Contemporary Causes of Construction Delay

CONTEMPORARY CAUSES OF CONSTRUCTION DELAY IN
SAUDI ARABIA, ACCORDING TO CONTRACTORS,

CONSULTANTS, AND OWNERS
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State University, Fullerton
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering
By
Sulaiman Ahmed Al-Tami
Approved by:
UAm A v e T / S M * / ___________________ O 'f/M /J J /J '

Hakob Avetisyan, Ph.D., Committee Chair Date
Department of Civil Engineering
Ô ri^yw i ^___________ <3 4 / 2^ ) 15~

Pratanu Ghosh, Ph.D., Committee Member Date
g>4/24 70
Dlepaft Sharma, Ph.D., Committee Member I Date'
UMI Number: 1526455
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Di!ss0?t&iori P iiblist’Mlg
UMI 1526455
Published by ProQuest LLC 2015. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
This thesis provides analysis of reasons for delays in construction projects in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Because of the large number of construction projects in Saudi
Arabia, it is important that these types of projects are completed efficiently and without
exceeding budget goals. However, a large percentage of the projects are often delayed
and the cost of the project exceeded because of negligence or mistakes.
As a still developing country, Saudi Arabia should consider techniques that other
developed countries have used in order to complete construction projects more
efficiently. This study analyzes Saudi Arabian project management in regards to planned
projected duration and actual duration of construction projects. The intent is to find the
most important causes of delay in construction projects in Saudi Arabia, and to find
useful suggestions to reduce the risks of project delays. The data in this thesis was
obtained from three distinct Questionnaire Surveys that were answered by Saudi Arabian
contractors, consultants, and the owners/representatives in order to ascertain the current
causes of construction delays in Saudi Arabia from an inside perspective.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. viii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................... 3
1.3 Aim of the Research........................................................................................... 4
1.4 Limitation and Scope of the Research.............................................................. 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................ 5
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Construction Industry in Saudi Arabia............................................................. 5
2.3 Construction Delay Concept.............................................................................. 7
2.4 Delay in Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia............................................... 7
2.5 Types of Construction Delays............................................................................ 9
2.5.1 Excusable D elay...................................................................................... 9
2.5.1.1 Excusable Compensable Delay.................................................... 10
2.5.1.2 Excusable Non-Compensable Delay........................................... 10
2.5.2 N on-Excusable D elay.............................................................................. 10
2.5.3 Independent Delay................................................................................... 11
2.5.4 Concurrent Delay..................................................................................... 11
2.5.4.1 Serial Delay.................................................................................. 12
2.5.5 Critical Delay............................................................................................ 12
2.5.6 Non-Critical Delay................................................................................... 12
2.6 Causes of Construction Delay............................................................................ 13
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................. 17
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Questionnaire Survey.......................................................................................... 18
3.3 Distribution of the Questionnaires..................................................................... 20
iii
3.4 Data Collection................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Research Methodology—Data Analysis........................................................... 21
3.5.1 Beyond Descriptive Statistics—Choosing aStatistical Technique 23
3.5.2 Levels of Data........................................................................................... 23
3.5.3 Using Mean Scores and the Paired Samples T-test............................... 24
3.5.4 Using Correlation to Determine Factors of Delay................................. 24
3.5.5 ANOVA—Is the Mean Level of Delay Different Between Groups?... 25
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................. 26
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Respondents’ Categories..................................................................................... 26
4.3 Analysis of the Questionnaires’ Participants.................................................... 28
4.3.1 Respondents’ Background Information.................................................. 28
4.3.1.1 Respondents’ Construction Sector Type.......................................... 28
4.3.1.2 Respondents’ Experience................................................................... 29
4.3.1.3 Respondents’ Projects’ Types........................................................... 30
4.3.1.4 Respondents’ Projects’ Financial Scale........................................... 32
4.3.2 Contractual Agreements.......................................................................... 33
4.3.2.1 Respondents’ Projects’ Agreements................................................. 33
4.3.2.2 Respondents’ Tendering Agreements............................................... 36
4.3.3 Respondents’ Projects and Project Delays.............................................. 37
4.3.3.1 Respondents’ Experience Based on Number of Projects................ 37
4.3.3.2 Respondents’ Background on Percentage of Delay Tim e.............. 38
4.3.3.3 Respondents’ Background on Percent of Delay Time Forgiven.... 40
4.3.3.4 Respondents’ Background on Responsibility for D elays............... 41
4.4 Causes of Delay Time......................................................................................... 42
4.4.1 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Contractors............... 44
4.4.2 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Consultants............... 56
4.4.3 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Owners...................... 59
4.5 Participant’s Comments...................................................................................... 63
4.5.1 Contractor’s Comments........................................................................... 63
4.5.2 Consultant’s Comments........................................................................... 63
4.5.3 Owners’ Comments................................................................................. 64
4.6 Correlations.......................................................................................................... 64
4.6.1 Correlation Among Contractors.............................................................. 64
4.6.2 Correlation Among Consultants............................................................. 66
4.6.3 Correlation Among Owners..................................................................... 67
4.6.4 Correlation in the Combined Sample...................................................... 68
4.6.5 Differences in Construction Delay Between Groups............................. 69
4.6.6 Difference in Percentage Delay by Groups Among Contractors 70
4.6.7 Difference in Percentage Delay by Groups Among Consultants 74
4.6.8 Difference in Percentage Delay by Groups Among Owners............... 78
4.6.9 Difference in Percentage Delay Among Combined Groups................ 82
iv
5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 87
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 87
5.2 Type of Delays.................................................................................................... 87
5.3 Level of Important Causes of Delay.................................................................. 88
5.3.1 The Most Important Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor 88
5.3.2 The Most Important Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant 91
5.3.3 The Most Important Causes of Delay Related to the Owner................ 91
5.4 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Contractors.................................... 92
5.5 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Consultants.................................... 95
5.6 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Owners........................................... 96
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................... 97
A. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY A: CONTRACTORS.................................... 97

B. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY B: CONSULTANTS..................................... 108
C. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY A: OWNERS/DESIGNERS......................... 117
REFERENCES 126
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor............................................................. 14
2.2: Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant............................................................. 16
2.3: Causes of Delay Related to the Owner/Designer.................................................... 16
4.1: The Participants Group Analysis.............................................................................. 27
4.2: The Participants’ Construction Sector Type............................................................ 29
4.3: The Participants ’ Experience.................................................................................... 30
4.4: The Participants’ Project Types................................................................................ 31
4.5: Financial Scale of the Participants’ Projects............................................................ 33
4.6: The Participants’ Contractual Agreement Types..................................................... 35
4.7: The Participants’ Tendering Agreements................................................................. 36
4.8: The Participants’ Project Numbers........................................................................... 38
4.9: Project Delay Times................................................................................................... 39
4.10: The Respondents’ Forgiven Delay Time................................................................ 41
4.11: Responsibility for Delay Time................................................................................ 42
4.12: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor............................................................ 45
4.13: Causes of Delay Related to Material, Manpower, Equipment, and External

Conditions................................................................................................................. 45
4.14: Most Important Causes of Delay According to Contractors................................. 47
4.15: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4 .1 ........................................... 53
vi
4.17: Significant Difference in Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant................. 58
4.19: Significant Differences in Causes of Delay Related to the Owner....................... 61
4.21: Correlation Among Contractors.............................................................................. 65
4.22: Correlation Among Consultants............................................................................. 66
4.23: Correlation Among Owners.................................................................................... 68
4.24: Correlation in the Combined Sample...................................................................... 69
4.25: Sector Type Deviation Among Contractors........................................................... 70
4.26: Sector Type ANOVA Among Contractors............................................................ 71
4.27: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Contractors................................................ 72
4.28: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Contractors.................................................. 72
4.29: Number of Projects Deviation Among Contractors............................................... 73
4.30: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Contractors................................................ 74
4.31: Sector Type Deviation Among Consultants.......................................................... 75
4.32: Sector Type ANOVA Among Consultants............................................................ 75
4.33: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Consultants................................................ 76
4.34: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Consultants................................................. 76
4.35: Number of Projects Deviation Among Consultants.............................................. 77
4.36: Number Experience ANOVA Among Consultants............................................... 78
4.37: Sector Type Deviation Among Owners ............................................................... 79
4.38: Sector Type ANOVA Among Owners ................................................................ 79
4.39: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Owners ..................................................... 80
vii
4.40: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Owners ...................................................... 81
4.41: Number of Projects Deviation Among Owners ................................................... 81
4.42: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Owners...................................................... 82
4.43: Sector Type Deviation in Combined Sample ..................................................... 83
4.44: Sector Type ANOVA in Combined Sample ....................................................... 83
4.45: Years of Experience Deviation in Combined Sample ....................................... 84
4.46: Years of Experience ANOVA in Combined Sample ......................................... 85
4.47: Number of Projects Deviation Among Owners ................................................... 86
4.48: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Owners .................................................. 86
5.1: Causes of Delay Related to Contractor..................................................................... 89
5.2: Causes of Delay Related to Contractor in Categories.............................................. 90
5.3: Causes of Delay Related to Consultant in Categories............................................. 91
5.4: Causes of Delay Related to Owner/Designer in Categories................................... 91

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1: The Participants Group Analysis Percentage.......................................................... 28
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would never have been able to complete my thesis without the guidance,
encouragement, and support of my family, my friends, and my professors.
Also, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Professor Hakob
Avetisyan, for his guidance and patience over the past year and the committee members.
This thesis would not have been possible without the help of Sherif M. Abdelfatah
Elkholy. He has provided assistance in so many ways.
I want to express my gratitude to my parents for inspiring and motivating me to
complete my education. I would like to thank my siblings for supporting me whenever I
needed it.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends, especially the wonderful friends I’ve
met in the United States, for helping me and guiding me in writing my thesis. I am
forever grateful!
x
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Ever since oil reserves were discovered in Saudi Arabia, the country established
itself as one of the world’s top suppliers of crude oil according to the Royal Embassy of
Saudi Arabia (“Oil,” 2015). Today, Saudi Arabia is one of the largest 20 economies in the
world according to the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA, 2015). On
account of this, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has had a giant influx of capital together
with a steady increase in population according to the World Population Review (“Saudi
Arabia Population,” 2014). With a bigger population comes a greater demand for better
infrastructure such as roads and bigger cities.
The government’s intent to expedite the development of the nation is contingent
upon major public construction projects. To illustrate, in 2013 alone, the government of
Saudi Arabia invested over $78.2bn (SR293.4BN - SR stands for the Saudi Riyal, the unit
of currency of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the equivalent of 0.27 US Dollars) (Fahy,
2014). In construction contracts, and the government’s investment in construction alone
constitutes 16.5% of the whole GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the nation according to
the chairman of the National Contractors Committee, Fahd bin Mohammed Al-Hammadi
(Ghafour, 2014). Also, the chairman announced that construction is the second biggest
economy after oil in the kingdom.

2
According to a 2014 report published by Riyad Capital, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia has the strongest free market economy in the Middle East with a nominal GDP of
$770 billion dollars in 2013 and the GDP, according to the IMF (International Monetary
Fund) is expected to grow at an approximate rate of 4.4 percent per year during the
period of 2014 to 2017 (Balakrishnan & A1 Fozan, 2014). The parliament of Saudi Arabia
has officially approved in a single ruling, the construction of 11 sports stadiums in
different provinces of Saudi Arabia, and considering the fact that there are only 23
stadiums ever built in Saudi Arabia so far (up until 2014), the parliament’s decision to
allocate the funding to have 11 stadiums built in one ruling depicts the significance of
construction in the nation. The project is estimated to cost 18 billion U.S. dollars. Within
the next three years (2014 to 2017), the government is expected to spend about 731
billion SR (98.86 billion U.S. dollars) on public projects.
However, what is hindering true progress in the area of construction in Saudi
Arabia is the lack of commitment to completing construction projects in accordance to
the initial completion timelines as well as keeping the final costs of the project in line
with initial estimates. By delaying construction projects, not only is the money
squandered, but also valuable time that could otherwise be employed in helping to
establish Saudi Arabia as a developed country rather than a developing country is wasted.
In this thesis, an attempt has been made to study, identify, and analyze the causes
of and the most likely contributing factors to the excessively common practice of
delaying construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Another objective of this thesis is to find
recommendations to minimize delays in the field of construction and ways to address the
3
contributing causes of delay. Eventually, recommendations will be made to suggest
pragmatic interventions to the causes of delay.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Many construction projects in all regions in Saudi Arabia have been facing
numerous problems that lead to delay in the completion time of construction projects.
However, delay in the completion of any construction project afflicts not only the
immediate vicinity of the construction project and all the parties involved in it, but also
the society as a whole with a variety of adverse effects and many far-reaching
consequences.
Moreover, the impact of such delays is correlated with the total cost of the project
in that the greater the delay, the higher the costs associated with it tend to be. To
illustrate, the correlation in question is established through extensive research conducted
by U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (for details, see Wise, 2015). Delay
also affects the final revenue of the construction company, the quality of the final
product, in addition to the direct and indirect costs incurred, among other negative
ramifications such as additional financing fees that the company would have to incur as
the result of the delay. The more time is spent to complete a given project, the higher the
costs the constructions project entails according to the GAO (Wise, 2015). The reputation
of all parties involved in postponed projects is bound to be compromised, which can have
a negative influence on promoting the company’s business to prospective clients.
The purpose of this thesis is to gain a better understanding of the specific factors
that contribute to delay in modem day Saudi Arabia.

4
1.3 Aim of the Research
This study has been designed to assess the causes of delay in construction projects
in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Assessment of these causes will be accomplished
through the different experiences of the consultants, contractors, and owners or the
owner’s representative. Suggestions for improvement or elimination of specific causes of
delay may then be made within the Saudi Arabian construction industry, based on the
outcome of this research.
1.4 Limitations of the Research
Research for this thesis was conducted only in Saudi Arabia, and addressed only
the parameters of the survey as limited by the answers submitted by the survey
respondents—contractors, engineers, and owners/designers—within the Saudi Arabian
construction industry. The research was also limited by the time duration of the study,
which was subject to the restraints of the academic calendar.

