2.4.2 - Owner Points of View for Emergency Cases Factors

Table 4.23 Owners points of view for emergency cases

4. Emergency Case R.I Sub field

Rank All Field

Rank Main borders closures 0.698 1 1 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities, Cities and Governorate Occupation 0.614

2 3

Natural conditions factors (Bad weather, ect…) 0.460 3 15 Unforeseen issues arise in the site 0.443 4 18 Demonstrations and strikes 0.436 5 20


As illustrated in Table 4.23, the respondents’ opinion could be inferred. The result shows

that the average of relative index was 0.067 with a fourth position of the rank order among

the four groups as shown in Table 4.9, while average of relative index of the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) was 0.429. As illustrated in Table 4.23, most of the previous causes

are considered as the most important causes leading to claims especially in the emergency

cases field.

The owner respondents rank “Main borders closures “in the first position with a relative


listed as the first positions. This means that the main borders closures can be considered as

the main source of claim factors in field 2.4. Most owners agree that this issue affects

project implementation; borders closures cause slowing down or stopping projects

activities; this issue affects all Gaza construction industry sectors. It also affects owners’

plans and financial condition as result of delay in project progress and unexpected material

price increases; these matters were not considered in advance by owners, and may lead to a

dispute between the two parties.

Road blockage and difficulties to pass through occupied cities and governorates “as the

second most important cause position with a relative index value of 0.614; under this group

and in the overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as third position as illustrated in

Table 4.23. Most owners agree that this issue affects their activities and results in delay in

work performance. As result of the Israil's occupation of the Gaza strip and its isolation

into three security zone controlled by the Israeli military, these issues created difficulties to

85

owners representatives in arriving at project sites in order to follow up and control

contractors performance.

The owner respondents rank “natural conditions factors (bad weather, ect)”as the third most


overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the fifteen in position as illustrated in

Table 4.23. This means that the natural condition factors (bad weather, etc) caused owners

to stop project activities and delay major activities. All of these issues were not considered

during tender stage. These bad natural conditions increased the project running cost for

both sides, and in some cases, the bad weather condition caused damages to the

implemented and approved activities by owner’s supervision team, the contractor will

present a claim for compensation from the owner.

The owner respondents rank “Unforeseen material rise in the site” as the fourth most


overall claim causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the eighteenth position as illustrated in

Table 4.23. This means that the unforeseen issues arising in site can he considered as main

source of claim factors in this field. Most owners agree that these issues affect them as

result of unexpected additional activities arise during project implementation, thus causing

delay to project activities, in most cases, owners will not be able to cover the additional cost

of this issue as a result of budget limitation. At the end, it will be the contractors,

responsibility and he will present compensation claim.


in Table 4.23. Where the contractors respondents rank “demonstrations and strikes” as the

fifth position with a relative index value of 0.436 under this group and in the overall claim

causes (all field ranks) it is listed as the twenty position as illustrated in Table 4.23. This

means that owner respondents agree that this factor is not serious in resulting in claim

issues, because the Gaza construction industry is not controlled by any unions like labor

union where this union can affect the construction industry by strikes or demonstrations.

86

5.2.4.3 - General Comment Regard Group 4 (Highest and Lowest Factors)

It is clear from previous Tables 4.22and 4.23 that contractors, point of and the owners,

points of view are nearly similar; they give high ranks for the same questions especially for

the first six questions as the following:


4. Emergency Cases R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Main borders closures 0.690 1 2 0.698 1 1 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities, Cities and Governorate Occupation 0.645

2 4 0.614

2 3

Natural conditions factors (Bad weather, etc…) 0.512 3 27 0.460 3 15 Unforeseen issues arise in the site 0.512 3 27 0.443 4 18

Table 4.24 illustrates the four causes with the highest rank in group 4 (Emergency cases

factor) from contractors, and owner point of view. The result shows that contractors and

owners gave attention to the factor “Main borders closures” as the highest rank in this

group, and in the all field rank, the result shows that this factor has the highest rank in all

fields. The factor “Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between occupied cities and

governorates “ranks as the second position in this group. In this group the result shows that

the contractors and owners are agreed on the ranking this factor according to their believe

which approved the agreeableness between contractor and owner on this issues.


4. Emergency Cases R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

R.I Sub

Field Rank

All Field Rank

Demonstrations and strikes 0.436 5 20 0.479 5 31

Table 4.25 illustrates the last rank factor in group 4" Demonstrations and strikes "from

contractor and owner point of view. This means that this issue is considered as the last

factor causing claims in this group.

87

PART II

4.3 Common Procedures Categories

Part three questionnaire presents common procedures categories (claim identification,

claim notifications, claim examination, claim documentation, claim presentation, and claim

negotiation). It also presents, the particular claims (time extension claims, claims form

change orders, claims related to design). In order to concentrate the discussion, each group

will be discussed individually. Some of the causes of high rank value of each group will

also be discussed in detail. On the other hand, some of the causes of low relative index

value of the same group will also be discussed in detail. During presenting the result, a

discussion will be presented for each group comparing the two side points of view, the

contractor’s side and the owner’s. Relationship among the above mentioned factors is

investigated by using the statistical test related to relative index value and mean of each.


The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the problems associated

with the process of claim identification, procedures used, and the most major concerns in

process of claim identification. Tables 4.26, 4.27 and 4.28 show the statistical results

including relative index (R.I), respondents rank and mean value by the contractor’s and

owner’s points of view.

4.3.1.1 Contractor Point of View

Table 4.26 Contractor points of view for claim identification Problems Associated With The Process Of

**CLAIM IDENTIFICATION ** R.I Rank

lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim 0.723 1 Insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim 0.720 2 Inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a claim 0.711 3 Unclear procedures in identification of claim 0.672 4 Unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem 0.666 5 Inadequate time due to high work load 0.590 6 Difficulties to detect any problems during the work due to a lot of work 0.569 7 Poor communication between site and Head Office 0.512 8 Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site 0.512 8


As illustrated in Table 4.26. The contractors respondents rank “lack of awareness of people

on site to detect claim “in the first position with a relative index value of 0.723 under this

group. This means that most of contractor respondents agreed that this issue affects them.

88

It is important for the contractor, or his representative to know what claim is, when to

identify it, and where, in most cases; the contractor employees lose their right in claims

because they are not aware of it, or they are lacking claim awareness.

In the second position came "insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim" with a

relative index value of 0.720 under this group. This means that contractor respondents

admitted that the insufficient skilled person for detecting claims are not available in the

company, such an issues affects the contractor in identifying and approving his right in the

claims.

The contractors respondents rank "inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a

claim" in the third position with relative index value of 0.711 under this group. This means

that availability of documents is important for claims identifications, a factor which made

the contractors agree that they should organize and check the project documents to verify

the contract conditions.

Also the contractors respondents rank the "unclear procedures in identification of claim" in

the fourth position with a relative index value of 0.672 under this group. Most of the

contractor respondents agreed that this issue is one of the main problems that face them

during claims identifications. Thus, the contractor should use clear procedure in identifying

claim issues.

The "unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem "is ranked in the fifth position with

a relative index value of 0.666; under this group this problems is always associated with the

contractors during project implementation. Yet the responsibilities in some cases are not

clear. Who should be responsible to identify the claims? The contractor project manager

should be the first line to identify or detect a claim or problem. Because of that, the

contractor company owner should hire an expert engineer.

The contractors respondents rank “inadequate time due to high work load” in the sixth

position with a relative index of 0.590 under this group. It is a result which indicates that

contractors agreed that the inadequate time is due to high work load, but it is not a decisive

problem affecting identifying claim issues.

89

The “difficulties to detect any problem during the work is due to a lot of work“ in the

seventh position with a relative index value of 0.569, under this group. This problem is not

always part of the problems associated with this field because the contractor during project

implementation can mange his time work, and he has adequate time to identify and check

claims.

The "poor communication between site head office" is ranked in the eighth position with a

relative index value of 0.569 under this group. This issue does not always happen, where

most of in contractors, through their site engineer, have a direct communication and also

because of the limitation of the project location in relation to the contractor’s main office.

This means that good communication between the site and the head office, and knowledge

of contract are not serious matters as most contractors can under stand the contract.

The “Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site“ was ranked in the eighth position

with a relative index value of 0.569 under this group. These issue dos not always happen.

Most of the contractor’s through site engineer or representative have knowledge of

contract, where this issue is important in identifying the claims. The result indicates that

most contractors agree that they have knowledge of contract.

4.3.1.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Identification

Table 4.27 Contractor most major concern in claim identification Most Major Concern in Process of

Claim IDENTIFICATION? Mean Rank

Un awareness of people on site leads to loose the chance of a claim 6.30 1 Time concern, in compensation of such a claim 6.00 2 Time concern, in preparing a claim 5.75 3 Focusing only on serious claim issue for maintaining a good relationship 4.70 4 Cause of claim and their impacts 4.60 5 Type of claim: extension of time and /or compensation 4.40 6 Accuracy of identifying a claim 4.00 7 Priority setting for the excellent merits of construction claims 4.00 7 Ability to proof and support such claims 4.00 7

As illustrated in Table 4.27. The contractors’ respondents rank "unawareness of people on

site leads to loose the chance of a claim "in the first position with mean values 6.30. This

means that contractors, concern about their staff regarding unawareness of site because this

issue can lead the contractor to lose his right of claims.

90

The contractors respondents rank "time concern, in compensation of such a claim "in the

second position with mean value of 6.00 under this group. This indicates that contractor

respondents admit that time is important because, in some cases, the claim takes long time

to be compensated, where the contractor can lose the value of money.

The contractors respondents rank “time concern, in preparing a claim “in the third position

with mean value of 5.75 under this group. This means that the contractor respondents

concern about the time in preparing a clime because it very important for the contractor to

present his claim in the right time. In some cases the contractor may lose his right in the

compensation as a result of that.

On the other hand ,The contractors respondents rank the lowest three factors for this field as

illustrated in Table 4.27,where The contractors respondents rank “accuracy of identifying a

claim”, “Priority setting for the excellent merits of construction claims” and “ Ability to

proof and support such claims” as the seventh position with mean value of 4.00. From this

result, it can be understood that these three factors get the similar mean value. This means

that the contractor concern about the accuracy of identifying a claim because is considered

one of mains important procedure during claim period. Also the contractor respondents

concern about the important and excellent merits of claims during the construction. The

results also show that the contractor concerns about the ability to prove and support the

claims because it should be approved in a clear and documented procedures.

4.3.1.3 Open Questions for Investigation the Practice in Claim Procedure During Claim

Identification?

The questionnaires content some open questions, to be answered by the contractors, the

propose of these questions is to investigation how contractors identified the claims, where

the contractor respondents result presented in the following paragraphs;

1. Once a claim has been filed against other party, how many percent do you win a

claim?

Contractors’ respondent for this question shows difference opinions, where the majority of

contractors answered that they have less then 50 % of possibility of wining the claim,

where the remain of this percentage agreed that they are able to wine the claim.

91

2. Normally, who are responsible for identifying a claim during the construction

work?

Mostly of received contractors answered for this question agreed that the project manager

should be the responsible person to identify the claim during construction work, where the

remain contractors indicates that it can be both the project manager, company owner and

the site engineer.

3. Do you have any standard procedure when someone is facing a problem during the

work?


contractors answered that they haven’t any standard procedures to be follow if there is a

problems during work, but also the remain contractors answered that they have some

procedures but not as official procedures, for example they informed the company manger

with the problems and after that inform the project owners with the situations.

4. Which document is often used to indicate any claim issue or problems?


contractors answered that they used the projects documents to indicates the claims and

some of the respondents indicates that they used the daily report and the correspondents

letters for this issues.

4.3.1.4 Owner Point of View for Process of Claim Identification

Table 4.28 Owners points of view for claim identification Problems Associated with the Process of

**CLAIM IDENTIFICATION ** R.I Rank

The contractor is aware of job factors giving right to a claim 0.62 1 Claims are always recognized on field during the construction. They are rarely resolved after the completion of project.

0.61 2

The contractors always keep records of work. When the problem appears they can recognize it quickly.

0.48 3

The issues of claim alleged by contractors are always accurate and reasonable. Unnecessary problems are seldom raised.

0.39 4


As illustrated in Table 4.28. The owner respondents rank “the contractor is aware of job

factors giving right to a claim “in the first position with a relative index of 0.62 under this

92

group. This means that the contractors are aware of claim factors; they know when to

present claim issues to the owners’ representative.

The owner respondents rank "the claims as always recognized in field during the

construction, they are rarely resolved after the completion of project.” In the second

position with relative index of 0.61. In this factor, the owners clarify that claims are always

recognized in field during construction and most of these claims are solved during the

construction period and seldom are claim issues solved after completion of the project.

The owner respondents rank "The contractors always keep records regarding to the work,

when the problem appears, they can recognize it quickly" in the third position with relative

index of 0.48. where the result show that the relative index has low value and this result

may prove that contractor are not always keeping records, where in some cases the

contractor will not be able to approve his right in the claims as result of record keeping.

The owner respondents rank “the issues of claim alleged by contractors are always accurate

and reasonable, unnecessary problems are seldom raised." in the fourth position with

relative index of 0.39 it is in lowest rank. This means that owners’ problems are associated

with the processes of claim identification, where it can he understood from the result that

there is misundersting between the contractor and owner regarding the claim issues.

93

4.3.2 Claim Notifications

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the used procedures of

claim notification. Tables 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31 show the statistical results including relative

index (R.I), rank and respondents mean value by the contractors and owner points of view.


Table 4.29 Contractor points of view for claim notification Problems Associated with the Process of

**CLAIM NOTIFICATION ** R.I Rank

Inaccessibility of documents to be attached along with notice. 0.78 1 Unclear procedures in notice preparation 0.67 2 Unclear responsibility to prepare the notice 0.67 3 Queries back from other parties due to the ambiguities of notice 0.58 4 Prescribed time in the contract is too short 0.56 5 No standard form used of preparing the notice 0.55 6 Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload 0.50 7 Poor communication to submit a written notice 0.47 8


As illustrated in Table 4.29, the result shows that the average of relative index was 0.60.

The contractors respondents rank “inaccessibility of documents to be attached along with

notice “in the first position with a relative index value of 0.78 under this group. This means

that most of contractor respondents agreed that most of the problems associated with this

process are the availability of document, a factor which is less important than notifying the

other parties about claims promptly.

In the second position comes "“unclear procedures in notice preparation" with a relative

index value of 0.67 under this group. This means that the contractor respondents admit that

they are not aware of notices procedures during the claim notification where this issue

affects and may delay contractor in preparing claim notification.

The contractors respondents rank “unclear responsibility to prepare the notice in the third

position with relative index value of 0.67 under this group. From result, the contractor

agreed that the main problem associated with this process is the unavailability of the

responsible person to do the task. This means that availability of responsible person with

the expert is important during claims notifications.

94

Also the contractors respondents rank the "Queries back from other parties due to the

ambiguities of notice" in the fourth position with a relative index value of 0.58 under this

group. Most of the contractor respondents agreed that this issue is one of main problems

occurred during claims notifications, where, in some cases, the contractor as result of

unclear notification claims, will reject or inquire about his claims. Therefore, the contractor

should present his claims in short clear notification during this process.

The “prescribed time in the contract is too short cames “in the fifth position with a relative

index value of 0.56 under this group this. The contractor respondents consider contract time

is too short and the problems are associated with the process because most contract’s give

period of time to the contractor to notify the other parties about the claims.

The contractors respondents rank “no standard form used of preparing the notice” in the

sixth position with a relative index of 0.55 under this group. This result indicates that

contractors indicate that the no standard form used in preparing the notice has a big impact

in this process, in some cases the contractor can prepare and notify the claims in formal

letter where it can be understood by the other parties.

The “Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload cames “in the seventh

position with a relative index value of 0.50 under this group. This factor is not always part

of problems associated with this field because the contractors have enough time for this

process, even if the contractors have over workload, they should give main concern to the

claim notification preparation process.

The “poor communication to submit a written notice cames “in the eighth and last position

with a relative index value of 0.47 under this group. This issue does not always happen,

where most contractors through their site engineers have a direct communication with the

owners representative; they can submit a written notice.

95

4.3.2.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Notification

As illustrated in Table 4.30, the contractors respondents rank "cheapness of cost in

preparation of notice "in the first position with mean values 5.80. This means that

contractor concern about claims notification process the cost and time consuming in the

claim notification.

Table 4.30 Contractor most major concern for claim notification Most Major Concern in process of **CLAIM NOTIFICATION **

Mean Rank

Cheapness of cost in preparation of notice 5.80 1 Shortness and clearness of notice 4.90 2 Timely notify the other party of a potential a claim 4.50 3 Strictly requiring the notice in written 3.20 4 Using the non-adversarial manner to notify 3.10 5 Full and complete supporting document attached along with the notice 3.00 6

The contractors respondents rank "Shortness and clearness of notice” in the second position

with mean value of 4.90 under this group. This means that the contractor’s respondents

admit that they should concern about how to notify claims in a well clear short way.

The contractors respondents rank “Timely notify the other party of a potential a claim “in

the third position with mean value of 4.50 under this group. This means that the contractor

respondents concern about the time in preparing a claim because it is very important for the

contractor to present his claim and notify the other parties in the right time. Not only the

owner but also contractor can inform union or other related agencies concerned with the

project. In some cases the contractor, as result of delay in timely notifying the other parties

of the claims, may lose his right in the compensation

On the other hand the contractors respondents rank the lowest three factors for this field as

illustrated in Table 4.30, where The contractors respondents rank “Strictly requiring the

notice in written as the fourth position with mean value of 3.20. From this result it can be

understood that this factor gets the lowest mean value. This means that the contractor

concerns about submitting the notice in written form, where it is the important for

contractor to submit claims notification in official written letters to guarantee his right in

receiving claim value.

96

The contractors respondents rank “using the non-adversarial manner to notify” as the fifth

position with a mean value of 3.10. From this result, it can be understood that this factor

gets the lowest mean value. This means that the contractor is concerned to continue good

relation with the owners. The contractors respondents rank “full and complete supporting

document attached along with the notice” as the sixth position with mean value of 3.00,

where from this result, it can be understood that this factor gets the lowest mean value. This

means that contractors submit the required documents attached with the claims notes, and

they have no major concern during this activity.


Notification?


propose of these questions is to investigation how contractors notification claims, where the

contractor respondents result presented in the following paragraphs;

1. Normally, who are responsible for preparing a notice during the construction

work?


should be the responsible person to prepared the notices during construction work, Also the

remain respondent contractors indicates that it can be the site engineer.

2. Do you have any standard procedure for preparing a notice during the work?


contractors answered that they haven’t any standard procedures to be follow during

preparing the claim notices, but also the remain contractors answered that they have some

procedures but it not official procedures.

3. Which document is often used to be attached along with the notice?


contractors answered that they used any document from the projects documents to be

attached with the notice, Also they indicate that they can attached the daily report, project

correspondent’s letters, drawing, site photos and any reports.

97

4.3.2.4 Owner Point of View

Table 4.31 Owners points of view for claim notification Problems Associated with the Process of

**CLAIM NOTIFICATION **

Relative Index

Rank

The contractor always submits the notice in writing. 0.67 1 Contractors always notify the existing claims within time limit requirement in the contract. 0.64 2 The contractor always alerts you of a potential problem in a manner that is non-adversarial. 0.61 3 The claims notices are always short and clear easy to understand, 0.55 4 The claim notified by contractor are often reasonable with legal and factual grounds referred to the contract documents.

0.51 5

The documents attached a long with notice are always adequate. 0.49 6 Notices submitted by Contractors are deliberately Well-organized with a standard form. 0.43 7


As illustrated in Table 4.31. The owner respondents rank “the contractor always submits

the notice in writing“ in the first position with a relative index of 0.67 under this group.

This means that the owner’s, main problems associated with this process are that

contractors are not submitting claims notice in writing where this issue creates a conflict

between the two parties.

The owner respondents rank "contractors always notify the existing claims within time

limit requirement in the contract" in the second position with relative index of 0.64. The

result shows, that owners face problems with this factor because according to the contract

provision the contractor should notify the owners party with a period of time, but in some

cases, the contractor notifies the owner after this period, and this may create conflict

between the two sides.

The owner respondents rank "the contractor always alerts you of a potential problem in a

manner that is non-adversarial." in the third position with relative index of 0.61. The

owner’s result indicates that, in most cases, the contractor will alert the owner regarding

potential problems to guarantee his right in recovering the cost.

The owner respondents rank “The claims notices are always short and clear easy to

understand" in the fourth position with relative index of 0.55. This means that owners’

problems associated with the processes of claim notification by the contractor are not

serious, where it can be understood from the result that owners have no difficulties in

understanding the claims notices, where in some cases, the contractor may present a long

and un-clear notices that lead the owner to request some clarification from the contractor

regarding his claim notices.

98

The owner respondents rank "the documents attached a long with notice are always

adequate" in the sixth position with relative index of 0.49 where it can be understood from

the result that owners are not considering this factor as a major factor creating problems,

because the owner can request any document from the contractor to support his right in the

claims.

The owner respondents rank " notices submitted by contractors are deliberately well-

organized with a standard form " in the seventh position, the last rank with relative index of

0.43 where it can be understood from the result that owners are not considering this as

major factor which creates problems, because during the claims notification process there

are no standard forms used by the contractor. Also, the contractor can present any form to

notify the owner regarding his claims.

99


The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the used claim

examination procedures. Table (4.32), (4.33) and (4.34) shows respectively the statistical

results including relative index (R.I), rank and mean value by the contractor and owner

respondents’ points of view.


Table 4.32 Contractor points of view for claim examination Problems Associated with the Process of

**CLAIM EXAMINATION ** R.I Rank

Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery 0.83 1 Unclear responsible person to analyze and evaluate the amount of recovery 0.78 2 lack of legal Knowledge of contract to establish the grounds 0.76 3 Unclear procedures in claim examination 0.75 4 No standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages 0.73 5 Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages 0.67 6 Poor communication for gathering the required information to analyze a claim 0.61 7 Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload 0.55 8 Insufficient computerized machine to facilitate the calculation 0.45 9


As illustrated in Table (4.32), the result shows that average of relative index was 0.68, the

contractor respondents' rank “Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the

potential recovery in the first position with a relative index value of 0.83 under this group.

This means that most of contractor respondents agreed that record availability is important

to analyze and estimate the expenses of claims. For this process, the contractor should be

aware regarding checking the required files and estimating cost report because he must be

able to approve his claim cost by presenting the accurate document to the owner. For that it

is advisable for the contractor to examine claims recovery and support it by official

documents.

In the second position came "indefinite responsible person to analyze and evaluate the

amount of recovery" with a relative index value of 0.78 under this group. This means that

the respondents' contractors admit that" the responsible person is not available to examine,

analyze and evaluate the amount of recovery. If available, this mean that this person should

be expert and have the construction management knowledge to be able to assist the

contractor in his claim examination.

100

The contractors respondents rank “lack of legal knowledge of contract to establish the

bases” in the third position with relative index value of 0.76 under this group. Form this

result the contractor agreed that legal knowledge of contract is not available. Therefore the

contractor should be supported by legal adviser before preparing claims procedure to advise

and instruct contractors to establish claims legal bases.

Also The contractors respondents rank the "unclear procedures in claim examination" in the

fourth position with a relative index value of 0.75 under this group. Most contractor

respondents agreed that this issue is considered as one of the main challenges facing

contractors during claims examination, where, in some cases, the contractor as result of

unclear procedure in claim examination loses time in claim examination; this can lead the

contractor to miss accurate cost, or it may affect him by losing his claim.

The “no standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages “in the

fifth position with a relative index value of 0.73 under this group. The respondents'

contractors considered this factor as one of the problems facing them during claim

examination. It is important for claims examination and calculation to be in a clear formal

and accurately related to claim cost.

The respondents' contractors rank “Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages” in the

sixth position with a relative index of 0.67 under this group. This result shows that

contractors indicate that the no standard formula used during claim examination has impact

on this process. In some cases, contractors estimated claim cost in an unrealistic manner,

and this issues led owner to turn down t the contractor claims.

The “poor communication for gathering the required information to analyze claim“is

ranked in the seventh position with a relative index value of 0.61 under this group. This

factor is not always affecting claim examination because contractors through their teams

during this process can contact with owner supervision teams, or any other parties to collect

the required information.

101

The “Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload “in the

eighth position with a relative index value of 0.55 under this group. This result indicates

that the contractor respondents agreed that inadequate time due to high work load is not

serious problem that affect the claim examination issues. Also, from the result, it can be

understood that contractor’s time is adequate to claim examination.

The "Insufficient computerized machine to facilitate the calculation" came in the ninth and

last position with a relative index value of 0.45 under this group. The contractor

respondents give the last rank to this factor because during the claim examination the

computerized system was not used in any problem. Also it is clear that computers are

available and assist in calculating examining; and preparing claims .

4.3.3.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Examination

As illustrated in Table 4.33, the contractors respondents rank "time to precede the

calculation and evaluation "in the first position with mean values 5.62. This means that

contractor were concerned during the claims examination process; they found the process

time consuming for claim evaluation. It may be considered that contractor should give more

time during the claims examination and not to speed up time because it may lead the

contractor to miss evaluating and calculating claim cost.

Table 4.33 Contractor most major concern for claim examination Most Major Concern in Process of

**CLAIM EXAMINATION ** Mean Rank

Time to proceed the calculation and evaluation 5.62 1 Amicable concern of relationship between parties 5.16 2 SuiTable, reasonable, and reliable formula in calculation 4.55 3 Accuracy of the calculation of merit quantum 4.22 4 Entitlement factors: Foresee ability, Control, Causation, and Legal responsibility 4.03 5 Provability of time and cost element of the claim 3.96 6 Amount of recovery 2.79 7 Establishment of entitlement : Legal and factual ground 2.74 8

The contractors respondents rank “amicable concern of relationship between parties” in the

second position with mean value of 5.16 under this group. This means that contractor

respondents admit that they should concern about keeping good relation with the owners

side because it may reflect claims acceptance and process relation between owner and

contractor.

102

The contractors respondents rank “SuiTable, reasonable, and reliable formula in calculation

“in the third position with mean value of 4.55 under this group. This means that the

contractor respondents were concerned regarding the used formula in calculation claims. In

some cases, as result of unclear calculations of claims presented by contractor, this may

lead owners or other parties to reject or request proven classification regarding claims.

Also, in some cases, this issue leads contractor to lose his right in the compensation

On the other hand, The contractors respondents rank the lowest three major concern factors

for this field as illustrated in Table 4.33, where The contractors respondents rank

“Provability of time and cost element of the claim” as the sixth position with mean value of

3.29. From this result, it can be understood that this factor gets the lowest mean value. This

means that time and cost can be approved by the contractor and this issue is in effective

during claims examination.

The contractors respondents rank “amount of recovery” as the seventh position with mean

value of 2.29, where from result it can be understood that this factor gets the lowest mean

value. This means that contractors have no problems during claim examination because the

claim amount will be approved and recovered by the owner.

The contractors respondents rank “Establishment of entitlement: Legal and factual ground”

as the eighth position with mean value of 2.74, from this result, it can be understood that

this factor gets the lowest mean value. This means that contractor respondents think that

they always submit the required legal and factual ground for claim issues

103


Table 4.34 Owners points of view for claim examination Problems Associated with the Process of

**CLAIM EXAMINATION ** R.I Rank

The entitlement factors are always shown and referred (entitlement factors: foresee ability, control, causation, and legal responsibility )

0.43 1

The contractor’s claims are always calculated accurately. The over- inflated claims are not too often found.

0.40 2

The formulas used in calculation are suiTable, reasonable and reliable. 0.36 3 Average of Relative Index = 0.40

As illustrated in Table 4.34, the owner respondents rank “the entitlement factors are always

shown and referred (entitlement factors: foresee ability, control, causation, and legal

responsibility) in the first position with a relative index of 0.43 under this group. This

means that owners consider this factor as a main problem associated with this process in

which contractors are not submitting claims or showing the legal responsibility by seeking

claims, this can lead owner to request further examination for the claims; also, it can cause

the owner to reject the claim.

The owner respondents rank "the contractor’s claims are always calculated accurately, the

over inflated claims are not too often found" in the second position with relative index of

0.40, the result shows that owners face problems with this factor. According to owner

respondents points of view, most of the contractors try to over inflate claims, a thing

which leads owner for more claims examination, and in some cases, the owner will request

from the contractor to accurate recalculated claims support it with proved documents.

Also, the result shows that owners give a low rank to the third factor where it can consider

“the formulas used in calculation are suitable, reasonable and reliable.” in the third position

with relative index of 0.36, it is the lowest rank. This means that these issues need to be

improved from the contractor side and according to study cases collected in this study, none

of these contractors has presented any formula, and most of them used different ways in

calculating their claim cost.

104


The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the problems associated

with the process of claim documentation. Table (4.35) and (4.36) shows respectively the

statistical results of relative index (R.I), rank and mean value of respondents by the

contractor’s and owner’s points of view.

4.3.4.1 Problems Associated With the Process of Claim Documentation

Table 4.35 Contractor and owner points of view for claim documentation Contractor Owners Problems Associated with the Process of

** CLAIM DOCUMENTATION ** R.I Rank R.I Rank Some information is not kept in writing 0.80 1 0.80 1 Oral instruction by owner 0.79 2 0.74 4 Inaccessibility of documents when required 0.77 3 0.71 6 Inaccurate recorded information 0.74 4 0.75 3 Inaffective record keeping system 0.71 5 0.77 2 No standard form used to record the data during construction memos, C.O. etc.

0.70 6 0.72 5

Overdue process in retrieving the document back

0.70 7 0.67 7

Lack of computerized technology applied for documentation system

0.54 8 0.61 8

Expensive cost to retrieve required information

0.52 9 0.52 9

Average of Relative Index = 0.70 0.70

As illustrated in Table 4.35, the result shows that average of relative index was 0.70 for the

two sides (contractor and owner). The first five causes are the highest rank in the process of

claim documentation from the contractor and point of view.

The respondents' contractors and owner’s rank “some information is not kept in writing” in

the first position with a relative index0.80 under this group. The result shows that the two

sides agreed on this factor and rank in the first position. The contractor and owner should

keep the mutual information in a written form to support both the contractor and owner in

claim issues

The contractor respondents' rank “Verbal instructions by owner” in the second position

with a relative index 0.79 under this group. The owner respondents rank this factor in the

fourth position with a relative index 0.74. The result shows that owners and contractor, rank

this factor as convergent where it may be understood that verbal instructions by owners are

considered one of the main problems associated with this process of claim documentation,

Therefore, the contractor should request from the owner to support him with a written letter

that always supports the contractor claims.

105

The contractors respondents rank “Inaccessibility of documents when required” in the third

position with a relative index0.77 under this group, where the respondents' owners rank this

factor in the sixth position with a relative index 0.71. The result shows that owners and

contractor have different points of view on ranking this factor .The contractors point of

view admitted that they have problems in inaccessibility of documents when required, It is

understood from this result that contractors are not collecting the required documents due to

disorganized documentation systems. On the other hand, the owner rank it as not a main

problems associated with this process because their points of view are reasonable where all

document should be available with each party.

The contractors respondents rank “Inaccurate recorded information” in the fourth position

with a relative index0.74 under this group, where as the respondents' owners rank this

factor in the third position with a relative index 0.75. The result shows that owners and

contractors rank this factor as convergent where it may be understood that inaccurate

recorded information is one of the main problems associated with this process of claim

documentation because inaccurate recorded information can lead contractor to miss

evaluation and calculation of claim cost, and in some cases, it reduces supports and proves

the contractors rights in the claims.

Also the respondents' contractors rank "lack of computerized technology applied for

documentation system "as the lowest rank." in the eighth position with a relative index0.54

under this group. The owner respondents rank this factor in the eighth position with a

relative index 0.61. The result shows that owners and contractor are concurrent in ranking

this factor, where this approves, that computerized technology is available and these issues

are not causing problems during claims documentation process.

Also the contractor respondents and owners rank "expensive to retrieve required

information "as the lowest rank." in the ninth position with a relative index0.52 under this

group. The result shows that owners and contractors are concurrent in ranking this factor,

where this approves that information collection is not too expensive to affect the

contractors’ performance during claim documentation process. Also, we can consider that

claims information collection depends on the contractor documentation system.

106

From the previous Table and the results we can conclude that there are significant

disagreement between contractors and owners about problems associated with the process

of claim documentation.

4.3.4.2 Unavailability of Documents When Required

Table 4.36 Contractor and owner points of view for claim documentation Contractor Owners When required, which document are often

unavailable CLAIM DOCUMENTATION R.I Rank R.I Rank Contract document 0.83 1 0.33 14 Preliminary and baseline schedules 0.78 2 0.43 13 Updates project schedules 0.75 3 0.52 7 Relevant correspondence between parties 0.73 4 0.44 11 Daily reports and logs 0.73 4 0.46 10 Oral Instruction 0.73 4 0.56 4 Clarification memos 0.67 7 0.50 8 Quality control report 0.67 7 0.53 6 Change order logs 0.67 7 0.44 11 Photograph depicting the problems 0.61 10 0.58 3 Cost report and records 0.61 10 0.55 5 Meeting minutes 0.55 12 0.47 9 Site labor power chart 0.55 12 0.72 1 Site supplying material logs 0.55 12 0.59 2

Average of Relative Index = 0.67 0.51

As illustrated in Table 4.36. The contractors respondents rank “contract document” in the

first position with a relative index0.83 under this group, while the owner respondents rank

this factor in the last position with a relative index 0.33. The result shows that owners and

contractor have different points of view on ranking this factor. The contractor’s points of

view admit that, in most cases, contract documents are often unavailable when required. It

is clear from this result that contractors are not keeping required documents in the right

place; therefore, owners rank this factor last in this group. We can conclude from this result

that owners are very concerned about keeping project documents in office and contractor,

in most cases, the project documents are not unavailable when required.