5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Delay in a construction project is one of the most important factors in successful
project completion. Not only is delay in construction projects one of the most common
types of problems that construction mangers must inevitably face, but also affects all
components and facets of the project, including performance of the work, cost, and the
quality of the implementation of the project. Indeed, it is even possible for such delays to
affect the relations between stakeholders, thus making the completion of the project a
more difficult task than it otherwise would be.
It is important to examine the implications of the short-term and long-term effects
of construction delays. Many studies have examined the impacts of delay within the
construction industry generally. There is a need, however, to account for regional and
cultural variances in determining the impacts of construction delays. When determining
whether a delay has transpired in a certain case, many regional factors should be taken
into consideration. The causes of delay are unique from one project to another, and must
be viewed within a regional or national context.
2.2 Construction Industry in Saudi Arabia
The construction industry in the country of Saudi Arabia surpasses its
counterparts in the rest of the Middle East. Thanks to the relentless efforts of the
6
government of Saudi Arabia to further economic development, the construction sector
has been thriving dramatically, exceeding the initial expectations and projections of the
government. Despite these efforts, however, the need for improvement remains. The
causes of delay o f construction projects in Saudi Arabia are not well understood.
Improved understanding of the nature of construction delay will further benefit
development in Saudi Arabia.
The chief driving force behind the government’s progressive investment in the
construction sector is the growing population, with a growth rate of 1.51% according to
the latest 2013 estimate, making it the 80th highest growth rate in the entire world. This
enormous population growth requires public facilities and amenities such as living
quarters, hospitals, and schools, among others. From 2009-2014 alone the government
planned to invest 400 billion USD in an economic development plan (“Construction
Market Insights,” 2015). It is expected that by late 2015 the volume of Saudi Arabia’s
construction and contracting market will hit 300 billion USD (Davids, 2014).
The report by NCB (National Commercial Bank) Capital declared that the
government of Saudi Arabia stated the government would spend $228bn on different
construction contracts in 2014, a 25% increase from 2013 and a 9% increase from the
previous record of $72.1bn (SR 270.3bn) set in 2011. This major undertaking contributes
to a 7.5% annual growth rate in the Kingdom’s building and construction sector (“The
Middle East’s Largest Building and Construction Market,” 2015), thus making it the
second largest sector of the Saudi economy after oil contributing around 16.5 GDP (Fahy,
2014).
7
The projected volume of Saudi Arabia’s construction industry in 2015 is
estimated at $300 billion USD (Ghafour, 2014). Rapid population growth in Saudi Arabia
affects the government’s involvement in construction, as well as the private sector, since
this growth means that the number of potential consumers increases accordingly, calling
for more businesses, malls, and hotels. Delays in these development projects is inevitable.
The efficiency with which these projects are completed will ultimately determine the
subsequent costs of these delays and their impact on industry and economy. Therefore, it
is important to understand the basis of such delays, and the scope of their impacts.
2.3 Construction Delay Concept
Construction delay is a common problem that can greatly affect everyone
involved in a project, despite the fact that such delays are generally anticipated. Assaf and
Al-Hejji’s study explains that the problem of delay occurs when a project begins to run
over the planned schedule (2006). Delay is the time span during which a project remains
unfinished beyond its completion date, as specified by a contract or as agreed upon by the
parties (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006).
2.4 Delays in Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia
Construction delay is an issue in every country in the world. However, the factors
that contribute to delay are often unique to a given place. A delay that is acceptable in
one area, under a given set of circumstances, may be unacceptable in another. Because
delay in the completion of construction projects tends to lead to higher project costs, and
because owners necessarily have limited budgets, the delay in question could arise to a
matter of serious dispute between the owner and the contractor. On another note, if a
contractor does indeed finish the project within the agreed schedule and budget, but the
8
quality of the construction project is low, this would also pose severe problems for the
owner in the future. Certain delays may be necessary for quality considerations.
Research on construction delay has been conducted in different developing and
developed countries. When the results of all of such cases of research are compared, it is
evident that the problems in delay vary from country to country. For example in certain
countries delay takes place as a consequence of the skill level of the workers while in
other countries such delay is due to bureaucratic reasons. According to research
conducted by Shebob, Dawood, Shah, and Xu (2012), for example, the criteria for
interpreting delay in construction methodologies and planning techniques differ
dramatically between the United Kingdom and Libya.
Many studies have been conducted and published in Saudi Arabia to identify and
to analyze delays in the completion time of construction projects and to evaluate the time-
cost performance. For example, a study carried out and released by Zain Al-Abedien
depicts that 70% of the projects implemented and executed by the Ministry of Housing
and Public Projects faced delay in the completion time of its projects (1983). Another
similar study done by Al-Sultan concluded that 70% of public construction projects fall
behind their planned schedule (1987). Moreover, A1-Khalil and Algafly stated in the
International Journal o f Project Management that 45, out of a total 76, in water and
sewage construction projects were delayed (1999). Similarly, Assaf and Alhajji
conducted a survey on time overrun and found that 70% of construction projects
exceeded the planned completion time of the projects (2006). Also, they stated the
average time overrun is between 10% and 30%. According to 25% of the consultant
9
participants in their survey mentioned that the average overrun could increase from 30%
to 50% (2006).
2.5 Types of Construction Delay
For a comprehensive understanding of delay, six types of delay are examined in
this section: excusable, non-excusable, independent, concurrent, critical, and non-critical
delay.
2.5.1 Excusable Delay
In the book Construction Delays: Understanding them Clearly, Analyzing the
Correctly, Theodore J. Trauner defines excusable delay as “a delay that is due to an
unforeseeable event beyond the Contractor’s or the Subcontractor’s control” and lists
circumstances in which delay can be excusable:
• General labor strikes
• Fires
• Floods
• Acts of God
• Owner-directed changes
• Errors and omissions in the plans and specifications
• Differing site conditions or concealed conditions
• Unusually severe weather conditions
• Intervention by outside agencies (such as the EPA, standing for
Environmental Protection Agency).
• Lack of action or proper response, for instance lack of proper building
inspection, by governmental bodies (2009, p. 27).

10
If an excusable delay occurred, then it must be classified under either
compensable or non-compensable delay (Sturnpf, 2000).
2.5.1.1 Excusable Compensable Delay. The type of delay in which the owner or
the owner’s agents are the entities who caused the delay is referred to as an excusable-
compensable delay. An illustration of excusable compensable delay is a case in which the
owner’s architect releases the drawings later than expected (Tumi, Omran, & Pakir,
2009). However, this delay usually causes a schedule extension, subjecting the owner to
possible monetary damages claimed by the contractor. In this way, the contractor adds
indirect costs to both the extended field office overhead and home office overhead (Al-
Hadi Tumi et al., 2009).
2.5.1.2 Excusable Non-Compensable Delay. A delay in which either a third party
or an incident, rather than the contractor or the owner, is the source of delay, is called an
excusable non-compensable delay (Sturnpf, 2000). This type of delay is also referred to
as “acts of God” or “force majored,” implying that the incident is out of human control.
Acts of God are typically instances of severe weather, earthquakes, and fire. In this case,
the contractor is given time to complete the tasks that were delayed, but is not given any
additional financial resources to complete the project, but different circumstances must be
considered with different acts of God.
2.5.2 Non-Excusable Delay
According to research conducted by Alotaobi, non-excusable delay is defined as
delay caused by the contractor, subcontractor or the material/equipment supplier, and
thus is not the owner’s fault (2012). In this instance, no time extension or extra funds are
given to the contractor. Furthermore, it is generally understood in the field that whoever
11
is at fault for this delay is responsible for any costs incurred because of the delay; the
owner is entitled to ask for monetary reimbursement if the delay affects the project to a
great extent.
2.5.3 Independent Delay
Independent delay occurs for an isolated reason or incident caused by one of the
stakeholders—usually either the owner or the contractor—and may cause a series of
delays (Sturnpf, 2000). It is categorized, as all other delays, as excusable or non-
excusable, compensable or non-compensable (Ponce de Leon, 1987).
2.5.4 Concurrent Delay
Concurrent delays are two or more delayed events that fall on a parallel critical
path. Either of the events that occurred would have delayed the schedule even if they had
not happened at the same time (Sturnpf, 2000).
The following are examples of concurrent delay:
• Two unrelated cases of delays, which occur in time frames that overlap, are in
actuality concurrent only if both of the delays fall on parallel critical paths
(Sturnpf, 2000).
• Delay on the critical path cannot be said to be genuinely concurrent with
another case of delay off of the critical path, which arises in an overlapping
period (Sturnpf, 2000).
• Delays off of the critical path might eventually be concurrent to the degree
that the delays exceed the total float which is accessible in such paths (Ponce
de Leon, 1987).
12
2.5.4.1 Serial Delay. Serial delays arise from previous non-overlapping delays on
a single network path. In serial delays, individual delays do not conflict, and it is
relatively easy to determine the extent to which the overall project will be delayed
(Sturnpf, 2000). To illustrate, Sturnpf provides two examples of serial delays caused
indirectly by a labor strike of sheet metal workers: (1) installation of HVAC (heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning) ducts is forestalled “solely because there was an earlier
design hold on the duct;” (2) installation is delayed by winter weather, which would not
have occurred but for the earlier labor strike, which pushed the installation “work into the
winter season” (Sturnpf, 2000, p. 32).
2.5.5 Critical Delay
Critical delays impact a milestone date or the project completion date. The
following activities control the project completion date: the project itself, the contractor’s
plan and schedule, the requirements of the contract for sequence and phasing, and the
physical constraints of the project (Trauner, 2009, p. 26). Anything that delays the
ultimate project deadline, affects the sequence or phasing requirements of the contract, or
impacts the physical constraints of the project can be viewed as a critical delay. It is for
these reasons that good planning is essential at the beginning of a project.
2.5.6 Non-Critical Delay
Non-critical delays do not affect a milestone date or the project completion date.
Although such delays do affect the schedule, they do not affect the project duration or
performance.
To contrast critical from non-critical delay, for example, approval of a finish
hardware design schedule by an owner is considered a critical delay in a given

13
construction project, whereas fabrication of the door bucks, which is dependent on the
approved design schedule, is non-critical (“CPM Scheduling | Critical Path Delay,”
2015).
2.6 Causes of Delay
In a study on the causes of construction delay in the Eastern Province of Saudi
Arabia, Assaf and Al-Hejji surveyed 23 contractors, 19 consultants, and 15 owners. The
authors identified 73 causes of delay and split them into 9 categories. Owners and
consultants both ranked labor and contractor-related causes of delay as the top two causes
of delay. Contractors on the other hand tended to see owner, consultant, and design team-
related problems as the top issues causing delays (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006).
The data collected for purposes of the research was derived from a Questionnaire
Survey adapted from a study conducted by Assaf and Al-Hejji. Some of the causes of
construction delay originally considered by Assaf and Al-Hejji have been modified for
purposes of relevance and simplification. The most relevant causes were taken to address
the contractors, owners (and representatives), and consultants. Several of the causes were
combined to best suit the survey audience and the needs of this study.
It should also be noted that Assaf and Al-Hejji’s study only included contractors,
consultants, and Owners from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The population
considered in the current study includes contractors, consultants, and owners from all of
Saudi Arabia thus expands their results. The following tables show the relevant causes of
delay as they relate to the contractor, consultant, and the owner/designer.

14
Table 2.1: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor*
1 Rework due to errors during construction
2 Conflicts and poor site management and supervision by contractor
3 Poor communication and coordination by contractor with sub-contractors and

other parties
4 Improper construction methods implemented by contractor
5 Delays in sub-contractors work
6 Frequent change of sub-contractors because of their inefficient work
7 Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff
8 Delay in site mobilization
9 Delay in progress payments by owner
10 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the contractor by the owner
11 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings
12 Shortage or/and delay in manufacturing of construction materials in the market
13 Changes in specifications during construction
14 Delay in material delivery
15 Late procurement o f materials
16 Equipment breakdowns
17 Shortage of equipment
18 Low level of equipment-operator’s skill
19 Lack of high-technology mechanical equipment
20 Shortage of labors
15
21 Unqualified workforce
22 Low productivity level of labors
23 Personal conflicts and nationality of labor and language (miscommunications)
among labor
24 Effects of subsurface conditions (e.g., soil, high water table, etc.)
25 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality
26 Hot weather effect on productivity on labors/construction activities
27 Weather in general effect on construction activities
28 Unavailability of utilities in site (such as, water, electricity, telephone, etc.)
29 Traffic control and restriction at job site
30 Accident during construction
31 Changes in government regulations and laws
32 Delay in providing services from utilities (such as water, electricity)
*Partially adopted from Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006).

16
Table 2.2: Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant*
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties (consultant and designer/owner)
2 Poor communication/coordination between consultant and other parties
(contractor and designer owner)
3 Inadequate experience of consultant
4 Delay in inspection by consultant
5 Delay in reviewing documents by consultant
Table 2.3: Causes of Delay Related to the Owner/Designer*
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties (consultant and designer/owner)

2 Delay in revising and approving design documents by owner
3 Delay in approving shop drawings and sample materials
4 Poor communication and coordination by owner and other parties (consultant and
contractor)
5 Slowness in decision making process by owner
6 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents
8 Delays in producing design documents
17
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In order for a research project to meet its objectives, use of an effective
methodology to aid in the analysis of the issue at hand is indispensable. According to the
University o f Southern California, the research design indicates the overall technique to
select in order to combine the various parts of the study cohesively and logically, and to
hence ascertain that the research problem is dealt with efficiently. The constructive
research design also lays the foundation for gathering, measuring, as well as analyzing all
relevant data. Contrary to some people’s perception, the kind of design to be used is
determined by the research problem chosen, not vice versa (“Types of Research
Designs,” 2015).
In this study, as the initial step in the research procedure, essential data was
gathered through three-field surveys through structured questionnaires. These surveys
focused on the most important parties in any construction project, namely: the
owner/designer, contractor, and consultant.
The aim of this chapter is to give a detailed explanation of the methodology and
design that were used in conducting this research. This chapter shows the rationale for
selecting the most suitable techniques in the research method and data collection.
18
Before selecting the best methods or techniques to conduct this study, it is
important to state the aim and objective of the research. The aim of the study is to figure
out and prioritize the causes of construction delay in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to
provide recommendations and/or solutions to rectify the problem in question.
3.2 Questionnaire Survey
This study used a questionnaire survey designed to reach the objective of the
study—to understand the causes of construction delay in Saudi Arabia. Three
questionnaires were designed to identify the most important causes of delay, and their
order of importance in construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The questions were
designed to address causes of delay as they are viewed from study participants of three
categories: contractors, consultants, and owner/designers. It was expected that the
respondents would provide different answers as to the causes of construction delay based
on their varying backgrounds.
The advantage of this thesis over other theses on a similar topic is the research
design. Similar studies have analyzed construction delays in Saudi Arabia, on the basis of
a general survey directed at building parties. The research conducted for this thesis is
unique because a separate Survey Questionnaire is considered for each major party
involved in the majority of construction projects: the contractor, the engineer, and the
owner/designer.
As to relevance, given the individual nature of the work performed by the three
major parties to a construction contract, use of a single questionnaire would not be
appropriate since it would surely include some questions that would not pertain to the
particular respondents. For example, the contractor would definitely be exposed to

19
questions that were designed to be answered by the consultant; the provision of responses
by the contractor to the questions that were not aimed at him/her and in which he/she has
little or no expertise would make the data inaccurate, distort the results of the survey, and
consequently detract from the quality of the research results and the conclusion based
upon such results. However, the problems that would have been otherwise caused by
having a single questionnaire have been addressed herein through the design of three
separate questionnaires to be sent to the appropriate parties. Appropriate steps were taken
to ensure the representation of the data collected by providing questionnaires and
receiving responses from similar numbers of owners/designers, contractors, and
consultants. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the data collected is representative and
does not reflect the responses provided predominantly by one of the parties.
After the introduction, there are five sections in each questionnaire. The
introduction gives the participant a description and the objective of the survey and the
study followed by confidentiality agreement. Sections 1,2, 3, and 5 were repeated in
each questionnaire. However, Section 4 differed in each questionnaire.
• Section 1: Background information. In this section four questions were concerned
with the respondents’ background such as the respondent’s experience, what
sector he/she belongs to, etc.
• Section 2: Contractual Agreements. Two questions asked the participants about
the contractual agreements they dealt with.
• Section 2: Projects. In this section the questions were related to the performance
of the projects that the respondents were involved in. This section shows the
20
number of the projects that the respondents have been involved in, the number of
such projects that faced delayed, and so forth.
• Section 4: Identification o f common causes o f delay in construction projects in the
Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia. As alluded to previously, this is the only section that
differs in the three questionnaires.
• Section 5: General question. This section gives the participants the opportunity to
provide any further relevant comments regarding the causes of delay in the
projects in which they were involved but believe the fixed questions in the
questionnaire do not address directly.
The questionnaires were translated into the Arabic language to avoid confusion
and to make it easy to understand and respond to for the target audience in Saudi Arabia.
Questionnaires in both Arabic and English were provided, since many of the experts
surveyed are bi-lingual. The survey was posted online on www.surveymonkey.com, and
links to the survey were emailed to respondents in Saudi Arabia. Hard copies were also
delivered in person to certain respondents.
3.3 Distributions of the Questionnaires
The sampling frame consisted of 8,722 construction companies from regions
throughout Saudi Arabia. Small samples were taken from consultants and contractors,
universities, and utility companies, consisting of construction firms from all areas of the
construction industry. A random sample of 763 companies was drawn from the sampling
frame. An email invitation was sent to each contact in the random sample that was drawn
with a cover letter explaining the project, the objectives, and how the participants could
21
participate. The contacts for these companies were delivered an invitation to participate
in this study by filling out a survey.
Of the 763 invitations sent, a total of 191 responses were received. Out of the 405
contractors invited, 82 responded; of the 224 consultants invited, 52 responded; and of
191
the 134 owners invited, 57 responded. This is a response rate of 25.0% (— * 100 =
763
25%).
3.4 Data Collection
Respondents were able to complete the survey either online or filling out a hard
copy of the same survey by hand. Those submitting their responses online where directed
to SurveyMonkey.com using a link included in their email where they were presented all
the questions and provided their responses. When respondents requested a hard copy to
work from, they were provided the printout of the survey, and they filled out the
questionnaire by hand and sent it back to the surveyor of this thesis. In order to obtain
calculations from their responses, their answers were entered into SurveyMonkey.com
from their written answers.
After all of the responses were entered into SurveyMonkey.com, they were
downloaded the responses into Excel. The Excel data was imported into SPSS, and all
the variables were checked to insure that they matched the answers shown in
SurveyMonkey.com before proceeded to the analysis.
3.5 Research Methodology - Data Analysis
There were several levels of analysis undertaken to quantify the opinions of the
construction industry experts who responded to the surveys. The most basic analysis was
the descriptive statistics, which describe the answers provided using simple frequencies
22
and descriptions of central tendency (mostly the arithmetic mean). The next level of
undertaken delved deeper into statistical analyses including correlation analysis, and
hypothesis testing to determine whether differences that appeared in the data were
statistically significant differences or might be explained by random variation.
A minimum o f a simple frequency of the answers is provided for all of the
questions on the survey instrument. The raw frequency or number of answers is provided
for each response as well as a breakdown of the percentages of each answer.
A mean, median, and mode are also provided wherever appropriate in order to
give an understanding of the central tendency of these answers. The arithmetic mean is
the sum off all of the answers divided by the number of answers. The mode is the answer
most frequently given. The median is mid-point of all of the answers. That is, if you
lined up all of the answers in order and took the answer the middle, that number would be
the median. The following is used to calculate the mean:
x l + x2 + x3 ...xn
X= N
Where
X: The mean
x l: The first value
x2 : The second value
x3: The third value
xn\ The last value
N: The number of value