The contractors respondents rank "preliminary and baseline schedules" in the second

position with a relative index0.83 under this group. While the owner respondents’ rank this

factor in the last position with a relative index 0.43. The result shows that owners and

contractors have different points of view on ranking this factor. The contractor’s points of

view admit that, in most cases, preliminary time schedule when required is not available.

This means that contractors are not considering the importance of project time schedule

because it indicates the work performance activities, where the owner’s points of view in

107

considering the preliminary and baseline schedules are in the last rank because time

schedule is a main requirement of project starting.

The contractors respondents rank "updates project schedules" in the third position with a

relative index0.75 under this group, while the owner respondents rank this factor in the

seventh position with a relative index 0.52. The result shows that owners and contractor

have different points of view on ranking this factor. The contractors point of view is that

updating project schedules is a document which is not available when required, where

updating time schedules is important for the contractor; it assists in clarifying and

evaluating the project status and also assists in approving claims cases. The owners

indicate this factor as middle issues; this means that most of owners believe that contractor

should follow up updating project schedules and get approval from the owners' supervision

team.

The contractors respondents rank "relevant correspondence between parties" in the fourth

position with a relative index 0.73 under this group while owner respondents rank this

factor in the eleventh position with a relative index 0.44. The result shows that owners and

contractors have different points of view on ranking this factor. The contractors’ point of

view is that relevant correspondence between parties is not available when required, while

contractors take this factor in consideration during claim documentation. The owner

respondents do not consider this factor important because contractors should keep all

project correspondence and documents in an official way.

The contractors respondents rank "daily reports and logs" in the fourth position with a

relative index 0.73 under this group. The owner respondents rank this factor in the tenth

position with a relative index 0.46. The result shows that owners and contractors have

different points of view on ranking this factor. The contractor’s point of view is that daily

report and logs are not available when required; this factor affects the contractor claims,

where in any claim, the daily reports are very important in claims evaluations, therefore, the

contractor should always document the projects daily reports and present them when

required. The owner respondents do not consider this factor as important because

contractors should keep all project daily reports and documents it in an official way.

108

Also The contractors respondents rank "meeting minutes "as the lowest rank in the twelve

position with a relative index 0.55 under this group, where owner respondents rank this

factor in the ninth position with a relative index 0.47. The results show that owners and

contractors are close in ranking this factor; this proves that meeting minutes are available

when required by the two sides.

Also The contractors respondents rank "labor power chart "as the lowest rank” in the

twelve positions with a relative index 0.55 under this group, where owner respondents rank

this factor in the first position with a relative index 0.72. The results show that owners and

contractors respondent are different in ranking this factor; most contractor consider this

document available when required, where the owners give first rank for this document. The

owners point of view regarding this document shows that the labor power chart is not

available when required, where as most owners request this document to evaluate labor

numbers used during project implementation and assist owners in evaluating claim cost

Also The contractors respondents rank "site supplying material logs "as the lowest rank" in

the twelve positions with a relative index 0.55 under this group, where owner respondents

rank this factor in the second position with a relative index 0.59. The results show that

owners and contractors respondent are different in ranking this factor, most contractor

consider this document available when required and site supplying material logs are

important to the contractor to calculate and evaluate project cost because it is always

available with the contractor document. The owners give first rank for this document; Their

point of view regard this document shows that the site supplying material logs are not

available when required because these issues may affect contractor claims, in some cases,

the contractors overestimate claim cost where these issue lead owners to request material

supplying records. In this case, the contractor will deny availability of this document.

109

4.3.5 Claim Presentation

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the used claim

presentation, procedures. The following Table 4.38, 4.39 and 4.40 show the statistical

results including relative index (R.I), rank and mean value respondents by the contractor

and owner points of view.


Table 4.37 Contractor points of view for claim presentation Problems associated with the process of

**CLAIM PRESENTATION** R.I Rank

Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim 0.79 1 Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission 0.77 2 Unclear responsible person to prepare full report of claim presentation 0.71 3 Unclear procedures in preparation of claim presentation 0.70 4 No standard format of a claim submission 0.62 5 Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload 0.52 6 Poor communication to present a claim 0.51 7


As illustrated in Table 4.37, the results show that average of relative index was 0.66. The

contractors respondents rank “Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with

the claim“ in the first position with a relative index value of 0.79 under this group. This

means that most of contractor respondents agreed that it is hard to submit the relevant

document during claims presentation, where contractor should support his claims with

attached approved official document

In the second position cames “Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission"

with a relative index value of 0.77 under this group. This means that the contractors face

difficulties in the availability of sufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission.

This issue may result in affecting the contractors during the claim presentation process, and

may cause the owner to reject the claim because of non skilled performance.

The contractors respondents rank “unclear responsible person to prepare full report of claim

presentation” in the third position with relative index value of 0.71 under this group. From

this result, the contractor agreed that one of main problems associated with this process is

the specialist person in the firm to prepare the claim report where, in most firms the

110

manager or owner takes the responsibility to prepare the claims presentation report, and in

most cases, this person is not qualified or expert in the claims and contract conditions.

Also, The contractors respondents rank the "unclear procedures in preparation of claim

presentation" in the fourth position with a relative index value of 0.70 under this group.

Most of the contractor respondents agreed that this issue is one of main problems facing

contractors during claims presentation, where in some cases the contractor lose time in

claim presentation as result of unclear procedure; this can lead contractor to present his

claim late and the cause owner to reject claims presentation.

The "no standard format of a claim submission cames" in the fifth position with a relative

index value of 0.62 under this group this. The contractor respondents consider this factor as

one of the problems facing them during claim examination. It is important during for claim

presentation to be organized in a form. This issue may assist owner to understand claim in a

simple method.

The "Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload came" in the sixth

position with a relative index value of 0.52 under this group. This result indicates that

contractor respondents agreed that inadequate time due to high work load is not a serious

problem affecting the claim presentation issues. Also, from this result it can be understood

that contractor’s time is adequate to the claims presentation.

The “poor communication present claim“ in the seventh and last position with a relative

index value of 0.51 under this group. This factor is not always affecting claim presentation

because contractor, through his team during this process, can contact with owner

supervision team, or any other parties to present claim.

111

4.3.5.2 Most Major Concern in Process of Claim Presentation

As illustrated in Table 4.38, of The contractors respondents rank "time to prepare the claim

submission" in the first position under this group with mean values 5.29. This means that

contractor’s concern during the claims presentation process is that claim submission is time

consuming, where the contractor should consider the accurate time to present claims, in

some cases, the contractor loses his rights in the claims because of this issue.

Table 4.38 Contractor most major concern for claim presentation Most Major Concern in the process of

**CLAIM PRESENTATION** Mean Rank

Time to prepare the claim submission 5.29 1 Non-accusatory and non-adversarial manner 4.69 2 logically build- up 4.31 3 Full presentation of legal and factual ground for the entitlement of claim 4.08 4 Persuasiveness of presentation 3.10 5 Well documented of submission 3.09 6 Well- organized claim submission 2.95 7

The contractors respondents rank "non-accusatory and non-adversarial manner" in the

second position with mean value of 4.69 under this group. This means that contractor

respondents admit that they should concern about keeping good relation with the owner’s

side because it may reflect claims acceptance and process relationship between the owner

and the contractor.

The contractors respondents rank “logically build up" in the third position with mean value

of 4.31 under this group. This means that the contractor respondents are concerned about

the used information in the claim logically build up where, in some cases, the unclear

claim build up presented by contractor may lead owners or other parties to reject or request

justification or inquiry regarding claim presentation. On the other hand The contractors

respondents rank the lowest two major concern factors for this field as illustrated in Table

5.40, where The contractors respondents rank “Well documented of submission” as the

sixth position with mean value of 3.09, from this result, it can be understood that this factor

gets the lowest mean value. This means that contractors are able to present the document

for submission because they indicated it in the last ranks.

The contractor respondents’ rank “well organized claim submission” as the seventh

position with mean value of 2.95, from this result, it can understand that this factor gets the

lowest mean value. This means that contractors are able to present well the documents

submission because they indicated it in the last ranks.

112


Presentation?


propose of these questions is to investigation how contractors present there claims. Where

the contractor respondents result presented in the following paragraphs;

1. Normally, who are responsible for preparing a full detailed submission of claim in

your company?


should be the responsible person to prepared the full detailed submission of the claim, Also

the remain respondent contractors indicates that it can be the company manager with the

project engineer.

2. Do you have any standard of a claim submission?


contractors answered that they haven’t any standard procedures to be follow during claim

submission, but also the remain contractors answered that they have some procedures but it

not consider as official procedures.

5.3.5.4. Owner Point of View

Table 5.39 Owners points of view for claim presentation Problems associated with the process of

**CLAIM PRESENTATION** R.I Rank

The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways clear using simple words so it is easy to understand.

0.54 1

The contractor’s claim submissions are always well-documented with fully evidences substantiating the entitlement.

0.53 2

The full detail of claim submitted by contractors are always logically built up 0.53 3 The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways reasonably referred to the legal and factually grounds for the entitlement.

0.50 4

The full detail report of claim submitted by contractor are always well-organized with a standard format.

0.48 5

The statements in claim submission from contractors are factually convincing and persuasive.

0.45 6

The contractor always submit you a full detail of claim with a good faith. 0.42 7 Average of Relative Index = 0.49

113

As illustrated in Table 5.39. The owner respondents rank “The claims submitted by

contractors are always clear using simple words so it is easy to understand“ in the first

position with a relative index of 0.54 under this group. This means that owners’ main

problems associated with this process is that contractors are not submitting claims clearly;

they do not understand that this issue creates conflict between the two parties. In some

cases the owner will reject the claims. Respectively the owners respondents rank "the

contractor’s claim submission are always well-documented with fully evidences

substantiating the entitlement" in the second position with relative index of 0.53. The result

shows that owners face problems with this factor during claim presentation process, where

most contractors submitted claims without considering the required document attached with

the claims, there fore the owner will request from the contractor to reorganize and

document his claims.

The owner respondents rank "the full detail of claim submitted by contractors are always

logically built up." in the third position with relative index of 0.61. The owner’s results

indicate that contractors are not presenting full details about claim where this issue creates

difficulties to owners in evaluating and estimating the contractors claim.

The owner respondents rank “the claims submitted by contractors are always reasonably

referred to the legal and factually grounds for the entitlement" in the fourth position with

relative index of 0.50. This means that owners’ problems associated with the processes of

claim presentation by the contractor are still serious. It can be understood from the result

that owners have difficulties from un reasonable claims where most of the contractor try to

over estimate the claims that lead owners to reject them.

In a consecutive position in the fifth position with relative index of 0.50, the owner

respondents rank “the full detail report of claim submitted by contractor are always well-

organized with a standard format". This means that owners’ problems associated with the

processes of claim presentation by the contractor are not serious, it can be understood from

this result that owners have no difficulties in understanding the claims presentation even it

is not well organized, but these issues lead owners to request more details or information to

be submitted by contractor to support and discus his claims.

114

The owner respondents rank "the statements in claim submission from contractors are

factually convincing and persuasive" in the sixth position with relative index of 0.45 where

it can understand from the result that owners are not considering this factor as major factor

create problems during claims presentation because the owner feels that the statement in

claims is not factually convincing and persuasive, he can reject the claim or request more

clarification from the contractor to support his right in the claims.

On the other hand, the owner respondents rank "the contractor always submit you a full

detail of claim with a good faith" in the seventh position and last rank with relative index of

0.42 where it can understood from the result that owners are not considering this as major

factor create problems during claims presentation, it is clear that most of contractor are not

submitting a full detail of claim, and this issues leads owners to ask contractor to submit

another claim with more detail. We can conclude that owners can manage this factor

without any serious problems during claim presentation.

115

4.3.6. Claim Negotiation

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the used claim negotiation

procedures. The following Tables 4.40, 4.41 and 4.42 below show the statistical results

including relative index (R.I), rank and mean value respondents by the contractor and

owner points of view.

4.3.6.1..Contractor Point of View

Table 4.40 Contractor points of view for claim negotiation Problems associated with the process of

**CLAIM NEGOTIATION** R.I Rank

Conflicts during negotiation 0.83 1 Lack of experts who have good negotiation skills 0.82 2 Insufficient evidences to convince other parties 0.80 3 Adversarial relationship with other parties 0.74 4 Difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration 0.69 5 Inadequate time due to high workload 0.54 6


As illustrated in Table 4.40, the result shows that the average relative index was 0.66. The

contractors respondents rank "conflicts during negotiation" in the first position with a

relative index value of 0.83 under this group. This means that most of contractor

respondents agreed that this issue is a major problem facing owner during the claim

negotiation process. During this stage, in some cases, the contractors disagree with owner

view regarding the claim result which will create conflict between the two sides.

Respectively and in the second position came "lack of experts who have good negotiation

skills" with a relative index value of 0.82 under this group. This means that also the

contractors face difficulties in availability of sufficient skilled expert who have good

negotiation skills. These issues may result in affecting the contractor during claim

negotiation process, and may result in losing claim; the contractor should be aware how to

negotiate claims in a confident manner.

The contractors respondents rank "insufficient evidences to convince other parties" in the

third position with relative index value of 0.80 under this group. From this result, the

contractor agreed that one of main problems associated with this process is that the

evidence should be presented during this stage, where it is important during negotiation

claim to present documents evidence to support the claim and to convince the owner about

his right in the claim. In most cases, the contractor loses his claim as result of lack of

documentation of evidence which can affect contractor position during claim negotiation.

116

Also The contractors respondents rank the "adversarial relationship with other parties" in

the fourth position with a relative index value of 0.74 under this group. Most of contractor

respondents agreed that this issue is one of main problems facing contractors during claim

negotiation where at this stage, in some cases; the negotiation process will result in

adversarial relationship between the contractor and owners as result of bad claims

preparation. Also, the contractor will be the weak party because the owners, as result of bad

relation with contractor may reject his claim without any consideration for the contractor’s

situation. Respectively, the "difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration came" in

the fifth position with a relative index value of 0.69 under this group this. The contractor

respondents consider this factor as one of the problems facing them during claim

negotiation. It is important during this process to delay or keep this option in the last

procedures because from previous studies and experience the arbitration or litigation

process takes long period to settle the claim. For that, it is advisable for contractor not to

push in solving the claim in this way, by the negotiation process; the contractor can reach to

amicable solution with the owner where this process is the best and fastest way to solve the

problems.

The "Inadequate time due to high workload came" in the sixth position and last position

with a relative index value of 0.54 under this group. This result indicates that contractor

respondents agreed that inadequate time due to high work load is not a critical problem

affecting the contractor during claim negotiation issues. Also, from this result, it can be

understood that contractor’s time is adequate to follow up the claim negotiation process.

4.3.6.2 Most Major Concern in The Process of Claim Negotiation

As illustrated in Table 4.41, The contractors respondents rank "settlement through formal

lawsuits or arbitration" is ranked in the first position under this group with mean values

5.44. This means that contractor concern during claims negotiation processes is that claims

are not to be settled through formal lawsuits or arbitration, because these two options are

costly and take time to finalize claim decision, contractors should consider the time value

taken by the formal lawsuits or the arbitration process.

117

Table 4.41 Contractor most major concern for claim negotiation Most Major Concern in the process of

**CLAIM NEGOTIATION** Mean Rank

Settlement through formal lawsuits or arbitration 5.44 1 Non-adversarial manner to preserve a good relationship with other parties 3.49 2 Litigation and arbitration avoidance 3.44 3 Obtaining the additional time of performance and money 3.15 4 Settlement of claim, as fast as possible 3.04 5 Mutual satisfactory between both parties through compromising 2.03 6

The contractors respondents rank “non-adversarial manner to preserve a good relationship

with other parties” in the second position with a mean value of 3.49 under this group. This

means that respondent contractors admit that they should concern about keeping good

relation with the owner side, because it may reflect claims acceptance and foster relation

between owner and contractor. Consecutively The contractors respondents rank “litigation

and arbitration avoidance" in the third position with mean value of 3.44 under this group.

This means that respondent contractors concern are not to shift the claims during

negotiation process to litigation and arbitration because contractors are aware of the result

of these two processes where it is known in the construction industry that this process

consumes time and money. In the other hand On the other hand The contractors

respondents rank the lowest two major concern factors for this field as illustrated in Table

5.42,where respondent contractor rank "settlement of claim, as fast as possible" in the fifth

position with mean value of 3.09. From result, it can be recognized that this factor gets

most of the major concern value. The contractors concern during claim negotiation is to

settle the claim as soon as possible because, in most cases, the contractor will not be able to

continue work in the project as a result of lack of financial resource. For that, the

contractors are interested in getting claims compensation as soon as possible.

The contractors respondents rank "mutual satisfactory between both parties through

compromising" as the sixth position with mean value of 2.03. From result, it can

understood that this factor gets the last mean value. This means that contractors also

concern during claims negotiation; they want to reach mutual understanding between both

parties through compromise where it is important for contractors to continue claim

negotiation with the other parties in good faith. In this case, the owner may able to settle the

claim in good mutual satisfactory manner.

118


Negotiation?


propose of these questions is to investigation how contractors negotiation claims, where the

contractor respondents result presented in the following paragraphs;

1. Generally, how do you negotiate a claim with other parties? (Such by meeting,

letters, ect.)

Majority of received contractors answered that by sending letters and meeting is the mostly

followed way used in negotiation the claims.

2. How much do you have to resolve a claim through litigation or arbitration?


contractors answered they don't prefer to resolve the claim through the litigation, and if

they haven’t any chose to resolve the claim only through litigation, they believed that they

haven’t any good chance to win the claim. Also some of contractors answered that they will

go through arbitration process before taking the litigation process.

3. How much do you generally satisfy your performance of claim department?


contractors answered that they are not satisfied with there performance regard claims

issues, where some of respondent express their satisfaction regards the claims performance.

4. Who is responsible for negotiating a claim issue?

Mostly of received contractors answered that the project manager should be the responsible

person to negating the claim, Also the remain respondent contractors indicates that it can be

the company owner with the project engineer they can be responsible for this issue.

119


Table 4.42 Owners points of view for claim presentation Problems associated with the process of

**CLAIM NEGOTIATION** R.I Rank

The contractor always put the most effort to mitigate the settlement by Litigation or Arbitration.

0.79 1

Most of the claims are settled amicably concerning mutual satisfaction of both sides.

0.73 2

The negotiation of claims is always objective directed to the problems. 0.67 3 Claims are always resolved as soon as possible concerning their affects to the project’s performance.

0.64 4

Claims negotiation is conducted professionally and cooperatively. 0.59 5 Adversarial relationship between parties due to claim negotiation is rarely happened.

0.45 6


As illustrated in Table 4.42, the owner respondents rank "the contractor always put the

most effort to mitigate the settlement by Litigation or Arbitration" in the first position with

a relative index of 0.79 under this group. The result shows that owners problems associated

during claim negotiation are to mitigate the settlement by litigation or arbitration because

owners aware are about the affects of these processes; they may delay finishing the project

in time. Consequentially the owner respondents rank "most of the claims are settled

amicably concerning mutual satisfaction of both sides" in the second position with relative

index of 0.73. The result shows that owners concern is to settle claims amicably between

both parties where this issue leads contractor to finish project in time and reduce claim cost

and time.

The owner respondents rank "the negotiation of claims is always objective directed to the

problems" in the third position with relative index of 0.67. The owners results indicate that

claims negotiation with the contractors are objective where during negotiation process the

owner can discuss more detail with contractor regarding the claims, but in some cases, the

owner can not reach any settlement with the contractor where this issue lead to dispute

between the two parties. Also the owner respondents rank “claims are always resolved as

soon as possible concerning their affects to the project’s performance." in the fourth

position with relative index of 0.64. This means that owners’ problems associated with the

processes of claim negotiation for this factor are still serious. The owners are willing to

resolve claim as soon as possible to protect the project from any difficulties because, in

some cases, the contractor will stop working in the project, and this results in delays in

project activities, and this issues, may cost the owner loss of time and money.

120

The owner respondents rank “claims negotiation is conducted professionally and

cooperatively." in the fifth position with relative index of 0.59. From this result, it can

understood that owners point of view regard this factor are not causing serious problems

during claim negotiation process where, in most cases, the owner is responsible for leading

the negotiation meeting and directing the contractor during this process. Finally the owner

respondents rank "adversarial relationship between parties due to claim negotiation is rarely

happened" in the sixth position and last rank with relative index of 0.45, where it can be

understood from the result that owners are not considering this as major factor creating

problems during claims negotiation. It is clear that during claims negotiation, in some

cases, adversarial relation among parties happened because of disagreement between

parties regarding claim issues; but in general, the owners can manage and prevent any

aggravation in the adversarial relationship between parties.

121

4.3.7 Comparisons Based on the Relative Index Formula In order to check the affect of the personal experience and project cost, the firm experience

and firm project cost implemented in the question result, comparisons based on the relative

index formulas have been done.

4.3.7.1 Contractor Employee Experience Based in Common Claim Procedures

Categories.

In order to check the effect of the personal experience on the question result, comparisons

based on the relative index formulas have been done. As illustrated in Tables (1.1) through

(1.6) annex 3, for all result Tables show that the respondents result are not similar to most

of the claim procedure categories regarding the personal experience classification. These

results mean that there are some differences in the points of view among contractors

employee personal experience regarding claim procedure categories. Also, from the result,

we can conclude that most of the people working in the contracting firms face similar

problems during claim procedures stages, and personal experience is affecting the

respondents chosen degree.

Similarly, the contractor firm experiences based on common claim procedures categories

mimics the results of contractor employee experience. The complete results are presented in

annex 5, namely in Tables (1.1) through (1.6).

4.3.7.2 Contractor Employee Highest Contract Value Implemented Based in Common

Claim Procedures Categories.

In order to check the effect of the person project cost in the questions result, comparisons


(2.6) annex 3, all result Tables show that the respondents result are not similar to most of

the claim procedure categories regarding the personal experience classification. These

results mean that there are some differences in the point of view among contractor

employees personal experience regarding claim procedure categories. Also, from the result,

we can conclude that most people working in the contracting firms facing similar problems

during claim procedures stages, and personal experience are affecting the respondent’s

chosen degree.

122

Similarly, the contractor’s firm highest contract value based in common claim procedures

categories mimics the results for contractor employee highest contract value implemented.

The complete results are presented in annex 5, namely in Tables (2.1) through (2.6).

4.3.7.3 Owner Employee Experience Based in Common Claim Procedures Categories.

In order to check the affect of the person experience in the questions result, comparisons


(3.6) annex 4, all result Tables show that the respondent’s results are not similar to most of

the claim procedure categories regarding the personal experience classification. Therefore

these results mean that there are no differences in the point of view among the contractors’

employee personal experience regarding claim procedure categories. Also from the result

we can conclude that most of people working in the owners firms face similar problems

during claim procedures stages, and personal experiences are not affecting the respondents

degree and respondents chosen converge.

Similarly, owners original experiences based in common claim procedures categories

mimics the results for owner employee experience. The complete results are presented in

annex 6, namely in Tables (3.1) through (3.6).

4.3.7.4 Owner Employee Highest Contract Value Implemented Based in Common

Claim Procedures Categories.

In order to check the affect of the person project cost in the questions result, comparisons


(4.6) annex 4, all Tables show that the respondents result are not similar to most of the

claim procedure categories regarding the person experience classification. These results

mean that there are no differences in the point of view among contractor employee personal

experience regarding claim procedure categories. Also from the result we can conclude that

most of the persons working in the owners’ originations face similar problems during claim

procedures stages, and personal experiences are affecting the respondents chosen degree.

Similarly owners’ firm highest contract value based in common claim procedures

categories mimics the results for contractor employee highest contract value implemented.

The complete results are presented in annex 6, namely in Tables (4.1) through (4.6).

123

PART IV

4.4 Particular Claims

In part four of the questionnaires, the respondents were asked about the serious effect of

the following problems on claim preparation procedure in particular: time extension for

claims, claims form change orders, design related claim. This part was questioned by the

contractor’s side only. In order to concentrate the discussion, each group will be discussed

individually; some of the causes of high rank value of each group will be discussed in

detail. During the discussion a short comment will be presented for each group presenting

contractor point of view.

4.4.1 Time Extension Claims

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about problems affecting

contractor performance in preparation of time extension claim. The following Table 4.43

below shows the statistical results including relative index (R.I), respondents rank value by

the contractor points of view.

Table 4.43 Contractor points of view for time extension claims TIME EXTENSION CLAIMS R.I Rank

Difficult to prove the entitlement of claims 0.79 1 Lack of staff who is expert in “time impact analysis” 0.78 2 Fail to timely notify by the Engineer the potential problems about delay 0.74 3 Difficult to identify damages associated with delays 0.74 3 Difficult to detect problems due to the not updated schedule 0.73 5 Problem in proving that the situation is expected or unexpected 0.72 6




The contractors respondents rank the respondents rank “difficult to prove the entitlement of

claims “in the first position under this group with a relative index value of 0.79. This means

that most of the contractor respondents agreed that it is difficult to prove the entitlement of

claims where it may result in extended work performance causing extension in work time

and increase in work cost. This issue affects the contractor’s performance and causes him to

lose expected project profits.

124

In the second position comes "lack of staff who is expert in time impact analysis" with

relative value of 0.78 under this group. This means that contractors face difficulties in the

availability of sufficient skilled staff for preparing time impact analysis. Accordingly, this

issue may result in affecting the contractor during claim presentation and the negotiation

process; it may cause the owner to reject the claim because of non skilled performance and

the absence of the required approved document to prove time delays.

The contractors respondents rank “fail to timely notify by the engineer the potential

problems about delay” in the third position with relative index value of 0.74 under this

group. From this result, the contractors agreed that one of main problems associated with

this process is the project engineer experience to expect and check about project delays

causes and informs the owner with the potential problems about delays and cost. In some

cases, as result of bad time of contractor engineer to notify project owner regarding work

activities delays; this issue may result in losing the contractor the right in time extension

claims.

Also The contractors respondents rank “difficult to identify damages associated with

delays” in the third position with relative index value of 0.74 under this group. From this

result, the contractor agreed that one of main problems associated with this process is to

identify the damages cost associated with delays because the contractor engineer should be

aware of classifying and estimating delays cost and present it in the exact time to the

contractor. Because of that, the contractors, through their representative, should be expert in

evaluating damages associated with delays.

The contractors respondents rank the "difficult to detect problems due to un updated

schedule" in the fifth position with a relative index value of 0.73 under this group. Most of

contractor respondents agreed that this issue is one of the main problems that face

contractors during time extension claims where the contractor during starting up project

prepare work time schedule and approves it from the owners supervision team; this time

schedule should be updated during project implementation. Most of the contractor

engineers do not succeed in updating works time schedule and presenting it to owner

representative engineer for approval. As result of an updated work time schedule, the

contractor suffers difficulties in proving delays affect and cost, where this issue may result

in the owners rejection of the approved time extension of claims.

125

The “problem in proving it the situation is expected or unexpected came "in the fifth and

last position with a relative index value of 0.72 under this group. The contractor

respondents consider this factor as one of the problems facing them during time extension

claims. The contractor engineer is responsible for informing firm manager regarding project

performance. During this process, the contractor engineer should expect and consider

project performance difficulties and obstructions which result in delaying project activities.

The owners notification in time are the contractors high priority, this issue may prevent

problems associated from proving if claims situation is expected or unexpected

4.4.2 Claims of Change Orders

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about problems affecting the

contractors’ performance in preparing change orders claim. The following Table 4.44

below shows the statistical results including relative index (R.I), rank value respondents by

the contractor points of view.

Table 4.44 Contractor points of view for claims from change orders CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS R.I Rank

Problem due to verbal changes or directives by the Engineer 0.82 1 The controversy in negotiating a price or rate of varied work 0.78 2 Misinterpretation due to ambiguous “ changes clause” in the contract 0.77 3 Problem associated with evaluating and claiming impacts and damages resulting from such a change

0.75 4

Difficulties to identify a claim due to various directives advanced by the Engineer during the construction

0.75 4




The contractors respondents rank “problem in proof due to verbal changes or directives by

the engineer” in the first position under this group with a relative index value of 0.82. This

means that most of the contractor respondents agreed that it is difficult to prove that

changes happened because of oral directives of the owner engineer, where the contractor,

during implementation stage, should request written order from owner engineer for any

new changes in the sites activities; in this case, the contractor will be able to prove his right

in the change orders and present claims regarding the change orders works.

126

In the second position came “the controversy in negotiating a price or rate of varied work”

with relative value of 0.78 under this group. This means that contractors face difficulties in

negotiating a price or rate of varied work, this issue may result in affecting contractor cost,

therefore the contractor should be aware of new prices and present the new activities prices

attached with price analyses report for the project owner, in which indicates the actual cost

and indirect cost for activities. In this case, the contractor will be able to prove his right in

the claims resulting from changing orders.

The contractors respondents rank “misinterpretation due to ambiguous changes clause in

the contract” in the third position with relative index value of 0.77 under this group. In

accordance with this result, the contractor agreed that one of main problems associated with

claims from change orders is the contract clauses; where, in some cases as result of unclear

procedures changes orders create conflict between parties. Therefore the contractor should

discuss and request explanation for any ambiguous clauses in the contract. Also the

contractor engineer should be aware regarding changes orders impacts. Also The

contractors respondents rank ““problem associated with evaluating and claiming impacts

and damages resulting from such a change” in the fourth position with relative index value

of 0.75 under this group. According to this result the contractors agreed that one of main

problems associated with this process is to evaluate the change impacts; this issues creates

disagreement between the two parties. The result indicate that contractors facing problems

to prove the impact of the changes. Therefore the contractor engineer should have the

experience to evaluate the changes conditions and inform the owner representative directly

on how to conserve his right regarding the claims from change orders.

The contractors respondents rank the "difficult to identify a claim due to various directives

advanced by the engineer during the construction" in the fourth position with a relative

index value of 0.75 under this group. Most of the contractor respondents agreed that this

issue is one of main problems that facing contractors during changing orders claims, as

result of various changes that happening during project implementation this create

difficulties for the contractor in identifying the impacts of this change. Therefore the

contractor engineer should inform directly owner representative of changing orders impact

especially cost regard by oral or written instruction about commands changes by the owner

127

engineer. Also, the contractor engineer should request an official letter from the owner

engineer to guarantee his right in the new change order and indicate the new agreed price.

4.4.3 Design Related Claims

The respondents were asked regarding their points of view about the problems that affect

the contractors, performance in preparation of design related claims. The following Table

4.45 below shows the statistical results including relative index (R.I), rank value

respondents by the contractor points of view.

Table 4.45 Contractor points of view for claims from design related claims

DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS R.I Rank Ineffective design review during bidding stage 0.80 1 Fail to timely notify the Owner of potential problems about drawing 0.78 2 Difficult to justify the ambiguity of drawing 0.73 3 The argument about responsibility for fixing defective designs. 0.72 4 Difficult to justify the responsibility to verify the design 0.71 5



As illustrated in Table 5.45, the result shows that average of relative index was 0.75.The

contractors respondents rank “ineffective design review during bidding stage” in the first

position under this group with a relative index value of 0.80.This means that most of

contractor respondents agreed that it is difficult to review the design documents during

bidding stage because, in most cases, the design problems were discovered during project

implementation on site, but the contractor during bidding stage should review design

document and inquire about the design comment from the owner representative in a written

letter.

In the second position came “fail to timely notify the Owner of potential problems about

drawing” with relative value of 078 under this group. This means that contractors face

difficulties in timely notifying the owner of potential problems about drawing where this

issue may result in affecting the contractor performance and cost, Therefore contractor

should be aware of the project drawing, he should continue reviewing the drawing and

present any comment regarding the drawing especially the changing in the site and their

influence on the owner in time, because the contractor may lose his right in claims

regarding the design conditions if he does not consider the accurate time in notifying the

project owner.

128

The contractors respondents rank “difficult to justify the ambiguity of drawing” in the third

position with relative index value of 0.73 under this group. According this result, the

contractor agreed that one of the main problems associated with claims design related is the

difficulty in justifying the ambiguity of project drawing, where in this case the contractor

will not be able to prove if the drawing is not clear and there is difficulty in understanding

and executing this drawing. The contractor engineer should be able to understand the

project design and clarify any missing information from the owner engineer in an official

way requesting this clarification as soon as possible. In this way, the contractor will be able

to prove that there is a change in the design and this change leads to new activities out of

work scope. The contractor engineers should be aware about the drawing mistake and have

the professional skills to revise and inform the owner representative in time regarding the

drawing ambiguity.

Also The contractors respondents rank “the argument about responsibility for fixing

defective designs” in the fourth position with relative index value of 0.72 under this group.

From this result, the contractors agreed that one of main problems associated with this

process is to indicate the responsible party for fixing defective design because this issue

creates problems for the contractor during project implementation. In some cases, the

owner by use the assistant of local consultant in the preparation the design drawing, but

during the implementation the owner him self supervise implementation the project without

assistance from the local consultant. In this case, the owner representative will shift the

responsibility to adjust design errors to the contractor side. This error creates difficulties to

the contractor and delaying project activities.

Also The contractors respondents rank “to justify the responsibility of verifying the design”

in the fifth and last position with relative index value of 0.71 under this group. According

this result, the contractors agreed that one of main problems associated with this process is

to indicate the responsible person for verifying the design where, in most cases, the owners

engineer or consultant is responsible for verifying the project drawing design, because

during tender stage, all contractors estimated project cost according to the drawing design

and bill of quantity; any change in the design after awarding bid to the winner contractor

will be the project owner's responsibility, he will be charged with all new changing cost.

Therefore, the contractor engineer during project bidding stage should request from the

129

owners engineer or consultant to confirm the design documents and the contractor will shift

all design problems risk to the owner side, who will be responsible for modifying the

design. In this case, the contractor will be able to present and prove his right regarding the

design change claims.

4.5 Degree of Agreement Among the Contractors and Owners

To determine whether there is a degree of agreement among the two groups (Contractors

and Owners) Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance is interpreTable as the coefficient of

concordance, which is a measure of agreement among raters. Each case is a judge or rater

and each variable is an item or person being judged. For each variable, the sum of ranks is

computed. Kendall's W, (KW) ranges between 0 (no agreement) and 1 (complete

agreement).

To determine whether there is degree of agreement among the levels of each of the four

variables (Personal of experience, highest contract value, company experience, and cost of

project) for each Contractors and Owners. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance says the

degree of agreement on a zero to one scale is

( )

( )

22

2

12U 3m n n 1W

m n n 1

− −=

− (1)

Where:

( )n

2

i 1

U R=

=∑ ∑

n = number of factors; m = number of groups; j = the factors 1,2,…,N.

The calculated Kendall's Coefficients of Concordance for each field are listed in the

following Tables.

H0 : There is insignificant degree of agreement among the contractors and owners

H1 : There is significant degree of agreement among the contractors and owners

130

4.5.1 Owner Employee Experience and Contract Value Implemented

Table 4.46 Owner employee experience and contract value Employee experience Contract value

Field KW 2χ Sig. KW 2χ Sig.

2.1 0.906 94.958 < 0.001** 0.897 95.400 < 0.001**

2.2 0.789 88.290 < 0.001** 0.737 85.712 < 0.001** 2.3 0.851 91.949 < 0.001** 0.818 90.424 < 0.001** 2.4 0.877 93.158 < 0.001** 0.831 91.381 < 0.001** 2 0.922 95.939 < 0.001** 0.917 96.610 < 0.001** 3.1 0.887 93.811 < 0.001** 0.827 91.409 < 0.001** 3.2 0.930 96.249 < 0.001** 0.914 96.310 < 0.001** 3.3 0.728 84.096 < 0.001** 0.527 68.366 < 0.001** 3.4.1 0.937 96.611 < 0.001** 0.929 97.058 < 0.001** 3.4.2 0.892 94.402 < 0.001** 0.884 94.799 < 0.001** 3.5 0.897 93.445 < 0.001** 0.854 92.774 < 0.001** 3.6 0.955 97.741 < 0.001** 0.941 97.568 < 0.001** 3 0.978 98.903 < 0.001** 0.978 99.858 < 0.001** ** The agreement is significant at level of significant α = 0.01

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) null hypothesis

H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted. Therefore, we conclude that

there is a significant degree of agreement between the employee experience and contract

value.

4.5.2 Owner Experience and Contracts Value

Table 4.47 Owner experience and highest contract value Owner experience Contract value


2.1 0.902 95.778 < 0.001** 0.897 95.458 < 0.001**

2.2 0.777 88.053 < 0.001** 0.737 85.125 < 0.001** 2.3 0.846 92.686 < 0.001** 0.818 90.424 < 0.001** 2.4 0.866 93.985 < 0.001** 0.830 90.967 < 0.001** 2 0.919 96.753 < 0.001** 0.917 96.601 < 0.001** 3.1 0.878 94.672 < 0.001** 0.826 91.969 < 0.001** 3.2 0.928 97.380 < 0.001** 0.914 96.779 < 0.001** 3.3 0.698 83.980 < 0.001** 0.527 72.026 < 0.001** 3.4.1 0.936 97.591 < 0.001** 0.929 97.127 < 0.001** 3.4.2 0.892 95.086 < 0.001** 0.884 94.762 < 0.001** 3.5 0.875 94.238 < 0.001** 0.854 93.366 < 0.001** 3.6 0.953 98.615 < 0.001** 0.940 98.011 < 0.001** 3 0.978 99.894 < 0.001** 0.978 99.887 < 0.001** ** The agreement is significant at level of significant α = 0.01

131

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) null hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted. Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant degree of agreement between the owner experience and contract value. 4.5.3 Contractor Employee Experience and Contract Value Implemented

Table 4.48 Contractor employee experience and highest contract value Employee experience Contract value


2.1 0.942 80.562 < 0.001** 0.939 80.497 < 0.001**

2.2 0.853 76.683 < 0.001** 0.822 75.705 < 0.001** 2.3 0.904 79.103 < 0.001** 0.884 78.440 < 0.001** 2.4 0.871 77.234 < 0.001** 0.831 75.149 < 0.001** 2 0.960 80.891 < 0.001** 0.948 80.867 < 0.001** 3.1 0.920 79.710 < 0.001** 0.910 79.294 < 0.001** 3.2 0.942 80.497 < 0.001** 0.930 79.800 < 0.001** 3.3 0.942 80.587 < 0.001** 0.934 80.169 < 0.001** 3.4.1 0.939 80.454 < 0.001** 0.931 80.060 < 0.001** 3.4.2 0.882 77.912 < 0.001** 0.873 77.482 < 0.001** 3.5 0.934 80.152 < 0.001** 0.921 79.521 < 0.001** 3.6 0.945 80.693 < 0.001** 0.931 79.985 < 0.001** 3 0.969 81.689 < 0.001** 0.968 81.664 < 0.001** ** The agreement is significant at level of significant α = 0.01 Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) null hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted. Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant degree of agreement between the employee experience and contract value. 4.5.4 Company Experience and Highest Contract Value

Table 4.49 Company experience and contract value Company experience Contract value


2.1 0.941 80.514 < 0.001** 0.939 80.472 < 0.001**

2.2 0.851 76.312 < 0.001** 0.828 75.384 < 0.001** 2.3 0.902 78.871 < 0.001** 0.888 78.195 < 0.001** 2.4 0.868 77.573 < 0.001** 0.839 75.605 < 0.001** 2 0.950 80.872 < 0.001** 0.949 80.842 < 0.001** 3.1 0.919 79.480 < 0.001** 0.912 79.211 < 0.001** 3.2 0.941 80.436 < 0.001** 0.932 79.847 < 0.001** 3.3 0.942 80.380 < 0.001** 0.936 80.114 < 0.001** 3.4.1 0.939 80.255 < 0.001** 0.933 80.030 < 0.001** 3.4.2 0.882 77.834 < 0.001** 0.875 77.335 < 0.001** 3.5 0.933 80.121 < 0.001** 0.923 79.490 < 0.001** 3.6 0.944 80.587 < 0.001** 0.934 80.152 < 0.001** 3 0.969 81.673 < 0.001** 0.968 81.650 < 0.001**

** The agreement is significant at level of significant α = 0.01

132


H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted. Therefore, we conclude that

there is a significant degree of agreement between the contractors experience and contract

value.

4.5.5 Agreement Between Contractor and Owners Regarding to Causes of Claims

The values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values are listed in Table

4.50 as the following:

Table 4.50 Values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values

Field 2χ P-value(Sig.)

2.1- Claims factors caused by owners 175.77 <.0001** 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 167.30 <.0001** 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 172.32 <.0001** 2.4- Emergence Cases 173.27 <.0001** Causes of claims 176.90 <.0001**

** Degree of agreement between contractors and owners is significant at α = 0.01.


H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted therefore, it is concluded that

there is a significant degree of agreement between the contractors and owners with respect

to how they rank the causes of claims. Similarly claims factors caused by owner, design

and bill of quantity, contractual relationship factor, and emergence cases fields mimics the

results for causes of claims.

4.5.6 Agreement Between Contractor and Owners Regarding Claims Process

The values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values are listed in Table

4.51 as the following:

Table 4.51 Values of Chi-square approximation of the fields and their p-values

Field 2χ P-value(Sig.)

3.1- Claim Identification 144.14 <.0001** 3.2- Claim Notification 177.54 <.0001** 3.3- Claim Examination 120.95 <.0001** 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 178.51 <.0001** 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 173.54 <.0001** 3.5- Claim Presentation 174.88 <.0001** 3.6- Claim Negotiation 179.77 <.0001**

** Degree of agreement between contractors and owners is significant at α = 0.01.


H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted therefore, it is concluded that

there is a significant degree of agreement between the contractors and owners with respect

to how they rank the claim identification factors. Similarly claim notification, claim

133

examination, claim documentation, claim presentation, and claim negotiation procedures

mimic the results for claim identification procedures.

4.5.7 Test of Rank Mean of Respondents Agreement Between Contractors and

Owners

Also Mann-Whitney test was used to determine whether there is a significant difference in

rank means of the respondent agreement between contractors and owners.

Null hypothesis: H0: There is insignificant difference in rank means between contractors

and owners.

Alternative hypothesis: H1: There is a significant difference in rank means between

contractors and owners. The result for every field is shown in the following Tables.

4.5.7.1 Causes of claims

Table 4.52 Mann-Whitney test of the fields and their p-values between contractor and owner Field Mann-Withney - U test P-value(Sig.)

2.1- Claims factors caused by Owner 2218.000 <.001 ** 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 2621.500 <.001 ** 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 2220.000 <.001 ** 2.4- Emergence Cases 3515.000 0.059 Causes of claims 2202.000 <.001 ** ** Rank means are significant between contractor and owner at α = 0.01 * Rank means are significant between contractor and owner at α = 0.05

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) for the causes

result in claims. Null hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is

accepted. Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant difference in rank means

between the contractors and owners, contractor rank means are higher than Owners.

Claims Factors Caused by Owner

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) for filed 2.1,

claims factors caused by owner null hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative

hypothesis H1 is accepted .Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant difference in

rank means between the contractors and owners; contractor rank means are more than

Owners. Similarly design and bill of quantity, and contractual relationship factor mimics

the results for claims factors caused by owner in fields 2.1.

134

Emergency Cases

Since the p-value (Sig.) is greater than α = 0.05 (α is the level of significance) for field 2.4

Emergency Cases factors. Null hypothesis H0 cannot be rejected concluding that there is

insignificant difference in rank means between the contractors and owners.

4.5.7.2 Claims Process

Table 4.53 Mann-Whitney test of the fields and their p-values between contractor and owner Field Mann-Withney - U test P-value(Sig.)

3.1- Claim Identification 2204.0 <.001 ** 3.2- Claim Notification 3346.5 0.019 * 3.3- Claim Examination 958.0 <.001 ** 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 4155.5 0.920 3.4.2- Claim Documentation 3547.0 0.073 3.5- Claim Presentation 1730.0 <.001 ** 3.6- Claim Negotiation 2513.0 <.001 *

Claim identification

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance ) for claim

identification factors null hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is

accepted Therefore, it is conclude that there is a significant difference in rank means

between the contractors and owners, Contractor rank means are more than the Owners.

Similarly claim notification, claim examination, claim presentation, and claim negotiation

procedures mimic the results for claim identification procedures.

Claim documentation

Since the p-value (Sig.) is greater than α = 0.05 (α is the level of significance) for field 3.4

1 and 3.4.2 claim documentation factors. Null hypothesis H0 cannot be rejected concluding

that there is insignificant difference in rank means between the contractors and that of

owners.

4.5.7.3 Causes of Claims and Common Procedures

Since the p-value (Sig.) is less than α = 0.01 (α is the level of significance) for null

hypothesis H0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted. Therefore, we

concluded that there is a significant difference in rank means between the contractors and

owners; contractor rank means are more than the owners.

135

4.6 Differences of the Respondents Agreements

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a statistical test that is used to compare the ranks means between

two or more samples. This test is used in order to check out if there are any significant

differences in the point of view of the respondents ( contractors and owners ) regarding the

claim fields and the affects of the personal experience, person highest contract value, firm

experience and firm highest contract value.

4.6.1 Employee Experience

Table 4.54 shows that there are no significant differences between the contractors personal

experience categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields. So, we conclude that

the contractor personal of experience factor has no effect on the respondents’ degree.

Table 4.54 Kruskal- Wallis test person experiences for contractor and owners Contractor Owners

Factor Field Value of

Chi-Square df Sig.

Value of

Chi-Square df Sig.

2.1- Claims factors caused by owners 3.028 2 0.220 4.658 2 0.097 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 2.946 2 0.229 0.241 2 0.887 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 8.879 2 0.012 0.004 2 0.998 2.4- Emergence Cases 1.320 2 0.517 1.241 2 0.538

All Field 2 3.585 2 0.167 2.387 2 .0.303 3.1- Claim Identification 3.865 2 0.145 0.441 2 0.802 3.2- Claim Notification 1.335 2 0.513 2.799 2 0.247 3.3- Claim Examination 4.058 2 0.131 0.556 2 0.757 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 2.027 2 0.363 2.151 2 0.341 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 2.530 2 0.363 3.451 2 0.178 3.5- Claim Presentation 3.973 2 0.137 2.653 2 0.265

Per

son

Exp

erie

nce

3.6- Claim Negotiation 0.292 2 0.864 1.004 2 0.605 * df : Degrees of Freedom

Also results from Table 4.52 show that there are no significant differences between owner

person of experience categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields. So we

conclude that the owner personal experience factored has no effected on the respondents’

degree.

4.6.2 Highest Contract Value for Employee

Table 4.55 shows that there are no significant differences between contractors person

highest contract value categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields. So we

concluded that the contractor person highest contract value factor has no effect on the

respondents’ degree.

136

Table 4.55 Kruskal- Wallis test person highest contract value for contractors and owners Contractors Owners


Chi-Square df Sig.

Value of

Chi-Square df Sig.

2.1- Claims factors caused by owners 7.179 4 0.127 2.628 4 0.622 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 5.784 4 0.216 2.010 4 0.734 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 4.252 4 0.373 1.936 4 0.748 2.4- Emergence Cases 0.800 4 0.938 3.578 4 0.466

All Field 2 5.820 4 2.13 2.843 4 0.584 3.1- Claim Identification 10.666 4 0.031 4.706 4 0.319 3.2- Claim Notification 8.330 4 0.080 1.936 4 0.748 3.3- Claim Examination 3.710 4 0.447 2.368 4 0.668 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 7.721 4 0.102 3.238 4 0.519 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 4.715 4 0.102 1.534 4 0.821 3.5- Claim Presentation 4.784 4 0.310 2.471 4 0.650 P

erso

n H

ighe

st C

ontr

act

Val

ue

3.6- Claim Negotiation 5.248 4 0.263 5.169 4 0.270 * df : Degrees of Freedom Also, the results from Table 4.53 shows that there are no significant differences between

owner personal highest contract value categories regarding their respondent degree to all

fields. Therefore we conclude that the owner person highest contract value factor has no

effect on the respondents’ degree.

4.6.3 Contractors and Owners Experiences

Table 4.56 Kruskal- Wallis test firm experiences for contractor and owners Contractors Owners


Chi-Square df Sig.

Value of

Chi-Square df Sig.

2.1- Claims factors caused by Owner 1.555 3 0.670 1.834 3 0.608 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 1.885 3 0.597 3.567 3 0.312 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 1.919 3 0.589 1.169 3 0.760 2.4- Emergence Cases 5.043 3 0.169 0.890 3 0.828

All Field 2 1.387 3 0.709 1.431 3 0.698 3.1- Claim Identification 0.214 3 0.975 3.599 3 0.308 3.2- Claim Notification 0.332 3 0.954 3.865 3 0.276 3.3- Claim Examination 2.880 3 0.411 1.680 3 0.641 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 3.153 3 0.369 1.551 3 0.671 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 0.665 3 0.882 2.397 3 0.494 3.5- Claim Presentation 4.928 3 0.177 4.859 3 0.182 E

xper

ienc

e of

the

Fir

m

3.6- Claim Negotiation 2.257 3 0.521 2.238 3 0.524 * df : Degrees of Freedom Table 4.56 shows that there are no significant differences between contractors firm

experience categories regarding their respondent degree in all fields. Thus we conclude that

the contractor firm experience factor has no effect on the respondents’ degree. Also results

from Table 4.54 show that there are no significant differences between owner personal

137

experience categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields. So we conclude that

the owners personal experience factor has no effect on the respondents’ degree.

4.6.4 Highest Contract Value for Contractor and Owners

Table 4.57 shows that there are insignificant differences between contractors firm highest

contract value categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields. Therefore we

concluded that the contractor personal highest contract value factor has no effect on the

respondents’ degree.

Table 4.57 Kruskal- Wallis test firm highest contract value for contractor and owners Contractor Owners


Chi-Square df Sig.

Value of

Chi-Square df Sig.

2.1- Claims factors caused by Owner 3.766 4 0.439 2.059 4 0.725 2.2- Design and Bill of Quantity 9.389 4 0.052 3.058 4 0.407 2.3- Contractual relationship factor 3.072 4 0.546 3.990 4 0.407 2.4- Emergence Cases 4.936 4 0.294 4.020 4 0.403

All Field 2 4.090 4 0.394 2.506 4 0.644 3.1- Claim Identification 3.264 4 0.515 4.986 4 0.289 3.2- Claim Notification 5.900 4 0.207 2.865 4 0.581 3.3- Claim Examination 2.962 4 0.564 2.421 4 0.659 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 3887 4 0.422 1.182 4 0.881 3.4.1- Claim Documentation 1.099 4 0.894 3.003 4 0.557 3.5- Claim Presentation 1.501 4 0.826 0.918 4 0.922 C

ost of

Pro

ject

(U

S$

Mill

ion)

3.6- Claim Negotiation 3.332 4 0.504 1.004 2 0.728 * df : Degrees of Freedom Also results from Table 4.55 show that there are insignificant differences between owner

personal highest contract value categories regarding their respondent degree to all fields.

Therefore we conclude that the owner personal highest contract value factor has no affect

on the respondents’ degree.

4.7 General Comment Regards Contractor and Owner Personal and Firm

Experience and Cost.

These results prove that insignificant differences in the points of view among contractor

and owner regarding the causes and factors resulting in claims and common procedures can

be ascribed to the personal experience, person highest contract value, firm experience and

firm highest contract value.


in the Gaza Strip

CHAPTER 5

CASE STUDIES

138

CHAPTER 5 : CASE STUDIES

This chapter presents 4 case studies collected from actual project implemented in the Gaza

Strip. The data was collected via interviews with some contractors and owners organization

in Gaza. Site visits and reviewing project documents are the core of data for all case studies

Summarized data of the collected information was presented by concentrating on the claims

reason, claims procedure predestined by contractor and owner, claims compromising

methods .

5.1 Case study No 1: Construction of Central Sewage Pump Station 5.1.1 Case Background AA municipality has received external fund to construct the central sewerage pump station

for the AA western area. Bidders were called to submit their bids to this project. Opening

bids procedure methodology was used, site visit and pre-bid meeting were held in the AA

municipality with the attendance of all bidders, cost analysis evaluation for the lowest price

was done according to the Ministry of local Government procurement procedures.

AA municipality awarded the contract to the lowest price bidder. The Contractor

(XX Company) signed a contract with the (Owner AA) of the project for construction of

the central pump station for AA western area. One of the project elements is digging

foundation for pump station wet well down to 14 meters depth under ground level as

indicated in the design details. The contractor received the construction site from the owner

representative (Project Manager) and the assigned supervision team (consultant) for the

project. All preparation requirements for starting up the activities in the site by the

contractor (mobilization, project documents, drawing, shop drawing, time schedule, all

report forms and contractor staff, materials approvals, work plan, safety plan) were

submitted to the consultant for revision and approval. During starting excavation activities

for pump station building foundation, the contractor discovered that the underground water

table was higher and different from the project document specification. This unexpected

event especially for the underground high water flow appearance prevent contractor form

continuing foundation excavation activities, thus creating delays for the following project

activities. As a result of delays which influenced the contractor performance, the contractor

submitted a claim for the owner representative requesting reimbursing cost of damage.

139

5.1.2 Project Description

• Project Name : Construction of Main Pump Station

• Location : Gaza middle area

• Contract type : Unit Price Bid

• Contract standard : World Bank Contracts

• Contract Value : USD $ 433,330.00

• Contract Period : 7 months

• Procurement : Competitive bid (Ministry of local Government law)

• Owner : AA

• Donor : DD Fund

• Designer : CC Consultation Company - Gaza

• Supervision : BB Consultation Company - Gaza

• Contractor : XX Company – Gaza

5.1.3 Claim Types

Changes in soil type as a result of underground conditions and changes in design

5.1.4 Claim Description

The Contractor submitted his claim for the following reasons:-

I. Different site conditions:

• According to the project document the underground soil type is clay but the found soil

type is sand soil (Korkar).

• Underground table water content is higher than being mentioned in the tender

document.

II. Design errors: The design for some construction parts of the pump station was not clear

especially for the sewage wet well walls and the Bar Screen walls.

III. Consultant staff: as a result of consultant slow performance and instruction to the

contractor resulting in delaying and affecting contractor work performance.

5.1.5 Dispute Parties

• First Party : Contractor (XX Company )

• Second Party : Owner (AA )/ Consultant (BB)

• Third Party : Ministry of local Government as neutral party

140


During project implementation activities the contactor discovered a big change in the type

of ground soil. Hereby the mentioned clay in the project document, the actual type, is

Korkar. Where in Korkar soil water permeability is higher than the clay soil. As it became

difficult to overcome the huge quantity of water because of ground soil (Kokar) the

contractor presented his claim.

5.1.7 Claim Notification

The contractor representative informed the consultant [owner representative] about the soil

type (changes) by submitting official letter describing the problem.


The contractor through using services of specialist local soil lab, investigated the

underground soil type and the under ground water content, the result indicated that the soil

type is Korkar which caused a huge quantity of underground water and that is different

from soil type mentioned in the contract document, and this will cause extra cost to the

project.


During project implementation period, the contractor was recording and keeping

documents, letters and reports submitted to the supervision team and project parties. Finally

the contractor prepared final comprehensive report and submitted it to the owner's

representative.


The claim was presented in different stages, the contractor informed the owner supervision

team about the claims issues and cost (124,532.50$) as shown in Table 4.1, the contractor

also present the reasons that lead the contractor to present the claims resulting from soil

conditions, a thing caused delays in work activities and increase the cost of work..

In the second stage, the contractor requested a meeting with owner and donor representative

to present and discuss his claim issues.

141

5.1.11 Claim Negotiations

The contractor requested for meetings with the consultant, owner representative to discuss

these issues. The contractor, consultant, Ministry of local Government as neutral party, the

fund agency and project manager conducted long meetings and negotiations reviewing the

claim to reach a compromise state.

5.1.12 Contract Provision Related to the Claim Submitted by the Contractor

According to the contract condition (World Bank) the following provision was taken:-

Site Investigation Report

The contractor, in costing his bid relies on site investigation, reports referred to the contract

data and supplemented by any information available to the Bidder.

Compensation Events

The following is considered Compensation Event:-

(F) Ground conditions are substantially more adverse than could reasonably have been

assumed before releasing the letter of acceptance considering the information issued to

bidders (including the site investigation Report), from available publicity information and

from a visual inspection of the site.

5.1.13 Parties Point of Views Regarding the Claim

5.1.13.1 First Party Point of View (Contractor)

• The claimant (contractor) support his claims by presenting the pre-bid minute of

meeting declaring type of soil and under ground water content level, considering all the

relevant data in costing project bill of quantities before submitting the tender document

mentioning that the design and test of the soil type are not for the same site were the

owner as a result of difficulties of land availability changed the location before starting

the tender process, and the owner engineers presenting the same project design and

document without taking in consideration the new site of the pump station.

• The contractor referred to the condition of contract causes regarding the site changes

conditions and the effect of this change in the contractor performance.

• The consultant instruction to modify the design of the wet well and bar screen structures

taking more than two weeks to receive final approval for the new design and drawing

142

These issues affected the contractor time schedule and work plan, this results in

delaying the structures main activities, and increased the contractor running cost.

• According to the time schedule and work plan, the contractor planned to start the

excavation activities for the well structures first of October for two weeks to complete

these activities (before the raining season) but the changes in the design took over were

than three weeks to be modified; these issues created difficulty to the contractor to

excavate in raining weather which increased the underground table content of water.

5.1.13.2 Second Party Point of View (Owner)

The owner through his representative (consultant) rejected the contractor claims, supported

his rejection in accordance to contract general conditions and specification as following:-

• The contractor claims that there are changes in site location and the given data belongs

to another location were this issue is not correct as all data being given for the same

existing work location for all bidders during tender stage and site visit.

• All activities done by the contractor were according to contract document. The

contractor was committed to constructing the pump station according to contract

conditions.

• The owner representative (project manager) informed all bidders during pre bid meeting

and site visit about underground water content issues. The contractor is responsible for

his work performance and methodology and he should complete the construction

according to project specification within the contractual period and according to

instructions of the supervision consultant.

• According to the contract conditions, any approval given by the consultant to the

contractor for work plan or method does not excerpt the contractor from any mistake

responsibility during work implementation.

• In case of event occurring during project implementation the contractor feels he has

right for compensation; the contractor should use the contractual procedures to get his

rights as clarify in World Bank contracts. (Compensation Events); he should inform the

project owner manager about case immediately (32. Early Warning).

• According to consultant instructions and the design modifications for the wet well and

Bar Screen structures, these issues were done within approval of the two parties

(contractor /owner).

143

• The consultant admitted the difference in the soil condition from clay type to Korkar is

for the contractor side benefit.

5.1.13. 3 Third Party Point of View (Neutral )

Ministry of local government (MLG) as the head of the municipalities and part of its role

assist in solving construction projects conflicts and react as neutral party in reviewing the

case in presence of the two parties as follow :-

• Reviewed all project documents and site daily work report

• Conduct individual meetings with both parties.

• Hold meeting with all parties together.

• The MLG identified that the main problem of this case resulted from soil type change,

here the site soil type (Korkar ) differs from the soil type (Clay) mentioned in the

project document by the consultant .

• The contractor claim is over actual cost. According to contract document, the contractor

undertook to perform all construction activities according to bill of quantities, drawings

and specifications.

• The underground water content level conditions clear to all during tender stages, and all

contractors during bidding took this issue in their consideration and recognized that

sheet piles is necessary for shuttering during excavation.

• The contractor should use de-watering system for discharging the underground water

but the contractor did not use enough pumps for this purpose.

144

5.1.14 Contractor Claims Direct Cost for Wet Well and Bar Screen Structures Table 5.1 Contractor direct cost of the claims issues No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total Notes A. Wet Well Direct Cost 1.

Site investigation Unit 1 $1080 $1080 New soil test done by the contractor

2. Excavation Sub contractor (Labors )

Unit 1 4025 $4025 Used for excavation wet well building.

3. Site Office Staff 4.

Project manager Month 3 600 $1800 Working as part time for the project

5. Site Engineer Month 3 700 $1400 6. Office engineer Month 3 400 $1200 7. Office boy Month 3 200 $600 8. Equipments and

Machines Unit 1 $1500 $1500

Used during excavation stage only

9. Sheet Piles Unit 1 $7200 $7200 excavation stage only 11. Excavator Days 20 $180 $3600 12. Big Crane Days 6 $1200 $7200 13.

Crane Days 6 $120 $720 Used to support the big Crane

14. Pump Machine Unit 1 $ 7200 $ 7200

Used to suck the water

15.

Construction External water well

Unit 1 $4560 $4560

The well constructed out of the Wet well to reduce the underground water pressure

16.

Construction Internal water Well

Unit 1 $4560 $4560

The well constructed inside the Wet well to reduce the underground water pressure

17. Electrical generator Unit 1 $3600 $3600

Used to supply the water pump

18. Site Miscellaneous expenses

Month 3 $1250 $3700

19. Concrete Materials

M3

22.5 $215 $4837.5 For Wet Well foundation to prevent leakage of water .

20. De-watering System: Pumps De-watering Pipes

Unit Unit

2 1

$4000 $4000

$8000 $4000

21. Extra expenses for owner land near the pump station land

Unit

1

$4500

$4500

As result of water flow to his land and damaging the farm

22. Site protection Month 3 $ 250 $ 750 23. Site services ( phone. Month 3 $ 500 $ 1500

145

,elect., water) 24. Labor Insurance Month 3 $ 250 $ 750 B. Bar Screen Direct Cost 25. Big Crane Days 3 $1200 $3600 26. Sheet Piles Unit 1 $2500 $2500 excavation stage only 27. Excavator (Role) Days 3 $150 $450 28. Excavator (Bagger ) Days 1 $350 $350 30. Plan Concretes M3 22.5 $215 $1350 for Sheet Piles 31.

Excavation (Labors ) Unit 1 $2800 $2800 Used for excavation Bar Screen building .

32. Contractor Project Staff Month 1 $1900 $1900

Project manager / Site Eng./office Eng. / office boy

33. Equipments and Machines

Unit 1 $800 $800 Used during excavation stage only

34. Electrical generator & Water Pump

Unit 1 $3550 $3550

35. Site protection Month 1 $ 250 $ 750 36. Site services

(Telephone, elect., water)

Month 1 $ 500 $ 500

37. Labor Insurance Month 1 $ 250 $ 250 38. Site Miscellaneous

expenses Month 1 $1750 $1750

39. Direct Expected expenses to finish work

Month 1 $10300 $10300

Total Direct Cost $111,382.00

5.1.15 Contractor Claims Indirect Cost Table 5.2 Contractor direct cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total A. Wet Well Building Indirect Cost 1. Head office running cost Month 3 $3000 $9000 B. Bar Screen Building Indirect Cost 2. Head office running cost Month 1 $3000 $3000 3. Indirect Expected expenses Month 1 $1150 $1150 Total indirect Cost $13,150.00 Notes: company head office working in this project only no other project where taking during this period

5.1.16 Summary of Claims Cost for Wet Well and Bar Screen Structures Table 5.3 Contractor direct and Indirect cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Total

1 Claims direct cost $111,382.00

2 Claims indirect cost $13,150.00

Total Cost $124,532.00

146

5.1.17 Settlement of Claims (Method)

This claim was compromised by direct negotiation method where the two parties reached to

mutual agreement after number of meetings to settle the issue and to be approved by the

fund agency.

5.1.18 Case Conclusion

From this case we can conclude the following issues:

• The contractor present, his claims to the project owners in a good quality of work; all the

required document and data were presented according to the claims sequences, the owner

representative takes the contractor claim in a real matters and followed up all the

contractor meetings and discussions, the meetings that lead the two parties to reach an

amicable settlement to decompensate the contractor against changing soil conditions

which caused the delay of the contractor activities.

• MLG played a vital role in solving this claim issue by acting as a neutral party to assist

in reaching mutual a agreements for the case

• End of this claims, the contractor received 63,000 US$ as a compensation for the delays

issues.

5.1.19 Researcher Comment

• The causes of the claim were classified as modifying to the design during construction.

• According to the sequences of this case study, its observed that changing in design

resulting in delaying contractor performed to the required project activities.

• The fast reaction of the contractor in identifying the causes of claim and informing the

owner in the right time assist the contractor to support his right to the claim, and in the

same time alert the owner with the problem.

• The contractor claim was over estimated to actual claims cost and according to the

conditions of contract he is obliged to perform some of the mentioned activities, the

owner representative were aware regard this exaggeration cost.

• Through direct and continues negotiations between the two parties, this issue assisted in

reaching to an amicable settlement.

• It can be concluded that the collected case study confirmed the questionnaire result. As

showed in the result about claims resulted due the design and bill of quantity group as

shown in table 4.15 and table 4.16 for the factor of cardinal changes or modifying the

design during construction phase and different description for the items in the bill of

147

quantity than it is mentioned in the specification. It’s clear that this factor resulted in

delaying the contractor activities. In the first collected case study, this factor was one of

the main factors causing delay to the contractor performance, which lead the contractor to

present his claims.

• Regarding the claims management process used in this claim it was passing through the

same process which was indicated in the research questionnaires, and the result of this

process support this case where during claims identification shown in table 4.27 it notices

the importance that the contractor staff be aware on site how to detect claim, and the main

problems faced contractor team is the inaccessibility of document used for identifying

claims in the site.

• Also during claim notification process as shown in table 4.30 the result indicates that

unclear procedures in notice preparation which this issue is indicated in this case, from

the revised project documents for this case. I didn’t find any clear procedures to be

followed by the two sides, where the contractor takes the lead to inform the owner with

the problem. Also during the claim examination from the result in table 4.33, where it

indicates that most problems associated with this process is unavailability of record

document used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery, the contractor did not use

official document in estimating the required claim recovery, the case study result conform

with the claim examination process results for most of the presented factors.

• Regarding the claim documentation process it clear that the case study is conform with

most factors result in this process showed in table 4.36, where the contractor during claim

management process was not able to present all needed information in written especially

to claim cost. During the claim presentation the situation of this case support and confirm

with the questionnaire result in the claim presentation process. Where the result in table

4.38 indicates that the most problems associated with this process are the inaccessibility

of relevant document to be submitted with the claim, the contractor was not able to

submit some relevant required document to support his claim. Finally for the claim

negotiation process as showed in the questionnaire result table 4.41 for the conflicts

happened during negotiation process but the contractor and the owners were able to reach

to amicable settlement which this issues support the questionnaires results factors that

contractors do not chose to settle the claims by arbitration or litigation process.

148

CASE STUDY (2) 5.2 Case Study No 2: Construction of Public School Building

5.2.1 Case Background

This claim presents Force Majeuree case, where the contractor lost his project as result of

the security situation, the contractor XX has claimed to the owner AA for compensation of

expenses of purchased material and the sequences of site area closure. The project is

construction of a public school in NN area south of Gaza, near an ex Israeli settlement.

The contractor signed the contract with the owner taking over the site by the owner

representative. During mobilization stage the contractor prepared all needed documents,

shop drawings and material to start the construction's activities, all needed papers were

presented to owner supervision team for approval to start project activities. The supervision

team approved the shop drawing and time schedule. During the excavation stage the

contractor finished laying the wood frame for the building foundation plan concrete layer

and stared preparating the steel work; all the activities were checked by the owner engineer

and approved for supplying foundation plan concrete. During the project implementation

period , the Intifatha started as result of unstable political situation, the Israeli army closed

the area around the project site and considered it a security zoon its prevented contractor

accessing from project site and prevented him from remove his material and equipments,

this caused contractor property loss. The contractor was affected totally by this event which

made him present his claims requesting the owner to compensate for his loss.