23
3.5.1 Beyond Descriptive Statistics - Choosing a Statistical Technique
There are several factors that come into play when choosing a statistical
technique. First, the goal of the analysis is considered. In order to determine if two
variables are associated, correlation analysis is used. Also, to determine whether the
difference between two means, or proportions are significantly different, then some form
of hypothesis testing is used to determine whether there is a significant different that is
unlikely to be attributed to chance. To arrive at the specific correct statistical technique
to use, one would then look at the level of data used to determine which exact technique
to use.
3.5.2 Levels of Data
Quantitative data is classified in several levels, which determine the appropriate
statistical technique that can be used. The first and most basic level of data is called
nominal data, which is categorical. In this type of data, the order has no meaning. For
instance, if 1 stands for a public institution and 2 is a private company, the value is
meaningless - it is simply categorical. The second level of data is called Ordinal data
which has a meaningful order (as the name ordinal implies). The answer 1 would be
lower than 2, and so on. However, the difference between 1 and 2 versus three and four
is not the same. The third level of data is called Interval data which has both order and
the difference between two values on the scale is the same. That is the difference
between 1 and 2 is the same as the difference between 4 and 5 and so on. However, there
is no absolute zero in Interval level data. A good example is one of the temperature
measures, like Fahrenheit. There is a temperature below zero, and zero is not an absolute
number. The fourth and highest level of data is called Ratio data which has all of the
24
characteristics of interval data, plus there is an absolute zero value. A great way to
exemplify this is a measure of weight like pounds. Zero pound is meaningful, and a
number less than zero pounds does not exist.
3.5.3 Using Mean Scores and the Paired Samples T-test
This analysis will provide the answer to the main research question of what
construction delays have the most impact in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this analysis is
to differentiate which sources of delay are most prevalent in the opinion of the experts.
The first step in this analysis is to compute the arithmetic mean of all of the
variables in Sections 4: causes of delay in the three questionnaires. The means are then
sorted to determine which factors have the highest and the lowest mean score. Though,
this data provides an initial read on which factors are seen as most important, it still need
to determined whether the difference between the means is significant. Since this
analysis assesses the differences between two different scores on the same experts, and
the level of data in Section 4: Causes of Delay is treated as interval, the Paired Samples
Test is used to determine whether the score for every pair of variables is different. Lastly,
a 95% confidence interval is calculated around each of these means. This confidence
interval represents a range in which 95% of similar random samples would fall into.
3.5.4 Using Correlation to Determine Factors of Delay
Besides analyzing the ratings of these experts on construction delays, institutional
characteristics associated with construction delay are also examined. Correlation analysis
is used to determine which institutional factors are associated with more or less
construction delays by seeing if the percentage of construction delays. For instance, a

25
correlation analysis is done showing the association between the variables public/ private
institutions and the percent of construction delay variable.
3.5.5 ANOVA - Is the Mean Level of Delay Different between Groups?
The mean level of delay is also examined to see if there is a difference in this
mean between various groups. The purpose here is to test if some groups have more
delays than others. For instance, this analysis tests if private companies have
significantly more delays than public companies. If the groups tested differ significantly
in the amount of delay would support the notion that the groups tested are factors
affecting the amount of delay experience.

26
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the collected data by the three questionnaires survey
through different perspective of construction projects parties, which are contractor,
consultant, and the owner or the owner’s representative. There are four sections in this
chapter. The first section gives information about the number and the proportion of the
questionnaires participants. In the second section, data analysis will be given based on the
participant’s input in the questionnaires. The third section concentrates on the listed
causes of delay in construction project in Saudi Arabia. The final section provides general
observation of the participant’s comment provided in the last section of three
questionnaires.
4.2 Respondents’ Category
There were three questionnaire surveys—one for the contractor, consultant, and
owner/designer—that were sent to the construction companies. These three questionnaire
surveys were sent to 763 construction companies in different region in the kingdom of
Saudi Arabia.
27
The total number of participants in the three questionnaires survey was 191
participants. The highest number of responses was received from the contractors. The
lowest number of responses was received from the consultants. Moreover, the contractor
responses rate was 20.24% out of the 405 contractor companies. The consultant rate of
responses was 23.21% out of the 224 consultants offices. Also, the owner or the owner’s
representative responses was 42.53% out of the 134 owners. In general, the total number
of the participants in the three questionnaires was 25.03% out of the 763 selected
construction companies. Table 4.1 is an outline of the ratio and the number of the
questionnaire surveys participants.
Table 4.1: The Participants Group Analysis
Project party Contractor Consultant Owner Total Proportion

Designer
Questionnaire Sent 405 224 134 763
Questionnaire Responds 82 52 57 191 25.03%
Proportion 20.24% 23.21% 42.53%
Figure 4.1 illustrates of the proportions of the survey participants, and shows the
percentage of participants who responded to each questionnaire among the three
construction project parties surveyed. The percentages demonstrate that there is enough
diversity within each group to establish the sufficiency of the data collected.
28
v
Contractor Consultant Owner
80%i
20% . . . ,23%
Figure 4.1: The Participants Group Analysis Percentage.

o
4.3 Analysis of the Questionnaires’ Participants
This section analyzes the cumulative data provided by respondents across five
category sections. The first section provides details about the responses background
information. The second section is about the participant’s sector type either private, or
public, or both. The third section gives years of experience of the participants. The fourth
section shows the projects type that the participants have been dealing with. Lastly,
section five presents the financial scale of the participant’s projects
4.3.1 Respondents’ Background Information
This section presents the data concerning the participants’ background and
experience in the construction industry. The purpose of this section is to illustrate the
participants’ knowledge and experience in the construction industry in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. It also demonstrates the degree of reliability of the respondents’ answers
concerning reasons for delay in their respective construction projects.
4.3.1.1: Respondent’s Construction Sector Type
The first question in Section 1 of the Questionnaire Survey asked respondents to
identify the sector type o f their project operations. Respondents were asked to indicate
whether they have worked in the public sector, the private sector, or both the public and
private sectors.
29
Table 4.2 demonstrates the number of participants from each construction project
party surveyed who replied that they worked in the public or private sectors, or a
combination thereof. It shows that there was a fair representation from each project sector
amongst the contractors, consultants and owner designers questioned.
Table 4.2: The Participants’ Construction Sector Type
Project party Contractor Consultant Owner Designer
Public 21 7 22
(25.61%) (13.46%) (38.60%)
Private 33 19 8
(40.24%) (36.54%) (14.04%)
Both (Public & Private) 28 26 27
(34.15%) (50.00%) (47.37%)
4.3.1.2: Respondents’ Experience. The second question in Section 1 of the
Questionnaire Survey asked respondents to provide information about their experience in
the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Responses were ranked intermittently to indicate
less than five years to more than 20 years of construction industry experience.
Table 4.3 shows the number and the proportion of the participant’s experience in
the Saudi Arabian construction industry, as measured in years. Analysis indicates that
more than 45 percent of the contractor respondents and 42.31 percent of the consultant
respondents had more than 20 years of experience, whereas the highest percentage of
owner designer respondents (33.33%) had less than five years’ experience. The measure
30
of experience within the respective project parties may reflect the influence of
construction experience in the analysis of the causes of delay in construction projects.
4.3.1.3 Respondents’ Project Types. The third question in Section 1 of the
Questionnaire Survey asked respondents to provide information about the types of
construction projects that they have been involved in. The participants were permitted to
indicate as many areas applicable to them.
Table 4.3: The Participants’ Experience
Project Party Contractor Consultant Owner Designer
Less than 5 years 18 11 19
(21.95%) (21.15%) (33.33%)
5 to 10 years 16 4 13
(19.51%) (7.69%) (22.81%)
11 to 15 years 6 9 8
(7.32%) (17.31%) (14.04%)
16 to 20 years 5 6 4
(6.10%) (11.54%) (7.02%)
More than 20 years 37 22 13
(45.12%) (42.31%) (22.81%)
Table 4.4 illustrates the different project types and the ratio in which they were
represented by the respondents. Residential building construction and heavy civil

31
construction were the most active areas represented within the study. Environmental
construction was the least active area represented.
Table 4.4: The Participants’ Project Types
Residential Building 56 41 35
Construction (68.29%) (78.85%) (61.40%)
Light Commercial 23 26 27
Construction (28.05%) (50.00%) (47.37%)
Multi-family construction 20 25 22
(24.39%) (48.08%) (38.60%)
Healthcare Construction 23 25 12
(28.05%) (48.08%) (21.05%)
Environmental 10 7 10
Construction (12.20%) (13.46%) (17.54%)
Industrial Construction 20 20 10
(24.39%) (38.46%) (17.54%)
Commercial Building 32 22 17
Construction (39.02%) (42.31%) (29.82%)
Institutional Construction 24 22 19
(29.27%) (42.31%) (33.33%)
Heavy Civil Construction 44 17 25
(53.66%) (32.69%) (43.86%)

32
4.3.1.4 Financial Scale of Respondents’ Projects. The fourth question in Section 1
of the questionnaire surveys asked respondents to indicate the financial scale of projects
they have worked on by selecting one or more of the provided options. Options ranged
from less-than 50 million SR ($13.3 million) to more than 500 million SR ($133.2
million). Table 4.5 provides an illustration of the financial scale of the respondents’
projects.
Table 4.5 illustrates the financial scale of the project participants. The majority of
respondents, representing 47.56% of the study participants, indicated involvement in
projects exceeding 500 million SR ($133.2 million). A minority of participants indicated
involvement in projects within the range of 150 million SR ($39.9 million) and 249
million SR ($66.3 million). By contrast, the majority of the respondents to the owners
and consultants’ questionnaire indicated involvement in projects of a financial scale less-
than 50 million SR ($13.3 million).

33
Table 4.5: Financial Scale of the Participants’ Projects
Project Party Contractor Consultant Owner/Designer
Less than 50 SR million 36 27 34
($13.3 million) (43.90%) (51.92%) (59.65%)
50 to 149 SR million 31 19 24
($40 million) (37.80) (36.54%) (42.11%)
150 to 249 SR million 27 20 16
($66.6 million) (32.93%) (38.46%) (28.07%)
250 to 500 SR million 28 18 12
($133.2) (34.15%) (34.62%) (21.05%)
More than 500 SR 39 17 15
million ($133.2) (47.56%) (32.69%) (26.32%)
4.3.2 Contractual Agreements
The questions in Section 2 of the Questionnaire Study asked study participants
about contractual agreements between the project parties.
4.3.2.1 Respondents’ Contractual Agreements
Contracts are very important in engineering and construction projects. They are
legal documents used to record binding agreements between the project parties upon
critical details such as prices to be paid, services to be performed, and project schedules.
The first question in Section 2: contract agreements of the Questionnaire Study
asked respondents to indicate whether they participate in one or more of four types of
contracts common in the engineering industry: lump sum, unit price, cost plus, and
34
incentive. Table 4.6 shows the number and the proportion of types of contracts
represented in the respondents’ answers.
In a lump sum contract, the contractor agrees to complete a project for a single
fixed price. Lump sum contracts occur where the contractor is able to accurately estimate
project costs based on the scope and schedule of a project.
In a unit price contract, the contract price is determined by an estimate of the
required quantities of construction items based on their unit price. The final price of the
contract depends on the quantities of the items needed for project completion. Unit price
contracts occur in situations where the scope of the work is well established, and the
types of items needed to complete the project can be named accurately in the contract
documents.
In a cost plus Fee contract, the owner agrees to pay for the cost of the work,
including labor, materials, and equipment, plus an agreed amount in addition for the
contractor’s overhead and profit. Cost plus contracts are best suited for projects of
uncertain scope and labor, material, and equipment needs.
In an incentive contract, the reimbursement of costs is permitted in advance.
Incentive contracts are based on a formula that measures the total allowable costs against
the total target costs, and permits for adjustment of the fee as negotiated between the
parties.
In a cost-reimbursable contract with a percentage fee, the contractor is paid costs
plus a designated percentage of allowable costs (such as 5%). At project completion, the
contractor is paid a fee and reimbursed for all allowable costs (Amado et al., 2012). Table
4.6 illustrates the types o f contracts utilized by the project parties. It demonstrates that the
35
most common contracts used by the respondents are lump sum and unit price contracts,
each of which was indicated by more than 59 percent of the contractors, consultants, and
owner designers surveyed. Cost plus surveys were lesser indicated, but still used to a
significant degree. Other forms of contracts showed marginal use in the survey. Survey
results may be indicative of general contract trends in Saudi Arabian construction.
Table 4.6: The Participants’ Contractual Agreement Types
Lump Sum 61 35 34
(74.39%) (70.00%) (59.65%)
Unit Price 56 31 39
(68.29) (62.00%) (68.42)
Cost Plus 32 7 17
(39.02%) (14.00%) (29.82%)
Incentive 0 1 1
(0.00%) (2.00%) (1.75%)
% O f Construction Fee 7 3 5
(8.54%) (6.00%) (8.77%)
Other 2 2 0
(2.44%) (4.00%) (0.00%)

36
4.3.2.2 Respondents’ Tendering Agreements. The second question in Section 2:
contract agreements of the Questionnaire Study asked respondents to indicate the types of
tendering agreements they engage in: negotiations, open tendering, selective tendering,
privet tendering, and other.
Table 4.7 illustrates the respondents’ participation in tendering agreements. As
shown, the great majority of respondents surveyed engage in open tendering, across the
range of party participants. A significant number also engage in negotiations and
selective tendering. More than 30 percent of consultants and owner designers surveyed
also practice private tendering.
Table 4.7: The Participants’ Tendering Agreements
Negotiations 41 17 26
(50.00%) (34.00%) (45.61%)
Open tendering 64 38 39
(78.05) (76.00%) (68.42)
Selective tendering 32 16 21
(39.02%) (32.00%) (36.84%)
Private tendering 15 17 21
(18.29%) (34.00%) (36.84%)
Other 2 1 1
(2.44%) (2.00%) (1.75%)

37
4.3.3 Respondent Projects and Project Delays
Section 3 of the Questionnaire Study asked study participants four questions
regarding the nature o f their construction projects and project delays.
4.3.3.1 Respondents’ Experience Based on Number of Projects The first question
of Section 3: Projects of the Questionnaire Study asked respondents to indicate the
number of construction projects they have been involved in, ranging from less-than 25 to
more than 100.
Table 4.8 illustrates the number of projects that the respondents indicated to have
been involved in. Data derived from the study questionnaires suggests that more than 60
percent of the contractors who responded to the survey had been involved in 50 or less
projects; whereas over 20 percent of them had been involved in more than 100 projects.
Over 70 percent o f the consultants who responded to the survey had been involved in 50
or less projects; whereas 17.39 percent of them had been involved in more than 100
projects. For owner designers, more than 60 percent who responded to the survey had
been involved in 50 or less projects; whereas 19.30 percent had involvement in more than
100 projects.
38
Table 4.8: The Participants’ Project Numbers
Project party Contractor Consultant Owner Designer
Less than 25 projects 27 21 24
(32.93%) (45.65%) (42.11%)
25 to 50 projects 24 12 12
(29.27%) (26.09%) (21.05%)
51 to 75 projects 6 4 4
(7.32%) (8.70%) (7.02%)
76 to 100 projects 8 1 6
(9.76%) (2.17%) (10.53%)
More than 100 projects 17 8 11
(20.73%) (17.39%) (19.30%)
4.3.3.2 Respondents’ Background and Percentage of Project Delay Time. The
second question in Section 3 of the Questionnaire Study asked respondents to indicate the
percentage of delay in their delayed projects, between zero delay time to more than 51
percent delay time. Table 4.9 illustrates the range of respondents’ replies.
Table 4.9 represents a spreadsheet of the project delay times indicated by survey
respondents. Notably, 50 percent of contractors and 54.39 percent of owner designers
admitted to delay times between 10 to 20 percent, whereas only 26.09 percent of the
consultants surveyed noted such delays. The survey indicates that construction delay
times are common in the industry, as the percent of project parties reporting zero delay
time was low.