The contractor discussed his claim with the owner without reaching any a agreements. The

contractor presented his case to the court, which took long time for judgment.


• Project Name : Construction of Public School Building

• Location : Gaza – South area


• Contract standard : Local contract (world Bank)



• Procurement : Competitive bid

• Owner : AA

149

• Donor : BB Fund

• Designer : AA – Gaza

• Supervision : AA – Gaza


• Contractor Classification : Class B

5.2.3 Claim Types

Force Majeure


During starting implementation project activities, the location of the project site is near the

Israel settlement in south of Gaza Strip , as a result of the Intifada the Israeli army considers

all areas around the settlements as security areas, no one is allowed to pass through these

areas which are considered as dangerous areas. The contractor was not able to pass to site

location to continue implementation project activities. Also, the Israel army occupied this

area for months, this resulted in closing the site. Israei action in the area resulted in

preventing the contractor for performing implementation activities project for long period

and resulting in losing the contractor for his equipment and materials. For these reasons the

contractor presented his claims to project owner for re-compensation for the project

activities damages and loss of equipment and materials.


• First Party : Contractor (XX Company)

• Second Party : Owner (AA )


During project starting stage, the contractor finished providing all site preparation

requirements and stored all needed material for starting up excavation stage activities.

During this stage the contractor was stopped from implementing project activities because

the Israel army invade project area as result of the political situation. The claim was

identified by the contractor project engineer especially after owner representative suspend

all project activities because they are unable to reach the site area for long time.

150


The contractor project engineer informed owner representative as the following:

• 27/11/2000 that he was not able to continue working in site because of the closure

and security conditions and this issue affects contractor performance.

• 10/12/2000 a letter confirming the existing situation still continue and the project is

suspended as result of the closure of the area by the Israeli army, the contractor

material and equipments still restrained in the site and this issue caused loss for his

company.

• 10 /3/2001 letter of informing that the contract period is finished and up to date the

activities still suspended and this issues harmed him financially.


The contractor project engineer is responsible for following up project activities, when

political situation gets worse, contractor project engineer checked the project performance,

time schedule, cash flow files, mean while the result of this process alert the contractor that

the situation is taking the bad side and this issue will affect the contractor financial status.

Based on that the contractor project manager informed the company owner that they are

facing a hard situation. The claim examination period was enough for the contractor project

engineer to clarify the claim cost.


During project implementation period the contractor project engineer was recording and

keeping documents, letters and reports which were submitted to the supervision team. At

during work suspension, continuous official letters were issued by him to the owner

informing him about site conditions and its reflection on project performance. The

contractor referred to project document (conditions of contract) as a base for his claim.

Finally the contractor prepared final comprehensive report and submitted it to the owner

representative.


The claim was presented in different stages; the contractor inform the owner supervision

team with the claims issues and present the reason that made him present the claims as

result suspending of project work .

151

A detailed breakdown of claim cost was presented with the claim request as shower in

tables (4.6), (4.5). In the second stage, the contractor requested a meeting with owner

representative to present and discussed his claim issues.


Different meetings conducted with contractors, owner representative to review and discuss

the claim issues but unfortunately they did not reach any compromise agreements .During

this stage, the negotiations party, especially the owner side, was not able to reach any

agreements for the claim issues with the contractor due to lack of financial difficulties and

authority. In other stage, the contractor presented his claim case to the Palestinian

contractor union as a third party and they conducted a meeting with the owner and the fund

agency, but again, they did not reach any understanding among the parties. Finally the

contractor has no other options but to present his case to court.

5.2.12 Parties Point of Views Regarding Claim

5.2.12.1 First party Point of View (Contractor)

During project implementation, suspension to the project causes vital loss in time, materials

and equipments as the following:

• The contractor has prepared the site location with needed staff and supplied site office

with furniture, equipment and raw materials.

• During project closure, the contractor was unable to access project site because of

Israeli army and security situation for more than three months which caused loss in

project's duration and money.

• The contractor informed the owner about the situation which was out of his control.

• The contractor supported his claim referring to the condition of contract regarding

Force Majeure.

• The owner offered to change site location without extra cost which was rejected by the

contractor because of change in material prices at the local market.

5.2.12.2 Relevant Contract Provision Related to Claim Submitted by the Contractor

According to the contract and contract condition, the following provision was taken in

consideration;

152

• Force Majeure

In this Clause “ Force Majeure ” means an exceptional event or circumstance :-

A. Which is beyond a party’s control.

B. Which such party could not reasonably have provided against before entering into the

contract.

C. When having claim arisen, such party could not reasonably avoid or overcome it.

D. Which is not substantially attributable to the other party.

Force Majeure may include, but is not limited to, exceptional events or circumstances of the

kind listed below, as long as conditions (a) to (d) above are satisfied:

(I) War, hostilities (whether war be declared or not).Invasion act of foreign enemies.

(II) Rebellion, terrorism, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power, or civil war.

(III) Riot, commotion, disorder, strike or lockout by persons other than the contractor’s

personnel and other employees of the contractor and subcontractors.

• Notice of Force Majeure

In this Clause “ Notice of “ Force Majeure” means if a party is or will be prevented from

performing any of its obligations under the contract by Force Majeure , then they should give notice

to the other party of the event or circumstances constituting the Force Majeure and shall specify the

obligations, the performance of which is or will be prevented. The notice shall be given within 14

days after the party became aware of the relevant event or circumstance constituting Force

Majeure.

(IV) The party will be given a notice, be excused performance of such obligations for so

long as such Force Majeure prevents it from performing them.


The owner through his representative, considered that this situation occurred as Force

Majeure are situation facing up the country and this problem is out of control of the two

parties, because of that the owner considered the following :-

• As result of Intifada and Israeli occupation which resulted in stopping project totally for

more than three months, the owner gave extension of time to the contractor considering

the delay excusable non compensated because it is out of contractor control and the

performance of the contractor will be extended without any liability on the contractor

performance because of Majeur s delays that happened.

• If the situation will be continued and no chance for contractor to reach project area as

result of Israelis closure, the owner will terminate contract with the contractor.

153

• The owner offered to the contractor changing the site location with the same contract to

help the contractor to refund his loss.


o The contractor rejected changing site location because he started working in this site

and all his equipment and material in this site were restrained.

o The owner has not considered any compensation for the contractor loss of material and

equipment prices of all construction raw materials increased.

5.2.13.1 Contractor Claims Direct Cost Table 5.4 Contractor direct cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total 1. Site Staff Engineer, Labor Month 4 $1500 $6000 2. Equipments and Machines Unit 1 $4000 $4000 3. Material damaged cost Unit 1 $13000 $13000 4. Main Sub contractor Unit 1 $2000 $2000 5. Site Office cost Month 4 $150 $3750 6. Insurance – Bank guarantee Month 1 $1343 $1343 Total Direct Cost $30,093.00 5.2.13.2 Contractor Claims Indirect Direct Cost

Table 5.5 Contractor indirect cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total 1. Head office running cost Month 4 $700 $2800 2. Profit margin and other loss Unit 1 $3000 $3000

Total Indirect Direct Cost $ 5,800.00 5.2.13.3 Summary of Claims Cost Table 5.6 Contractor direct and Indirect cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Total 1 Claims direct cost $30093 2 Claims indirect cost $ 5800 Total $35,893.00 5.2.14 Settlement of the Claims

• This case settled through the litigation process, where the contractor submitted his claim

to court by hiring services of legal advisor, this took long time, after waiting more than

six months; the court verdict was to reimburse his loss with $13,000 only for direct cost

of material and equipments; the result was unexpected and unsatisfied to the contractor

expectation.

154

5.2.15 Case Conclusion • The stages passed by this case show that litigation process is costly through hiring a legal

adviser and takes long time. It is concluded that settlement of claim cases by negotiation

process is the shortest way.


• Classifying the claim type as Force Majeure is not accurate, according to the Palestinian

local conditions this claims type are not used, because we are living in a continuous

unstable circumstances as result of the Israel affect. The causes of the claim can classify

as Emergency cases were clarified as road Blockage and difficulties to pass to site

location as result of the occupation.

• According to the collected data, it is clear that the contractor has the right to present his

claim against the owner regard to his loss of money, time and material.

• The contractor failed to present any document approving his actual cost of the direct and

indirect loss for some items. Where the contractor in this case should have a good

documentation systems for all project sequences.

• The contractor accepted to work in the same site but the situation was out of his control,

and the owner has chosen to terminate the contract without any consideration of the

contractor situation. From the project sequences, it's noticed that the owner has no

intention to recover the contractor loss. This issue assists in affecting the contractor and

losing money as result of the situation.

• The contractor should shift his case to the arbitration process before taking the

litigations processes which is not recommended in this case because it’s costly, time

consuming and the contractor is the weak side.

• From the collected case study and the result that have been obtained from 83 contractor

and 101 owners’ questionnaires. It can be concluded that the collected case study

confirms with the questionnaire result. Where the result of the claims causes from the

forth group emergency cases as showed in table 4.25 for the factor of road blockage and

difficulties to pass between cities because of the Israeli occupation, its clear that this

factor results in delaying the contractor activities. In the collected case study, this factor

was one of the main factors causing delaying to the contractor performance, and causing

in stopping the project, which lead the contractor to present his claims. Regarding claims

management process used in this claim, it pass through the same process, which it was

155

indicated in the research questionnaires and the result of this process support this case

study where during claims identification as shown in table 4.27 it notices the importance

that the contractor staff to be aware on site how to detect claim and the main problems

they faced unclear procedures identifying claims. Also during claim notification process

as showed in table 4.30 the result indicates that unclear procedures in notice preparation

and unclear responsibility to contractor person to prepare the notice, this issue is indicated

in this case.

• From the revised project documents for this case I didn’t find any clear procedures to be

followed by the two side, where the contractor take the lead to inform the owner with the

problem. Also during the claim examination from the research questionnaires result in

table 4.33, where it indicates that most problems associated with this process is

unavailability of record document used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery, the

contractor did not use official document in estimating the required claim recovery, the

claim case study result conform with the claim examination process results for most of

the presented factors. Regarding the claim documentation process it clear that the case

study is conform with most factors result in this process showed in table 4.36, where the

contractor during claim management process was not be able to present all needed

information in written especially to claim cost.

• During the claim presentation the situation of this case support and confirm with the

questionnaire result in the claim presentation process. Where the result in table 4.38

indicates that most problems associated with this process are the inaccessibility of

relevant document to be submitted with the claim, the contractor was not able to submit

some relevant required document to support his claim.

• Finally for the claim negotiation process as showed in the questionnaire result table 4.41

for the conflicts happened during negotiation process, which leads the contractor to

present his claim to the court. This issue supports the questionnaires results factors that

contractors do not chose to settle the claims by arbitration or litigation process only as the

last option.

156

CASE STUDY (3) 5.3 Study Case No 3: Construction of Public Road


This Claim presents 'Implementation period extension and partially physical damage of

implemented works'. The case represents the infrastructure project implemented in AA

Municipality by XX Company. The project is development and maintenance of existing

road.

The project started on March 2002 and finished on July 2002. Project duration is 120 days,

total project budget US$ 250,658.75. During implementation stage unexpected problem

happened, a sewage flood from existing sewage manhole covered the working area.

The flood occurrences, which could not have been foreseen at the time of tendering,

interrupted work progress and caused significant damage in implemented road works. This

situation required comprehensive damages assessment including material loss, time delay

to compensate the contractor.


• Project Name : Construction of Main Road No. 5

• Location : Gaza – Northern area






• Owner : AA

• Donor : BB Fund

• Designer : AA - Gaza

• Supervision : AA - Gaza

• Contractor : XX Company - Gaza

• Contractor Classification : Class A

157

5.3.3 Claim Types

Delays of Activities


The Contractor claims for the following reasons:

• During construction stage and a sewage flooding happened in the area and

prevented the contractor from continuing the road activity which resulted in a Major

delays and additional cost.

• Loss of road materials as result of the sewage water flooding.

• Owner instruction to issue new variation order.

• Owner performance to solve the issue was slow and no rapid action was taken to

overcome the accident.



• Second Party : Owner (AA)

• Third Party : Engineering Syndicate


During the project implementation period, the contractor prepared the road sub base layer

with base course material, Thereby, during this activities, unexpected problems in the

sewage networking line in this road happened resulting in sewage flooding damaging all

sub base layer because of high quantity of sewage water which affect the road quality .

The contractor was unable to complete needed road activities because of continuous

flooding sewage. This problem created vital delay in the contractor time schedule. The

contractor project manager identifies that there is problem in the site, it causes company to

lose money and time; this was the identification stage of claims.

158


The contractor project manager informs owner representative as the following:

• 5/6/2002 that he was unable to continue working in site because of sewage system

flooding.

• 15/6/2002 the project activities still have not yet been implemented of, and the

Municipality was unable to solve this issue.

• 19/6/2002 no activities in site, the contractor was unable to work due to water

flooding.

• 25/6/2002 the contractor informed owner representative that he will present his

claim case as result of delays and losing of work productivity.


The contractor project manager is responsible for following up project activities. When the

sewage system problems happened and created difficulties to the contractor labor and

machine, the project manager checked the project performance, time schedule, cash flow

files, Mean wile, the result of this process alerts the contractor that the situation is taking

the negative side and this issue will affect the contractor financial status. As result of that

the contractor project manager informed the company owner that they are facing a hard

situation as result of the sewage flooding problems in the road. The claim examination

period was enough for the contractor project manager to clarify the claim cost.


During project implementation period the contractor project manager was recording and

keeping documents, letters and reports which were submitted to the supervision team, and

during work suspension, a continuous official letters were issued by him to the owner

informing him about site conditions and its reflection to project performance. The

contractor resorted to project document (conditions of contract) as a base for his claim.

Finally the contractor prepared final comprehensive report and submitted to owner

representative.

159


The claim was presented in different stages; the contractor informed the owner supervision

team with the claim issues and presented the reasons that lead him to present the claim as

result of delaying project work activities. A detail break down of claim cost was presented

with the claim request as shown in tables (4.7), (4.8).

In the second stage the contractor requested a meeting with owner representative to present

and discuss his claim issues.


Different meetings have been conducted with the contractors, owner representative to

review and discuss the claim issues were claim negotiations that take multiple stages.

During the negotiations stage, the owner side was pushing and advising the contractor to

reduce his claim cost; the contractor recalculate his claim cost and in different process. He

held meeting with the owner and the fund agency (donor). During this meeting he was able

to reach a fair agreement between the owner and the fund agency (donor) to pay him his

actual loss. Finally the contractor was able to win his claim as result of continuous

negotiation with the owner, also the contractor through his project manager was able to

convince the owner and fund agency about his right in the claims.

5.3.12 Parties Point Views Regarding the Claim


During the project implementation various incidents took place, a factor that caused

additional cost and time delays as follow:-

• Difficult problems occurred during the construction period due to Sewage flooding

from the existing sewage system in the area.

• Due to inadequate operation of the existing pumping station in the area, the gravity

sewage flow became out of control; the sewage water in the peak period covered most

of the working area.

• This situation could not have been foreseen at the time of the tendering.

• Furthermore, there was no alternative sewage system for diverting sewage flow

flooding.

160

• The effect of the flooding during this entire period was that prepared sub- grade and

base course material completely waterlogged should be replaced.

• Photograph of the effect of the flooding on the work was taken.

• Obviously, these series of events had a significant adverse affect on progress.

• Initially completed work that was subsequently damaged has to be maintained and the

contractor needs to isolate the effected area.

• The claimant supports his claims by referring to the condition of the contract and

mentions that site condition creates difficulty in performing the task.

• Effectively, the contractor was unable to carry out the works in the manner envisaged at

the time of tendering and financial compensation for consequent losses is claimed.

5.3.12.2 Relevant Contract Provision Related to Claim Submitted by the Contractor

According to the contract and condition of contract the following pervasion was taking

place:

1. Adverse physical obstructions or conditions

If, however, during the execution of the works the contractor encounters physical

obstructions or physical conditions, other than climatic conditions on the site, obstructions

or conditions that are, in his opinion, not foreseen by an experienced contractor, the

contractor shall give notice to the engineer with a copy to the Employer. On receipt of such

a notice, the engineer shall, if in his opinion such obstructions or conditions could not have

been reasonably foreseen by an experienced contractor, after due consultation with the

Employer and the Contractor, determine:

(a) Any extension of time to which the contractor is entitled under clause 44, and

(b) The amount of any costs which may have been incurred by the contractor by reason

of such obstructions or conditions having been encountered, which shall be added to the

contract sum, and shall notify the contractor accordingly, with a copy to the employer. Such

determination shall take account into of any instruction which the engineer may issue to the

contractor in connection therewith, and any proper and reasonable measures acceptable to

the Engineer which the contractor may take in the absence of specific instructions from the

Engineer.

161

* SPECIAL RISKS

CLAUSE (65) in the Contractor

(65.1) No liability for Special Risks

The Contractor shall be under no liability what so ever in consequence of any of special

risks referred to in Sub - Clause 65.2, whether by way of indemnity, or in respect of:

(a) Destruction of or damage to the works save to work condemned under the provisions of

Clause 39 prior to the occurrence of any of the said special risks.

(b) Destruction of or damage to property, whether of the Employer or third parties.

(c) Injury or loss of Life.

(65.2) Special Risks

The special risks are:

(a) The risks defined under paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of Sub - Clause 20.4, and

(b) The risks defined under paragraph (b) of Sub-Clause 20.4 as these relate to the country

in which the works are to be executed.

(65.3) Damage to Works by Special Risks

If the works or any materials or plant on or near or in transit to the site, or any of the

contractor’s equipment, sustain destruction or damage any reason of special risks, the

contractor shall be entitled to payment in accordance with the contract for any permanent

works executed and for any materials or plant destroyed or damaged and, so far as may be

required by the Engineer or as may be necessary for the completion of the works, to

payment for:

(a) Rectifying such destruction or damage to the works.

(b) Replacing or rectifying such materials or contractor's equipment, and the engineer shall

determine an addition to the contract sum in accordance with Clause 52 (which shall in the

case of the cost of replacement of contractor's equipment include the fair market value as

determined by the Engineer) and shall notify the contractor accordingly with a copy to the

employer.

162

5.3.12.3 Second Party Point View (Owner)

The owner through his representative rejected the contractor claim and supported his

rejection by the followings hints:

• As result of shutdown of the central pump station in the area, the Municipality

employee reacted promptly to solve the problem, but it took longer time to replace new

spare part for the pump.

• The contractor was able to continue work in other area of the project site leaving the

flooding area.

• The contractor can use the emergency pump station to pump the sewage from the

flooding Manhole to other area.

• The submitted contractor claims for damage cost are over estimating.

5.3.13.1 Contractor Claims Direct Cost Table 5.7 Contractor direct cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total 1. Labor Delays 10 M/D Day 25 $100 $2,500 2. Equipments and Machines Day 25 $150 $3,750 3. Material damaged cost M 2 4800 $7 $33,600 4. Main Sub contractor Unit 1 $2000 $2,000 5. Maintenance cost Unit 1 $1500 $1,500 6. Site Office over head cost Day 25 $150 $3,750 Total Direct Cost $47,100.00 5.3.13.2 Contractor Claims Indirect Direct Cost

Table 5.8 Contractor indirect cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Unit Quantity Unit Rate Total 1. Head office running cost Month 25 $75 $1875 2. Profit margin and other loss Unit 1 $2166 $2166 Total Indirect Cost $ 4,041.00

Notes: Company head office working in this project only no other project where taking during this period 5.3.13.3 Summary of Claims Cost Table 5.9 Contractor direct and Indirect cost of the claims issues No. Item Discretion Total

1 Claims direct cost $47,100.00 2 Claims indirect cost $ 4,041.00 Total Direct Cost $51,141.00

163

5.3.14 Case Conclusion • According to the different point view of all relevant parties, the contractor claim was

supported with a full document which assists him to recover some cost from the

Municipality.

• The Municipality and the contractor discussed the claim cost; they revised all project

documents and contractor performance during the whole period, and the actual delay days

was 25 days only.

• The two parties’ contractor and owner reached an amicable agreement to reimburse the

contractor for damaged material cost only and exempting the contractor from the

liquidated damages for delays.

• The contractor was paid $33,600 as reimbursement for the delays issues


• The causes of the claim were classified as delays case.

• According to the sequences of this case study, its observed that the contractor performed

his activities according to the conditions of contract, and the owner reaction to the

circumstances (to stop the flooding networking) was slowly and not affective, which

create delays to the contractor activities.

• The fast reaction of the contractor in informing the owner with the circumstances and

continue informing him with the impact of this situation to his performance and the

damages happened, assist in proving his right.

• The contractor claims cost for some items presented in his claim report was over

estimating to the actual damages cost.

• It can be concluded that the collected case study are confirms with the questionnaire

result. Where showed in the result of the claims causes from the first group causes of

claims caused by owners as showed in table 4.11 for the factor of owner slow decisions,

its clear that this factor resulting in delaying the contractor activities. In the collected case

study, this factor was one of the main factors causing delaying to the contractor

performance, and causing in stopping the project, which lead the contractor to present his

claims.

• Regarding claims management process used in this claim, it passed through the same

process, which it was indicated in the research questionnaires and the result of this

process support this case study where during claims identification as showed in table 4.27

164

it notices the importance that the contractor staff to be aware on site how to detect claim

Also during claim notification process as shown in table 4.30 the result indicates that

unclear procedures in notice preparation, which this issue is indicated in this case.

• From the revised project documents for this case we didn’t find any clear procedures to

be followed by the two side, where the contractor take the lead to inform the owner with

the problem and the owner supervision team take react slowly regard the contractor

demand for assisting in solving the site problem. Also during the claim examination from

the research questionnaires result in table 4.33, where it indicates that most problems

associated with this process is unavailability of record document used to analyze and

estimate the potential recovery, the contractor did not use official document in estimating

the required claim recovery, the claim case study result conform with the claim

examination process resulted for most of the presented factors. Regarding the claim

documentation process it is clear that the case study is conform with most factors result in

this process showed in table 4.36, where the contractor during claim management process

was not able to present all needed information in written especially to claim cost.



indicates that the most problems associated with this process are the inaccessibility of



• Finally the negotiation process it takes different stages and finally by this process the two

parties were able to reach to amicable settlement. Which this issue supports the

questionnaires results factors as showed in table 4.41 that contractors do not chose to

settle the claims by arbitration or litigation process only as the last option.

165

CASE STUDY (4) 5.4 Study Case No 4: Construction of Sewage Network


This Case Study is about the infrastructure project implemented in AA Municipality by XX

Company. The project is ‘Installation of a sewage main line in different streets of AA

Municipality.

The project started on March, 2002 and finished July, 2002. Project duration was 75 days

and total project budget was US$145,658.75. The AA Municipality is the project owner.

The supervision was done by a local consultant firm with coordination of Ministry of Local

Government project department & World Bank projects unit.

During the tender stage, a pre bid meeting was conducted with all bidders for the purpose

of presenting the policy guidelines, and the usable work procedures during implementation.

One of the main points was labor intensive methods for implementation, the contractor

should hire labors with minimum 25% of total contract cost, and most of the labor should

be residents of projects area, the labor charging rate per day [$10/day] ,in case the

contractor failed (violate the contract conditions ) in hiring the required parentage of labors

a reduction from the contractor final payment will be done.

During implementation stage there were a lot of contradictions that took place between the

parties related to contract requirement and conditions.

During the implementation stage the contractor and the owner faced a management

problem that caused loss to contractor profit and the owner deducted $6,540 from the

contractor final payment.

The contractor rejected this decision taken by the owner and submitted a claim for

refunding the deduction part.

166


• Project Name : Construction of Main Sewage Lines

• Location : Gaza – middle area



• Contract Value : USD $ 145,658



• Owner : AA

• Donor : BB Fund

• Designer : AA – Gaza

• Supervision : CC Consultation Company / AA owner


• Contractor Classification : Class A

5.4.3 Claim Types

Forces Majeure and Delays of Activities


The contractor claims for the following reasons:

• Rejection of the decision taken by the Municipality to deduct $ 6,540 for violation

of the intensive labor use conditions.

• Rejection of the decision taken by the Municipality to deduct $ 5,520 for the

liquidated damage of 40 days delay.

• Closure of border delayed the performance of the contractor and caused material

price increment.

• Residence interfering and stopping work during project implementation



• Second Party : Owner (AA )

• Third Party : Ministry of Local Government as Neutral Party

167


During project starting stage, the contractor finished providing all site preparation

requirements and stored all needed material for starting up project activities. With in the

project period the contractor was suspended from implementing project activities as result

of the political situation and area residence owners interfering during project

implementation. The claim was identified by the contractor (engineer) especially after

border closure and the unexpected in raise in the material prices.


The contractor representative informed owner representative as the following:

• The contractor was unable to continue working on site because of the closure and

security conditions and household interfering during sewage line instillation, and

this issue affects the contractor’s performance.

• The contractor informed owner representative requesting them to be reimbursed for

the difference in the material prices.


The contractor engineer is responsible for following up project activities. When the

political situation started; contractor (engineer) checked the project performance, time

schedule, cash flow files where the result of this process alerts the contractor that the

situation is taking the bad side and this issue will affect the contractor financial status.

Consequently, the contractor (project engineer) informed the owner representative that they

are facing a hard situation. The claim examination period was enough for the contractor

project engineer to clarify the claim cost.


During project implementation period, the project contractor engineer was recording and

keeping documents, letters and reports which submitted to the supervision team, and during

work performance, some official letters were issued by him to the owner informing him

about site conditions and its reflection on project performance. The contractor referred to

project document (conditions of contract) as a base for his claim.

168


The claim was presented in different stages, the contractor informed the owner supervision

team a bout the claims issues and present the reason that led him to present the claims due

to borders closures and the residences stopping his work which resulting in delaying

project activities.

In the second stage, the contractor requested a meeting with owner representative to present

and discuss his claim issues.


Different meetings were conducted with the contractors and owner representative to review

and discuss the claim issues, but unfortunately, they didn't reach to any acceptable

agreements because during this stage, the negotiations party especially the owner side, was

unable to reach any mutual agreement for the claim issues with the contractor due to lack of

financial difficulties and authority. At another stage, the contractor presented his claim case

to the Ministry of Local Government as a third party and they have conducted a meeting

with the owner and the fund agency representative

5.4.12 Parties Point of Views Regarding the Claim


The main point presented by the contractor is rejection of Municipality decisions for the

following reasons:

• The contractor started work on the site according to the time schedule. After one

month the contractors stopped working due to unstable local political circumstances

in the country which lead to border closure and also to the residences interfering

during sewage line installation.

• The Contractor officially informed owner supervision team (Municipality-

Consultant) that he was unable to continue working because of Force Majeure.

• The closure affected the local market conditions and lead to shortage in raw

materials and prices increment. This unexpected situation prevented contractor to

perform project activities.

169

• During this period the owner representative have not responded to the contractor

letters within the required time. Where the contractor considered that delay in

response to his notice is an acceptance to the notice context.

• The contractor claims that the owner supervision engineer failed to provide

instruction during the project implementation, a thing which caused delay in some

activities.

• The owner supervision team was not able to solve the residence interfering during

project implementation, where a lot of time the contractor was stopped by the area

residence.

• The overlapping between the supervision team consisting of the Consultant

Engineer, the MLG Project manager and Municipality managers. In some cases

there were contradictions in the supervision responsibility among the supervision

parties.

For the Deduction of (labors number)

• The contractor rejected the amount of deduction in the invoice final payment. The

project was supervised by the Municipality engineer, Consultant and MLG

engineer; the project activities are monitored on daily basis especially regarding

number of labors used on site. All data was recorded by the Municipality site labors

superintendent and checked by the owner supervision engineer.

• The contractor informed owner project manager that project activities will be

completed in two weeks, and whether if there is any obligation for using additional

labors to satisfy labors numbers condition in the site. The Municipality engineer

did not comment nor did request any additional extra labors to be used for these two

weeks.

For the deduction of (Delay days)

• The contractor stopped working during project period because of Force Majeure.

He informed the owner supervision engineer officially that he is unable to continue

working because of the security situation and the unexpected raise in material prices

• The contractor requested owner supervision team to consider this issue. The owner

supervision team responded to contractor, requesting him to continue working but

the contractor refused to work because of the inflexible local works situation and

170

unexpected material prices increment. After two weeks the owner supervision team

responded to his request and conducted a meeting at the Municipality office with

attendance of the Municipality [mayor, legal advisor, project manger, and site

engineer], Consultant engineer, MLG unit project manger and the contractor.

• The Municipality promised the contractor to consider this situation and they will

reimburse him for unexpected material prices increment differences.


• The owner presented his point of view as the following:

• This project is a job creation project funded by BB. The contract conditions content

stipulate that contractor should hire the required labors number during project

implementation period.

• The donor conditions for this program should be implemented by using labors

intensive method by minimizing use of equipments and depending on the labors

power that works only in site.

• The project supervision parties’ roles are identified and not overlapped with the

supervision team responsibility. During starting project implementation a meeting

was conducted with the owner (project manager, site engineer) and contractor

(Company owner site engineer) to assign the role of each party. At the end of this

meeting the contractor informed that the owner consultant site engine is the first

point to be contacted and all instruction should be give by him only and all

contractor letters should be submitted to him to be checked with owner. But the

contractor during project implementation did not take into account the owner site

engineer instruction and always ignore his instruction

• During project implementation, many instructions were given to the contractor

related to his performance, and according to conditions of contract requirement but

the contractor ignored this instructions and all notes were given by the site engineer

especially related to the labor percentage condition.

• Regarding the residence interfering during project implementation, the municipality

supervision team assists in solving the problems directly with residences and these

issues was not causing any delays for the contractor performance.

• Regarding borders closures issues and the unexpected raise in material prices, the

contractor, before starting the project implementation during mobilization stage, has

171

stored all needed raw material in the project site warehouse, according to contractor

claim that no construction materials available in the market is not true but the

contractor was hogging in gaining more profit by using these circumstances as

excuse for not working.

• Contract provision related to the claim submitted by the contractor and according

to the contract condition are :

1. The first deduction related to shortage of labor percentage:

• The agreement contract clause No 8 mentioned

The Contractor should hire labors covering 25% of the contract value and he should

pay them $10 per day per person. [Agreement 16/3/2002]

• The pre bid meeting clause No 2 mentioned

The Contractor should use the assigned numbers of laborers (4296 working

opportunities during the project period) the hired names list should be presented to the

winning contractor by the labor union, the daily payment is $10 per day per person for

8 working hours daily including the lunch break. There will be a penalty charge of

$15 for each labor/day if contractor fails to supply the required labor numbers/day

.The contractor supervision team & drivers are not included in the labors list during

the project period. [Pre bid meeting date 7/2/2202]

• The Conditions of contract clause No 35.1 mentioned

The Contractor shall, if required by the engineer, deliver to the engineer a return in

detail, in such form and at such intervals as the engineer may prescribe showing the

staff and the numbers of the several classes of labor from time to time employed by

the contractor on site.

• The conditions of contract clause No 32.4 mentioned

In respect of such works executed on a daily work basis, the contractor shall, during the

continuity of such work deliver each day to the owner engineer an exact list in duplicate

of the names, occupation and time sheet of all workmen employed on such work and a

statement, also in duplicate, showing the description and quantity of all materials and

contractor’s equipment which is included in the percentage addition in accordance with

172

such a day work schedule. One copy of each list and statement will, when agreed, be

signed by the engineer and returned to the contractor at the end of each month. The

contractor shall deliver to the engineer a priced statement of the labor, materials and

contractor’s equipment used, and the contractor shall not be entitled to any payment

unless such lists and statements have been fully and punctually rendered. Provided that

if the engineer considers that for any reason the sending of such lists or statements by

the contractor, in accordance with the foregoing provision, was impracticable, he shall

nevertheless be entitled to authorized payment for such work, either as day work, on

being satisfied as to the time employed and the labor materials and contractor’s

equipment used on such work, or at such a value at, in his would be fair and reasonable

in his opinion.

2. For the second decision related deduction for delays

• Liquidated damage for delay clause No 47.1

If the contractor fails to comply with the time for completion in accordance with

clause 48 for the whole of the works, or if applicable, any section within the relevant

time prescribed be clause 43 , then the contractor shall pay to the employer the

relevant sum stated in Appendix to tender as liquidated damages foe such default and

not as a penalty for every day or part of a day which shall lapse between the relevant

time for completion and the date stated in taking over certificate of the whole works

or the relevant section subject to the applicable limit stated in the appendix to tender.

The employer may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, deduct the

amount of such damages from any amount of money due to the contractor. The

payment or deduction of such damages shall not relieve the contractor from his

obligation to complete the works, or any other obligations and liabilities under the

contract.

5.4.13.3 Third Party Point of View (Neutral)

Ministry of local Government (MLG) reacts as neutral party reviewed the case presented by

the two parties as following:-

• Review all project documents and site daily work report

• Meeting with every party individually

• Holding meeting with all parties

173

• According to the Municipality point of view and the presented document including

the notes and instruction give to the contractor during the project implementation

stage, it was clear that the contractor ignored these instructions.

For the Force Majoeur claims the contractor failed to prove that he was affected

from the unexpected material increase.

5.4.14 Case Conclusion • According to the different points of view of all relevant parties the MLG decide to

support the Municipality decision in the deductions of the shortage in labor percentage

and for the work delay and reject the contractor claims issues regarding Force Majeure

and delays of activities as result of border closure .

• Final decision was taken by the Municipality to deduct USD12,060 from the contractor

final payment invoice.

• The contractor rejected this deduction totally, but the claim case was closed up to this

stage; the contractor was unable to continue supporting his claims and to prove his right

in the claim issues.


• The causes of the claim were clarified as delays case.

• According to the sequences of this case study. It's observed that the contractor was not

able to perform the activities according to the conditions of contract. Also the owner

representative should alert the contractor with his failure of performing activities during

project period.

• The contractor claim was the weak side as result of the contractor performance in

following up contract conditions, and trying to pay no attention to the contract conditions

and the supervision instruction that cause him to lose his case.

• Contractor has no experience in project administration and contract conditions.

• The contractor has not employed a good project manager to assist in administrating

project activities; instead, of that he recruited, site engineer with a less experience limited.

• Residents interfering during project implementation are part of the claim issues but the

contractor he was not able to prove it, and there was no good documentation for these

circumstances.

174

• It can be concluded that the collected case study confirms with the questionnaire result.

Where showed in the result of the claims causes from the first group causes of claims

caused by owners as shown in table 4.11 for the factor of residents interfering during

project implementation causing contractor activities delay and owner slow decisions

factor and the forth group causes of claims caused emergency cases as showed in table

4.23 for the Main borders closures factor, its clear that these factors resulting in delaying

the contractor activities. In the collected case study, this factor are the main factors

causing delaying to the contractor performance, and causing in delaying and stopping the

project activities.

• Regarding claims management process used in this claim, it pass through the same

process, which it was indicated in the research questionnaires and the result of this

process supports this case study where during claims identification as shown in table 4.27

it notices the importance that the contractor staff to be aware on site how to detects claim

and insufficient skilled person for detecting the claim. Also during claim notification

process as shown in table 4.30 the result indicates that unclear procedures in notice

preparation, this issue is indicated in this case.

• From the revised project documents for this case we didn’t find any clear procedures to

be followed by the two sides, where in this case the owner take the lead to inform the

contractor with his performance, this issue direct the contractor to present his claim. Also

during the claim examination from the research questionnaires result in table 4.33, where

it indicates that most problems associated with this process is unavailability of record

document used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery, the contractor did not use

official document in estimating the required claim recovery, the claim case study result

conform this issue with the claim examination process results for most of the presented

factors. Regarding the claim documentation process it is clear that the case study confirm

with most factors result in this process showed in table 4.36, where the contractor during

claim management process was not be able to present all needed information in written

especially to claim cost and inaccurate recorded information and ineffective record

keeping systems.



indicates that the most problems associated with this process are the inaccessibility of

175



• Finally the negotiation process it takes different stages but the two parties were not able

to reached to any settlement, where the contractor lose his claim and the owner deduct

from the contractor final payment because of the delays according to the contract

conditions (Liquidated Damage). this issue support the questionnaires results factors as

shown in table 4.41 that conflicts happened during negotiation process and the contractor

hasn't experience in having a good negotiation skills to support and defense his claim.

5.5 All Cases Studies Conclusions

No. Claim Type Agreement Lessoned learnt

1. Changes Amicable settlement It is concluded that agreement of claim cases by negotiation process is the shortest way.

2. Force Majeure litigation process

The stages passed by this case show that litigation process is costly as result of hiring a legal adviser and consuming long period.

3. Delays Amicable settlement It is concluded that agreement of claim cases by negotiation process is the shortest way.

4. Delays Not settled

For this case, the two parties were unable to reach any agreement, where mostly in this case the contractors are the losing party.

Form the collected cases studies and result that have been obtained from 83 contractor and

101 owners’ questionnaires. It can be concluded that the collected cases studies confirms

with the questionnaire result especially for causes of claims for the selected actual claims

cases studies, these factors are documented in the research questionnaires results.

Regarding the claims management process for the four actual case studies presenting the

sample of how actual situation of claims management process used in the Gaza Strip

construction industry for public project sectors. .


in the Gaza Strip

CHAPTER 6

CLAIM MANAGEMENT PROCESS

176

CHAPTER 6 : CLAIM MANAGEMENT PROCESS

This chapter presents the claim management process, where this process employing and

coordinating resource to a progress of a claim from identifications, notifications,

examinations, documentations, presentation and negotiation. These processes are important

for any claims issues.

The contractors and owners should be a ware about this process and understand it

extremely. The current frame work shown in Figure 6.1 presents a claim management

process to be used as a guide line by the contractors and owners supervisions team and

staff. This framework was concluded from the current research study results and from

studying the collected actual claims cases from constructions projects in the Gaza strip.

6.1 Claim Identification

Identification of claim situation is the most important phase of the entire claims process, the

contractors staff should be aware about the importance of time in identification claims

causes, in this process the causes of claim should be identified clearly, the causes of claim

were clarified in this study in chapter 4 and the result of this research indicated the most

importance and major factors resulting in causing claims issues to construction projects in

the Gaza Strip. Failure in identifying factors which cause the claims could result in

affecting the contractor to prove his right to the claim. The contractor project manager is

supposed to be the responsible person to identify the claims causes. For that it is required

to have a good experience in implementation the construction project, know and familiar

with project contract conditions and project documents. The project manager should be in a

direct contact with the company manager by keeping informing them the project

performance status.

6.2 Claim Notification

Notification of claims must be followed after identification of the claims factors. Time is

important in this procedure. The contractor project manager should discuss the claim case

with the company manager after that an initial official letters will be submitted to the

owner' representative informing them with the existing situation, problems case and its

sequences. The primary notification letter will assist in proving contractor right to the claim

issues, and it will alert the owner with potential claim case. The initial letter should be

short, clear, simple straight to the problem, conciliatory, cooperative, and trying to present

the firm in a good manner.

177

6.3 Claim Examination

Claim examination involves establishing the actual factors causing the claims, also it

investigates in the sequences of the claim causes. The contractor should be aware of the

accurate conditions which resulting in losing time and cost. Claim examination depends on

the contractor capability to investigate the project sequences impacts and in data

information collection. During this process the contractor through his project manager

should check all details related to the over cost of the project budget. Through out this

process the contractor should be able to estimate the actual potential recovery of the claim

cost (direct and indirect cost). It's recommended in this stage that all estimating cost issues

to be collected in a clear simple way according to the claims sequences facts and to be

supported with official documents, over estimating and exaggeration in money mislay are

not recommended because it can reduce or lose your right to the claim.

6.4 Claim Documentation

Claim documentation process is considered one of the importunate processes of the claim

management. In this stage all previous steps related to the claim identification, notification

and examination should be documented in a high-quality work. This process depends on

the solid collection of documents and information, where the good preparation of this

process can assist in presenting the correct documents and evidences which can support the

contractor right to the claim. The contractor should document all project activities,

especially that activities related to events and changes affect the contractor works

performance. It’s important to mention that good accurate documentation helping during

claim presentation process through supporting the claim with all needed documents and

data. Also it can assist during the claim negotiation process in presenting the attached

evidences of the claim causes and cost of damages. The claimant must maintain records

that are accurate and complete as possible, where the most important recorded to be

maintain are: [contract document, daily report, preliminary and updates time schedule,

minutes of meeting, correspondents letters, change orders and instruction letters, oral

instruction by the owner to be recorded, labor reports, material and equipments cost reports,

subcontractors cost reports, project photos, site office and head office expenses reports, any

other necessary records].

178

6.5 Claim Presentation

Claim presentation process is presenting a comprehensive claim report in official way.

Good preparation for the report outline is required in this stage; the details should classify

the claim type and give explanation on the claim sequences and required cost to be

recovered as result of the claim situation. It’s important that the submission of the claim

report to be presented at the right time according to project owner requirement and contract

conditions. The report should be attached with official cover letter issued by the company

manager and the report must include the following information: executive summary, project

back ground, issues analysis, cost impact, damages, and back up documentation.

6.6 Claim Negotiation

Claim negotiation plays an important role in resolving claims. This process consuming all

the preparations of the previous process in the claim management, in this stage the two

parties (contractor and owner) discuss the claim issues. It’s important to the contractor to be

aware of the importance of this stage and know how to benefit from the direct negotiation

with the owner representative, time is important during discussion the problems. The

contractor should be able to convince the other party with his claim and present all

evidences that supporting and proving the claim case. A good preparation are required

before starting any negotiation meeting, revising the claim report and all related project

documents and organize all data in a list which can assist during negotiation process. In this

stage the legal advisor role is required to be part of the work team , also it's important that

the company manager or representative is authorized to give decisions and make

agreements during the negotiation of the claim with the project owner representative.

Finally we should mention that this process is considered the most economical, practical,

simplest and faster method of settling claims.

179

No

Yes

1. Claim Identification Determine causes of claim [Causes by: Owner, design and bill of quantity, contractual relationship, and emergency cases].

2. Claim Notification Formally notify the owner with the problem. The initial letter should be short, clear (Indicate the problem), sample, conciliatory.

• This is the first and critically important ingredient of the claim process.

• Time and accurate facts are required in this process.

3. Claim Examination Examining and evaluate the claims, through checking all projects document to prove there is time and cost element of the claim.

4. Claim Documentation Collecting all project documents [contract, bill of quantity, specification, drawings, time schedule, cash flow, daily report, correspondences letters, interoffice memos, minutes of meeting, photographs and other forms oral or written communication ……]

5. Claim Presentation • Submitting the claim report which should

consist of the following : I. Cover letter

II. Executive Summary III. Project Back ground IV. Issues analysis V. Cost impact and damages

VI. Back up documentation

• Alert the other party of the problems

• The documentation facts are the glue that holds the legal frame work.

• Assist the contractor in supporting and proving his right for the claim.

• The contractor presents his claims in formal way and attached with comprehensive reports.

• Details to claims cost are presenting (direct, indirect, and impacts cost).

• Playing a big role in resolving claims.

• Most economical, practical, simplest and faster method of settling claims.

• Keeping a harmonious relation between project parties.

Claim Management Process

Owner

�- Project Manager

�- Legal Advisor

� - Project Team

Arbitration or Litigation

• Establishing the legal and factual ground of the claims

Amicable Settlement

6. Claim Negotiation The two parties [Contractor and Owner] negotiate the claim issues

Contractor

�- Project Manager

�- Legal Advisor

� - Project Team

Donor \ Fund Agency

�- Project Manager or Representative

Figure 5.1 Claim Management Process


in the Gaza Strip

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSTION AND RECOMMENDATION

180

CHAPTER 7 : CONCLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION

The main objective of this study is to investigate the current practices of claims causes and

management in the local construction Industry in the Gaza Strip. This chapter includes the

conclusion, and practical recommendation to improve construction claims management in

the construction industry in the Gaza Strip.

7.1 Conclusion

The study findings of the first group (causes of claims caused by owners) indicated that

residents interfering during project implementation caused contractor activities to be

delayed in the first position, and the unexpected increment in material prices in the second

position. These have been the highest cases resulting in this field. The result indicate that

there is agreeability between the contractors and owners points of view regarding these

cases which can be considered as main causes of claims occurrence.

The study finding of the second group (design and bill of quantity) indicate that the

contractors respondent ranked different description for the item in the bill of quantity from

what is mentioned in the specification in the first position, and drawing and bill of quantity

are not fitting the construction site in the second position. These have been the highest

cases resulting in this field where the respondent owners ranked ambiguous and incomplete

drawing and bill of quantity in the first position and the drawing and bill of quantity are not

fitting the construction site as the second most important cause position. The results

indicate that there are different agreeability between the contractor’s and owner’s point of

view regarding these cases which can be considered as main causes of claims occurrence.

The study finding of the third (contractual relationship factor) group indicate that awarding

bid to the Lower bidder in the first position and payment requests are not followed up when

submitting invoices, these has been ranked as the second most important cause position in

the second position. These have been the highest cases resulting in this field. The result

indicate that there are agreeability between the contractors and owners point of view

regarding these cases which can be considered as main causes of claims occurrence.

181

The study finding of the fourth group (emergency cases) indicate border closures were in

the first position, and road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities, occupied cities

and governorates were in the second position. These have been the highest cases resulting

in this field. The results indicate that there are agreeability between the contractors and

owners point of view regarding these cases which can be considered as main causes of

claims occurrence.

The result of analyzing part three of the questionnaires consist of common procedures

categories which are distributed into six groups or fields, (claim identification, claim

notifications, claim examination, claim documentation, claim presentation, claim

negotiation)

The study finding of the first group of the claims identification, the contractor respondents

indicate that lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim was in the first position,

and insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim in the second position, where these

two factors approve that most of contractor are lacking the specialist person to assist

contractor in identifying claims during project implementation. Meanwhile the owner

respondents’ ranked the contractors aware of job factors giving right to a claim in the first

position for this group. The result indicates that contractors opinion regarding claims

identification are different from the owners. These issues can result in misunderstanding

between the two parties and are considered as main causes of claims occurrence during this

stage

The study finding of the second group of the claims notification, the contractor

respondents indicate inaccessibility of documents to be attached along with notice in the

first position, and unclear procedures in notice preparation in the second position, where

these two factors present contractors feeling regarding claims notification which may affect

contractor rights in the claims. Meanwhile the owner respondents indicate the problems of

this process that contractor always submits the notice in writing in the first position for this

group. The result indicate that the contractors opinions regarding claims notification are

different from the owners , and these issues can result in misunderstanding between the

two parties, thus becoming the main causes of claims occurrence during this stage

182

The study finding of the third group of the claims examination, the contractor respondents

indicate unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery in the

first position, and unclear responsible person to analyze and evaluate the amount of

recovery in the second position, where these two factors present contractors views

regarding claims examination this affecting contractor evaluation to the claim cost.

Meanwhile the owner respondents indicate the problems associated with this process that

entitlement factors are always shown and referred (entitlement factors: foresee ability,

control, causation, and legal responsibility) in the first position for this group. The result

indicate that contractors opinion regard claims examination are different from the owner ,

which these issues can result in misunderstanding between the two parties and are

considered as main causes of claims occurrence during this stage.

The study findings of the forth group of the claims documentation, the contractor

respondents and owners indicates some information is not kept in writing in the first

position, where this result indicate that there is agreeability between the contractors and

owners points of view regarding claims documentation process.

The study finding of the fifth group of the claims presentation, the contractor respondents

indicate inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim in the first

position, and insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission in the second

position. Thuse two factors present contractors' views regarding claim presentation which

may affect contractor to present the claim in a good and approved way. Meanwhile owner

respondents indicate the problems associated with this process that the claims submitted by

contractors are always clear using simple words so it is easy to understand in the first

position for this group. The results indicate that contractors opinions regard, claim

presentation are different from the owners , and these issues resulting in misunderstanding

between the two parties, this becoming the main causes of claims, occurrence during this

stage.

The study finding of the sixth group of the claims negotiation, the contractor respondents

indicate conflicts during negotiation in the first position, and lack of experts, who have

good negotiation skills in the second position, these two factors present contractors views

regarding claims negotiation as factors that may affect contractor during claim negotiation

because of lack of specialist person to assist contractor in claims negotiation issue with the

owner side

183

Meanwhile the owner respondents indicate the problems associated with this process, that

contractor always put the most effort to mitigate the settlement by litigation or arbitration in

the first position for this group. The results indicate that contractors’ opinions regarding

claims negotiation are different from the owners, and these issues can result in

misunderstanding between the two parties and considered as main causes of claims

occurrence during this stage.

The result of analyzing part four of the questionnaires consist of particular claims

categories which are distributed into three groups or fields, (time extension claims, claims

from change orders and design related claims) where in this part the questions were given

to contractors only.

The study findings of the time extension claims group of the particular claims categories

the contractor respondents indicate the difficulty to prove the entitlement of claims in the

first position, and lack of staff, who are expert in time impact analysis in the second

position, the two factors present contractors points of view, regarding time extension of

claims which as result of contractor inability to prove his right in the time extension

because of lack of specialist person.

The study finding of claims from change orders group of the particular claims categories,

the contractor respondents indicate problem due to verbal changes or directives by the

engineer in the first position, and the controversy in negotiating a price or rate of varied

work in the second position. these two factors present contractors as obstacles regarding

change orders claims, in most of cases the contractor fail to prove his right.

The study findings of the design related claims group of the particular claims categories

have been shown the contractors respondents indicate ineffective design review during

bidding stage in the first position, and fail to timely notify the owner of potential problems

about drawing in the second position, where these two factors present contractors point of

view regarding design related claims as an issue which affects the contractors performance.

On the other hand the study indicates that contractors during project implementation face

difficulty in the claims identifications, notifications, examinations, and documentations.

Where these issues are not organized in a formal process.

184

The research illustrates that contractor and owners firms during claims presentation and

negotiation suffer from lack of a specialist person to present and negotiate claims cases in

professional way.

The study indicates that the traditional or conventional techniques are still used in tender

procedures and awarding to the lowest bidder offer without consideration to the project

estimated cost thus as main sources causes of claims.

The finding obtained from the actual collected cases studies in chapter 5, shows that the

highest claims cases result from unexpected material increment which increases the

contractor expenses, Also border closures have affected contractors’ performance, thus

causing delays in work activities. Some claims result from unforeseen activities as result of

unprepared project documents and drawings. Some of these cases, the contractor was

succeeded to win his case and to be reimbursed by the owner due to the factor that the

contractor engineer was able to prove the contractor right to the claim as result of good

understanding of the contract conditions, but the majority of these cases the contractors

failed to proved that the presented claims are accurate, and contractor should be reimbursed

for this damage or delays issues resulting during project implementation and was not

expected activities. Most of these cases solved by amicable settlement between contractor

and owner parties. The collected cases approved and support the study result in chapter 4,

where that direct negotiation between the owners and contractor are the faster and best way

to solve the claim. Where some of these cases shifted to be solved by arbitration or

litigation process which takes long period for reaching to any settlement between all parties

and create more complications and cost among contract parties.

Also it can be concluded from the collected local contracts and revised data that claims

procedures are mentioned in different way in most local contracts and in some do not

facilitate claim conditions and procedures. Which create difficulty to the contractor in

discussion and presenting claims cases to the owner. But it can be notices in FIDIC

contract, that the claims procedures are indicated in comprehensive way, which gives rights

to all contract parties (Contractor/owner). Also it can be concluded that Construction

contract used in Gaza are one sided, unfair and unbalanced, all risks are shifted to the

contractor side. The owner practices its power with the virtue of contract conditions.

185

7.2 Recommendations

1. It is recommended to revise the local construction project contracts and to standardize it

through establishing an official committee which consists of all related ministries

working in public construction projects, contracting union, engineering syndicate,

lawyer syndicate and specialist engineering consulting firms.

2. It is recommended that owners and contractors use legal advisor services during contract

preparation. Contractors should check construction contract documents and obtain

advice from expert lawyer before signing any contract.

3. It is advisable that public contract documents be presented in local Arabic language,

which can assist contractors and owners to understand the contents and conditions of

the document.

4. Owners during project preparation and design should coordinate with residents of the

project area to inform them regarding the project out put, because this issue can assist in

reducing resident interference during project implementation and they can assist in

removing obstacles from the project site.

5. It is advisable that contractors recruit a good project manager who has a good

experience in construction projects implementation and construction claim knowledge.

6. It is recommended that owners and contractors hold training programmers in

construction claims management in order to increase their awareness regarding this

issue.

7. Contractors should keep a good documentation records. Because this documentation can

assist in supporting, presenting and proving the contractor claims.

8. It is advisable that owners should inform the contractors regarding claims procedures

process, and hold continual meeting to discuss claims issues presented by the

contractors.

9. It is advisable that contractors and owners push and focus on negotiating the claims

issues because it is the most economical and shortest way to the two parties to solve the

claim conflict.

10. It is recommended to use the claim management chart showed in Figure 5.1 as initial

guide line assist contractors and owner in applying claims process.

186

7.3 Proposed Further Studies

Its is necessary to re-study each claims procedures categories in details in order to

concentrate in setting up a claim form procedures to be familiars for all owners and

contractors firms and to be used as guide line for all project parties.

187

Reference

Ahuja Hira N. 1994. Project management techniques in planning and controlling construction projects. Second edition, University of Toronto. Alkalil, M. and Alghafly, M. 1999. Important causes of delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction Management and Economic, Vol. 17, pp.647-655. Al Moumani HA.2000. Construction delays: a quantitative analysis. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18, pp. 51-9 . Alkass S., Mazerolle M. and Harris F.1996. Construction delay analysis techniques. International Journal of Construction Management and Economics Vol. 14, pp. 375-394. Arditi D. and Patel K. 1989. Expert system for claim management in construction projects. International Journal of Projects Management, Vol. 7, N0. 31, pp.141-146. Bramble Barry B. 1990. Avoiding and resolving construction claims. First edition, RS Means company, INC. Bramble B.B.,and Callahan M.T. 1992. Construction delay claims. Second edition. Wiley New York. Bristow, D.J. and Vasilopoulos, R.1995. The new CCDC2: facilitating dispute resolution of construction projects. Construction Law Journal, 11, 95-117. Bshait K. and Manzanera I. 1998. Claim management. International Journal of Projects Management, Vol. 8, N0. 4, pp.222-228. Creative research systems, 2001. Easton,G.R. 1989. Construction claims. Department of civil engineering. Loughborough University, U.K. Fellows, R., Liu, A.. 1997 Research methods for construction. Blackwell Science Ltd Heath, B.C., Hills,B. and Berry,M.1994. The nature and origin of conflict within the construction process. Construction conflict: management and resolution (ed.P.Fenn) Procrrding of the CIBTG15 Conference, Kentucky. CIB Publication,171,3548. Kartam S. 1999. Generic methodology for analyzing delay claims. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, pp. 409-419. Keane P.J. 1994. A computer–aided systematic approach to time delay analysis for extension of time claim on construction projects. PhD Thesis, loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough.

188

Kululanga G.K., Kuotchs W.. McCffer R. 2001. Construction contractors claim process framework . International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, pp. 309-314. Mansfeild NR, Ugwu OO, Doran T. 1994. Causes of delay and cost overrun in Nigerian construction projects. International Journal of Projects Management, Vol. 12, N0. 4, pp.254-60. Means R.S. 1991. Means Illustrated Construction Dictionary, R.S. Mean company, Inc., construction consultants and publishers, Kingston, MA. Mezher TM & Tawil W. 1998. Causes of delays in the construction industry in Lebanon. Journal of Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5, N0. 3 pp. 251-60. Ministry of Planning (MOP), Reports www.mop.gov.ps., 2005. Ministry of local Government (MLG), Reports 2004. Ministry of Housing and Public work, work shop 2005. Mitchell Roy S. 1998 Construction contract claims ,changes and dispute resolution. Second edition. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York Naoum,S.G.,1998. Dissertation research and writing for construction student. Reed educational and professional publishing Ltd. Odeh A. N. and Battaineh H. T. 2002. Causes of construction delays: traditional contracts. International Journal of Project Management. Vol. 2, N0. 20, pp.67-73. Odeyinka HA, Yusif A.1997. The causes and effects of construction delays on completion cost of housing projects in Nigeria. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction. Vol. 2, N0. 3, pp.31-44. Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), Reports, www.pcbs.gov.ps, 2004. Palestine Contractors Union (PCU), Reports 2004. Poilt, D., and Hungler, B., 1985. Essentials of nursing research; Methods and applications, J. B. Lippincott company. Powell-Smith, V.and Stephenson, D.2000, Civil Engineering Claims. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Ren Z., Anumba C. J. and Ugwu O.O, 2003. The development of a multi- agent system for construction claims negotiation. Advances in engineering software, Vol. 34, pp.683-696.

189

Ren Z., Anumba C. J. and Ugwu O.O 2001. Construction claims management: towards and agent-based approach . Engineering, construction and Architectural management, Vol. 8, pp.185-197. Riad N., Arditi and Mohammad J.1991. A conceptual model for claim management in construction. Journal of Computers and Structures. Vol. 40, N0. 1, pp.67-74. Richter I., 2000. Are Construction claims inevitable. Hill International Inc.,Vol. 34, pp.683-696. Sawyer,J.G. and Gillot, C.A.1990. The FIDIC digest:Contractual relationship responsibilities and claims the fourth edition of FIDIC conditions. Thomas Telford, London. Yates J.1993. Construction decision support system for delay analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE , Vol. 2, pp. 226-44. Yogeswaran K., Kumaraswamy M., and Miller D.,1998. Claims for extension of time in civil engineering projects . International Journal of Construction Management and Economics Vol. 16, pp. 283-293. Vidogah,W. and Ndekugri, I. 1998.Improving the management of Claims on Construction Contract : consultants perspective. Construction Management and Economic, Vol. 16, pp.363-372. Wilson, R.L. 1982. Prevention and resolution of construction claims. Journal of Construction Divisions ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 390-40

190


ANNEX 1

DATA CRITERTION RELATED VALIDITY

( Contractor and Owner Point View )

191

Contractor Owner

2 . Causes and factors resulting in claims in

construction projects Correlation Coefficient

P-value Significance

/ Not Significance

Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance

1.0 Claims factors caused by Owner :-

1 Residents interfering during project implementation causing contractor activities delay .

0.680 0.021 * 0.680 0.021 *

2 Unexpected increment in material prices 0.610 0.046 * 0.620 0.032 *

3 Materials rejection because of Quality and specification

0.606 0.048 * 0.637 0.026 *

4 Continuous oral instruction to contractor 0.620 0.042 * 0.674 0.016 *

5 Site handling with obstacles (license , land occupation etc..)

0.706 0.015 * 0.701 0.011 *

6 Delay contractor progress payments 0.605 0.049 * 0.659 0.020 * 7 Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus 0.914 0.000 ** 0.633 0.027 *

8 Changes in material type and specification during construction

0.655 0.29 * 0.658 0.020 *

9 Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed

0.676 0.022 * 0.692 0.013 *

10 Owner's slow decisions 0.688 .019 * 0.710 0.010 **

11 Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and resources

0.633 0.037 * 0.614 0.034 *

12 The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

0.622 0.041 * 0.639 0.025 *

13 Changes of Currency Value [Index Value ] 0.702 0.016 * 0.729 0.007 **

14 Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in decisions

0.645 0.032 * 0.606 0.037 *

15 Owner's direct interfering in project without any coordination and ignoring his supervision team

0.635 0.036 * 0.810 0.001 **

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level * Correlation is significant at the .05 level

Part 2 :

192

Contractor Owner




/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

16 Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work activities and following up with owner supervision team

0.703 0.016 * 0.717 0.009 **

17 low Quality assurance and control in the project 0.654 0.029 * 0.669 0.017 *

18 Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his supervision team

0.946 0.000 ** 0.637 0.026 *

19 lack of supervision team experience in project supervision

0.663 0.026 * 0.649 0.022 *

20 lack of owner support to his supervision team 0.645 0.032 * 0.580 0.048 *

21 Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner / supervision team

0.685 0.020 * 0.712 0.009 **

22 Chang in Site location or conditions 0.625 0.040 * 0.769 0.003 **

23 Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation.

0.647 0.031 * 0.849 0.000 **

2.Design and Bill of Quantity :-

24 Different description for the item in the bill of quantity than is mentioned in the specification

0.684 0.020 * 0.588 0.044 *

25 Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site

0.694 0.018 * 0.635 0.25 *

26 Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity

0.679 0.022 * 0.666 0.018 **

27 Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction

0.610 0.046 * 0.661 0.019 *

28 Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market

0.705 0.015 * 0.601 0.039 *

29 Over design 0.662 0.026 * 0.627 0.029 *


193

Contractor Owner




/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

3. Contractual relationship factor :- 30 Awarding bid to the Lower bidder 0.701 0.016 * 0.867 0.000 **

31 Payment period are not followed when submitting invoices

0.622 0.041 * 0.681 0.015 *

32 Awarding process take long period after bid open process 0.638 0.035 * 0.830 0.001 **

33 Poor contract management and ambiguities 0.651 0.030 * 0.860 0.000 ** 34 Different type of contracts 0.720 0.012 * 0.750 0.005 **

35 Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law

0.695 0.012 * 0.674 0.016 *

36 Chang in the legislation and process ( as Tax free or changing in the Tax Value.)

0.610 0.046 * 0.702 0.011 *

4. Emergence Cases :- 37 Main borders closures 0.605 0.049 * 0.680 0.015 *

38 Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities , Cities and Governorate Occupation

0.671 0.024 * 0.604 0.038 *

39 Natural conditions factors (Bad weather ,ect…) 0.635 0.036 * 0.578 0.049 * 40 Un foreseen material arise in the site 0.663 0.026 * 0.631 0.028 * 41 Demonstrations and strikes 0.623 0.041 * 0.687 0.014 *


194

PART 3 – COMMON PROCEDURES 3.1 CLAIM IDENTIFICATION

Contractor Owner

3.1.1 Problems associated with the process of

CLAIM IDENTIFICATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim 0.636 0.035 * 0.835 0.001 ** 2 Insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim 0.614 0.044 * 0.720 0.008 **

3 Inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a claim

0.652 0.030 * 0.752 0.005 **

4 Unclear procedures in identification of claim 0.681 0.021 * 0.901 0.000 **

5 Unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem

0.740 0.009 **

6 Inadequate time due to high workload 0.619 0.042 *

7 Difficult to detect any problems during the work due to a lot of work to do

0.653 0.029 *

8 Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site

0.766 0.006 **

9 Poor communication between site and Head Office

0.630 0.038 *


195

PART 3 – COMMON PROCEDURES 3.2 CLAIM NOTIFICATION

Contractor Owner


CLAIM NOTIFICATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Inaccessibility of documents used for attaching a long with notice

0.734 0.010 * 0.892 0.000 **

2 Unclear procedures in notice preparation 0.767 0.006 ** 0.708 0.010 * 3 Unclear responsibility to prepare the notice 0.798 0.003 ** 0.734 .007 **

4 Queries back from other parties due to the ambiguities of notice

0.612 0.045 * 0.659 0.020 *

5 Prescribed time in the contract is too short 0.636 0.035 * 6 No standard form used of preparing the notice 0.763 .006 **

7 Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload

0.691 0.019 *

8 Poor communication t submit a written notice 0.598 0.052 *


196

PART 3 – COMMON PROCEDURES 3.3 CLAIM EXAMINATION

Contractor Owner


CLAIM EXAMINATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery

0.653 0.029 * 0.948 0.000 **

2 Unclear responsible person to analyze and evaluate the amount of recovery

0.724 0.012 * 0.788 0.002 **

3 lack of Knowledge of legal and contract to establish the grounds

0.671 0.024 * 0.914 .000 **

4 Unclear procedures in claim examination 0.637 0.035 *

5 No standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages

0.794 0.004 **

6 Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages 0.582 .060 **

7 Poor communication fro gathering the required information to analyze a claim

0.598 0.052 *

8 Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload

0.696 0.017 *

9 Insufficient computerized machine to facilitate the calculation

0.734 0.010 *


197

PART 3 – COMMON PROCEDURES 3.4 CLAIM DOCUMENTATION

Contractor Owner


CLAIM DOCUMENTATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Some information is not kept in writing 0.741 0.009 ** 0.657 0.020 * 2 Oral instruction by owner 0.639 0.034 * 0.624 0.030 * 3 Inaccessibility of documents when required 0.744 0.009 ** 0.852 0.000 ** 4 Inaccurate recorded information 0.704 0.016 * 0.676 0.016 * 5 Ineffective record keeping system 0.705 0.015 * 0.736 0.006 **

6 No standard form used to record the data during construction memos, etc.

0.692 0.018 * 0.712 0.009 **

7 Overdue process in retrieving the document back 0.603 0.050 * 0.739 0.006 **

8 Lack of computerized technology applied for documentation system

0.712 0.014 * 0.613 0.034 *

9 Expensive to retrieve required information 0.774 0.005 ** 0.886 0.000 **


198

Contractor Owner

3.4.2 When required, which document are often

unavailable CLAIM DOCUMENTATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Contract document 0.755 0.007 ** 0.895 0.000 ** 2 Preliminary and baseline schedules 0.743 0.009 ** 0.800 0.002 ** 3 Updates project schedules 0.734 0.010 * 0.690 0.013 ** 4 Relevant correspondence between parties 0.796 .003 ** 0.812 0.01 ** 5 Daily reports and logs 0.897 0.000 ** 0.900 0.000 ** 6 Oral Instruction 0.799 0.003 ** 0.698 0.012 * 7 Clarification memos 0.658 0.028 * 0.695 0.012 * 8 Change order logs 0.754 0.007 ** 0.634 0.027 * 9 Quality control report 0.733 0.010 * 0.626 0.029 *

10 Photograph depicting the problems 0.934 0.000 ** 0.681 0.015 * 11 Cost report and records 0.712 0.014 * 0.732 0.007 ** 12 Meeting minutes 0.643 0.033 * 0.611 0.035 * 13 Submittal logs 0.721 0.012 * 0.667 0.018 * 14 labor power chart 0.920 0.000 ** 0.681 0.015 *


199

3.5 CLAIM PRESENTATION

Contractor Owner


CLAIM PRESENTATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim

0.0729 0.011 * 0.802 0.002 **

2 Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission

0.704 0.016 * 0.782 0.003 **

3 Unclear responsible person to prepare full report of claim presentation

0.619 0.042 * 0.849 0.000 **

4 Unclear procedures in preparation of claim presentation

0.670 0.024 * 0.624 0.030 *

5 No standard format of a claim submission 0.605 0.049 * 0.838 0.001 **

6 Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload

0.779 0.005 ** 0.875 0.000 **

7 Poor communication to present a claim 0.669 0.024 * 0.758 0.004 **


200

3.6 CLAIM NEGOTIATION

Contractor Owner


CLAIM NEGOTIATION Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Conflicts during negotiation 0.794 0.004 ** 0.733 0.007 ** 2 Lack of expert who have good negotiation skills 0.656 0.028 * 0.635 0.027 * 3 Insufficient evidences to convince other parties 0.649 0.031 * 0.686 0.014 * 4 Adversarial relationship with other parties 0.691 0.019 * 0.842 0.001 **