39
Table 4.9: Project Delay Times
0% delay time 2 3 2
(2.44%) (6.52%) (3.51%)
Less than 10% delay time 15 11 10
(18.29%) (23.91%) (17.54)
10 to 20% delay time 41 12 31
(50.00%) (26.09%) (54.39%)
21 to 30% delay time 16 7 4
(19.51%) (15.22%) (7.02%)
(2.44%) (13.04%) (10.53%)
(0.00%) (6.52%) (5.26%)
More than 50% delay 6 4 1
time (7.32%) (8.70%) (1.75%)

40
4.3.3.3 Respondents’ Background on Percentage of Delay Time was Forgiven.
The third question in Section 3 of the Questionnaire Study asked respondents to indicate
what percentage o f the delay time was forgiven. Table 4.10 illustrates the survey
responses.
Table 4.10 illustrates the percentage of delay time forgiveness as reported by the
survey respondents. The results indicate that a certain amount of delay time forgiveness is
common in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. In over 50 percent of all cases
reported, less than 10 percent of the delay time was forgiven. Similarly, close to 20
percent of all cases reported saw between 10 to 20 percent o f the delay time was
forgiven.
41
Table 4.10: The Respondents’ Forgiven Delay Time
Paid all penalties for the 7 12 11
delayed time (8.54%) (26.09%) (19.30%)
Less than 10% was 51 24 33
forgiven (62.20%) (52.17%) (57.89)
10 to 20% was forgiven 16 8 10
(19.51%) (17.39%) (17.54%)
(1.22%) (4.35%) (1.75%)
(0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%)
(3.66%) (0.00%) (0.00%)
All the time was forgiven 4 0 2
(4.88%) (0.00%) (3.51%)
4.3.3.4 Respondents’ Background on the Responsible for the Delays
The fourth question in Section 3 of the Questionnaire Study asked respondents to
indicate the project party held accountable for the time delay(s). Table 4.11 illustrates the
responses surveyed.
Table 4.11 illustrates the parties held responsible for construction project time
delays. The data indicates that responsibility for time delays is most often attributed to
42
contractors, as all project parties surveyed indicated the contractor in more than 56
percent of the responses.
Table 4.11: Responsibility for Delay Time
Contractor 46 30 37
(56.10%) (65.22%) (65.91%)
Consultant 4 0 1
(4.88%) (0.00%) 0.75)
Designer 8 1 1
(9.76%) (2.17%) (1.75%)
Owner 18 8 15
(21.95%) (17.39%) (26.32%)
Other 6 7 3
(7.32%) (15.22%) (5.26%)
4.4 Section 4: Causes of Delay Time
This section will look at the actual causes of delay in construction in Saudi Arabia
according to Contractors, Consultants, and Owners. First the mean score for each cause
is calculated. These scores are then sorted from lowest to highest. Lastly, the Paired
Means T-test is used to check if the mean scores significantly differ from one another.
The hypothesis behind each t-test is that each expert thinks one of the causes of
delay is more important than the other. If the difference is not significant, then it is just a
43
random difference. So, this rules out the differences identified are only due to chance. If
it is significant, then the test shows that the expert sees a difference between the two
causes of delay. These experts rate how important each of these causes are in terms of
causing delay. The means of these causes of delay are sorted from the lowest rating to the
highest rating. If none of these causes are significantly different, then the top rated cause
of delay is no different than the bottom rated cause of delay. In this case, the differences
are simply random. If there are significant differences, then the top causes of delay are
more important than the ones at the bottom based on the t-tests.
These significant differences would exist because the experts surveyed thought
that one cause of delay was more important than the other. If they did not exist, then all
of these causes of delay would have the same level of importance in the mind of the
experts. However, the important thing about these significant differences is it determines
which cause o f delay is most important. Otherwise, these differences are simply random.
The tables below list the causes of construction delay in Saudi Arabia sorted in
order o f importance by mean score. Each factor is graded on a score of 1 - 5 where 1
means the respondent “Strongly Agrees” that the factor causes delays and 5 means that
the respondent “Strongly Disagrees” that the factor causes delays. The Significant
Differences column of this table shows the question number of all the other factors that
are significantly different than the factor in each row. The Paired Samples T-test is used
to determine if there is a significant difference between the means, and the means are
considered different when the test calculates a mean of p < .05.

44
4.4.1 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Contractors
According to Contractors, the most important causes of construction delay were
unqualified workforce (M = 1.57), changes in specifications (M = 1.60), unclear
drawings (M = 1.61), labor shortages (M = 1.66), payment delays by the owners (M =
1.67), and low laborer productivity (M = 1.77), where “M” refers to the mean.
The least important factors in construction delays include improper construction
methods (M = 2.88), weather’s effect on construction activities (M = 2.91), and hot
weather lowering productivity (M = 3.04).
There are two sub-sections in Section 4 related to causes of delay to the
contractor. Section 4.1 is about causes of delay time related to the contractor actions and
Section 4.2 is about causes of delay related to the materials, equipment, manpower, and
external. In Table 4.14, the first column shows question number such as X/Y where X:
sub-section, Y: the number of causes of delay in Table 4.12 and Table 4.13. The last
column in Table 4.14, which is under Significant differences, provides the Significant
different with other causes. The following two tables identify the common causes of
delay related to contractors in construction projects in Saudi Arabia.

45
Table 4.12: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor
2 Conflicts and poor site management and supervision by contractor
3 Poor communication and coordination by contractor with sub-contractors and
other parties
4 Improper construction methods implemented by contractor
6 Frequent change of sub-contractors because o f their inefficient work
7 Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff
10 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the contractor by the owner
Table 4.13: Causes of Delay Related to Material, Manpower, Equipment, and

External
1 Shortage or/and delay in manufacturing of construction materials in the market
4 Late procurement of materials
6 Shortage of equipment
46
7 Low level of equipment-operator’s skill
8 Lack of high-technology mechanical equipment
9 Shortage of labors
10 Unqualified workforce
11 Low productivity level of labors
12 Personal conflicts and nationality o f labors language (miscommunications)
among labors
13 Effects of subsurface conditions (e.g., soil, high water table, etc.)
14 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality
15 Hot weather effect on productivity on labors/construction activities
16 Weather in general effect on construction activities
17 Unavailability of utilities in site (such as water, electricity, telephone, etc.)
18 Traffic control and restriction at job site
19 Accident during construction
20 Changes in government regulations and laws
21 Delay in providing services from utilities (such as water, electricity)
Table 4.14 lists the causes of delay in the order of their mean score, and also
shows which causes of delay have significantly different scores according to a Paired T-
test. The first column is the question number, the second column is a description of the
question, the third column is the mean score (sorted from most prominent cause of delay
to least prominent cause), and the fourth column lists the causes that significantly differ
from the question in each row. For example, in the last row of the table, the “Q#” column
47
is “4.2/15,” which means that Section 4.2 of the survey and item number 15, the
“Description” is simply “Hot weather effect on productivity on labors/construction
activities,” the Mean column shows the mean of question 4.2/15 which is 3.0366, and the
“Significant Differences” column shows the other question numbers that are significantly
different to the level of p < 05. In this case, question 4.2/15 is significantly different than
4.1/1,4.1/3,4.1/4,4.1/11,4.2/1,4.2/14,4.2/17, and 4.2/21.
Table 4.14: Most Im portant Causes of Delay According to C ontractors
Q# Description Mean Sig Differences
4 . 1/ 1; 4 . 1/ 2 ; 4 . 1/ 3 ; 4 . 1/ 4 ;
4.2/10 Unqualified workforce 1.5732
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 5 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 7 ;
4 . 1/ 8 ; 4 . 1/ 10 ; 4 . 2 / 1 ; 4 .2 / 4 ;
4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 1 1; 4 .2/21
4 . 1/ 1 ; 4 . 1/ 2 ; 4 . 1/ 3 ; 4 . 1/ 4 ;
4.2/2 Changes in specifications during construction 1.6098
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 5 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 10 ;
4 .2 / 1 ; 4 .2 / 2 ; 4 .2 / 3 ; 4 .2 / 4 ;
4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 12 ; 4 . 2 / 13 ;
4 .2 /1 4 4 . 2 / 15 ; 4 . 2 / 16 ;
4 .2 /1 7 4 .2 / 18 ; 4 . 2 / 19 ;
4 .2 /2 0 4 . 2/21
4 . 1/ 1 ; 4 . 1/ 2 ; 4 . 1/ 3 ; 4 . 1/ 4 ;
4.1/11 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings 1.6098
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 5 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 10 ;
4 .2 / 1 ; 4 . 2 / 4 ; 4 . 2 / 8 ; 4 . 2 / 12 ;
4 .2/13 4 .2 / 14 ; 4 . 2 / 15 ;
4 .2 /1 6 4 .2 / 17 ; 4 .2 / 18 ;
4 ,2 /1 9 4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 . 2/21
4 . 1/ 1 ; 4 . 1/ 2 ; 4 . 1/ 3 ; 4 . 1/ 4 ;
4.2/9 Shortage of labors 1.6585
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 5 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 10 ;
4 .2 / 1 ; 4 .2 / 4 ; 4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 12 ;
48
4.2/13; 4.2/14; 4.2/15;
4.2/16; 4.2/17; 4.2/18;
4.2/19; 4.2/20; 4.2/21
4.1/9 Delay in progress paymentsby owner 1.6707 4 .1/ 1; 4 .1/2 ; 4 . 1/3; 4 . 1/4;
4.1/4; 4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.1/10;
4.2/1; 4.2/5; 4.2/6; 4.2/7;
4.2/8; 4.2/12; 4.2/13;
4.2/14; 4.2/15; 4.2/16;
4.2/17; 4.2/18; 4.2/19;
4.2/20; 4.2/21
4.2/11 Lowproductivity levelof labors 1.7683 4 .i/i; 4 .1/2; 4. 1/3 ; 4 .1/4 ;
4.1/4; 4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.2/5;
4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4.2/8; 4.2/10;
4.2/12; 4.2/13; 4.2/14;
4.2/15; 4.2/16; 4.2/17;
4.2/19; 4.2/21
4.1/8 Delay in site mobilization 1.8537 4 . 1/ 1; 4 . 1/2 ; 4 . 1/3 ; 4 . 1/4 ;
4.1/4; 4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.2/1;
4.2/5; 4.2/8; 4.2/12; 4.2/13;
4.2/15; 4.2/17; 4.2/20;
4.2/21
4.1/7 Poor qualification of the contractor’stechnical 1.8659 4 .1/2 ; 4 .1/3 ; 4 .1/4 ; 4 .1/6;
4.2/5; 4.2/8; 4.2/10; 4.2/12;
S ta ^ 4.2/13; 4.2/15; 4.2/16;
4.2/17; 4.2/19; 4.2/20;
4.2/21
4.2/3 Delay in material delivery 1.8780 4 .1/2; 4 .1/3 ; 4 . 1/4 ; 4 .1/6 ;
4.2/1; 4.2/5; 4.2/7; 4.2/8;
4.2/12; 4.2/13; 4.2/15;
4.2/16; 4.2/17; 4.2/19;
4.2/20; 4.2/21
4.2/18 Traffic control and restriction at job site 1.9634 4.1/3; 4.1/4; 4. 1/6; 4 .1/9 ;
4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/8; 4.2/10;
4.2/12; 4.2/13; 4.2/15;

49
4 .2 / 16 ; 4 .2 / 17 ; 4 . 2 / 18 ;
4 .2 / 19 ; 4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 . 2/21
4 . 1/ 3 ; 4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 11 ;
4.2/4 Late procurement of materials 1.9756
4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 10 ; 4 . 2 / 12 ;
4 . 2 / 13 ; 4 .2 / 15 ; 4 .2 / 16 ;
4 .2 / 17 ; 4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 . 2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 9 ; 4 . 1/ 11 ,
4.1/10 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the 2.0244
4 .2 / 2 ; 4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 10 ; 4 .2/13
contractor by the owner - 4 . 2 / 15 ; 4 .2 / 17 ; 4 . 2 / 2 0 ;
4 .2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 9 ; 4 . 1/ 11 ;
4.1/1 Rework due to errors during construction 2.0610
4 .2 / 2 ; 4 . 2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 9 ; 4 . 2 / 10 ;
4 .2 / 11 ; 4 .2 / 13 ; 4 . 2 / 13 ;
4 . 2 / 15 ; 4 .2 / 16 ; 4 . 2 / 17 ;
4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 .2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 9 ; 4 . 1/ 11 ;
4.2/14 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality 2.0854
4 .2 / 2 ; 4 . 2 / 9 ; 4 .2 / 10 ; 4 . 2 / 11 ;
4 .2 / 13 ; 4 .2 / 14 ; 4 . 2 / 15 ;
4 .2 / 16 ; 4 .2 / 17 ; 4 .2 / 2 0 ;
4 .2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 8 ; 4 . 1/ 9 ;
4.1/5 Delays in sub-contractors work 2.1098
4 . 1/ 11 ; 4 .2 / 2 ; 4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 11 ;
4 .2 / 13 ; 4 .2 / 15 ; 4 .2 / 16 ;
4 .2 / 17 ; 4 . 2 / 2 0 ; 4 .2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 7 ; 4 . 1/ 8 ;
4.2/6 Shortage of equipment 2.1463
4 . 1/ 9 ; 4 . 1/ 11 ; 4 . 2 / 2 ; 4 .2 / 1;
4 .2 / 8 ; 4 .2 / 9 ; 4 .2 / 10 ; 4 . 2 / 11 ;
4 . 2 / 13 ; 4 .2 / 15 ; 4 . 2 / 16 ;
4 . 2 / 17 ; 4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 . 2/21
4 . 1/ 4 ; 4 . 1/ 6 ; 4 . 1/ 7 ; 4 . 1/ 8 ;
4.2/5 Equipment breakdowns 2.1463
4 . 1/ 9 ; 4 . 2 / 2 ; 4 .2 / 3 ; 4 . 2 / 8 ;
4 .2 / 9 8 ; 4 .2 / 10 ; 4 . 2 / 11 ;
4 .2 / 12 ; 4 .2 / 13 ; 4 . 2 / 15 ;
4 .2 / 2 0 ; 4 .2/21
50
4.1/4; 4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/11;

4.2/1 Shortage or/and delay in manufacturing of 2.1585
4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/9; 4.2/10;
construction materials in the market
4.2/11; 4.2/13; 4.2/15;
4.2/16; 4.2/17; 4.2/20;
4.2/21
4.1/4; 4.1/7; 4.1/8; 4.1/9;

4.2/7 Low level of equipment-operator’s skill 2.1707
4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/8;
4.2/9; 4.2/10; 4.2/11;
4.2/13; 4.2/15; 4.2/16;
4.2/17; 4.2/20; 4.2.21
4.1/3; 4.1/6, 4.1/9; 4.1/11;

4.1 /2 Conflicts and poor site management and 2.1707
4.2/2; 4.2/4; 4.2/8; 4.2/9;
supervision by contractor 4.2/10; 4.2/11; 4.2/13;
4.2/15; 4.2/16; 4.2/17;
4.2/20; 4.2/21
4.1/4; 4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/11;

4.2/19 Accident during construction 2.2073
4 .2 / 2 ; 4 . 2 / 3 ; 4 .2 / 9 ; 4 . 2 / 10 ;
4.2/11; 4.2/13; 4.2/15;
4.2/19; 4.2/16; 4.2/17;
4.2/18; 4.2/18; 4.2/20;
4.2/21
4.1/4; 4.1/7; 4.1/8; 4.1/9;

4.1 /3 Poor communication and coordination by 2.3171
4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4;
contractor with sub-contractors and other parties
4.2/9; 4.2/10; 4.2/11;
4.2/15; 4.2/16; 4.2.18
4.1/1; 4.1/4; 4.1/7; 4.1/8;

4.2/12 Personal conflicts and nationality of labors □ 2.4024
4.1/9; 4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/3;
language (miscommunications) among labors 4.2/4; 4.2/9; 4.2/11; 4.2/15;
4.2/16; 4.2/18
4.2/8 Lack of high-technology mechanical equipment 2.4756 4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/4; 4.1/5;
4.1/7; 4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/11;
4.2/14; 4.2/15; 4.2/16;
4.2/18
51
4.1/6 Frequent change o f sub-contractors because o f 2.5122 4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/4; 4.1/5;
4.1/7; 4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/10;

their inefficient work 4.1/11; 4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4;
4.2/5; 4.2/6; 4.2/9; 4.2/10;
4.2/11; 4.2/14; 4.2/15;
4.2/16; 4.2/18
4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/5; 4.1/7;

4.2/21 2.5366
4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11;
Delay in providing services from utilities (such 4.2/7; 4.2/9; 4.2/11; 4.2/14;
as water, electricity) 4.2/15; 4.2/16; 4.2/18;
4.2/19
4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/5; 4.1/7;

4.2/17 Unavailability of utilities in site (such as, water, 2.6098
4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11;
electricity, telephone, etc.) 4.2/1; 4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4;
4.2/5; 4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4,2/9;
4.2/10; 4.2/11; 4.2/14;
4.2/15; 4.2/16; 4.2/17;
4.2/18; 4.2/19
4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/5; 4.1/7;

4.2/13 Effects of subsurface conditions (e.g., soil, high 2.6341
4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11;
water table, etc.) 4.2/1; 4.22; 4.2/3; 4.2/4;
4.2/5; 4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4.2/8;
4.2/9; 4.2/10; 4.2/11;
4.2/18; 4.2/19
4.1/2; 4.1/5; 4.1/7; 4.1/8;

4.2/20 Changes in government regulations and laws 2.6341
4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11; 4.2/1;
4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4; 4.2/5;
4.2/6; 4.2/9; 4.2/10; 4.2/11;
4.2/14; 4.2/15; 4.2/18;
4.2/19
4.1/4 Improper construction methods implemented by 2.8780 4.1/1; 4.1/2; 4.1/3; 4.1/4;
4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.1/7; 4.1/8;

contractor 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11; 4.2/1;
4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4; 4.2/5;

52
4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4.2/8; 4.2/9;
4.2/10; 4.2/11; 4.2/12;
4.2/14; 4.2/18; 4.2/19
4.2/16 Weather in general effect on construction 2.9146 4I/1; 41/2: 4 I/5; 41/7;
4.1/8; 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11;
activities
4.2/1; 4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4;
4.2/5; 4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4.2/8;
4.2/9; 4.2/10; 4.2/11;
4.2/12; 4.2/13; 4.2/14;
4.2/17; 4.2/18; 4.2/19;
4.2/20; 4.2/21
4.2/15 Hot weather effect on productivity on 3 0366 41/l; 41/2; 41/3; 41/4;
4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.1/7; 4.1/8;
labors/construction activities 4.1/9; 4.1/10; 4.1/11; 4.2/1;
4.2/2; 4.2/3; 4.2/4; 4.2/5;
4.2/6; 4.2/7; 4.2/8; 4.2/9;
4.2/10; 4.2/11; 4.2/12;
4.2/13; 4.2/14; 4.2/17;
4.2/18; 4.2/19; 4.2/20;
4.2/21
Table 4.15 illustrates the answers given by the surveyed contractors regarding
particular questions, based on a 1-5 scale, where “ 1” indicates that they “Strongly
Agree,” “2” indicates that they “Agree,” “3” indicates that they are “Not Applicable,” “4”
indicates that they “Disagree,” and “5” indicates that they “Strongly Disagree.” For
example, the first question in the Table indicates that there were a total of 82 contractors
who responded to the prompt, that rework due to errors during construction was the
primary cause of construction errors. O f the respondents, 40 (48.8% of respondents)
strongly agreed with the prompt; 20 (24.4%) agreed with the prompt; two (2.4%)
53
indicated that the prompt was inapplicable to them, 17 (20.7%) disagreed with the
prompt, and three (3.7%) strongly disagreed with the prompt.
Table 4.15: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4.1
Q# Description 1 2 3 4 5 Total
40 20 2 17 3 82
1 Rework due to errors during
% 48.8 24.4 2.4 20.7 3.7 100.0
construction
15 52 6 4 5 82
2 Conflicts and poor site management
% 18.3 63.4 7.3 4.9 6.1 100.0
and supervision by contractor
Poor communication and coordination 14 48 7 6 7 82

3
% 17.1 58.5 8.5 7.3 8.5 100.0
by contractor with sub-contractors and
other parties
8 20 38 6 10 82
4 Improper construction methods
% 9.8 24.4 46.3 7.3 12.2 100.0
implemented by contractor
Delays in sub-contractors work 16 52 6 5 3 82

5
% 19.5 63.4 7.3 6.1 3.7 100.0
19 21 29 7 6 82
6 Frequent change of sub-contractors
% 23.2 25.6 35.4 8.5 7.3 100.0
because of their inefficient work
43 21 6 10 2 82
7 Poor qualification of the contractor’s
% 52.4 25.6 7.3 12.2 2.4 100.0
technical staff
38 28 7 8 1 82
% 46.3 34.1 8.5 9.8 1.2 100,0
9 Delay in progress payments by owner 56 12 3 7 4 82
% 68.3 14.6 3.7 8.5 4.9 100.0
10 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to 24 42 9 4 3 82

54
the contractor by the owner % 29.3 51.2 11.0 4.9 3.7 100.0
11 Unclear and inadequate details in s3 14 i° 4 1 82
% 64.6 17.1 12.2 4.9 1.2 100.0

drawings
Table 4.16 looks at the causes of delay considered in Section 4.2: causes within
the contractor’s control, including labor and equipment. For example, in the first
question, contractors indicated their level of belief that shortages and/or delays in
manufacturing of construction materials in the market are the primary causes of delay. Of
82 respondents, 40 (48.8%) strongly agreed; 20 (24.4%) agreed, 2 (2.4%) indicated that
the prompt was inapplicable to them, 17 (20.7%) disagreed with the prompt, and three
(3.7%) strongly disagreed with the prompt.
Q# 1 2 3 4 5 Total
40 20 2 17 3 82
1 Shortage and/or delay in
48.8 24.4 2.4 20.7 3.7 100.0

manufacturing of construction %
materials in the market
52 19 4 5 2 82
2 Changes in specifications during
63.4 23.2 4.9 6.1 2.4 100.0

construction %
41 25 6 5 5 82
50.0 30.5 7.3 6.1 6.1 100.0

%
38 26 6 6 6 82
46.3 31.7 7.3 7.3 7.3 100.0

%
55
5 E q u ip m e n t b r e a k d o w n s 34 19 13 15 1 82
% 41.5 23.2 15.9 18.3 1.2 100.0
6 S h o r ta g e o f e q u ip m e n t 34 24 8 10 6 82
% 41.5 29.3 9.8 12.2 7.3 100.0
7 L o w l e v e l o f e q u ip m e n t - 36 20 9 10 7 82
o p e r a t o r ’s s k ill 43.9 24.4 11.0 12.2 8.5 100.0

%
8 L a c k o f h ig h - t e c h n o lo g y 15 39 11 8 9 82
m e c h a n ic a l e q u ip m e n t % 18.3 47.6 13.4 9.8 11.0 100.0
9 S h o r ta g e o f la b o r s 52 20 1 4 5 82
% 63.4 24.4 1.2 4.9 6.1 100.0
10 U n q u a lif ie d w o r k f o r c e 54 19 3 2 4 82
% 65.9 23.2 3.7 2.4 4.9 100.0
11 L o w p r o d u c tiv ity l e v e l o f la b o r s 47 20 7 3 5 82
% 57.3 24.4 8.5 3.7 6.1 100.0
12 P e r s o n a l c o n f lic t s a n d n a tio n a lit y 32 19 10 8 13 82
o f la b o r s a n d la n g u a g e % 39.0 23.2 12.2 9.8 15.9 100.0
( m is c o m m u n ic a t io n s ) a m o n g
la b o r s
13 E f f e c t s o f s u b s u r f a c e c o n d it io n s 7 45 11 9 10 82
( e .g ., s o il , h ig h w a te r t a b le , e t c .) % 8.5 54.9 13.4 11.0 12.2 100.0
14 D e l a y in o b ta in in g p e r m it s fr o m 35 24 9 9 5 82
m u n ic ip a lit y % 42.7 29.3 11.0 11.0 6.1 100.0

56
7 27 7 38 3 82
15 Hot weather effect on
8.5 32.9 8.5 46.3 3.7 100.0

productivity on %
labors/construction activities
7 21 33 14 7 82
16 Weather in general effect on
construction activities % 8.5 25.6 40.2 17.1 8.5 100.0
7 48 6 12 9 82
17 Unavailability of utilities in site
8.5 58.5 7.3 14.6 11.0 100.0

(such as water, electricity, %
telephone, etc.)
37 25 9 8 3 82
18 Traffic control and restriction at
% 45.1 30.5 11.0 9.8 3.7 100.0

job site
30 27 8 12 5 82
% 36.6 32.9 9.8 14.6 6.1 100.0

job site
16 19 33 7 7 82
19.5 23.2 40.2 8.5 8.5 100.0

job site %
12 44 7 8 11 82
14.6 53.7 8.5 9.8 13.4 100.0

job site %
4.4.2 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Consultants
The top two causes of delay according to consultants were changes in
specifications (M = 1.9757) and conflicts between the owners and contractors (M =
2.2195). These two factors both are significantly more important factors causing
construction delay in Saudi Arabia than all the other factors according to a Paired
samples T-test where their p-values are all less than p = .05. However, the difference
57
between the means of these two top factors is not significantly different according to a
Paired samples T-test with a p < .05.
Table 4.17 above lists the causes of delay in the order of their mean score, and
also shows which causes of delay have significantly different scores according to a paired
t-test. The first column is the question number, the second column is a description of the
from the question in each row.
For example, in the last row the of the table, the “Q#” column is “4.1/3”, which
means Section 4.1 of the survey and item number 3, the “Description” is simply
“Inadequate experience o f consultant,” the Mean column shows the mean of question
4.1/3 which is 3.3415, and the “Significant Differences” column shows the other question
numbers that are significantly different to the level of p < .05. In this case, question 4.1/3
is significantly different than 4.1/1 and 4.1/6.

58
Table 4.17: Significant Different in Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant
Significant
Sub/Q D escription M ean D ifferences
4.1/6 Changes in specifications during construction 1.9756 4.1/2; 4.1/3; 4.1/4;
4.1/5
4.1/1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties 2.2195 4.1/2; 4.1/3; 4.1/4;
4.1/5
(consultant and designer/owner)
4.1/2 Poor communication/coordination between 3.0244 4.1/1; 4.1/6
consultant and other parties (contractor and
designer owner)
4.1/5 Delay in reviewing documents by consultant 3.1707 4.1/1; 4.1/6
4.1/4 Delay in inspection by consultant 3.3171 4.1/1; 4.1/6
4.1/3 Inadequate experience of consultant 3.3415 4.1/1; 4.1/6
Table 4.18 represents the frequencies in causes of delay according to the
consultant-respondents. For example, the first question in the table indicates that there
were a total of 52 consultants who responded to the prompt, which asked them to state
their belief on whether conflicts between the contractor and other parties (consultants and
designers/owners) was the primary cause of construction delays. O f the respondents, 16
(30.2% of respondents) strongly agreed with the prompt; 12 (22.6%) agreed with the
prompt; six (11.3%) indicated that the prompt was inapplicable to them, two (3.8%)
disagreed with the prompt, and five (9.4%) strongly disagreed with the prompt.
59
Q# D escription 1 2 3 4 5 T otal M issing T otal
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other 16 12 6 2 5 41 u 52
% 30.2 22.6 11.3 3.8 9.4 77.4 22.6 100.0

parties (consultant and
designer/owner)
2 Poor communication/coordination 7 11 6 8 9 41 11 52
% 13.2 20.8 11.3 15.1 17.0 77.4 22.6 100.0

between consultant and other
parties (contractor and designer
owner)
3 Inadequate experience o f 5 7 11 5 13 41 11 52
% 9.4 13.2 20.8 9.4 24.5 77.4 22.6 100.0

consultant
4 Delay in inspection by consultant 6 5 12 6 12 41 11 52
% 113 9.4 22.6 11.3 22.6 77.4 22.6 100.0
5 D e la y in r e v ie w in g d o c u m e n ts b y 4 10 10 9 8 41 11 52
% 7.5 18.9 18.9 17.0 15.1 77.4 22.6 100.0

consultant
6 Changes in specifications during 12 22 4 2 1 41 11 52
% 22.6 41.5 7.5 3.8 1.9 77.4 22.6 100.0

construction
4.4.3 Causes of Delay in Saudi Arabia According to Owners
According to Owners, conflicts with contractors (Q4.1/1 where M = 1.67) are the
greatest cause of construction delay in Saudi Arabia. This factor not only had the highest
mean score (M = 1.67), but this score was a statistically significantly greater cause of
delay than all other variables. This is seen in the Paired T-tests which showed a
significance level of p < .05 between conflict with contractors (Q4.1/1) and all variables.
The least important cause of construction delays in Saudi Arabia is the delay in producing
design documents (Q4.1/8). This factor was seen as the least important cause of delay
60
(M = 2.65), and the mean is significantly less relevant than the means of all other factors
in this question according to the paired t-test which showed that all of these had p < .05
making them significantly less important than all other questions.
Table 4.19 above lists the causes of delay in the order of their mean score, and
also shows which causes of delay have significantly different scores according to a Paired
T-test. The first column is the question number, the second column is a description of the
from the question in each row. For example, in the last row the of the table, the “Q#”
column is “4.1/8”, which means that Section 4.1 of the survey and item number 8, the
“Description” is simply “Delays in producing design documents”; the Mean column
shows the mean of question 4.1/8 which is 2.65; and the “Significant Differences”
column shows the other question numbers that are significantly different to the level of p
< .05. In this case, question 4.1/8 is significantly different than 4.1/1,4.1/2,4.1/3, 4.1/4,
4.1/5,4.1/6, and 4.1/7.