5 Difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration

0.678 0.022 * 0.842 0.001 **

6 Inadequate time due to high workload 0.696 0.017 * 0.671 0.017 *


201

PART 4 – PARTICULAR CLAIMS 4.1 TIME EXTENSTON CLAIMS

Contractor

4.1 TIME EXTENSTON CLAIMS Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance

1 Difficult to prove the entitlement of claims 0.627 0.039 *

2 Lack of staff who is expert in “time impact analysis”

0.698 0.017 *

3 Fail to timely notify the Engineer the potential problems about delay

0.865 0.001 **

4 Difficult to identify damages associated with delays

0.662 0.026 *

5 Difficult to detect problems due to the schedule is not update

0.724 0.012 *

6 Problem in proving that the situation is expected or unexpected

0.666 0.025 *


202

4.2 CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS

Contractor

4.2 CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance

1 Problem in proof due to verbal changes or directives by the Engineer

0.860 0.001 **

2 The controversy in negotiating a price or rate of varied work .

0.852 0.001 **

3 Misinterpretation due to ambiguous “ changes clause” in the contract

0.821 0.002 **

4 Problem associated with evaluating and claiming impacts and damages resulting from such a change

0.620 0.042 *

5 Difficult to identify a claim due to various directives advanced by the Engineer during the construction

0.755 0.007 **


203

4.3 DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS

Contractor

4.1 DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance

1 Ineffective design review during bidding stage 0.804 0.003 **

2 Fail to timely notify the Owner of potential problems about drawing

0.753 0.007 **

3 Difficult to justify the ambiguity of drawing 0.778 0.005 **

4 The argument about responsibility for fixing defective designs .

0.817 0.002 **

5 Difficult to justify the responsibility to verify the design

0.770 0.006 **


204


ANNEX 2

DATA STRUCTURE VALIDITY

( Contractor and Owner Point View )

205

2.0 Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects

Contractor Owner

2 . Causes group Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

1 Claims factors caused by Owner -0.174 0.610 0.745 0.005 2 Design and Bill of Quantity 0.288 0.390 0.586 0.045 3 Contractual relationship factor 0.313 0.348 4 Emergence Cases 0.555 0.076


Contractor Owner

3 .0 COMMON PROCEDURES Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance



/ Not Significance

3.1 CLAIM IDENTIFICATION 0.641 0.034 * 0.507 0.092

3.2 CLAIM NOTIFICATION 0.539 0.087 0.309 0.329

3.3 CLAIM EXAMINATION 0.358 0.280 0.712 0.009 **

3.4.1 CLAIM DOCUMENTATION 0.682 0.021 * 0.720 0.008 **

3.4.2 CLAIM DOCUMENTATION 0.938 0.000 ** 0.805 0.002 **

3.5 CLAIM PRESENTATION 0.290 0.386 0.659 0.020 *

3.6 CLAIM NEGOTIATION 0.724 0.12 * 0.307 0.333


Part 2 :

Part 3 :

206

Contractor

4 . PARTICULAR CLAIMS Correlation Coefficient


/ Not Significance

4.1 TIME EXTENSTON CLAIMS 0.913 0.000 **

4.2 CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS 0.455 0.160

4.3 DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS 0.607 0.048 *


Part 4 :

207


ANNEX 3

Kendall Coefficient and Chi-Squre Analysis of Three Groups by Experience and Highest Contract Value

(Contractor)

208

Kendall coefficient & Chi-syure analysis of three groups by experience

5.3.7.1 Contractor employee experience based in common claim procedures categories.

1. Problems in Claim Identifying

Table 1.1 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim identifying Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a claim

0.711 3 0.533 5 0.733 1 0.750 3

2. Unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem

0.666 5 0.533 5 0.692 5 0.684 6

3. Unclear procedures in identification of claim

0.672 4 0.633 2 0.625 6 0.711 4

4. Difficult to detect any problems during the work due to a lot of work to do

0.569 7 0.517 7 0.567 8 0.579 8

5. Inadequate time due to high workload

0.590 6 0.567 4 0.575 7 0.599 7

6. Insufficient skilled personnel for detecting claim

0.720 2 0.483 9 0.733 1 0.789 1

7. lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim

0.723 1 0.633 2 0.708 4 0.757 2

8.Poor communication between site and Head Office

0.512 8 0.500 8 0.475 9 0.533 9

9. Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site

0.512 8 0.650 1 0.725 3 0.704 5

2. Problems in Claim Notification

Table 1.2 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim notification Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents used for attaching a long with notice

0.78 1 0.650 3 0.758 1 0.803 2

2. Unclear responsibility to prepare the notice

0.67 3 0.683 1 0.617 3 0.697 3

3. Unclear procedures in notice preparation

0.67 2 0.667 2 0.667 2 0.671 4

4. No standard form used of preparing the notice

0.55 6 0.517 7 0.492 7 0.605 5

5. Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload

0.50 7 0.483 8 0.483 8 0.500 7

6. Poor communication t submit a written notice

0.47 8 0.600 4 0.567 5 0.454 8

7. Prescribed time in the contract is too short

0.56 5 0.583 6 0.567 5 0.533 6

8. Queries back from other parties due to the ambiguities of notice

0.58 4 0.600 4 0.592 4 0.855 1

209

3. Problems in Claim Examination Table 1.3 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim examination

Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery

4.22 4 0.750 1 0.800 1 0.855 1

2. Unclear responsible person to analyze and evaluate the amount of recovery

4.03 5 0.700 2 0.750 2 0.803 2

3. Unclear procedures in claim examination

2.74 8 0.700 2 0.725 3 0.770 4

4. No standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages

2.79 7 0.700 2 0.683 5 0.757 5

5. Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages

5.62 1 0.650 6 0.658 6 0.684 6

6. Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload

3.96 6 0.600 8 0.508 8 0.559 8

7. Poor communication fro gathering the required information to analyze a claim

4.55 3 0.650 6 0.533 7 0.638 7

8. lack of Knowledge of legal and contract to establish the grounds

5.16 2 0.683 5 0.725 3 0.796 3

9. Insufficient computerized machine to facilitate the calculation

4.22 4 0.517 9 0.442 9 0.428 9

4. Problems in Claim Documentation

Table 3.4 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim documentation Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents when required

0.77 3 0.767 2 0.733 3 0.783 3

2. Expensive to retrieve required information

0.52 9 0.567 8 0.475 9 0.783 3

3. Inaccurate recorded information 0.74 4 0.783 1 0.692 4 0.757 5 4. Ineffective record keeping system 0.71 5 0.717 5 0.650 6 0.743 6 5. Overdue process in retrieving the document back

0.70 7 0.733 3 0.658 5 0.743 6

6. Some information is not kept in writing

0.80 1 0.717 5 0.825 1 0.809 2

7. No standard form used to record the data during construction memos, C.O. etc.

0.70 6 0.683 7 0.650 6 0.743 6

8. Lack of computerized technology applied for documentation system

0.54 8 0.517 9 0.558 8 0.520 9

9. Oral instruction by owner 0.79 2 0.733 3 0.775 2 0.816 1

210

5. Problems in Claim Presentation Table 1.5 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim presentation


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim

0.79 1 0.850 1 0.767 1 0.770 2

2. Unclear responsible person to prepare full report of claim presentation

0.71 3 0.717 4 0.675 3 0.730 4

3. Unclear procedures in preparation of claim presentation

0.70 4 0.750 3 0.617 4 0.743 3

4. No standard format of a claim submission

0.62 5 0.617 6 0.600 5 0.632 5


0.52 6 0.583 7 0.500 6 0.507 6

6. Poor communication to present a claim

0.51 7 0.633 5 0.442 7 0.507 6

7. Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission

0.77 2 0.767 2 0.717 2 0.809 1

6. Problems in Claim Negotiation

Table 1.6 Contractor employee experience based in problems in claim negotiation Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Lack of expert who have good negotiation skills

0.82 2 0.850 1 0.792 2 0.822 1

2. Conflicts during negotiation 0.83 1 0.833 2 0.833 1 0.809 3 3. Difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration

0.69 5 0.650 5 0.658 5 0.711 4

4. Adversarial relationship with other parties

0.74 4 0.667 4 0.750 4 0.678 5


0.54 6 0.617 6 0.500 6 0.526 6

6. Insufficient evidences to convince other parties

0.80 3 0.750 3 0.767 3 0.822 1

211

Kendall coefficient &Chi-syure analysis of three groups by highest Contract Value 5.3.7.2 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in common claim procedures categories. 1. Problems in Claim Identifying Table 2.1 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim identifying

Over All Less $250 T $250 - $500T $510 - $750 T $760 - $ 1 M More $ 1 M

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1.Inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a claim

0.711 3 0.611 4 0.714 3 0.611 1 0.646 6 0.750 3

2. Unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem

0.666 5 0.639 3 0.607 6 0.528 3 0.667 5 0.699 5

3. Unclear procedures in identification of claim

0.672 4 0.583 5 0.750 1 0.472 6 0.688 3 0.679 6

4. Difficult to detect any problems during the work due to a lot of work to do

0.569 7 0.583 5 0.536 8 0.306 9 0.583 8 0.603 7


0.590 6 0.556 7 0.625 5 0.472 6 0.646 6 0.571 8

6. Insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim

0.720 2 0.528 8 0.589 7 0.556 2 0.771 1 0.808 1

7. lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim

0.723 1 0.667 2 0.750 1 0.528 3 0.688 3 0.756 2

8.Poor communication between site and Head Office

0.512 8 0.528 8 0.536 8 0.417 8 0.438 9 0.519 9

9. Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site

0.512 8 0.694 1 0.714 3 0.500 5 0.729 2 0.724 4

2. Problems in Claim Notification Table 2.2 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim notification


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents used for attaching a long with notice

0.78 1 0.722 1

0.821 1 0.722 1 0.729 1 0.782 1

2. Unclear responsibility to prepare the notice

0.67 3 0.611 2 0.714 3 0.528 4 0.688 3 0.673 2

3. Unclear procedures in notice preparation

0.67 2 0.611 2 0.750 2 0.583 2 0.729 1 0.641 3

4. No standard form used of preparing the notice

0.55 6 0.472 6 0.518 8 0.556 3 0.521 7 0.545 5


0.50 7 0.389 8 0.589 6 0.417 7 0.604 5 0.449 7

6. Poor communication t submit a written notice

0.47 8 0.417 7 0.696 4 0.444 6 0.458 8 0.391 8

212

7. Prescribed time in the contract is too short

0.56 5 0.556 4 0.571 7 0.528 4 0.583 6 0.532 6

8. Queries back from other parties due to the ambiguities of notice

0.58 4 0.556 4 0.625 5 0.417 7 0.646 4 0.558 4

3. Problems in Claim Examination Table 2.3 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim examination


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1.Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery

4.22 4 0.778 1 0.821 1 0.750 1 0.646 9 0.833 1


4.03 5 0.750 2 0.821 1 0.722 2 6.875 1 0.763 2

3. Unclear procedures in claim examination

2.74 8 0.667 4 0.786 3 0.694 3 6.646 3 0.737 4

4. No standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages

2.79 7 0.694 3 0.696 7 0.639 5 6.500 4 0.737 4

5. Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages

5.62 1 0.583 6 0.732 6 0.583 6 6.146 5 0.654 6

6. Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload

3.96 6 0.472 9 0.625 9 0.417 9 5.313 7 0.545 8


4.55 3 0.500 8 0.696 7 0.444 8 5.688 6 0.596 7


5.16 2 0.611 5 0.786 3 0.667 4 6.708 2 0.744 3


4.22 4 0.528 7 0.786 3 0.500 7 4.625 8 0.436 9

213

4. Problems in Claim Documentation Table 2.4 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim documentation


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents when required

0.77 3 0.639 4 0.839 2 0.778 1 0.792 3 0.737 4


0.52 9 0.472 8 0.607 8 0.500 7 0.417 9 0.500 9

3. Inaccurate recorded information

0.74 4 0.722 2 0.875 1 0.500 7 0.667 4 0.744 3

4. Ineffective record keeping system

0.71 5 0.583 5 0.786 4 0.639 4 0.604 7 0.737 4

5. Overdue process in retrieving the document back

0.70 7 0.556 6 0.768 5 0.611 5 0.646 6 0.712 7


0.80 1 0.722 2 0.821 3 0.583 6 0.833 2 0.808 1


0.70 6 0.528 7 0.732 7 0.667 3 0.667 4 0.731 6


0.54 8 0.472 8 0.607 8 0.389 9 0.563 8 0.532 8

9. Oral instruction by owner

0.79 2 0.778 1 0.768 5 0.722 2 0.854 1 0.776 2

5. Problems in Claim Presentation Table 2.5 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim presentation


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1.Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim

0.79 1 0.639 1 0.875 1 0.778 1 0.750 2 0.782 2


0.71 3 0.556 5 0.821 2 0.750 2 0.646 4 0.699 3

3. Unclear procedures in preparation of claim presentation

0.70 4 0.639 1 0.750 4 0.667 3 0.667 3 0.699 3

4. No standard format of a claim submission

0.62 5 0.583 4 0.625 5 0.583 5 0.646 4 0.609 5


0.52 6 0.472 7 0.589 6 0.417 7 0.500 6 0.519 6

6. Poor communication to present a claim

0.51 7 0.500 6 0.589 6 0.528 6 0.479 7 0.468 7

7. Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission

0.77 2 0.639 1 0.804 3 0.639 4 0.792 1 0.795 1

214

6. Problems in Claim Negations Table 2.7 Contractor employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim negations


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Lack of expert who have good negotiation skills

0.82 2 0.778 1 0.857 2 0.861 1 0.750 2 0.808 2

2. Conflicts during negotiation

0.83 1 0.778 1 0.893 1 0.861 1 0.771 1 0.801 3

3. Difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration

0.69 5 0.500 5 0.768 5 0.611 5 0.708 4 0.686 5

4. Adversarial relationship with other parties

0.74 4 0.472 6 0.786 4 0.694 3 0.625 5 0.763 4


0.54 6 0.556 4 0.625 6 0.583 6 0.542 6 0.474 6

6. Insufficient evidences to convince other parties

0.80 3 0.639 3 0.821 3 0.694 3 0.750 2 0.833 1

215


in the Gaza Strip

ANNEX 4

Kendall Coefficient and Chi-Squre Analysis of Three Groups by Experience and Highest Contract Value

(Owner)

216

Kendall coefficient & Chi-squre analysis of three groups by experience 5.3.7.3 Owner employee experience based in common claim procedures categories.

7. Problems in Claim Identifying Table 3.1 Owner employee experience based in problems in claim identifying


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor is aware of job factors giving rise to a claim

0.62 1 0.68 1 0.63 1 0.60 2

2. The issues of claim alleged by contractors are always accurate and reasonable .Unnecessary problems are seldom raised .

0.39 4 0.39 4 0.39 4 0.37 4

3. The contractors always keep records regarding to the work. When the problem faced. they can recognize them quickly.

0.48 3 0.45 3 0.51 3 0.46 3

4. Claim are always recognized and filed during the construction. They are rarely resolved after the completion of project .

0.61 2 0.57 2 0.59 2 0.63 1

8. Problems in Claim Notification

Table 3.2 Owner employee experience based in problems in claim notification Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Contractors always notify you the existing claims within time limit requirement in the contract .

0.64 2 0.68 2 0.63 2 0.64 2

2. Notices submitted by Contractors are deliberately Well-organized with a standard form .

0.43 7 0.41 7 0.40 7 0.43 7

3. The documents attached a long with notice are always adequate.

0.49 6 0.50 6 0.48 6 0.48 6

4. The contractor always submit the notice in writing .

0.67 1 0.73 1 0.65 1 0.65 1

5. The claims notices are always short and clear easy to understand ,

0.55 4 0.61 4 0.55 4 0.53 4

6. The contractor always alert you of a potential problem in a manner that is non-adversarial .

0.61 3 0.66 3 0.57 3 0.61 3

7. The claim notified by contractor are often reasonable with legal and factual grounds referred to the contract documents .

0.51 5 0.52 5 0.53 5 0.50 5

9. Problems in Claim Examination

Table 3.3 Owner employee experience based in problems in claim examination Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor’s claims are always calculated accurately. The over- inflated claims are not too often found .

0.40 2 0.36 3 0.32 3 0.44 1

2. The formula used in calculation are suitable, reasonable and reliable .

0.36 3 0.39 2 0.37 2 0.34 3

3. The entitlement factors are always shown and referred (entitlement factors: foresee ability, control, causation, and legal responsibility )

0.43 1 0.48 1 0.43 1 0.41 2

217

10. Problems in Claim Documentation

Table 3.4 Owner employee experience based in problems in claim documentation Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents when required

0.71 6 0.48 8 0.74 4 0.67 5


0.52 9 0.48 8 0.53 8 0.51 8

3. Inaccurate recorded information 0.75 3 0.86 3 0.79 2 0.69 3 4. Ineffective record keeping system 0.77 2 0.77 5 0.01 9 -0.15 9 5. Overdue process in retrieving the document back

0.67 7 0.68 6 0.73 5 0.63 6


0.80 1 0.89 2 0.84 1 0.77 1


0.72 5 0.82 4 0.75 3 0.68 4


0.61 8 0.55 7 0.63 7 0.61 7

9. Oral instruction by owner 0.74 4 10.25 1 0.72 6 0.75 2 11. Problems in Claim Presentation

Table 3.5 Owner employee experience based in problems in claim presentation Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The full detail of claim submitted by contractors are always logically built up

0.53 3 0.50 3 0.56 2 0.51 3

2. The contractor’s claim submission are always well-documented with fully evidences substantiating the entitlement.

0.53 2 0.55 1 0.54 3 0.52 2

3. The full detail report of claim submitted by contractor are always well-organized with a standard format .

0.48 5 0.48 5 0.53 4 0.46 5

4. The statements in claim submission from contractors are factually convincing and persuasive.

0.45 6 0.45 6 0.46 6 0.44 6

5. The contractor always submit you a full detail of claim with a good faith.

0.42 7 0.39 7 0.39 7 0.43 7

6. The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways clear using simple words so it is easy to understand.

0.54 1 0.55 1 0.52 5 0.55 1

7. The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways reasonably referred to the legal and factually grounds for the entitlement.

0.50 4 0.50 3 0.77 1 0.49 4

218

12. Problems in Claim Negotiation

Table 3.6 Owner employee experience based in Problems in Claim Negotiation Over All < 5 Years 5 - 10 yrs > 10 Years

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor always put the most effort to mitigate the settlement by Litigation or Arbitration .

0.79 1 0.77 1 0.77 1 0.80 1

2. Claims are always resolved as soon as possible concerning their effects to the project’s performance .

0.64 4 0.68 3 0.59 5 0.65 4

3. Most of the claims are settled amicably concerning mutual satisfaction of both sides .

0.73 2 0.73 2 0.73 2 0.72 2

4. The negotiation of claims is always objective directed to the problems .

0.67 3 0.66 4 0.64 3 0.67 3

5. Claims negotiation is conducted professionally and cooperatively .

0.59 5 0.50 5 0.61 4 0.59 5

6. Adversarial relationship between parties due to claim negotiation is rarely happened .

0.45 6 0.48 6 0.38 6 0.47 6

5.3.7.4 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in common claim

procedures categories.

1. Problems in Claim Identifying Table 4.1 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim identifying

Over All Less $250 T $250 - $500T $510 - $750T $760 - $ 1 M More $ 1 M

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor is aware of job factors giving rise to a claim

0.62 1 0.85 1 0.55 2 0.61 2 0.59 1 0.61 2


0.39 4 0.55 2 0.30 4 0.36 4 0.37 4 0.38 4


0.48 3 0.45 3 0.45 3 0.50 3 0.47 3 0.48 3


0.61 2 0.40 4 0.57 1 0.67 1 0.51 2 0.65 1

219

2. Problems in Claim Notification Table 4.2 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim notification

Over All Less $250 T $250 - $500T $510 - $750

T

$760 - $ 1 M More $ 1 M

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Contractors always notify you the existing claims within time limit requirement in the contract.

0.64 2 0.75 1 0.61 2 0.64 1 0.65 2 0.63 2


0.43 7 0.40 6 0.41 7 0.39 7 0.40 7 0.43 7


0.49 6 0.40 6 0.50 4 0.42 6 0.49 6 0.48 6

4. The contractor always submit the notice in writing .

0.67 1 0.50 5 0.64 1 0.61 2 0.66 1 0.68 1

5. The claims notices are always short and clear easy to understand,

0.55 4 0.70 3 0.48 6 0.56 4 0.54 4 0.53 4

6. The contractor always alert you of a potential problem in a manner that is non-adversarial.

0.61 3 0.75 1 0.57 3 0.58 3 0.62 3 0.60 3

7. The claim notified by contractor are often reasonable with legal and factual grounds referred to the contract documents.

0.51 5 0.60 4 0.50 4 0.53 5 0.51 5 0.49 5

2. Problems in Claim Examination

Table 4.3 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim examination Over All Less $250 T $250 - $500T $510 - $750

T

$760 - $ 1 M More $ 1 M

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor’s claims are always calculated accurately. The over- inflated claims are not too often found.

0.40 2 0.55 1 0.34 3 0.36 2 0.35 2 0.41 2

2. The formula used in calculation are suitable, reasonable and reliable.

0.36 3 0.45 2 0.36 1 0.36 2 0.35 2 0.33 3

3. The entitlement factors are always shown and referred (entitlement factors: foresee ability, control, causation, and legal responsibility )

0.43 1 0.45 2 0.36 1 0.42 1 0.46 1 0.42 1

220

3. Problems in Claim Documentation Table 4.4 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim documentation


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. Inaccessibility of documents when required

0.71 6 0.80 2 0.75 5 0.64 7 0.72 4 0.69 5


0.52 9 0.55 8 0.48 8 0.56 8 0.44 8 0.53 8

3. Inaccurate recorded information

0.75 3 0.70 4 0.82 2 0.75 4 0.81 1 0.69 4

4. Ineffective record keeping system

0.77 2 1.00 1 0.20 9 0.44 9 0.12 9 -0.14 9

5. Overdue process in retrieving the document back

0.67 7 0.65 5 0.71 6 0.72 5 0.66 5 0.63 6


0.80 1 0.75 3 0.89 1 0.81 1 0.79 2 0.77 1


0.72 5 0.60 6 0.79 4 0.78 2 0.66 5 0.70 3


0.61 8 0.60 6 0.63 7 0.69 6 0.56 7 0.58 7

9. Oral instruction by owner

0.74 4 0.50 9 0.82 2 0.78 2 0.74 3 0.72 2

4. Problems in Claim Presentation

Table 4.5 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim presentation Over All Less $250 T $250 - $500T $510 - $750 T $760 - $ 1 M More $ 1 M

R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The full detail of claim submitted by contractors are always logically built up

0.53 3 0.60 2 0.52 3 0.53 2 0.54 1 0.50 3

2. The contractor’s claim submission is always well-documented with fully evidences substantiating the entitlement.

0.53 2 0.65 1 0.55 2 0.56 1 0.50 3 0.51 2

3. The full detail report of claim submitted by contractor are always well-organized with a standard format.

0.48 5 0.55 3 0.46 4 0.47 4 0.47 4 0.47 5

4. The statements in claim submission from contractors are factually convincing and persuasive.

0.45 6 0.50 4 0.45 6 0.47 4 0.41 6 0.44 6

5. The contractor always submit you a full detail of claim with a good faith.

0.42 7 0.35 7 0.41 7 0.39 7 0.38 7 0.43 7

6. The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways clear using simple words so it is easy to understand.

0.54 1 0.45 5 0.57 1 0.44 6 0.53 2 0.55 1

7. The claims submitted by 0.50 4 0.45 5 0.46 4 0.50 3 0.44 5 0.50 3

221

Contractors are al ways reasonably referred to the legal and factually grounds for the entitlement. 5. Problems in Claim Negations Table 4.7 Owner employee highest contract value implemented based in problems in claim negations


R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank R.I Rank 1. The contractor always put the most effort to mitigate the settlement by Litigation or Arbitration.

0.79 1 0.75 1 0.80 1 0.78 2 0.75 1 0.79 1

2. Claims are always resolved as soon as possible concerning their effects to the project’s performance.

0.64 4 0.70 3 0.57 4 0.58 5 0.69 3 0.63 4

3. Most of the claims are settled amicably concerning mutual satisfaction of both sides.

0.73 2 0.55 5 0.79 2 0.83 1 0.72 2 0.69 2

4. The negotiation of claims is always objective directed to the problems.

0.67 3 0.65 4 0.70 3 0.78 2 0.57 4 0.65 3

5. Claims negotiation is conducted professionally and cooperatively.

0.59 5 0.55 5 0.57 4 0.64 4 0.57 4 0.58 5

6. Adversarial relationship between parties due to claim negotiation is rarely happened.

0.45 6 0.75 1 0.43 6 0.44 6 0.37 6 0.44 6

222


ANNEX 5

Questionnaire for Contractors (English / Arabic)

223

The Islamic University-Gaza Higher Education Deanship Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Construction Project Management

غزة–اجلامعة اإلسالمية عمادة الدراسات العليا

قسم اهلندسة املدنية–كلية اهلندسة أدارة مشاريع هندسية

QUESTIONNAIRE

Claims Management Process in the Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip

��ت *( )��ع ا'&%�ءات ! �+,��ن �xل أ3+�ب وإدارة ا,-�q+t3ةا��ع

( Contractors )

Researcher : Said Nihad Elghandour

Supervised by : Professor Dr. Adnan Enshassi

December 2005

224

Questionnaires For Surveying Claim Practices in The Gaza Strip

( To be completed By Contractors )

Dear Sir : I am a student of the Construction Management Master Program at the faculty of engineering at the Islamic University - Gaza . I’ am interested in learning more about the Claim Causes and Management practices in the Gaza Strip construction sector as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master’s Degree in Engineering . This study aims to identify the underlying causation of the problems in claim process in Gaza construction Companies . To do this , of course , means going to someone such as yourself who Knows. Your help with the few questions on the attached pages will take only a few minutes and will make a real contribution to the accuracy and success of this study . Your Answer will be treated in strict confidence and will be used only as parts of my thesis study for analysis . Any publication will be only statistical totals for groups of companies . QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS Part 1 – General Information Part 2 – Causes And Factors Result In Claim In Construction Projects Part 3 – Common Procedures :

3.1 Claim Identification 3.2 Claim Notification 3.3 Claim Examination 3.4 Claim Documentation 3.5 Claim Presentation 3.6 Claim Negotiation

Part 4 – Particular Claims: 4.1 - Time Extension Claims 4.2 - Claims From Change Orders 4.3 - Design – Related Claims

PART 5 – General Questions

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely

Said Elghandour

225

Part 1 – General Information * About You :-

1. Your position : � Company Manager � Project Manager � Site Engineer � Others 2. Your experience relating to construction projects :

� Less then 5 years �5 -10 years � More then 10 years

3. The highest contact Value you ever worked with ( US $) : ………….. � Less then 250 � 250 -500 � 510–750 � 760- Million � More then one Million * About Your Company :- 1. Classification of company in construction business (Class ) : ____________ 2. Experience of company in construction business (years ) : ____________ 3. Average number of employees : � 1-10 �11 -20 � 21–30 � More then 40

4. Number of projects implemented during the last five years :-

� Less then 10 �10 -20 � 21–30 � 31- 40 � More then 40 5. Cost of projects implemented during the last five years (US $ Million ) :

� Less then 1 � 1 -2 � 2.1–3 � 3.1- 4 � More then 4

2.0 Part Two : Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects

Bases on your experiences in claim practices ,what is your opinion of the following questions ? ( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the circle number 1 to 5 ) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Very

high High Medium Low

Very Low

1.0 Claims factors caused by Owner :- 1. Delay contractor progress payments � � � � � 2. Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed � � � � � 3. Residents interfering during project implementation

causing contractor activities delay . � � � � �

4. Site handling with obstacles (license , land occupation etc..) � � � � � 5. Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work

activities and following up with owner supervision team � � � � �

6. Owner's slow decisions � � � � � 7. Owner's direct interfering in project without any

coordination and ignoring his supervision team � � � � �

8. Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation . � � � � �

9. lack of supervision team experience in project supervision � � � � � 10. Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner /

supervision team � � � � �

11. Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus � � � � � 12. Chang in Site location or conditions � � � � � 13. Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in

decisions � � � � �

226

Continue PART 2 – Causes and factors result in claim in construction projects (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Very

always Always Medium Low No

14. lack of owner support to his supervision team � � � � � 15. Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his


16. Continuous oral instruction to contractor � � � � � 17. low Quality assurance and control in the project � � � � � 18. Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and

resources � � � � �

19. The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

� � � � �

20. Changes of Currency Value [ Index Value ] � � � � � 21. Unexpected increment in material prices � � � � � 22. Materials rejection because of Quality and specification � � � � � 23. Changes in material type and specification during

construction � � � � �

2.0 Design and Bill of Quantity :- 24. Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity � � � � � 25. Different description for the item in the bill of quantity

than is mentioned in the specification � � � � �

26. Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site � � � � �

27. Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction � � � � �

28. Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market � � � � �

29. Over design � � � � � 3.0 Contractual relationship factor :- 30. Poor contract management and ambiguities � � � � � 31. Different type of contracts � � � � � 32. Awarding bid to the Lower bidder � � � � � 33. Awarding process take long period after bid open process � � � � � 34. Payment period are not followed when submitting invoices � � � � � 35. Chang in the legislation and process ( as Tax free or

changing in the Tax Value …….) � � � � �

36. Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law � � � � �

4. Emergence Cases :- 37. Natural conditions factors ( Bad weather , ect……) � � � � � 38. Main borders closures � � � � � 39. Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities ,

Cities and Governorate Occupation � � � � �

40. Demonstrations and strikes � � � � � 5.Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

227

PART 3 – COMMON PROCEDURES

3.1 CLAIM IDENTIFICATION

Bases on your experiences in claim practices ,what is your opinion of the following questions ? ( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the circle

number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.1.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM

IDENTIFICATION ** Very Serious

Serious Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Inaccessibility of documents used for identifying a claim � � � � � 2. Unclear responsibility to detect a claim or problem � � � � � 3. Unclear procedures in identification of claim � � � � � 4. Difficult to detect any problems during the work due to a lot of work to do

� � � � �

5. Inadequate time due to high workload � � � � � 6. Insufficient skilled personnel for detecting a claim � � � � � 7. lack of awareness of people on site to detect claim � � � � � 8.Poor communication between site and Head Office � � � � � 9. Inadequate knowledge of contract of people on site � � � � � 10.Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.2 - What is your most concern in the process of Claim IDENTIFICATION ?

( Pleas rank on a scale of 1 to 9 ,which 1 is the most important ) _____ Accuracy of identifying a claim _____ Time concern in preparing a claim _____ Time concern in compensation of such a claim _____ Priority setting for the excellent merits construction claims _____ Ability to proof and support such claims _____ Type of claim: extension of time and /or compensation _____ Cause of claim and their impacts _____ An awareness of people on site giving rise to lose a claim _____ Focusing only on serious claim issue for maintaining a good relationship Other concern , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.3 - Open –End Question for investigating the practice in claim procedure

1. Once a claim has been filed against other party ,how many percent do you win a claim ? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. Normally ,who are responsible for identifying a claim during the construction work ? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Do you have any standard procedure when someone is facing a problem during the work ? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. Which document is often used to indicate any claim issue or problems ? ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

228


3.2 CLAIM NOTIFICATION


number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.2.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM NOTIFICATION ** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Inaccessibility of documents used for attaching a long with notice

� � � � �

2. Unclear responsibility to prepare the notice � � � � � 3. Unclear procedures in notice preparation � � � � � 4. No standard form used of preparing the notice � � � � � 5. Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload

� � � � �

6. Poor communication t submit a written notice � � � � � 7. Prescribed time in the contract is too short � � � � � 8. Queries back from other parties due to the ambiguities of notice

� � � � �

9. Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2.2 - What is your most concern in the process of Claim NOTIFICATION ?

( Pleas rank on a scale of 1 to 8 ,which 1 is the most important ) _____ Timely notify the other party of a potential a claim _____ Using the non-adversarial manner to notify _____ Organization of format of notice _____ Strictly requiring the notice in written _____ Shortness and clearness of notice _____ Cheapness of cost in preparation f notice _____ Full and complete supporting document attaching along with the notice _____ An awareness of people on site giving rise to lose a claim Other concern , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2.3 - Open –End Question for investigating the practice in claim procedure

1. Normally ,who are responsible for preparing a notice during the construction work ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. Do you have any standard procedure for preparing a notice during the work ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. Which document is often used to be attached along with the notice ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

229


3.3 CLAIM EXAMINATION


number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.3.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM EXAMINATION ** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Unavailability of record used to analyze and estimate the potential recovery

� � � � �


� � � � �

3. Unclear procedures in claim examination � � � � � 4. No standard formula used for evaluating the impacts and calculating damages

� � � � �

5. Unrealistic formula used for calculating damages � � � � � 6. Inadequate time to thoroughly perform examination due to high workload

� � � � �


� � � � �


� � � � �


� � � � �

10.Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3.2 - What is your most concern in the process of Claim EXAMINATION ?

( Pleas rank on a scale of 1 to 8 ,which 1 is the most important ) _____ Accuracy of the calculation of merit quantum _____ Entitlement factors: Foreseeability, Control , Causation, and Legal responsibility _____ Establishment of entitlement : Legal and factual ground _____ Amount of recovery _____ Time to proceed the calculation and evaluation _____ Provability of time and cost element of the claim _____ Suitable, reasonable, and reliable formula in calculation _____ Amicable concern of relationship between parties Other concern , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

230


3.4 CLAIM DOCUMENTATION

Bases on your experiences in claim practices ,what is your opinion of the following questions ? ( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the

circle number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.4.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM DOCUMENTATION ** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Inaccessibility of documents when required � � � � � 2. Expensive to retrieve required information � � � � � 3. Inaccurate recorded information � � � � � 4. Ineffective record keeping system � � � � � 5. Overdue process in retrieving the document back � � � � � 6. Some information is not kept in writing � � � � � 7. No standard form used to record the data during construction memos, C.O. etc.