61
Table 4.19: Significant Different in Causes of Delay Related to the Owner
Sub/Q D escription M ean Sig D ifferences
4.1/1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties 1.67 4.1/2; 4.1/3; 4.1/4;
4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.1/7; 4.1/8

4.1/5 Slowness in decision making process by owner 2.04 4.1/1; 4.1/8
4.1/2 Delay in revising and approving design documents 2.09 4.1/1; 4.1/8
by owner
4.1/4 Poor communication and coordination by owner 2.11 4.1/1,4.1/8
and other parties (consultant and contractor)
4.1/6 Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents 2.12 4.1/1; 4.1/8
4.1/7 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings 2.16 4.1/1; 4.1/ 8
4.1/3 Delay in approving shop drawings and sample 2.30 4.1/1; 4.1/8
materials
4.1/8 Delays in producing design documents 2.65 4.1/1; 4.1/2,4.1/3,
4.1/4; 4.1/5; 4.1/6; 4.1/7
Table 4.20 represents the frequencies in causes of delay according to the owner-
respondents. For example, the first question in the Table indicates that there were a total
of 57 owners who responded to the prompt, which asked them to state their belief on
whether conflicts between the contractor and other parties (consultants and
designers/owners) was the primary cause of construction delays. Of the respondents, 29
(50.9% of respondents) strongly agreed with the prompt; 22 (38.6%) agreed with the
prompt; two (3.5%) indicated that the prompt was inapplicable to them, and four (7.0%)
62
disagreed with the prompt. None of the owner respondents surveyed strongly disagreed
with the prompt.
Table 4.20: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4
Q# D escription l 2 3 4 5 T otal
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other 29 22 2 4 0 57
% 50.9 38.6 3.5 7.0 0 100,0

parties (consultant and
designer/owner)
2 Delay in revising and approving 12 35 4 5 1 57
% 21.1 61.4 7.0 8.8 1.8 100.0

design documents by owner
3 Delay in approving shop drawings 8 34 7 6 2 57
% 14.0 59.6 12.3 10.5 3.5 100.0

and sample materials
4 Poor communication and 11 35 6 4 1 57
% 19.3 61.4 10.5 7.0 1.8 100.0

coordination by owner and other
parties (consultant and contractor)
5 Slowness in decision making 13 34 6 3 1 57
% 22.8 59.6 10.5 5.3 1.8 100,0

process by owner
6 Mistakes and discrepancies in 6 41 7 3 0 57
% 10.5 71.9 12.3 5.3 0 100.0

design documents
7 Unclear and inadequate details in 9 34 10 4 0 57
% 15.8 59.6 17.5 7.0 0 100.0

drawings
8 Delays in producing design 8 15 23 11 0 57
% 14.0 26.3 40.4 19.3 0 100.0

documents
63
4.5 Participants’ Comments
The last question of the survey was simply an open-ended question that asked
respondents to write down the most important causes of delay not mentioned in previous
questions.
4.5.1 Contractors’ Comments
Among the Contractors, 33 of the respondents answered the open-ended question.
The three top answers to this question were mentioned by 8 respondents, these
respondents mention a delay in payment, lack of management (that is the project was not
planned well), and changes or redoing the work. The next most mentioned open-ended
answer was mentioned by 7 people who said that the contractor did not pay their workers
on time. Three answers were mentioned by 6 respondents including communication with
the owner, problems with the drawing design, and lack of experience. 5 respondents
mentioned two answers and they were various issues with the government, and lack of
responsibility. Unclear specifications were also mentioned as a problem causing delay by
4 of the contractors. There were several other very infrequent answers mentioned by
only 1 or 2 of the respondents.
4.5.2 Consultants’ Comments
Among Consultants, the open-ended question was answered by 24 of the
consultants. By far there most common open end answer was that lack of experience
caused delay which was mentioned 9 times. The next most common answer was
government issues, which were mentioned by 4 consultants, and problems with
scheduling, which 3 people mentioned. There were several other very infrequent answers
mentioned by only 1 or 2 of the respondents.

64
4.5.3 Owners’ Comments
Among the owners in the study, 19 had an open-ended response. Like the
consultants, the most prevalent problem causing delay mentioned by owners was lack of
experience that was mentioned by 11 respondents. The next most common cause of
delay was looking for to save money rather than emphasizing quality solutions, which
was mentioned by 5 people. Three owners also mentioned redoing the work and changes
as a cause of delay. There were several other very infrequent answers mentioned by only
2 of the respondents.
4.6 Correlations
This analysis uses Pearson Correlation (using Pearson’s) to see what factors are
associated with Delay (Question 3.2: What percentage is the delay time of your delayed
projects?). The analysis tested the correlation between % delay (Q. 3.2) and the
following variables: 1) Public/Private Sector (Question 1.1: What type of sector(s) have
you worked for?); 2) Years Experience (Question 1.2: How long have you been working
in the construction industry?); and 3) Number of Construction Projects (Question 3.1:
How many construction project have you been involved in?). A separate correlation
analysis was done for each of the three types of respondents (Consultant, Contractor, and
Owner) and for all of these samples combined for the following variables.
4.6.1 Correlation Among Contractors
Among contractors, there is a significant negative correlation between the average
amount of delay in projects (Q. 3.2) and the years of experience (Q. 1.2) in the
construction industry. In other words, contractors with more years of experience report a
lower percentage of delays.

65
In Table 4.21, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient for these variables is r = -.221
which has a significance of p = .046 (which is < .05 and therefore significant). The sector
(Q. 1.1) has a very mild association with delays in project (Q. 3.2) where r = .134 and p =
.229. Since p is > .05, it is not significant. The number of projects (Q. 3.1) also only
shows a mild association with delays in projects (Q. 3.2) where r = -. 118 and p = .291.
Since p is > .05, it is not significant.
Table 4.21: Correlation Among Contractors
Correlation Among Q3.2 What percentage is the
Contractors delay time of your delayed
projects
Ql . l What types of sectors Pearson Correlation .13
have you worked for? Significant (2-tailed) .22
N 82
Q1.2 How long have you Pearson Correlation -.22
been working in the Significant (2-tailed) .04
construction industry N 82
Q3.1 How many Pearson Correlation -.11
construction projects have Significant (2-tailed) .29
you been involved in N 82

66
4.6.2 Correlation Among Consultants
The delay in the projects among consultants (Q. 3.2) did not show any significant
correlations with sector (public/private Q. 1.1) p = .628 (since p is > .05 it is not
significant), years experience (Q. 1.2) p = .200 (since p is > .05 it is not significant), or
number of construction projects (Q. 3.1) p = .510. So, this data does not show any of
these values impacting the percentage of delays (Q. 3.2) among consultants.
Table 4.22: Correlation Among Consultants
Correlation Among Consultants Q3.2 What percentage is the

delay time of your delayed
projects
Q 1.1 What types of sectors Pearson Correlation -.07
have you worked for? Significant (2- .62
tailed)
N 46
Q1.2 How long have you been Pearson Correlation .19
working in the construction Significant (2- .20
industry tailed)
N 46
Q3.1 How many construction Pearson Correlation -.10
projects have you been Significant (2- .51
involved in tailed)
N 46
67
4.6.3 Correlation Among Owners
Among Owners, there is an almost significant negative correlation between the
average amount of delay in projects (Q. 3.2) and the sector (Q. 1.1) in the construction
industry. In other words, owners for a private company report a lower percentage of
delays. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient for these variables is r = -.254 which has a
significance of p = .057 (which is very close to .05 and nearly, though not quite,
significant). The years experience (Q. 1.1) has a very mild association with delays in
project (Q. 3.2) where r = .005 and p = .971 (since p is > .05, it is not significant). The
number of projects (Q. 3.1) shows a feeble association with delays in projects (Q. 3.2)
where r = -.097 and p = .473 (since p is > .05, it is not significant).

68
Table 4.23: Correlation Among Owners
Correlation Among Q3.2 What percentage is the
Consultants delay time of your delayed
projects
have you worked for? Significant (2-tailed) .05
N 57
Q1.2 How long have you been Pearson Correlation .005
working in the construction Significant (2-tailed) .97
industry N 57
projects have you been Significant (2-tailed) .47
involved in N 57
4.6.4 Correlation in the Combined Sample
The delay in the projects (Q. 3.2) among the total sample combined did not show
any significant correlations with sector (Q. 1.1) p = .672 (since p is > .05, it is not
significant), years experience (Q. 1.2) p = .778 (since p is > .05, it is not significant), or
number of construction projects (Q. 3.1) p = .510. So, this data does not show any of
these values impacting the percentage of delays (Q. 3.2) among the total sample.
69
Table 4.24: Correlation in the Combined Sample
Correlation in the Q3.2 What percentage is the delay
Combined Sample time of your delayed projects
have you worked for? Significant (2- .67
tailed)
N 185
Q1.2 How long have you Pearson Correlation -.02
been working in the Significant (2- .77
construction industry tailed)
N 18
projects have you been Significant(2- .12
involved in tailed)
N 185
4.6.5 Differences in Construction Delay Between Groups
The following set of three ANOVA’s were performed for Contractors,
Consultants, Owners, and the total of all three groups combined. These analyses show if
the mean score for % Delays (Q. 3.2 - dependent variable) differs by the groups in the
independent variables (Q. 1.1 Public vs. Private, Q. 1.2 Years of Experience, and Q. 3.1
Number o f projects).
• The dependent variable for all three ANOVAs is % Delays (Q. 3.2).
70
• The independent variables are
1. Public v Private (Q. 1.1) - ANOVA 1
2. Years in Industry (Q. 1.2) - ANOVA 2
3. Number of Projects (Q 3.1)- ANOVA 3
4.6.6 Difference in Percentage Delay by Groups Among Contractors
Among Contractors, there were no significant differences between the means of
delay (Q. 3.2) by any of the groups (public/private, years experience, and number of
projects) shown in ANOVA 1, ANOVA 2 nor ANOVA 3. The detailed scores for each
of the ANOV As are listed below.
Table 4.25: Sector Type Deviation Among Contractors
N Mean Standard Deviation
Public 21 3.0476 1.02353
Private 33 3.3030 1.46810
Both 28 3.5000 1.26198
Total 82 3.3049 1.29280

71
Table 4.26: Sector Type ANOVA Among Contractors
Sum of Squares Degrees of Mean F Significant
Freedom Square
Between 2.456 2 1.228 .73 .485
Groups 0
Within 132.922 79 1.683
Groups
Total 135.378 81
ANOVA 2 Among Contractors:
Dependent Variable = Q. 3.2 Percent Delay
Independent Variable = Q. 1.2 Years of Experience
Among Contractors, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between
years of experience (Q. 1.2) groups is not statistically significant F (4,77) = 2.005, and p
= . 102. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the same is not
rejected. It is therefore assumed that the means of the groups are the same.
72
Table 4.27: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Contractors
< 5 years 18 3.9444 1.86207
5-10 16 3.0625 1.06262

years
11-15 6 3.8333 1.60208
years
16- 20 5 3.0000 .70711
years
> 20 years 37 3.0541 .94122
Total 82 3.3049 1.29280
Table 4.28: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Contractors
Sum of Squares Degrees of Mean Square F Significant

Freedom
Between 12.771 4 3.193 2.005 .102
Groups
Within 122.607 77 1.592
Groups
Total 135.378 81
ANOVA 3 Among Contractor:
Independent Variable = Q. 3.1 Number of Projects

73
Among Contractors, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between
number of project (Q. 3.1) groups is not statistically significant F (2,77) = .977, and p =
.425. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the same is not
Table 4.29: Number of Projects Deviation Among Contractors
N Mean Standard Standard Error
Deviation
<25 27 3.5185 1.74026 .33491
25-50 24 3.1667 1.12932 .23052
51 -75 6 3.5000 .54772 .22361
76 - 100 8 3.7500 1.38873 .49099
100 + 17 2.8824 .60025 .14558
Total 82 3.3049 1.29280 .14277

74
Table 4.30: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Contractors
Sum of Squares Degrees of Mean Square F Significant
Freedom
Between Groups 6.539 4 1.635 .977 .425
Within Groups 128.839 77 1.673
Total 135.378 81
There are no significant differences between the Contractors with different
number of projects under their belts.
4.6.7 Difference in Percentage Delay by Groups Among Consultants
Among Consultants, there were no significant differences between the means of
delay by any of the groups (public/private, years experience, and number of projects)
shown in ANOVA 1, ANOVA 2 nor ANOVA 3. The detailed scores for each of the
ANOV As are listed below:
ANOVA 1 Among Consultants:
Independent Variable = Q. 1.1 Sector Type
Among Consultants, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between
public and private sector (Q. 1.1) is not statistically significant F (2,79) = .198, and p =
75
Table 4.31: Sector Type Deviation Among Consultants
Public 6 4.0000 1.67332
Private 17 3.5294 2.03463
Both 23 3.5217 1.47308
Total 46 3.5870 1.69412
Table 4.32: Sector Type ANOVA Among Consultants
Degrees
Sum of Squares of Mean F Significant
Freedom Square
Between 1.178 2 .589 .198 .821
Groups
Within 127.974 43 2.976
Groups
Total 129.152 45

76
years of experience (Q. 1.2) groups is not statistically significant F (4,41) = 1.826, and p
= .142. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the same is not
Table 4.33: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Consultants
<5 10 2.9000 1.10050
5-10 3 3.0000 1.00000
11 -15 7 4.5714 1.51186
16-20 5 2.6000 .89443
> 20 21 3.9048 1.99762
Total 46 3.5870 1.69412
Table 4.34: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Consultants
Sum of Degrees of Mean Square F Significant
Squares Freedom
Between 19.528 4 4.882 1.826 .142
Groups
Within 109.624 41 2.674
Groups
Total 129.152 45
77
Number of Projects (Q. 3.1) groups is not statistically significant F (4,41) = 1.225, and p
= .315. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the same is not
Table 4.35: Number of Projects Deviation Among Consultants
<25 21 3.9524 1.77415
25-50 12 3.4167 1.62135
51-75 4 2.0000 .81650
76-100 1 3.0000
>100 8 3.7500 1.75255
Total 46 3.5870 1.69412

78
Table 4.36: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Consultants
Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significant
Squares Freedom Square
Between 13.783 4 3.446 1.225 .315
Groups
Within Groups 115.369 41 2.814
Total 129.152 45
Among Consultants, those with more projects do not show significantly more or
less delays.
4.6.8 Difference in Percentage Delay bv Groups Among Owners
Among Owners, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between
Number of Project (Q. 3.1) groups is not statistically significant F(2,54) = 2.152, and p =
79
Table 4.37: Sector Type Deviation Among Owners
Public 22 3.68 1.249
Private 8 3.00 .000
Both 27 3.00 1.330
Total 57 3.26 1.232
Table 4.38: Sector Type ANOVA Among Owners
Degrees of Freedom F Significant
Between Groups 2 2.152 .126
Within Groups 54
Total 56
ANOVA 2 Among Owners:
Among Owners, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between Years
of Experience Groups (Q. 1.2) groups is statistically significant F (4,52) = 3.707, and p =
.010. Since p < .05, we reject the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the
same. Therefore, we have to do a post-hock test to determine which groups differ from
each other.
80
The post-hock analysis determined that the group with 1 1 - 1 5 was significantly
different from all of the other means. The group with 1 1 - 1 5 years of experience had a
mean o f M = 4.5. A post-hock analysis showed that this group was significantly different
from the others with a significance level of p < .05 confirming that it is statistically
significant. However, this result is suspect since the sample size is small for all owners
(n = 57) and very small for the 11 - 15 years of experience group (n = 8). These
anomalies lead to the conclusion that the big difference in this group is a fluke and not
particularly important.
Table 4.39: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Owners
< 5 years 19 3.32 1.529
5 - 1 0 years 13 2.62 1.193
11-15 years 8 4.50 .756
1 6 -20 years 4 3.50 1.000
21 + years 13 3.00 .000
Total 57 3.26 1.232

81
Table 4.40: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Owners
Between Groups 4 3.707 .010
Within Groups 52
Total 56
ANOVA 3 Among Owners:
Among Owners, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2) between
Number of Project (Q. 3.1) groups is not statistically significant F (4,52) = .993, and p =
Table 4.41: Number of Projects Deviation Among Owners
<25 24 3.58 1.501
25-50 12 2.75 .965
51-75 4 3.25 2.062
76-100 6 3.00 .000
> 100 11 3.27 .647
Total 57 3.26 1.232

82
Table 4.42: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Owners
Between Groups 4 .993 .420
Within Groups 52
Total 56
Among Owners, the difference in the amount of delays between numbers of
contracts is not statistically significant.
4.6.9 Difference in Percentage Delay Among Combined Groups
ANOVA 1 In the Combined Sample:
Among All Samples Combined, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2)
between public and private sector (Q. 1.1) is not statistically significant F (2,182) = .130,
and p = .878. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are the same
is not rejected. It is therefore assumed that the means of the groups are the same.
83
Table 4.43: Sector Type Deviation in Combined Sample
Public 49 3.4490 1.24267
Private 58 3.3276 1.54906
Both 78 3.3333 1.35481
Total 185 3.3622 1.38457
Table 4.44: Sector Type ANOVA in Combined Sample
Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significant
Squares Freedom Square
Between .503 2 .252 .130 .878
Groups
Within Groups 352.232 182 1.935
Total 352.735 184
Among all the groups combined, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2)
between Years of Experience Groups (Q. 1.2) groups is statistically significant F(4,180)
= 4.195, and p = .003. Since p < .05, we reject the null hypothesis that the means of the
groups are the same. Therefore, we have to do a post-hock test to determine which
groups differ from each other.

84
The post-hock analysis determined that the group with 1 1 - 1 5 was significantly
different from all of the other means. The group with 1 1 - 1 5 years of experience had a
mean of M = 4.3. A post-hock analysis showed that this group was significantly different
from the others with a significance level of p < .05 confirming that it is statistically
significant. However, this result is suspect since the sample size is small for the 11 - 15
years of experience group (n = 21). These anomalies lead to the conclusion that the big
difference in this group is a fluke and not particularly important.
Table 4.45: Years of Experience Deviation in Combined Sample
< 5 years 47 3.4681 1.61314
5 - 1 0 years 32 2.8750 1.09985
11- 15 years 21 4.3333 1.27802
16- 20 years 14 3.0000 .87706
21 + years 71 3.2958 1.32443
Total 185 3.3622 1.38457

85
Table 4.46: Years of Experience ANOVA in Combined Sample
Sum of Degrees Mean F Significant
Squares of Square
Freedom
Between 30.078 4 7.519 4.195 .003
Groups
Within Groups 322.658 180 1.793
Total 352.735 184
Among all samples combined, the difference in the means of the delays (Q. 3.2)
between public and Number of Projects (Q. 3.1) is not statistically significant F (4,180) =
1.618, and p = .171. Since p > .05, the null hypothesis that the means of the groups are
the same is not rejected. It is therefore assumed that the means of the groups are the
same.
86
Table 4.47: Number of Projects Deviation Among Owners
<25 72 3.6667 1.66149
25-50 48 3.1250 1.23124
51-75 14 3.0000 1.30089
76-100 15 3.4000 1.05560
> 100 36 3.1944 1.00909
Total 185 3.3622 1.38457
Table 4.48: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Owners
Degrees of F Significant
Freedom
Between 4 1.618 .171
Groups
Within Groups 180
Total 184
87
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter provides the essential research findings taken from the data
collected, as mentioned in the preceding chapter. In addition, it suggests
recommendations for future work in construction industry in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia to eliminate, to avoid, or to minimize the delay time in future construction
projects.
5.2 Types of Delays
Based on the data gathered concerning the liabilities of stakeholders, the most
frequent types of delay in Saudi Arabian construction projects were non-excusable; less
common were excusable but non-compensable delays. According to the data concerning
affects, the most frequent types of delay were critical delays, meaning that such delays
affected the final duration of the project. According to the data concerning occurrence,
the most frequent types of delay were concurrent delays, where more than one
independent delay occurs by two parties—usually the owner and the contractor at the
same time.
88
5.3 Level of Importance of Causes Delay
There are many numbers of causes of delay considered important from the
perspective of the three major parties involved in construction projects. As provided in
the previous chapter, the most important causes of delay have an importance index equal
to 2.0 or lower to the contractors and owner, and 3.0 or lower to the consultant, with 1.0
being the highest (strongly agree), and 5.0 being the lowest (strongly disagree). This
section presents the most important causes of delay based on those obtained from the data
analysis.
This section is divided into three sub-sections. Each sub-section discusses the
most important causes of delay as it concerns each party.
5.3.1 The Most Important Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor
In this section, causes of delay related to the contractor, with an index value
equal to 2.0 or lower have been considered the most important causes of delay. Table 5.1
shows the most important causes of delay related to the contractor.

89
Table 5.1 Causes of Delay Related to Contractor
No. Description Mean
1 Unqualified workforce 1.5732
2 Changes in specifications during construction 1.6098
3 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings 1.6098
4 Shortage of labors 1.6585
5 Delay in progress payments by owner 1.6707
6 Low productivity level of labors 1.7683
7 Delay in site mobilization 1.8537
8 Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff 1.8659
9 Delay in material delivery 1.8780
10 Traffic control and restriction at job site 1.9634
11 Late procurement of materials 1.9756
12 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the contractor 2.0244

by the owner
13 Rework due to errors during construction 2.0610
14 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality 2.0854
These 14 causes of delay are further categorized into different groups. An
unqualified workforce, low productivity level of laborers, and shortages of labor fall
under causes of delay related to labors. Changes in specifications during construction,
delay in material delivery, and late procurement of materials fall under causes of delay
related to materials. Delay in progress payments by the owner, and delay to furnish and
deliver the site to the contractor by the owner, fall under causes of delay related to the
owner. Delay in site mobilization, poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff,
90
and rework due to errors during construction fall under causes of delay related to the
contractor. Unclear and inadequate details in drawings will be under causes of delay
related to design. Finally, traffic control and restriction at the job site, and delay in
obtaining municipal permits, fall under causes of delay related to external. Table 5.2 is an
illustration of these categories.
Table 5.2 Causes of Delay Related to Contractor in Categories
No. Description Mean Category
1 Unqualified workforce 1.5732 Labors
2 Changes in specifications during construction 1.6098 Materials
3 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings 1.6098 Design
4 Shortage of labors 1.6585 Labors
5 Delay in progress payments by owner 1.6707 Owner
6 Low productivity level of labors 1.7683 Labors
7 Delay in site mobilization 1.8537 Contractor
8 Poor qualification of the contractor’s technical staff 1.8659 Contractor
9 Delay in material delivery 1.8780 Materials
10 Traffic control and restriction at job site 1.9634 External
11 Late procurement of materials 1.9756 Materials
12 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the contractor 2.0244 Owner
by the owner
13 Rework due to errors during construction 2.0610 Contractor
14 Delay in obtaining permits from municipality 2.0854 External

91
5.3.2 The Most Important Causes o f Delay Related to the Consultant
Table 5.3 shows the most important causes of delay as related to the consultant,
with index values equal to 3.0 or lower.
Table 5.3 Causes of Delay Related to Consultant in Categories
1 Changes in specifications during construction 1.9756 Consultant
2 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties (consultant 2.2195 Consultant

and designer/owner)
3 Poor communication/coordination between consultant 3.0244 Consultant

and other parties (contractor and designer owner)
5.3.3 The Most Important Causes of Delay Related to the Owner
Table 5.4 shows the most important causes of delay related to the owner, having
index values equal to 2.0 or lower.
Table 5.4 Causes of Delay Related to Owner/Designer in Categories
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties 1.67 Owner/designer

2 Slowness in decision making process by owner 2.04 Owner/designer
3 Delay in revising and approving design 2.09 Owner/designer

documents by owner
92
5.4 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Contractors
The following recommendations are made:
• Causes o f delay related to laborers are the contractor’s responsibility
(Table 5.2). Hiring employees is one of the most important factors in the construction
industry. Contractors need to hire employees who have sufficient work experience and
qualifications to be able to deliver the projects in an accurate way without changing of
the scope of the project. In order to accomplish this, the contractor should provide an
office that specializes in evaluating the work of laborers, and improving quality by
investing in employee training. Before hiring laborers, this office can determine whether
they are capable of achieving the required standards. Also, this office could facilitate
contracts to handle the payment of laborers in order to avoid payments delays. Labor
shortages occur due to prohibitive government legislation, government legislation limits
the number of employees that a contractor may hire based on the small number o f local
employees. In this sense, knowledge of current legislation is strongly recommended
before a contractor takes any hiring action. It is also the contractor’s responsibility to
make a plan with the office to figure out how many local workers a given project needs
so that it may hire more workers other countries. By hiring high quality workers, less
workers will be needed. This will help to ensure the efficiency of laborers in the project
and minimize the likelihood of problems or mistakes.
• It is also recommended that contractors pay more attention to weather,
not only in Saudi Arabia, but also in other countries, in situations where the materials will
be imported from these countries. Contractors should always consider adding more time
into the plan or the project period for unexpected weather changes. In addition, due to
93
errors and misunderstandings between the parties, variations between the project
specifications and the project as built are to be expected. This requires that contractors
agree that they will not make any changes during the execution of the project. It is highly
recommended that contractors pay more attention to the procurement plan by making
advanced plans in case of the late of procurement materials. Also, it is recommended that
contractors analyze the historical data of potential subcontractors, and that they work
only with subcontractors that have received positive feedback from other contractors.
Contractors must not only consider product costs, but also the efficient distribution of the
products they are working with.
• Trust between parties in any construction project is the key to the project’s
success. In order to increase trust between the owners and the contractors, payments
should delivered in the agreed time. However, in some situation the owner delays the
payments until the contractor has performed the agreed activities within the agreed time.
In this situation the trust between the parties will slowly erode. In order to facilitate trust,
contractors should negotiate with owners to develop a play under which the owner would
the contractor’s work in different stages or times before the payment date. For example, if
the contractor finishes 90% of the activities to be completed in a given month, the
contractors have to guarantee that 10% will be delivered in unknown period of time, and
the owners have to make payments on the due date as originally agreed. This could help
contractors to maintain stable financial status in order to complete the project within the
agreed timeframe, without obstacles. Motivation is another key to successful construction
projects. It is recommended that the owner have a specific date to deliver the site to the
main contractor. The end of the bidding period should be the last time considered by the
94
owner to make the site ready to deliver to the contractor. This will give the main
contractor the necessary motivation to begin project execution.
• It is important that the contractors pay more attention to the five phases o f
any construction project, from the initiation through the closing of the project concerning
causes of delay related to the contractor (Table 5.2) The contractor should pay special
attention to the planning and scheduling process. It is necessary for contractors to prepare
accurate plans for site mobilization in order to avoid delaying the project. As mentioned
above, it is highly recommended that contractors set up an office or organization to
examine every employee in their firm. Also, this office could distribute the low quality
workers with the high quality in order to learn from their knowledge, skills, and
experience. When contractors fail to provide comprehensive solutions for unexpected
mistakes, re-work will occur. However if contractors have foresight of potential
construction problems, and they are prepared to deliver the necessary solutions at any
time of the project, the need for re-work will be prevented. Contractors and their
employees should understand the scope of a project before going into the bidding
process, in order to avoid confusion, which may later lead to re-work. Also, to avoid
errors the contractor should carefully read the contract documents, including the
specifications, the drawing, and all the documents related to the project. If there is any
confusion surrounding the documents, the contractor should seek clarification with the
owner or agent in order to fully understand the project’s scope before starting project
work.
• The contractor should pay extra attention to managing the site, in order to
avoid delays caused by external factors. Contingency plans should be made in advance
95
in order to avert delays caused by errors that could potentially forestall the progress of
the project, where such errors can reasonably be anticipated in advance. By accurately
following the manual and project specifications, and relying on these contingency plans
when needed, and following and specifications it will be hard for mistakes to cause
project delays. Lack of communication between government agencies and the
contracting firm is one of the biggest causes of project delay in Saudi Arabia, especially
for private projects. In order to minimize this cause or even eliminate it, it is
recommended that the owner be made responsible for obtaining major permits, as the
owner is likely to get acceptance for the permits faster and easier.
• The contractor must study the designs before initiating work. It is highly
recommended to the all the parties, especially the designers, to give sufficient time for
designs and study every single detail before going into the execution or construction
phases. All parties are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the project designs.
Before signing anything it is important to inspect it for accuracy. It is recommended for
the owner or the designer to double check designs submitted by other offices or
consultants before submitting them to the contractor.
5.5 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Consultants
• As mentioned in Table 5.3 for the causes of delay. It is recommended for
consultants to be made aware that changes to the project specifications made during the
course of the construction phase are one of the most important factors which lead
contractors to believe that the consultant is not doing a good job. Contactors, in turn, are
unlikely to give the best of work. With this in mind, consultants must take the
96
opportunity to boost contractor performance by offering specific details without changing
any specifications during the construction phase.
• It is highly recommended that the consultants develop a clear
understanding of the rights and responsibilities of all parties according to the plans and
the contract documents, in order to eliminate potential conflicts between the consultant
and other parties, especially the contractors. The consultants should also be familiar with
the rights and responsibilities of each party in order that the consultants themselves do
not overstep the bounds of their responsibilities under the contract.
5.6 Recommendations and Conclusion to the Owners
• As mentioned in Table 5.4 for the causes of delay. The owner should
know all of the applicable rights and regulations that govern the actions of the contracting
parties, in order to accommodate effective communication between the parties.
• It is recommended that the owner have standard procedures for active
management, administration, and communications in order to avoid prolonged decision
making. It is also recommended that owners ensure that their agents have a manageable
workload in order that they have time to focus on every detail, to analyze what decisions
are needed in order to take appropriate actions, and to hasten approval of items subject to
their review.
97
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: CONTRACTORS
FULLERTON
C a lifo rn ia S ta te U n iv e rs ity ,
F u lle rto n
8 0 0 N . S ta te C o lle g e B lv d
F u lle rto n , C A 9 2 8 3 1 -3 5 9 9
+ 1 6 5 7 -2 7 8 -2 0 J1
Q uestionnaire Survey
Prepared by:
S u la im a n A l - T a m i
l*)lu
MS. Student in Construction Management

Department of Engineering and Computer
800 N. State College Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92831-3599
+1 657-278-2011
I 1
98
D ear P articip an t,
My name is Sulaim an Al-Tami. I am graduate student under the direction o f

Professor Hakob Avetisyan, Ph.D. at California State University, Fullerton. I am
currently working on m y thesis investigating the causes o f construction delays as part of
my M aster’s program in Construction M anagem ent in California State University,
Fullerton. The aim o f the research is to identify and analyze the m ost comm on causes o f
construction delay in the construction industry in K ingdom o f Saudi Arabia in order to
m inim ize or elim inate these causes. A study conducted in 2006 determ ines several factors
that may lead to delay a project’s completion time. I have chosen several factors from
that study that are pertinent to the area I am researching.
Therefore, I w ould greatly appreciate if you could provide me with information

based on your w ork experience as a professional in the construction industry. Please
answer the questions to the best o f your knowledge. I f you feel there are causes o f project
completion delay that you have experienced but are not indicated, you are kindly
requested to provide that information in the text box provided at the end o f the
questionnaire.
The collected information will be helpful to generate data that will later be
statically analyzed. All the data will only be used for academ ic purposes. If you wish to
be provided with the results o f the study or have any questions regarding it, please
include your em ail address or other contact details in the indicated fields in the
questionnaire or email m e at eng.suli@ csu.fullerton.edu.
Thank you for your participation in this study, your answers will be o f great help
in m y research.
! 2
99
I "LU' ^j*jc.
|
•U-V+, U*i»01 jS14 5jjSjI+S +>1; Cbu | "AS4'Jc * L.,"#mV Q ^ H 4U’ly. yr^6U$
j 'i b & i'W + h - > ji^56i7S 9. u . ^ j 'W U l ,/lL .? (gtU v l u Q i . G W jI> « s? >'*£
j! J)*t- jjjij* J35 J*3fcS A*aU ^ ^ j 3U».UI^£aUj j (> »
aÎaaIî .}*&!& 4Ua iji 1 j ’jLj j&.b3 >9)j -(<4^
2 0 0 6 lie. > j(J2 Ji. Je. H i. 4*V78. 9 U j~ l7 * @ > p U 0 1 7 U M ^ R (B * -J7 a J^ 7
! >»■%*( Cs*2(>“ 4-“7J9h^ ! )<^— ^(67
^ j$>a»tS *$**J fS3.jja J t <$«Ua89 >^? ABi-W .RJS3 UIm I j SLi L$&M
! dul£ ^j^la^.1 2U ^~‘v‘»2: <ll«iSf2iJc' ^W-VW *^-*4' ^£-Uâ -Ha-*
! ••j i - ^ <->*V $2>4 4 ' > » 9 U ; V * / Cb@" jS * ^1 m&9U> jS ^ K " > ^ N 4W £tii
. i i#u-v( **&fUi b^^l( j-il(
!
L*MW$—“^-AOW3^ 4^67 ULiE^6; ^c./ (^#£ (jijg-l.,.u.a i"ju»»Lyi Uji«î+(Ji2 34
,*S$) j£>, -M 3 ^ £ 4 ^ =>*»aJ0^@-Q^ <^-*<S8£-G ioii L^NDl& H>*M)
!we-V(<> ) >, y.-o i , o, : (gsai^î d<b-*«v&
v j#j3S'iy*+.i-j* jjc ^ # ^ ng.suli@ csu.fuIierton.edu.
>tfj# Ui' iitaJ' -fljfr. (y^cluu ; _j*-j=;M(gi' AC^*^ ^ jS*iH-lja.=

I
I 3
100
Confidentiality agreement
All responses given, including any personal information you provided, will be
kept strictly confidential. All the data will only be used for academic purposes. Your
input will only be used in combination with the responses o f others participating in the
survey, no individual will be identified. Statistical summary o f the research will be
published, but no individual survey result will be published. Research records will be
kept confidential to the extent allowed by law.
! vsu ?
JS U&<*. 40 3 4‘5^ fij *54^5*4!