� � � � �


� � � � �

9. Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.4.2 - When required, which document are often unavailable

**CLAIM DOCUMENTATION ** Very Often

Often Some time

Rarely Never

1. Contract document � � � � � 2. Preliminary and baseline schedules � � � � � 3. Updates project schedules � � � � � 4. Relevant correspondence between parties � � � � � 5. Clarification memos � � � � � 6. Meeting minutes � � � � � 7. Photograph depicting the problems � � � � � 8. Daily reports and logs � � � � � 9. Change order logs � � � � � 10. Submittal logs � � � � � 11. Cost report and records � � � � � 12. Oral Instruction � � � � � 13. Quality control report � � � � � 14. labor power chart � � � � � 15. Other document , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

231




number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.5.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM PRESENTATION** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Inaccessibility of relevant documents to submit along with the claim

� � � � �


� � � � �

3. Unclear procedures in preparation of claim presentation � � � � � 4. No standard format of a claim submission � � � � � 5. Inadequate time to thoroughly prepare due to high workload

� � � � �

6. Poor communication to present a claim � � � � � 7. Insufficient skilled staff for preparing a claim submission � � � � � 8. Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.5.2 - What is your most concern in the process of Claim PRESENTATION ?

( Pleas rank on a scale of 1 to 7 ,which 1 is the most important ) _____ Time to prepare the claim submission _____ Non-accusatory and non-adversarial manner _____ Well- organized claim submission _____ Persuasiveness of presentation _____ Well documented of submission _____ logically build- up _____ Full presentation of legal and factual ground for the entitlement of claim Other concern , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.5.3 - Open –End Question for investigating the practice in claim procedure

1. Normally ,who are responsible for preparing a full detailed submission of claim in your company ?

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. Do you have any standard of a claim submission

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

232

PART 3 – PARTICULAR CLAIMS



number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.6.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM NEGOTIATION ** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Lack of expert who have good negotiation skills � � � � � 2. Conflicts during negotiation � � � � � 3. Difficult to settle without any litigation or arbitration � � � � � 4. Adversarial relationship with other parties � � � � � 5. Inadequate time due to high workload � � � � � 6. Insufficient evidences to convince other parties � � � � � 7. Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.6.2 - What is your most concern in the process of Claim NEGOTIATION ?

( Pleas rank on a scale of 1 to 7 ,which 1 is the most important ) _____ Litigation and arbitration avoidance _____ Settlement of claim, as fast as possible _____ Mutual satisfactory between both parties through compromising _____ Obtaining the additional time of performance and money _____ Maintaining the company’s reputation _____ Non-adversarial manner to preserve a good relationship with other parties _____ Settlement through formal lawsuits or arbitration Other concern , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.6.3 - Open –End Question for investigating the practice in claim procedure

1. Generally, how do you negotiate a claim with other parties ? ( such as by meeting , letters,ect.) …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. How much do you have to resolve a claim through litigation or arbitration ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

3. How much do you generally satisfy your performance of claim department ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. Who is responsible for negotiating a claim issue ? …………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

233

PART 4 – PARTICULAR CLAIMS How serious do these following problems effect your performance in claim reparation procedure ?( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the circle number 1 to5)

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

4.1 - TIME EXTENSTON CLAIMS Very Serious

Serious Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Difficult to detect problems due to the schedule is not update

� � � � �

2. Fail to timely notify the Engineer the potential problems about delay

� � � � �

3. Difficult to prove the entitlement of claims � � � � � 4. Lack of staff who is expert in “time impact analysis” � � � � � 5. Problem in proving that the situation is expected or unexpected

� � � � �

6. Difficult to identify damages associated with delays � � � � �

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 4.2 - CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Problem in proof due to verbal changes or directives by the Engineer

� � � � �

2. Misinterpretation due to ambiguous “ changes clause” in the contract

� � � � �

3. The controversy in negotiating a price or rate of varied work .

� � � � �

4. Problem associated with evaluating and claiming impacts and damages resulting from such a change

� � � � �

5. Difficult to identify a claim due to various directives advanced by the Engineer during the construction

� � � � �

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 4.3 - DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Ineffective design review during bidding stage � � � � � 2. Fail to timely notify the Owner of potential problems about drawing

� � � � �

3. The argument about responsibility for fixing defective designs .

� � � � �

4. Difficult to justify the responsibility to verify the design � � � � � 5. Difficult to justify the ambiguity of drawing � � � � �

234

PART 5 – General Questions :

5.1 Generally, evaluate the relationship between project parties (owner/owner representative and

contractor)

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

5.2 What do you recommend project parties with regard to claims and development of Claims

Concepts?

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................... ...

5.3 Your comments about the questionnaire

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

235




F3ل دراx� ن�q+t3ا


)و�ــ�F &�ــu ا,-ـ ـــ�ول (

إدارة املشاريعكماال ملتطلبات احلصول علي درجة املاجستري يفتإس

��-:ا,+ ـhورـــ�3sـــhq ا,�. م

-:ا,-%uف

�ذ t3ر أxtدآ /)B��ن إ&%&h�

�ذ t3أ Fq3hs�,ا ngر� إدارة ا,-%

December 2005

236

Questionnaires Claims Management Process in the Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip

�ن �xل أ3+�ب وإدارةq+t3ةا��ت *( )��ع ا'&%�ءات ! ��ع +,� ا,-�

�+�g ول� �o )+� ا,-

( To be completed By Contractors )

qـــoutj-,دة ا� : � ا,rــــ

F3hs�,ا Fqiآ )* �,�� ا,+�j ا,�qs, )iq-lt ( إدارة ا,-%�رng *( ا,~�F�o ا'FqoC3 ، أ)xم !�-� دراkr( –F3 ا,-��uqtr -أ&

uqtr��ع ��ة وا,x� kgh � Fqل أ3+�ب )��دة ا,-�( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,� . ا,-��F إ,( !�� ا*و,��ا � )* F3راh,دات�ن ا��ت '*oxi�-,وا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,� وF*u�o رأx� )* ¡gص أ3+�ب وا,kgh � Fq ا,-�

q3hs�,اF. kgh � )* F�+t-,ا Fgا'دار Fq,vا F*u�o )i� h��rt3 )3راh,ا �j+,ا ا��, ��-gh � )* نx-ه�rt3 )t,ت ا�oxi�-,أن ا �ع ��ة �( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,��ت وk�rt3 *( . ا,-�+,� . و¤x�� nر وا¤£ ,Ei�xات ا'دارFg ا,kgh t, F-qir ا,-�

FB��ت oxi�o ق إ,( أيu�t,ا ktg �,د وh�,ا ),�-�§! FB�E,م ا��Fgur! �o آ�Fio وktq3 اhEt3ام اvر)�t3 Foh -,ت ا�oxi�-,آ� ا Fآu%,�!F,� . *( ا,3uـ

�ن* q+t3¨ت ا�&xlo: - �: ا,~�ء اvول - &� �ــ�Foت !qـ - )&��: ا,~�ء ا,©+,� *( ا,-%�رng ا,�Fq3hs تأ3+�ب ا,-� - �,��ت : ا,~�ء ا,©+,� ا'�uاءات ا,�ـــ�Fo ا,-kgh � )* F+�t ا,-�

3.1 - �t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u*ا 3.2 - �t*(n3*ا b.4 ¦ .tu*ا

3.3 - �t*(n3*و=1; � ا �d`= 3.4 - �t*(n3*ا � �g= 3.5 - �t*(n3*9 اv1p=ض وs4

3.6 -�t*(n3*ل اg� ا*u`)وض - n!اu,ا,~�ء ا : Fsq�o ت�+,� oـ�

4.1 – �;g*1 اv1ـ3ـ= �t*(nـ! 4.2 – s �u*ا �t*(nـ! 4.3 – 9 3�u*ص اg�� ت(t*(n!

- }o�E,ا,~�ء ا : Fــo� أFiª3 �ــ

�»hة* �o ��, �-, �sqi� ¡�u+E! �E+� C* F3راh,ي ه�¬ اu©t3 kl�u+ و kl��oxi�o )* £qjBر وا¤£ وx�� n¤و�ع ��ة �( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,� .,Ei�xات ا'دارFg ا,kgh � )* F-qir ا,-�

!-�hg ا¨�utام ،،،،،،،

�sـــhور hq�3 ا,. م

237

ــة ــامـ عبيــانات: الجزء األول - 1

-: بيانات عامة عن الشخص الذي سيمأل االستبيان -1 أخري � مهندس موقع � مدير المشاريع � مديـر الشركة � : الموقع الوظيفي .1

سنوات10 أكثر من � سنوات 10 -5 من � سنوات 5 أقل من � : عدد سنوات الخبرة في المشاريع الهندسية .2

: ) $بالدوالر( ي مشروع قمت بتنفيذه قيمة أعل .3

$ مليون أكثر من� $ مليون-760 �$ ألف 750 -510 �$ ألف500 – 250 �$ ألف250 أقل من �

-: بيانات عن الشركة -2

: ................ )درجة ( ن حسب إتحاد المقاولين الفلسطينييتصنيف الشركة .1

: ................ )عدد السنوات ( خبرة الشركة في المشاريع الهندسية .2

30 أكثر من � 30 -21 � 20 - 11 � 10-1 �: عدد موظفين الشركة الدائمين .3

: عدد المشاريع المنفذة خالل الخمس سنوات السابقة .4

40 أكثر من � 40 -31 � 30 -21 � 20 - 10 � 10 أقل من �

) : مليون دوالر ( تكلفة المشاريع المنفذة خالل الخمس سنوات السابقة .5

4 من ر أكث� 4 -3.1 � 3 -2.1 � 2 - 1 � 1 أقل من �

: األسباب التي تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات في المشاريع الهندسية :الجـزء الثاني – 2.0

:لة التالية ألسئالمطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في ا المشاكل المرتبطة باعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال •

)خيارات واحد من البرجاء اختيار( ��

� دائمـا دائمـا جدا &�qدرا أ�� ال &ــ : عوامل تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات بسببها المالك 1.0 � � � � �تأخر المالك في دفع مستحقات المقاول .1 المالك بسبب تأخر التمويل من صعوبات مالية لدي .2

� � � � � الدول المانحة

3. �t:v (3! وعs<3*(� 34)لe5` ^ ا= bo ن(c:*�1"ت ا= =¡� s =5` ^ ا34e)ل bo ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

–تراخيص ( عدم تسليم موقع العمل خالي من العوائق .4 � � � � � ...... ) خالفه –تعديات

عدم تعاون المالك مع المقاول بخصوص العمل .5 � � � � �ومتابعة العمل مع جهاز اإلشراف المعين من قبل المالك

� � � � �تباطؤ المالك في اتخاذ القرارات .6 =�1"ت ا*3)*� ا*s�(t3ة bo ا*s<3وع دون ا*g{sع .7

* }.t; j! j '3*اف اs�%(6)ز ا. � � � � �

أو تنفيذ المشروع علي ) فسخ العقد( إنهاء المشروع .8 � � � � � . مراحل أثناء تنفيذ المقاول لألعمال

� � � � � المشروع عدم توفر الخبرة في جهاز اإلشراف علي .9 � � � � � )ولاإلشراف والمقا( العالقة المعادية بين الطرفين .10 � � � � � تغيير جذرية في كميات العقد المطلوبة بالناقص أوالزيادة .11 � � � � � تغيير موقع المشروع .12اتخاذ (ضعف صالحيات جهاز اإلشراف في الموقع .13

� � � � � )القرار

238

: ي المشاريع الهندسية األسباب أو العوامل التي تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات ف:الجـزء الثاني تابع – 2.0

� دائمـا دائمـا جدا &�qدرا أ�� ال &ــ � � � � � عدم مساندة اإلدارة العليا لجهاز اإلشراف في العمل .14) المالك( عدم متابعة ومراقبة ومسائلة اإلدارة العليا .15

� � � � � .لجهاز اإلشراف في المشروع

� � � � � باستمرار إعطاء التعليمات الشفوية للمقاول .16 � � � � � عدم وجود متابعة للجودة في المشروع .17ضعف خبرة جهاز اإلشراف في تقديرات الوقت .18

� � � � � للمشروع ةوالمصادر المطلوب

إصرار جهاز اإلشراف علي توريد مواد أغلي من المواد .19 � � � � � األخرى الحائزة علي نفس المواصفة من حيث الجودة

� � � � � Index Valueفرق العملة والتقلبات في سعر النقد .20 � � � � �ارتفاع أسعار المواد المفاجئ .21عدم اعتماد المواد المطلوبة بسبب االختالف علي نوع .22

� � � � � . الجودة والمواصفات المعتمدة

� � � � � تغيير في نوع ومواصفات المواد أثناء التنفيذ .23 : التصميم وجداول الكميات 2.0عدم وضوح التصاميم أو جدول كميات المشروع وعدم .24

� � � � � .اكتمالها

وصف البند في جدول الكميات وفي وجو اختالف بين .25 � � � � � بند المواصفات

� � � � � وجدول الكميات للواقعتعدم تطابق المخططا .26 � � � � � تعديل أو تغير جذري في التصاميم أثناء التنفيذ .27استخدام مواصفات عالمية يصعب توفرها في السوق .28

� � � � � المحلي

� � � � � )Over design( تصميم فوق العادة .29 : عوامل العالقات التعاقدية 3.0�:� g8ع )=>)�{ ا*'gpد و14م درا$6uغموض العقود أو .30

ا*s<3وع� � � � �

� � � � �لعقود الموجودة في قطاع اإلنشاءات تعدد ا .31 � � � � �) العطاء المنخفض ( ترسيه العطاء ألقل السعار .32 طول المدة الزمنية من تاريخ فتح العطاء حتى إعطاء .33

� � � � � . لمقاول أمر الترسية للمشروع علي ا

� � � � � عدم االلتزام بالمدة المحددة للدفع حسب العقد .34مثل اإلعفاء الضريبي أو ( التغير في القوانين واألنظمة .35

� � � � � )تغير قيمة الضريبة المضافة

تفسيرات بعض البنود في العقد التي ليس لها مرجعية في .36 � � � � � .القانون الفلسطيني

:الظـروف الطارئـة 4.0 37. � ' ty f!اg4 ) ظروف جوية سيئة( � � � � � � � � � � ةحدوث إغالقات للمعابر الرئيسي .38 � � � � � للمدن والمحافظات اجتياجات,ةقطع الطرق الرئيسي .39 � � � � � وخالفه ومظاهرات إضرابات .40 � � � � � وجود أشياء غير مرئية بموقع العمل .41

239

CLAIM IDENTIFICATION - 3.1 : التعرف علي المطالبة– 3.1

:مطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في مدي خطورة العوامل التالية برتك في مجال الاعتمادا علي خ -3.1.1 ) واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار(

�� F+,�� مؤثر جدامؤثر ا,-%�آ� ا,-Fqi-�! F i�t ا,u�tف �i( ا,-�&�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 . �t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u.* (6!1ا�u$� �w(�g*ا sog= ��g'r � � � � � 2 . �t*(n3*أو ا �.c<3*ف ا(<uآ% �d~وا s - � *g�:3*ا � � � � � � � � � � وا~d� 1v1du* ا*c<3.� أو ا*t*(n3�ت14م =sog إ}sاءا. 34 .r ل(د أ34g{g* �) u8 f3'*ل ا"� �.c<3*ف ا(<uاآ ��g'

. آ� sة * 9u إ8()زه) � � � � �

5 . f3'*ا ��~ �t:� bo(c*ا �;g*ا sog= 14م � � � � � 6 . �.c<3*ف ا(<uآ� fا*>�� ا*3¤ه sog= 14م � � � � � �p8 ا%دراك وا*4gu � *1ي �vso اs�eاف *.s'uف . 7

bo ت(t*(n3*ا b.4 x;g3*ا . � � � � �

8 . �uc3*وع واs<3*ا x;g! j � ا�=�)ل ft$ �'~: ws*اb .

� � � � �

14م !'os� وإ*3)م �vso ا%�sاف bo ا*s<3وع �gud3ي . 9 .4ـpـ1 ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

............................................................ .........................................-: أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 10....................................................................................................................................................................

�م , -3.1.2-tاه u©أآ xه � ؟) ا'د��ءات ( ـgh¡ ـCل Fi�uo ا,u�tف �i( ا,-�ـ�,+o Fـ

)9حتى ...... و هكذا 2 يعتبر األهمية األولي ويتبعه 1 حيث رقم 9 إلى 1 رتب األهمية حسب المقياس من برجاء( د;ــ� bo ا*s'uف و=3 , ا*t*(n3)ت ____________ �t*(n3*6 , ا)= bo بg.n3*ا �;g*ا ______ �t*(n3*ا Êvg'= bo بg.n3*ا �;g*ا

pdu$ا f�oأ �:c* و* )تe1 اv1d=وع ت)ق %د4)ءاs<3*ا ______ *stه)ن ودf�! 94 ه^� ا%د4)ءاتb.4 ا ا*1pرة ______

�!1p3*ا �t*(n3*ع اg8 : Êvg'= أو �;g.* 1v13=______ ______ g8ع ا*t*(n3� و=¡� sه)

�t*(n3*9 اv1p= bo �d*1 اp`v أن jc3! x;g3*ا bo j .!('*ا b414م و____ __ x;g3*ا bo ار ا*'";)ت ا*( 1ةs3u$ا f{أ j! � .'`*وا �ت ا*363(t*(n3*ا b.4 , آsu*ا ______

��ء �hghjه�u! ، يu آ� أ�%oر وxoأي أ : -.. ..................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

3.1.3 - Fiª3أ �o p jti, ت�+,� - : ا'�uاءات ا,-F�+t *( ا,u�tف �i( ا,-�

1. �t*(n3*ا xo؟ 154 ر �t*(n3*(� زكgo �t:8 bه (! ، s�eف اsn*1 ا~ ......................................................................................................................................................................

2. b.4 فs'u*ا bo لg�:3*ا*>�� ا gه j! وع ؟ 4)دةs<3*ل =5` ^ ا"� �t*(n3*ا ......................................................................................................................................................................

'f3 ؟ هgv f}1 إ}sاءات !'tu� g! 154ا}6� أي �� !>)آbo f ا* .3......................................................................................................................................................................

bo ا*')دة !) هb ا*�w(�g ا*!1�u:3� 1v1du* أي g8ع !t*(n� أو !>c.� ؟ .4......................................................................................................................................................................

إجراءات عـامــة : الجـزء الثالث - 3

240

CLAIM NOTIFICATION - 3.2 : علي المطالبة)اإلعالم (التبليغ – 3.2

: التالية مدي خطورة العواملجال المطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في اعتمادا علي خبرتك في م-3.2.1) لخياراتبرجاء اختيار واحد من ا(

� مؤثر جدامؤثر ة علي المطالببعملية التبليغ المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 . �t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u.* (6!1ا�u$� �w(�g*ا sog= ��g'r � � � � � 2 . �t*(n3.* ¦ .tu*6 , ا)u* �d~وا s - � *g�:3*ا � � � � � وا~d� j4 ¦ .tu.* ا*c<3.� أو ت14م =sog إ}sاءا. 3

�t*(n3*ا � � � � �

4 . �t*(n3*ا ��t'u� �r(� 38)ذج })ه,ة sog= 14م. � � � � � 5 . f3'*ا ��~ �t:� bo(c*ا �;g*ا sog= 14م � � � � � 6 . bn� ¦ .t= 9v1pu* ا�=�)ل ft$ �'~. � � � � � 7 . �;g*1اا{ s �; �t*(n3*ا j4 ¦ .tu.* 1p'*ا j3~ 1دd3*ا � � � � � $u`:)ر !j اsyeاف اs�eى �:�t 14م ا� !')ودة . 8

¦ .tu*ب ا(n� حg~و. � � � � �

.....................................................................................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 9....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

3.2.2 - Fi�uo لCـ ¡ghم ,ـ�-tاه u©أآ xه � ؟) ا'د��ءات ( i-�ـ�,+F ا,o, ±qi+tـ

) وهي األقل أهمية 7حتى ...... و هكذا 2 يعتبر األهمية األولي ويتبعه 1 حيث رقم 7 الي 1 رتب األهمية حسب المقياس من برجاء( ______ s�eف اsn*ا*"زم %4"م ا �;g*ا �t*(n3*9 اv1p= � 8(c!إ j4 ______ f�!eب اg.$e1ام ا�u$دي ( ا('! s �*ا ( ¦ .tu*ا bo ______ ¦ .tu*و=�5 9 ا �� rب وg.$أ

n� ¦ .tu*ن اgcv أن b.4 ارsr%ا ()( �(uآ ( ______ ______ ¦ .tu*ب اg.$ح أg~وو s�;

¦ .tu.* s �du*ا �`.c= �.; ______ ______ !x آu)ب ا*tu. ¦ ) ا*1ا34� (أرo)ق آ)o� ا*�w(�g ا*3:)18ة

��ء �hghjه�u! ، يu آ� أ�%oر وxoأي أ : -................................................................................. .. .................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................... 3.2.3 - Fiª3أ�o p jti, ت�+,� - : ا'�uاءات ا,-F�+t *( ا,u�tف �i( ا,-�

4)دة !j هg ا*>�� ا*g�:3ل j4 إ14اد ر$)*� ا*tu. ¦ �"ل =5` ^ ا*s<3وع ؟ .5......................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................... 6. u:= �t'u! اءاتs{أو إ s v('! 1 أي{gv fوع ؟ هs<3*ل =5` ^ ا"� ¦ .tu*6 , ا)u* 1م�

...................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

4)دة أي !j ا*x! (6pos= �w(�g آu)ب ا*tu. ¦ ؟ .7......................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................

241

CLAIM EXAMINATION - 3.3 : تفحص وتدقيق المطالبة – 3.3

:مطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في مدي خطورة العوامل التاليةاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال ال -3.3.1 )برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات(

�أ�q مؤثر جدامؤثر المطالبةبعملية تفحص وتدقيق المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 . sv1p=و f .du* (6!1ا�u$� �!ا*"ز �w(�g*ا sog= 14م ) .ا�$pdu)ق (ا*cu.`� ا*�g.n3� su$"*داد

� � � � �

2 . ¦.t3*9 ا p=و f .du* لg�:3*ا*>�� ا sog= 14م Êvg'u.* بg.n3*ا .

� � � � �

� � � � � . p 9 ا*t*(n3� وا~d� �d`* و=ت14م =sog إ}sاءا. 34 .� r sog= 14م� ) � �(:�وا~d� d*:)ب و=p 9 ) ;)14ة

�t*(n3*ا �do 154 (63v1pu* ارs~%وا �`.cu*ا . � � � � �

5 . �� r 1ام�u$9 ) ;)14ة(ا p=ب و(:d* � ';وا s - �`.cu*ر واs�*ا .

� � � � �

6 .1p=و �d`u* bo(c*ا �;g*ا sog= وذ*� 14م �t*(n3*ا sv ) . ~�� ا*'f3 (*g{gد أ34)ل آ� sة v(� إ8()زه)

� � � � �

~'� ا*5u: � و;.� $ft ا�=�)ل *(x3 ا*g.'3!)ت . 7 �t*(n3*9 ا p=و f .du* �!ا*"ز.

� � � � �

8 . f34 f{أ j! �*د وذgp'*(� � 8g8(p*ا �os'3*أو 14م ا �.; �t*(n3*ا f3'� 1ءt*ا .

� � � � �

9 . f .du*ا f34 f 6:= bo بg$(d*1ام ا�u$ا sog= 14م �`.cu*ا sv1pu* بg.n3*9 ا pu*وا .

� � � � �

.....................................................................................................-: أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 10....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

3.3.2- Fi�uo لCـ ¡ghم ,ـ�-tاه u©أآ xه � ؟�pq(h و*²j ا,-�ـ�,+o Fـ

) وهي األقل أهمية 8حتى ...... و هكذا 2 يعتبر األهمية األولي ويتبعه 1 حيث رقم 8 الي 1 رتب األهمية حسب المقياس من برجاء( �:)ب آ3 )ت ا�$pdu)ق ______ bo �د;ــ )(n3*ا �t*( ا*g�:3* � ا*8g8(p � – اt$e)ب - ا*9cdu –ا*1pرة : g4ا!f =¡ه. � ____________ �t*(n3*ا Ð $¡= : � p pd*وا �8 g8(p*14ة ا(p*ا *.t*(n3� ) ا�$pdu)ق (!t.¦ ا�$suداد ______

______ pu*ت وا(�(:d*ا f3'* ا*"زم �;g*9 ا ______ �t*(n3.* �`.cu*وا �;g*ت ا(tه)ن وإ�s� ______ �t$(53*وا �*gp'3*وا �;g�g3*ا � �(:d*ا �ا*� � sog=

______�)$s3uار ا*gد � x 3{ j اsyeاف ا�ه3u)م ��ء �hghjه�u! ، يu آ� أ�%oر وxoأي أ : -.. .....................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................

242

CLAIM DOCUMENTATION- 3.4 : المطالبة توثيق – 3.4

: التالية مدي خطورة العواملاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في - 3.4.1 ) واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار(

� مؤثر جدامؤثر المطالبةبعملية توثيق المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 .�w(�g*ا sog= ��g'r � �gu.* (6!1ا�u$� �.n*154 ا � � � � � � � � � � .su})ع ا*g.'3!)ت ا*�g.n3� c=.`� و-"ء ا$. 23 . �p�g3*ت ا(!g.'3*ا �14م د; � � � � � 4 . ��g! f ):= �8)م sog= 14م � � � � � ا*1p'3ة bo ا$su})ع ا*�w(�g تا*s �¡u وا%}sاءا. 5

��g.n3*ا � � � � �

6 . ( �(uآ �p�g! s - ت(!g.'3*ا Ê'� � � � � � *�gu � ا*g.'3!)ت أ�5)ء م=:1�u) �8)م (14م =sog 38)ذج. 7

، ا�}3u)4)ت ا*�)ص �)*s~(d! f�!x;g3=5` ^ ا*s<3وع و ................ا*svspu ا* b!g وأ!gر أ�sي

� � � � �

8 .( {g*g5cu*1ام ا�u$ا �.;) s=g t31–آvs� *ا� b8وsuc ( . �g= bo � ا*g.'3!)ت

� � � � �

9.�vg`� s!1ار أواrا*3)*� إ ft; j! . � � � � � .....................................................................................................-: أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 10

.................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................

:لها في مرحلة التوثيق ) عند الطلب (أي من الوثائق التالية ال تتوفر عند الحاجة - 3.4.2 )برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات (

�� دائمـا دائمـا جدا &�qدرا أ�� ال &ــ

� � � � � .و�)�w ا*'n)ء . 1ا*,!b5 اb$($e ا*g3ا4 �o. { ;ft �1ء }1ول ا34e)ل . 2

.ا34e)ل *.s<3وع � � � � �

3 . `5u*ا f� � � � � � .^}1ول ا34e)ل ا*,!b5 ا*3'1ل �"ل !sا4 . j osn*ا j � ا$"تs3*ا �w(و� � � � � � 5 . d ~gu*ا$"ت اs3*ات اs!^آ �34)ل e(� �r(�*ا � � � � � � � � � � !s~(d ا�}3u)4)ت . 67 . oاs-g=go رgr� �.c<3*ا Ñ~g= . � � � � � 8 . f3'*ا x;g3* � !g *ا svر(pu*ا f)$ � � � � � 9 . x;g3*ا bo �vs �u*ا s!واeا f)$ � � � � �

10 . x;g3*ا bo 1vرgu*ا f)$ � � � � � 11 . �`.cu*ا svر(p=ت و")$ � � � � � 12 . �vg`<*3)ت ا .'u*ا � � � � � � � � � � .=p)رsv ا*bo 9cdu ا*(gدة . 1314 . x;g3*ا bo ("ت دوام ا*'3)ل$ � � � � �

.....................................................................................................-: أي و�)�w أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 15....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

243

CLAIM PRESENTATION - 3.5 : عرض وتقديم المطالبة– 3.5

: التالية مدي خطورة العواملاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في - 3.5.1 )برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات(

�أ مؤثر جدامؤثر المطالبةبعملية عرض وتقديم المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�q�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 . �t*(n3*ا x! (63v1pu* �;"'*ذات ا �w(�g.* لgrg*ا ��g'r � � � � � 2 . svsp= , 6)= f3'� مgpv لg�:! �� sog= 14م

�t*(n3*ا � � � � �

3 . �t*(n3*6 , ا)= bo �d~اg*اءات اs{%ا sog= 14م � � � � � 4 . �d~1 38)ذج وا{gv � �t*(n3*9 اv1pu� �r(� � � � � � 5 . f3'*ا ��~ �t:� , 6)u.* bo(c*ا �;g*ا sog= 14م � � � � � 6 . �t*(n3*9 اv1pu* ا�=�)ل �'~. � � � � � 7 . s �du* j .!('*ة اst�*رة وا(ا*63 sog= 14م), 6)= (

.ا*t*(n3)ت� � � � �

.....................................................................................................- :أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 8....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

3.5.2- Fi�uo لCـ ¡ghم ,ـ�-tاه u©أآ xه � ؟� kgh و�uض ا,-�ـ�,+o Fـ

) األقل أهمية 7حتى ...... و هكذا 2 يعتبر األهمية األولي ويتبعه 1 حيث رقم 7 الي 1 رتب األهمية حسب المقياس من برجاء( ______ �t*(n3*9 اv1p=6 , و)u* ا*"زم �;g*ا و- s !')ديا=s - b!(6 أ$.gب ____________ 9v1pu*154 ا �t*(n3.* 1 )*ا%14اد ا

x5p!1 و { �t*(n3*ي اgud! ______ ______ ا*�gu � ا*( 1 154 ا*9v1pu وا*'sض

� =su*ا � pn5!) �t*(n3*ي اgud! f:.:= ( ______ �t*(n3*ب ا(t$e � p pd*وا �8 g8(p*ا b�______ ا*'sض ا*g5.* f!(cا

�ء �hghjه� ��-¡ أ uي أي أxoر�u! ، : -........................... .. .......................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................

3.5.3- Fiª3أ �o p jti, ت�+,� - : ا'�uاءات ا,-F�+t *( ا,u�tف �i( ا,-� 4)دة !j هg ا*>�� ا*g�:3ل f r(`= , 6)= j4 آ)!.� و!'.g!)ت j4 ا*t*(n3� ا*g53ي =bo (63v1p ا*>sآ� ؟ . 1

...................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

2 . �'tu! اءاتs{1 إ{gv fه)sv('! ( ؟ �t*(n3*9 اv1p= 154 ......................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................

244

- 3.6 : التفاوض حول المطالبة – 3.6 CLAIM NEGOTIATION

: التالية مدي خطورة العواملاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في - 3.6.1 )برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات(

: المطالبة التـفاوض حولمرحلةب أهمية المشاكل المرتبطة حدد � مؤثر جدامؤثر المطالبةبعملية التفاوض حول المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

� � � � � 14م و}gد �u.* s t`)وض b.4 ا*t*(n3)ت. 1 � � � � � ا*�"o)ت �"ل ا*u`)وض . 2�f ا*c<3.� �1ون ا*.(gء *.cdu 9 أو ا*�p)ء . 3 ��g'r � � � � � � � � � � =s=g ا*'";)ت !x اsyeاف اs�eى . 45 .f3'*ا ��~ �t:� bo(c*ا �;g*ا sog= 14م � � � � � 6 .s�eف اsn*5)ع ا;% �w(�g*وا f *1*ا sog= 14م � � � � � ........................................................... ..........................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 7

.................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................

3.6.2- xه ��م ,ـgh¡ ـCلoـ-tاه u©أآFi�uo F+,��وض �i( ا,-�ـ|t,وا F%(�so ؟ )6حتى...... و هكذا 2 يعتبر األهمية األولي ويتبعه 1 حيث رقم 5 الي 1 رتب األهمية حسب المقياس من برجاء(

=(�5 ا*.(gء إ*b ا*cdu 9 وا*�p)ء ______ ______ jc3! �;ع وs$¡� �t*(n3*ا �vg:=

______ �vg:u*ل ا"� j! j osn*ا j � دل(tu3*وا x5p3*ا fd*ا ______ ^ `5u.* j !وا*3)ل ا*"ز bo(~%ا �;g*ا b.4 لg�d*ا ;� } 1ة �)syeاف اs�eى - s !')دي %p�)ء 4"أ$.gب ______ �f ا*t*(n3� �vsy j4 ا*.(gء *.cdu 9 وا*�p)ء ______

�ت أي أxoر وo�-tاه ��ء �hghjه�u! ، يu أ : - ..................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................

3.6.3 - Fiª3أ �o p jti, ت�+,� - : ا'�uاءات ا,-F�+t *( ا,u�tف �i( ا,-� ....... ) ا}3u)4)ت ، !sا$"ت ، !15و� j -:!�)ل (4)!� آ � 9uv ا*u`)وض و!5);>� ا*t*(n3� x! اsyeاف اs�eى ؟ . 1

............................................................................ .......................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

�f ا*t*(n3� j! �"ل ا*.(gء *.cdu 9 أو ا*�p)ء ؟ . 2 b.4 1رةp*ا j! �v1* نgcv 9آ ......................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................... f34 ا*t*(n3)ت *.>sآ� ؟4)!� !) !1ي ر~)ك j4 اeداء ��gص . 3

...................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................

!j هg ا*>�� ا*g�:3ل j4 ا*u`)وض و!5);>� أ!gر ا*t*(n3)ت ؟ . 4......................................................................................................................................................................

........................... ..........................................................................................................................................

245

مطالبات معينة : الجـزء الرابع – 4

TIME EXTENSTON CLAIMS - 4.1 : مطالبة تمديد الوقت – 4.1

) .برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات( تأثير المشاكل التالية في مراحل إعداد المطالبة ما هي جدية * � مؤثر جدامؤثر بطلبات تمديد الوقت المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

1 . fv1'= 14م �t:� �*وذ �.c<3*1 اv1d= ��g'r) �v1d= ( ا*(1ول ا*,!b5 ؟

� � � � �

2 . �;g*ا bo s �¡= دg{و j4 ا%�"غ bo إ�`)ق ا*1563س ا*53)$� ؟

� � � � �

3 . �t*(n3*ا bo �d*ت ا(tإ� bo ��g'r � � � � � 4 .�;g*ا s �¡= f .d= bo ةst�*ا*63)رة وا sog= 14م . � � � � � 5 . s - أو x;gu! 1ث آ)نd*ت �¡ن ا(t�%ا b.4 1رةp*14م ا

x;gu!. � � � � �

6 . s �¡u*(� �nt=s3*ار اs~eا b.4 فs'u*ا ��g'r. � � � � �

CLAIMS FROM CHANGE ORDERS - 4.2 : طلبات التغيير – 4.2

) .برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات( ما هي جدية تأثير المشاكل التالية في مراحل إعداد المطالبة * � مؤثر جدامؤثر لتغيير بطلبات ا المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

أن ا*s �uات �s� ( �t:� ��1ه)ن(!>)آbo f إ�t)ت . 1 =g} 6)ت �`vg� j! ا*1563س ؟

� � � ��

� � � � � �:g$ �tء ا*`96 و-g3ض �15 ا*bo s �u ا*'1p ؟. 23 .154 s'$ 1v1du* وض(`u*ا bo ؟ا*�"ف f3'*ا s �= � � � � � 4 . j! =(5*ر اs�*وا �t*(n3*ا s �¡=9 و pu� �nt=s! ت(o"�

s �u*ه^ا ا . � � � � �

5 . �t:� �t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u*3 , وا= bo ت(�g'r=� sات !u'1دة �:g= �t} 6)ت ا*1563س ا*g�:3ل أ�5)ء =5` ^

.ا*s<3وع � � � � �

DESIGN – RELATED CLAIMS - 4.3 :صميم مطالبات بخصوص الت– 4.3

) .برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات( ما هي جدية تأثير المشاكل التالية في مراحل إعداد المطالبة * � مؤثر جدامؤثر بخصوص التصميم المشاكل المتعلقة �� &�qأ�u®¯o درا� توجدال u®¯o&ــ

�.� ا*'n)ء ؟ *('o� s!ا}'� 14م. 1s! 9 �"ل !(�u*ا � � � � � 2 . j4 �$(53*ا �;g*ا bo �*(3*إ�')ر ا bo ا%�`)ق

ا*3>)آf ا*.3ud3� j! ا*�u)! 9 ؟� � � � �

ا*(1ل �gل !j هg ا*g�:3ل fv1'= j4 و=� s أ�n)ء . 3 ا*�u)! 9 ؟

� � � � �

�g'r� 1v1d= bo ا*>�� ا*g�:3ل s! j4ا}'� . 4(�u*9 ا ! .

� � � � �

5 . 9 !(�u*ا bo ضg3- دg{و svst= bo ��g'r. � � � � �

246

: الجـزء الخامس أسئلة عامــة – 5.0

؟ المقاول –) المالك وممثله في المشروع ( بشكل عام كيف تقيم العالقة بين أطراف المشروع – 5.1

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

تنصح بها جهات أطراف المشروع بخصوص المطالبات وتطوير هذا المفهوم ؟ ما هي التوصيات التي – 5.2

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

................................................... ..............................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

247


in the Gaza Strip

ANNEX 6

Questionnaire for Owners (English / Arabic)

248




QUESTIONNAIRE


�ت *( )��ع ا'&%�ءات ! ��ع ��ة+,��ن �xل أ3+�ب وإدارة ا,-�q+t3ا

( Owners )

Researcher : Said Nihad Elghandour

Supervised by : Professor. Dr. Adnan Enchassi

December 2005

249

Questionnaires For Surveying Claim Practices in The Gaza Strip

( To be completed By Owners/ Consultant )

Dear Sir : I am a student of the Construction Management Master Program at the faculty of engineering at the Islamic University - Gaza . I’ am interested in learning more about the Claim Causes and Management practices in the Gaza Strip construction sector as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master’s Degree in Engineering . This study aims to identify the underlying causation of the problems in claim process in Gaza construction Companies . To do this , of course , means going to someone such as yourself who Knows. Your help with the few questions on the attached pages will take only a few minutes and will make a real contribution to the accuracy and success of this study . Your Answer will be treated in strict confidence and will be used only as parts of my thesis study for analysis . Any publication will be only statistical totals for groups of companies . QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS Part 1 – General Information Part 2 – Causes And Factors Result In Claim In Construction Projects Part 3 – Common Procedures :

3.1 Claim Identification 3.2 Claim Notification 3.3 Claim Examination 3.4 Claim Documentation 3.5 Claim Presentation 3.6 Claim Negotiation

Part 4 – Particular Claims: 4.1 - Time Extension Claims 4.2 - Claims From Change Orders 4.3 - Design – Related Claims

PART 5 – General Questions

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated . Thank you for your cooperation . Sincerely

Said Elghandour

250

Part 1 – General Information * About You :-

4. Your position : � Firm Manager � Project Manager � Site Engineer � Others 5. Your experience relating to construction projects : � Less then 5 years �5 -10 years � More then 10 years 6. The highest contact Value you ever worked with ( US $) :

� Less then 250 � 250 -500 � 510–750 � 760- Million � More then one Million * About Your Company :-

6. Classification of firm in construction business : (Private Sector-General Sector ) 7. Experience of firm in construction business (years ) : ____________ 8. 9. Average number of employees : � 1-10 �11 -20 � 21–30 � More then 40 10. Number of projects implemented during the last five years :-

� Less then 10 �10 -20 � 21–30 � 31- 40 � More then 40

11. Cost of projects implemented during the last five years (US $ Million ) : � Less then 1 � 1 -2 � 2.1–3 � 3.1- 4 � More then 4

2.0 Part Two : Causes and factors resulting in claims in construction projects

Bases on your experiences in claim practices ,what is your opinion of the following questions ? ( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the circle number 1 to 5 ) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Very

high High Medium Low

Very Low

1.0 Claims factors caused by Owner :- 41. Delay contractor progress payments � � � � � 42. Owners fund difficulties as result donors fund delayed � � � � � 43. Residents interfering during project implementation

causing contractor activities delay . � � � � �

44. Site handling with obstacles (license , land occupation etc..) � � � � � 45. Un cooperative owner with the contractor regarding work

activities and following up with owner supervision team � � � � �

46. Owner's slow decisions � � � � � 47. Owner's direct interfering in project without any

coordination and ignoring his supervision team � � � � �

48. Project termination or suspension of some main activities during project implementation . � � � � �

49. lack of supervision team experience in project supervision � � � � � 50. Adversarial relation between the contractor and owner /


51. Cardinal Changes in the quantity Plus or Minus � � � � � 52. Chang in Site location or conditions � � � � � 53. Lack of supervision team authority and weakness in

decisions � � � � �

Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.63cm, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Startat: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0 cm + Tab after: 1.27 cm + Indentat: 1.27 cm



251

Continue PART 2 – Causes and factors result in claim in construction projects (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Very

always Always Medium Low No

54. lack of owner support to his supervision team � � � � � 55. Owner poor controlling and monitoring to his


56. Continuous oral instruction to contractor � � � � � 57. low Quality assurance and control in the project � � � � � 58. Poor supervision team judgment in estimating time and

resources � � � � �

59. The supervision team require (Insisting ) the contractor to supply material with higher standards and price than specified in the contract

� � � � �

60. Changes of Currency Value [ Index Value ] � � � � � 61. Unexpected increment in material prices � � � � � 62. Materials rejection because of Quality and specification � � � � � 63. Changes in material type and specification during

construction � � � � �

2.0 Design and Bill of Quantity :- 64. Ambiguous and incomplete drawing and bill of quantity � � � � � 65. Different description for the item in the bill of quantity

than is mentioned in the specification � � � � �

66. Drawing and bill of quantity are not fitting the construction site � � � � �

67. Cardinal changes or modifying the design during construction � � � � �

68. Using over quality specification or international specification where are not available in the local market � � � � �

69. Over design � � � � � 3.0 Contractual relationship factor :- 70. Poor contract management and ambiguities � � � � � 71. Different type of contracts � � � � � 72. Awarding bid to the Lower bidder � � � � � 73. Awarding process take long period after bid open process � � � � � 74. Payment period are not followed when submitting invoices � � � � � 75. Chang in the legislation and process ( as Tax free or

changing in the Tax Value …….) � � � � �

76. Interpreting for some items in the contract with no reference in the Palestine law � � � � �

4. Emergence Cases :- 77. Natural conditions factors ( Bad weather , ect……) � � � � � 78. Main borders closures � � � � � 79. Road Blockage and difficulties to pass between cities ,

Cities and Governorate Occupation � � � � �

80. Demonstrations and strikes � � � � � 5.Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

252


3.1 CLAIM IDENTIFICATION


number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Your opinion within these statements during the process of **CLAIM IDENTIFICATION ** Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1. The contractor is aware of job factors giving rise to a claim

� � � � �


� � � � �


� � � � �


� � � � �

5.Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.2 CLAIM NOTIFICATION


number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Your opinion within these statements during the process of **CLAIM NOTIFICATION ** Strongly


Strongly Disagree

1. Contractors always notify you the existing claims within time limit requirement in the contract .

� � � � �


� � � � �


� � � � �

4. The contractor always submit the notice in writing . � � � � � 5. The claims notices are always short and clear easy to understand ,

� � � � �

6. The contractor always alert you of a potential problem in a manner that is non-adversarial .

� � � � �

7. The claim notified by contractor are often reasonable with legal and factual grounds referred to the contract documents .

� � � � �


253

3.3 CLAIM EXAMINATION


number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Your opinion within these statements during the process of **CLAIM EXAMINATION ** Strongly


Strongly Disagree

1. The contractor’s claims are always calculated accurately. The over- inflated claims are not too often found .

� � � � �

2. The formula used in calculation are suitable, reasonable and reliable .

� � � � �

3. The entitlement factors are always shown and referred (entitlement factors: foreseeability, control, causation, and legal responsibility )

� � � � �

4 .Other problem , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

254

3.4 CLAIM DOCUMENTATION

Bases on your experiences in claim practices ,what is your opinion of the following questions ? ( Pleas indicate your opinion by checking in the

circle number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.4.1 - Problems associated with the process of **CLAIM DOCUMENTATION ** Very

Serious Serious

Some Extent

Not Serious

Never Found

1. Inaccessibility of documents when required � � � � � 2. Expensive to retrieve required information � � � � � 3. Inaccurate recorded information � � � � � 4. Ineffective record keeping system of contractor � � � � � 5. Overdue process in retrieving the documents back � � � � � 6. Some information is not kept in writing � � � � � 7. No standard form used to record the data during construction memos, C.O. etc.

� � � � �


� � � � �


(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 3.4.2 - How often are these documents when required missed submitted by Contractors ?

**CLAIM DOCUMENTATION ** Very often

Often Some times

Rarely Never

1. Contract document � � � � � 2. Preliminary and baseline schedules � � � � � 3. Updates project schedules � � � � � 4. Relevant correspondence between parties � � � � � 5. Clarification memos � � � � � 6. Meeting minutes � � � � � 7. Photograph depicting the problems � � � � � 8. Daily reports and logs � � � � � 9. Change order logs � � � � � 10. Submittal logs � � � � � 11. Cost report and records � � � � � 12. Oral Instruction � � � � � 13. Quality control report � � � � � 14. labor power chart � � � � � 15. Other document , please specify …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

255



number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Your opinion within these statements during the process of **CLAIM PRESENTATION** Strongly


Strongly Disagree

1. The full detail of claim submitted by contractors are always logically built up

� � � � �

2. The contractor’s claim submission are always well-documented with fully evidences substantiating the entitlement .

� � � � �

3. The full detail report of claim submitted by contractor are always well-organized with a standard format .

� � � � �

4. The statements in claim submission from contractors are factually convincing and persuasive .

� � � � �

5. The contractor always submit you a full detail of claim with a good faith .

� � � � �

6. The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways clear using simple words so it is easy to understand .

� � � � �

7. The claims submitted by Contractors are al ways reasonably referred to the legal and factually grounds for the entitlement .

� � � � �




number 1 to 5 )

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Your opinion within these statements during the process of **CLAIM NEGOTIATION ** Strongly


Strongly Disagree

1. The contractor always put the most effort to mitigate the settlement by Litigation or Arbitration .

� � � � �

2. Claims are always resolved as soon as possible concerning their effects to the project’s performance .

� � � � �

3. Most of the claims are settled amicably concerning mutual satisfaction of both sides .

� � � � �

4. The negotiation of claims is always objective directed to the problems .

� � � � �

5. Claims negotiation is conducted professionally and cooperatively .

� � � � �

6. Adversarial relationship between parties due to claim negotiation is rarely happened .

� � � � �


256

PART 5 – General Questions :

5.1 Generally, evaluate the relationship between project parties (owner/owner representative and

contractor)

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

5.2 What do you recommend project parties with regard to claims and development of Claims

Concepts?

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................... .........................................................................................................

.............................................................................

5.3 Your comments about the questionnaire

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

257


غزة–اجلامعة اإلسالمية ة الدراسات العلياعماد


F3ل دراx� ن�q+t3ا


�ري( %t3¨ا uــ�& Fو�ــ� / ¡,�)ا,-ـ

كماال ملتطلبات احلصول علي درجة املاجستري يف إدارة املشاريعتإس

��-:ا,+ ـhورـــ�3sـــhq ا,�. م

-:ا,-%uف

�ذ t3ر أxtدآ /)B��ن إ&%&h�

�ذ t3أ Fq3hs�,ا ngر� إدارة ا,-%

December 2005

258

Questionnaires


�ن �xل أ3+�ب وإدارةq+t3ةا��ت *( )��ع ا'&%�ءات ! ��ع +,� ا,-��ري ( %t3¨أو ا ¡,� )�o �+�g )+� ا,-

( To be completed By Owner )

�qـــoutj-,دة ا� : ا,rــــ

F3hs�,ا Fqiآ )* �,�� ا,+�j ا,�qs, )iq-lt ( إدارة ا,-%�رng *( ا,~�F�o ا'FqoC3 ، أ)xم !�-� دراkr( –F3 ا,-��uqtr-أ&

uqtr��ع ��ة وا,x� kgh � Fqل أ3+�ب )��دة ا,-�( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,� . ا,-��F إ,( !�� ا'*�دات*و,��ا � )* F3راh,ت �ن ا�oxi�-,وا Fq,ب وا��ت *( ا,-%�رng وF*u�o رأx� )* ¡gص أ3++,�� kgh ا,-�

q3hs�,اF. kgh � )* F�+t-,ا Fgا'دار Fq,vا F*u�o )i� h��rt3 )3راh,ا �j+,ا ا��, ��-gh � )* نx-ه�rt3 )t,ت ا�oxi�-,أن ا �ع ��ة �( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,��ت وk�rt3 *( و¤x�� nر وا¤£ ,Ei�xات ا'دارFg ا,kgh t, F-qir ا,-��. ا,-�+, .

�,( ا,�hد و,� ktg ا,t�uق إ-�§! FB�E,م ا��Fgur! �o آ�Fio وktq3 اhEt3ام اvر)�t3 Foh -,ت ا�oxi�-,آ� ا FB��ت oxi�o أي ),r3¯-,�!FF,�3u,ا �-¤ .

�ن* q+t3¨ت ا�&xlo: - �ت : ا,~�ء اvول - &� �ــ�q!Foـ - )&��: ا,~�ء ا,©+,� ا,-%�رng ا,�Fq3hs *(تأ3+�ب ا,-� - �,��ت : ا,~�ء ا,©+,� ا'�uاءات ا,�ـــ�Fo ا,-kgh � )* F+�t ا,-�

3.1 - �t*(n3*ا b.4 فs'u*ا 3.2 - �t*(n3*ا b.4 ¦ .tu*ا 3.3 - �t*(n3*و=1; � ا �d`=

3.4 - �t*(n3*ا � �g= 3.5 - �t*(n3*9 اv1p=ض وs4

3.6 -�t*(n3*ل اg� ا*u`)وض - n!اu,ا,~�ء ا :Fــo� أFiª3 �ــ

o ��, �-, �sqi� ¡�u+E! �E+� C* F3راh,ي ه�¬ اu©t3 kl�u+ و kl��oxi�oةh«�* � £qjBر وا¤£ وx�� n¤و )* �ع ��ة �( )* Fq3hs�,ا ngر��ت *( ا,-%+,� .,Ei�xات ا'دارFg ا,kgh � )* F-qir ا,-�

!-�hg ا¨�utام ،،،،،،،

hq�3 ا,�sـــhور . م

259

ــة ــامـ عبيــانات: الجزء األول - 1

-: بيانات عامة عن الشخص الذي سيمأل االستبيان -1 أخري � مهندس موقع � مدير المشاريع � مديـر المؤسسة � : الموقع الوظيفي .4

سنوات 10 أكثر من � سنوات 10 -5 من �ات سنو5 أقل من � : عدد سنوات الخبرة في المشاريع الهندسية .5

:) $بالدوالر( ي مشروع قمت بتنفيذه قيمة أعل .6

$ مليون أكثر من� $ مليون-760 �$ ألف 750 -510 �$ ألف500 – 250 �$ ألف250 أقل من �

- : بيانات عن المؤسسة -2

)خـاص قطاع -قطاع عــام ( المؤسسة تصنيف .6

: ................ )عدد السنوات ( في المشاريع الهندسية المؤسسةخبرة .7

30 أكثر من � 30 -21 � 20 - 11 � 10-1 �: عدد موظفين المؤسسة الدائمين .8

: عدد المشاريع المنفذة خالل الخمس سنوات السابقة .9

40 أكثر من � 40 -31 � 30 -21 � 20 - 10 � 10 أقل من �

) : مليون دوالر ( تكلفة المشاريع المنفذة خالل الخمس سنوات السابقة .10

4 أكثر من � 4 -3.1 � 3 -2.1 � 2 - 1 � 1 أقل من �

: األسباب التي تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات في المشاريع الهندسية :لجـزء الثاني ا – 2.0

:لة التالية ألسئالمطالبات الهندسية ما هو رأيك في ا المشاكل المرتبطة باعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال •

)برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات وعمل دائرة عليه( ��

� دائمـا دائمـا جدا &�qدرا أ�� ال &ــ : عوامل تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات بسببها المالك 1.0 � � � � �تأخر المالك في دفع مستحقات المقاول .1صعوبات مالية لدي المالك بسبب تأخر التمويل من .2

� � � � � المانحة الدول

3. �t:v (3! وعs<3*(� 34)لe5` ^ ا= bo ن(c:*�1"ت ا= =¡� s =5` ^ ا34e)ل bo ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

–تراخيص ( عدم تسليم موقع العمل خالي من العوائق .4 � � � � � ...... ) خالفه –تعديات

العمل عدم تعاون المالك مع المقاول بخصوص .5 � � � � �ومتابعة العمل مع جهاز اإلشراف المعين من قبل المالك

� � � � �تباطؤ المالك في اتخاذ القرارات .6 =�1"ت ا*3)*� ا*s�(t3ة bo ا*s<3وع دون ا*g{sع .7

}.t; j! j '3*اف اs�%(6)ز ا*. � � � � �

أو تنفيذ المشروع علي ) فسخ العقد( إنهاء المشروع .8 � � � � � . مراحل أثناء تنفيذ المقاول لألعمال

� � � � � المشروع عدم توفر الخبرة في جهاز اإلشراف علي .9 � � � � � )اإلشراف والمقاول( العالقة المعادية بين الطرفين .10 � � � � � العقد المطلوبة بالناقص أوالزيادة تغيير جذرية في كميات .11 � � � � � تغيير موقع المشروع .12اتخاذ (ضعف صالحيات جهاز اإلشراف في الموقع .13

� � � � � )القرار

260

: األسباب أو العوامل التي تؤدي إلي حدوث المطالبات في المشاريع الهندسية :الجـزء الثاني تابع – 2.0

� دائمـا ادائمـا جد &�qدرا أ�� ال &ــ � � � � � عدم مساندة اإلدارة العليا لجهاز اإلشراف في العمل .14) المالك( عدم متابعة ومراقبة ومسائلة اإلدارة العليا .15

� � � � � .لجهاز اإلشراف في المشروع

� � � � � إعطاء التعليمات الشفوية للمقاول باستمرار .16 � � � � � عة للجودة في المشروع عدم وجود متاب .17ضعف خبرة جهاز اإلشراف في تقديرات الوقت .18

� � � � � للمشروع ةوالمصادر المطلوب

إصرار جهاز اإلشراف علي توريد مواد أغلي من المواد .19 � � � � � األخرى الحائزة علي نفس المواصفة من حيث الجودة

� � � � � Index Valueفي سعر النقدفرق العملة والتقلبات .20 � � � � �ارتفاع أسعار المواد المفاجئ .21عدم اعتماد المواد المطلوبة بسبب االختالف علي نوع .22

� � � � � . الجودة والمواصفات المعتمدة

� � � � � واصفات المواد أثناء التنفيذ تغيير في نوع وم .23 : التصميم وجداول الكميات 2.0عدم وضوح التصاميم أو جدول كميات المشروع وعدم .24

� � � � � .اكتمالها

وجو اختالف بين وصف البند في جدول الكميات وفي .25 � � � � � المواصفات بند

� � � � � وجدول الكميات للواقعتعدم تطابق المخططا .26 � � � � � تعديل أو تغير جذري في التصاميم أثناء التنفيذ .27استخدام مواصفات عالمية يصعب توفرها في السوق .28

� � � � � المحلي

� � � � � )Over design( تصميم فوق العادة .29 : عوامل العالقات التعاقدية 3.0�:� g8ع )=>)�{ ا*'gpد و14م درا$6uغموض العقود أو .30

ا*s<3وع� � � � �

� � � � � تعدد العقود الموجودة في قطاع اإلنشاءات .31 � � � � �) العطاء المنخفض ( ترسيه العطاء ألقل السعار .32 طول المدة الزمنية من تاريخ فتح العطاء حتى إعطاء .33

� � � � � . أمر الترسية للمشروع علي المقاول

� � � � � بالمدة المحددة للدفع حسب العقد عدم االلتزام .34مثل اإلعفاء الضريبي أو ( التغير في القوانين واألنظمة .35

� � � � � )تغير قيمة الضريبة المضافة

تفسيرات بعض البنود في العقد التي ليس لها مرجعية في .36 � � � � � .القانون الفلسطيني

:الظـروف الطارئـة 4.0 37. � ' ty f!اg4 ) ظروف جوية سيئة( � � � � � � � � � � ةحدوث إغالقات للمعابر الرئيسي .38 � � � � � للمدن والمحافظات اجتياجات,ةقطع الطرق الرئيسي .39 � � � � � فه وخال ومظاهرات إضرابات .40 � � � � � وجود أشياء غير مرئية بموقع العمل .41

261

CLAIM NOTIFICATION - 3.2 : علي المطالبة)اإلعالم(التبليغ – 3.2

المشاكل المتعلقة بعملية التبليغ علي ما هو رأيك في مدي خطورةاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية • ) واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار( : لة التاليةألسئا حسب ةالمطالب

�� موافق جداموافق &�qأ� p*اxo uq� غير موافق بشدة

ا*p3)و* sn�v jوt*(n3*(� �8� j3~ ا*`suة ا*,!5 � . 1 1p'*(� دةg{g3*ا.

� � � � �

2 . xvزgu*ا �ول !3�5(p3*ا ft; j! �!1p3*ت ا(��ا*3"(38 j3~ �t=s!و �ذج ووا;' .

� � � � �

3 . �3w"! bه �t*(n3*ا x! �pos3*ا �w(�g*ا . � � � � � 4 . ( n� 96=(��"! j *و(p3*1م اpv. � � � � � � � � � � .إ�n)ر ا*t*(n3� وا~Ñ و!�s�u وf6$ ا*`96 . 56 . s - بg.$¡� �.3ud3*ا �.c<3*(� ول �¥8^ارك(p3*م اgpv

!')دي� � � � �

� )ن ا%�n)ر ا*1p3م !j ا*p3)ول !'gpل bo أ. 7eا �.- 1p'*ا �w(و� b*15 إu:vو.

� � � � �

.....................................................................................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 9

CLAIM EXAMINATION - 3.3 : ة تفحص وتدقيق المطالب– 3.3

المشاكل المتعلقة بعملية تفحص وتدقيق ما هو رأيك في مدي خطورةاعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية • )برجاء اختيار واحد من الخيارات( : لة التاليةألسئا حسب ةالمطالب


�:)�)ت . 1 bo 9 ��u*ب ا*1; � ، وأن ا(:d*(� ول(p3*م اgpv .ا*t*(n3� *9 ='1 داg{g! (3wدة

� � � � �

2 . �;g�g! bه �t*(n3*ا bo �!1�u:3*ا � �(:d*ا �أن ا*� � . *.Êvg'u ووا;' � و!t$(5� t3.*.¦ ا*g.n3ب

� � � � �

دو!) وا~d� bo ا*t*(n3�) ا*g4)�dا!f اeه. � . . 3 – أ$t)ب – ا*9cdu –;1رة ا*g4 : x;guا!f اeه. � (

� � � � �

إجراءات عـامــة : لجـزء الثالث - 3

CLAIM IDENTIFICATION -3.1 : التعرف علي المطالبة– 3.1

المشاكل المتعلقة بعملية التعرف علي دي خطورةما هو رأيك في ماعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية •

) واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار( : لة التاليةألسئا حسب ةالمطالب��

� موافق جداموافق &�qأ� p*اxo uq� غير موافق بشدة

� � � � � ك *'gا!f ا*'f3 ا*�tt$ bu ا*t*(n3� ا*p3)ول !1ر. 12 . (3wدا bه j *و(p3*ا ft; j! �!1p3*ت ا(t*(n3*ا (v(�;

xos= (! 8)درا �vورs~ s �*ا fوا*3>)آ �*gp'!و �d dr. � � � � �

ا*p3)و* g�`udv jن �f34 �w(�g ا*s<3وع ، و154 . 3�1وث ا*.c<3� �*g6:� gos'uvن 4. 6) .

� � � � �

ا*t*(n3� دا9uv (3w ا*s'uف 4. 6) أ�5)ء ا*s<3وع و8)درا !) . 4 .=fd �'1 اآ3u)ل ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

.....................................................................................................-: أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 5

Formatted: Indent: Before: 0.44cm, Hanging: 0.32 cm, Bulleted +Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0 cm + Tabafter: 1.4 cm + Indent at: 1.4 cm,Tabs: Not at 1.4 cm

262

� 8g8(p*ا � *g�:3*وا. ( ................................................... ..................................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 4

CLAIM DOCUMENTATION - 3.4 : المطالبة توثيق –3.4

:لة التالية ألسئاحسب ا,-��,+pq®x� Fqi-�! Fا,-%�آ� ا,-F i�t ما هو رأيك فيلمطالبات الهندسية اعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال ا* )واحد من الخيارات اختيار برجاء(

�� u®¯o مؤثر مؤثر جدا &�qأ� u®¯o درا� ال توجد &

1 .�w(�g*ا sog= ��g'r � �gu.* (6!1ا�u$� �.n*154 ا � � � � � 2 . ��g.n3*ت ا(!g.'3*ع ا({su$و-"ء ا �`.c=. � � � � � 3 . �p�g3*ت ا(!g.'3*ا �14م د; � � � � � 4 .��g! f ):= �8)م sog= ول 14م(p3*ا ft; j! � � � � � ا*1p'3ة bo ا$su})ع ا*�w(�g تا*s �¡u وا%}sاءا. 5

��g.n3*ا � � � � �

6 . ( �(uآ �p�g! s - ت(!g.'3*ا Ê'� � � � � � *�gu � ا*g.'3!)ت م=:1�u) �8)م(14م =sog 38)ذج . 7

3u{ا� f34وع وs<3*أ�5)ء =5` ^ ا x;g3*(� 4)ت ا*�)ص(. � � � � �

�1vs –آs=g t3 (ا*g*g5cu} ) ا*t$gd3� ا$1�uام ;.�. 8*eا b8وsuc ( ت(!g.'3*ا � �g= bo .

� � � � �

� � � � � . إ1rار أوا!vg`� s� ft; j! ا*3)*� .9 ..................................................................... ................................-: أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 10

.................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................

)واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار ( :عند الطلب أي من الوثائق بالغالب غير متوفرة لدي المقاول * ��

� دائما جدادائما &�qدرا أ�� توجدال &ــ

� � � � � .و�)�w ا*'n)ء . 1}1ول ا34e)ل ا*,!b5 اb$($e ا*g3اft; } .4 �o �1ء . 2

.ا34e)ل *.s<3وع � � � � �

3 . `5u*ا f� � � � � � .^}1ول ا34e)ل ا*,!b5 ا*3'1ل �"ل !sا4 . osn*ا j � ا$"تs3*ا �w(و� j � � � � � 5 . d ~gu*ا$"ت اs3*ات اs!^آ �34)ل e(� �r(�*ا � � � � � � � � � � !s~(d ا�}3u)4)ت . 67 . oاs-g=go رgr� �.c<3*ا Ñ~g= . � � � � � 8 . f3'*ا x;g3* � !g *ا svر(pu*ا f)$ � � � � � 9 . x;g3*ا bo �vs �u*ا s!واeا f)$ � � � � �

10 .u*ا f)$ x;g3*ا bo 1vرg � � � � � 11 . �`.cu*ا svر(p=ت و")$ � � � � � 12 . �vg`<*3)ت ا .'u*ا � � � � � � � � � � .=p)رsv ا*(gدة . 1314 . x;g3*ا bo ("ت ا*'3)ل$ � � � � �

........................................................... ..........................................-: أي و�)�w أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 15....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

263

- 3.5 : عرض وتقديم المطالبة– 3.5 CLAIM PRESENTATION

:لة التالية ألسئ احسب ة عرض وتقديم المطالبةما هو رأيك بعملياعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال المطالبات الهندسية * )واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار (


1 .bo �!1p3*ا f r(`u*ا fc<� �t=s! ول(p3*ا �t*(n! bpn5! .

� � � � �

2 . �!g41!1 و { fc<� �t=s! �!1p3*ول ا(p3*ا �t*(n! �t*(n3*ا bo }p� �t�= bu*ا �w(�g*(� .

� � � � �

=`)svsp= f r ا*t*(n3� ا*!1p3� ft; j! ا*p3)ول . 3 . !t=s� �j3~ 1 { fc< 38)ذج

� � � � �

ا*!1p3� ft; j! ا*p3)ول ) �dvs)ت ا*u (ا%o)دةأن . 4 b';وا fc<� �!1p!و �5'p! bه .

� � � � �

=`)f r ا*t*(n3� ا*!1p3� ft; j! ا*p3)ول آ)!.� . 5 .و!1p!� ��1ق

� � � � �

ا*t*(n3� ا*!1p3� ft; j! ا*p3)ول $6.� ا*`96 . 6�d~وا.

� � � � �

7 .p'! bول ه(p3*ا ft; j! �!1p3*ا �t*(n3*ا �*g �t*(n3*(� �d*(� � 8g8(p*14ة ا(p*ا b*15 إu:=و .

� � � � �

.....................................................................................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 8....................................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................

CLAIM NEGOTIATION - 3.6 : المفاوضات في المطالبات – 3.6

:لة التالية ألسئاحسب ما هو رأيك بعملية التفاوض علي المطالبة المطالبات الهندسية اعتمادا علي خبرتك في مجال • )واحد من الخيارات برجاء اختيار (

�� وض |t,ا Fqi-�! ¡gرأF+,�� موافق جداموافق �i( ا,-�&�qأ� p*اxo uq� غير موافق بشدة

1 . b*ء اg).*دون ا �t*(n3*ا fd� �16{ ول(p3*ل ا^tv . ا*cdu 9 أو ا*�p)ء

� � � � �

�)ل =¡� sه) . 2 bo jc3! �;ع وs$¡� fd= ت(t*(n3*ا .b.4 أداء ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

3 . j � دل(tu3*ا (~s*ه9 وا(`u*(� fd= ت(t*(n3*أن أ-.� ا .أsyاف ا*s<3وع

� � � � �

bo ا*t*(n3)ت !g~' � و=Õ;(5 تأن ا*3`)و~). 4 . ا*c<3.� ا*`'. �

� � � � �

bo ا*t*(n3)ت =(sي �>sud! fcف تو~)أن ا*3`) . 5 . و!u')ون � j اsyeاف

� � � � �

� � � � � . ا*t*(n3� =¤دي ا*b زv)دة ا*'1ا w� � j اsyeاف .6 ................... ..................................................................................- : أي أ!gر و!>)آf أ�sي ، �s})ء =1v1dه) . 7

.................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................

264

: الجـزء الرابـع أسئلة عامــة – 5.0

؟ المقاول –) المالك وممثله في المشروع ( بشكل عام كيف تقيم العالقة بين أطراف المشروع – 5.1

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

ما هي التوصيات التي تنصح بها جهات أطراف المشروع بخصوص المطالبات وتطوير هذا المفهوم ؟ – 5.2

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

............................. ....................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

Claims Causes and Management Process in the …Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip ة˙˝ ع˚˜...

Documents

Transcript of Claims Causes and Management Process in the …Construction Industry in the Gaza Strip ة˙˝ ع˚˜...