# jS > iJ + ;> y + / U*b Atte. 8! fSXUu. JS ±A y / ULÛ-
I Afrb+ *J_>*3 ) *\j- 0° *‘‘‘6'5^,
.| jjlil’(I) uoa^l10 <&•*,jlfi b«L*J=lij' Qjp-DASbJ*<—
f( E
Sincerely,
Sulaiman Al-Tami
2008 N Deerpark Dr. Apt.332
Fullerton, CA 92831
Cell: +1-951-643-9074 U.S.
Cell: +966-506-67-9900 K.S.A.!
E-mail: eng.suli@ csu.fullerton.edu
4
101
If you wish to be provided with the result o f the study or have any questions regarding it,
please include your email address or other contact details
I
!V ! Ji 1-t^t <JC&tLj.jli ;t; jUj >-puû»+?S/J | J* J <J>
.! >*$%—)sH*. / $
Name (Optional)(! ' V : ________________________________
Email (Optional)(! "l-Si’) V j Qm1': ________ ____________________
Organization Name (Optional)(! t(j * jU u ^ 3 C— > 1 ': ___________________________
Section I: Background Information.

VU-% :!
1.1 W hat type o f sector(s) have you worked for?
ttajdcjL c JSL. UlULl23U»»I-3>L. l . l
□ P u b lic !l*
□ P riv a te !
□ B o th (Public and Private) ! JS
1.2 How long have you been working in the construction industry?
u #»( >UJ' icU~=^ 12BU.uU ^ gid’^9 U1.2
□ L e s s than 5 years ! "j— o***-1> J*-
I 15 to 10 years ! "j— j — t^+u—»■t>
□H11 to 15 years L<it j2ic i. jic j.
□ 16 to 20 years L.tt j % i t jit j ..
□ M o r e than 20 years U c j % i t > j£ i
1.3 W hat type o f project/s have you been involved in? (You might select more than one)
js*+Ui*tbM tUHo S ( U l^ i / ( l i J . 2 3 4 2 j i - L 4 j i j8 U!1.3!
□ R e sid e n tia l building construction5-'5^ '
□ L i g h t commercial construction:'i#=d& '(4ild(^M & i#2
□ M u lti-fam ily construction
□ H e a lth -C a re construction^'^—
□ E n v iro n m en tal constructionly#l& LJ&
□ in d u s tria l construction-"5—1& tLul& tii-t
□ C o m m e rcial building construction^'SW5^ ^ ^
□ in s titu tio n a l construction^— >1' e-UJ'
□ H e a v y civil construction5^ ' 1' + VI—y 1
t 5
102
1.4 W hat is/arc the financial scale o f project/s you have worked on? (You might select
more than one)
(J*«jCu&tyiV 4564j**^ 9 j=Uil,4&
□ L e s s than 50 m illio n S R ($13.3 m illio n ) j4=- V&a t^)>».), -j**< J k ; 1 j J . 0 2 “ * i > e!»)
V) * J & j u s * ) 3 j3u!
□ B e t w e e n 50 m illio n S R ($13.3 m illio n ) and 149 m illio n S R ($93.7 m illio n ) 0 ,:*“ * J ’t 1*
J W " j J L , " y u ) «(- ( (1^ 4 >.* ) V 4 - 7 e j l * U - £ s i f " j J L J @ . ) B 7 j * - J k t " jSU
(vs€>*&7f)*'-il&a«") 4jd*4j»*u) 3232t^ji*) ( )j***!!
□ B e t w e e n 150 m illio n S R ($93.3 m illio n ) and 249 m illio n S R ($66.3 m illio n ) <jt-> u&L.
! !tsU' (^1/hSS^' !j;4*! sj>*juît*) @b*-“ Jk)!si* 0>“*'
(J 4 b * & V) * - ii& U lX ) 3 3 jS -) i i - J : j» ) < :* y ~ J ly # j% \
□ B e tw e e n 250 m illio n S R ($66.6 m illio n ) and 500 m illio n S R ($133.2 m illio n ) o'!tu
elky " j.H* (^ (b -2 3 Y -5■—112^0 ■l..'- " 11j3«*! 4a** ^1*_y*) * +ja** . j/L . j i . o j _ isji*
(v% -& V) ♦îLUiU) 1j3- 1jBO) 7 >5) 3jU (jlj*) ; * ^ !!
□ M o r e th an 500 m illio n S R ($133.2 m illio n ) ^L. c^'->*) * +>*“ Jk> / <jU*»aa. o -
( , & ? & ? ) * - ti- W * ) 1 jS - 1 j5>i) 7 >2) H
Section 2: Contractual Agreements

i ’a u jl) ! UUffJ' :^ u 5 & > ) %
2.1 W hat type o f contract/s have you encountered? (You might select more than one)
(■!»!£<>• jjS*4i-Wjj.AV)S«^ fl#r d u s •efijtjl+y j j L*>2.1!
□ L u m p Sum
□ U n i t price
□ C o s t p lu s £4# ()h1iLi»» ii!Sjl4j»joi
□ in c e n ti v e j*t*
□ P e r c e n ta g e o f co nstruction fee contract '•U41V }^/ii**jl%
O ther (P lease indicate)! jy-># j* ) t + j i . . / frj. 3U6 J 6 _____________
2.2 W hat are the tendering agreem ents you were/are involved in?
fl$3i C j & H p U p u l l f . U ljj+ ^ 5 la 2 . 2 &
□ N e g o tia tio n s ! t-»$l“
I IO pen tendering
□ S e le c ti v e ten d erin g V ai2( ) L-SLu
□ P r i v e t ten d erin g s~«i* °/,LaAi.
O ther (P lease indicate) (c “ *# j* ) ?+ j i . / Q>i. 3U6 J 6 ______________________________
Section 3: Projects
4'W LU(:iJl51o/,>l%
3.1 How m any construction projects have you been involved in?
! 6
103
□ L e s s than 25 projects Ofjde.# i> JV

□ B e tw e e n 25 and 50 projects u(“-*i# j( j U
□ B e tw e e n 51 and 75 p ro je c ts '* -# ^ L a ) j% M M ) j V -
□ B e tw e e n 76 and 1OOprojects !" j**« LU” j W ' Ll. u
□ M o r e than 100 projects ! " >!u 5jU ,> j5Ss
3.2 W hat percentage is the delay tim e o f your delayed projects?

îi*l AiuuHjj^ L i) <t)^J) <±uul) <^= L. 3 .2 A
□ 0% delayj'^L iX dfî
□ L e s s than 10% delay j'^ L . jdc. j, Jtj-
□ 10 to 20% delay j ’t»L o/jê.J 34jdc. c>
I 121 to 30% delay j'5X J2u3_>i t 6 ^ - 6 i>
I 131 to 40% d e l a y o ' k j l + j 3 u ' ^ 6 ^ h 6 i>
□ 4 0 to 50% delay sx d t-y ^ 1 jV tS o *
□ M o re the 51% delay LLd+ji j ' i ^ o -Ml i> J&6
3.3 W hat percentage o f the delay tim e w as forgiven?

*m >L1231S ^2 < y ^2 ^ 2 ^; U « .3 &
□ T h e contractor paid all penalties for the delayed time ! '3c cj*i( j l u J JS jiU iJ ji6
!j#d3 J c * tto V u -2 > S !
□ L e s s than 10% L tA S^ )> ic J ii
I 110 to 20%3JUlb uL>4c . _>dc ^
□ 2 1 to 30% Û L j p i j - j J c 1 M l i>
□ 3 1 to 40%LUL ^ * + ^ - 0 ^ 0 M ) >
1 140 to 50%LUL j(— j(«j. /
□ A ll the time cijl% ls
3.4 W ho was held responsible for the aforem entioned delays? (If multiple projects have
been delayed, please indicate who, in your experience, is held responsible the majority of the time)
,jJc- (j* ^lLlai j*i Qjasfla^^jA ; Ifrgjia <U=sliilS V>U»* ^JJC.Jj9 3.4
diilS 0 jau!
□ C ontractor! "ti*T
□ C o n s u lta n t! "LSLiy(
□ D e s ig n e r f*M I%
I IOwner
Other (Please indicate) (< ^ ,>) * + > .___________________________
Section 4: Identification o f common causes o f delay in construction

projects in The Kingdom o f Saudi Arabia.
iSLJS^ pUiSL j'SLll A-jUSi' ! hdl8t"*4 j*&0
| 7
104
Using the following boxes please indicate to what extent you believe the following
factors cause delay. The boxes are arranged from “Strongly Agree” m eaning the factor
plays an im portant role in delay while “Disagree” m eans the factor plays little to no part
in delay. If you believe that the factor is not a part o f delay please check “ Not
Applicable” .
t-J-p-ii) . uw j( jilu .lll.ial (jjk
(1 jjSiuii ^ji jilji V Ualu Jjibll yi tjjJ w,lj JaUII j i jî jilj' j * djbu^dl
(jlfr j j j a! jyJ*j j li d l ji / i.\iV.'Ijlj , IjSy* J j jS^
Strongly agree Somewhat agree NetappBcaMc Somewhat DfngTtC
UasJIJSjl u m j ij a j *
4.1 Causes o f delay time related to the C ontractor

JjlidLi <Jaj3^dljaitjll i\u.I4.1
No. Delay cawed by the following factors }

li I
Sfcll (J*lja£ ‘ jd S

li i !
tLul) <âC- cUji *Uexi UaaII ijlfcj

2 Conflicts and poor site management and
supervision by contractor
j . t j£ y \j f jij) frjMi Cjji J_ja»j
JjUJl J4
3 Poor communication and coordination by
contractor with sub-contractors and other
parties
jjjj jf* jSUUi Jjlidl j£> J^.1jj!I
4jj\j j* J V‘ 1>i“V■j jiaUll j*
4 Improper construction methods

implemented by contractor
jjL ftUj »_nil iJ j.iAi.riM.UJjlidl f\i

jlaUll JUti Jjfiu -lijJjb
8
105
6 Frequent change of sub-contractors

because of their inefficient work
t y* (jiolill Jjli* jtjiu jl jSj
7 Poor qualification of the contractor’s
technical staff
Jjim (jilj-Jl îill jjjill

4ajDUl

IaJ»a .J'jaV' >2UVell
10 Delay to furnish and deliver the site to the

contractor by the owner
.JjIaaI] £SjaJ| jkjc-l "ji .A
WaJ1
CjIajmijII Uj.rfiU’ili 4jUSj £ y jij pjc.
4.2 Causes of delay time related to the materials, equipment, manpower

(labor), and external
wjLuJ j aJIaaJ'j fcljol' ^JAJ aJ»JJ^>a11 jiijlt ulfwii 4.2
No. Delay caused by the following factors

lMjkH jp JaII
|
1
! I i i l I f
1 Shortage or/and delay in manufacturing of
construction materials in the market
jjljAnVtj ftlijil jtJA JaIj]| j!
2 Changes in specifications during
construction
tUjli AÎaC. aUj! ^jUaoIjaII^ JjSl.H JAuLUI
ctuii jl JAûLaJ jiLll

cL2i jlJAjl. AAJ jiLiii
CjIiIaaIIj JUaci u j Ja jlj5u
9
6 Shortage o f e q u ip m e n t
7 Low level o f e q u ip m e n t-o p e ra to r's skill

Jj- •*' SeUS 1 *- ■-
8 Lack of high-technology m echanical
eq u ip m e n t
jjSu i JjA j
9 Shortage o f labors
<jaju
10 U nqualified w o rkforce
a1»>> j jc j _>5
11 Low p ro d u c tiv ity level o f lab o rs
JluJI ^ j I um âlijul
12 P e rso n a l conflicts a n d natio n ality of lab o rs
language (m iscom m unications) am ong
lab o rs
(JLwJI (jit fJc.) >4Wlj ih*>3aI

13 Effects o f su b su rfac e co n d itio n s (e.g., soil,
high w a te r table, etc.)
£-lijj\ j Ajjlll JL*) An-k'tl) Aliloli ^1)1jjjlj
14 Delay in o b tain in g p e rm its from

m unicipality
A)~il.il' ija y*s_rlc. J A j j * . m
15 H ot w e a th e r effect on p ro d u c tiv ity on
la b o rs /c o n stru c tio n activities
* U.V.ij UU aj jjjlj
Lfji.Vl
16 W ea th e r in g e n era l effect on co n stru ctio n
activities
etui) plC- iJs ■*■ jjjLi
17 U navailability o f u tilitie s in site (such as,
w a ter, electricity, telep h o n e, etc.)
^Lj^SlIj *L*1I J i.) j*'
(e 1!
18 Traffic control a n d re stric tio n a t job site
J"!1 J*- jjyti aS ja l+-iji5 jjjiSI
19 A ccident d u rin g con stru ctio n
*L4I JLaci cljji £y j
20 C hanges in g o v e rn m e n t re g u la tio n s and
law s
AâjSaJI i~qj' ji-' j Cjtjbiu
21 Delay in pro v id in g services from u tilities
(such as w a ter, electricity)
10
(*Uj°&0 m
Section 5: General questions.
S.t Please write down the most im portant causes o f delay that you have faced that
were not mentioned above or/and write down in your com ments, suggestions, etc.
c t t i / k i U S 4 -4 5 3 1 6 V v M W -V ® ' 8 ^ U i >
!
i
! 11
108
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: CONSULTANTS
HBcAUK*MAflXrttMVlttlTT
I S FULLERTON
C alifornia State University,

Fullerton
800 N. State College Blvd
Fullerton, CA 9283 1-3599
+ 1 657-278-2011
Q uestionnaire Survey
Prepared by:
S u la im a n A l - T a m i

+1 657-278-2011
1
109

currently working on m y thesis investigating the causes o f construction delays as part o f
construction delay in the construction industry in Kingdom o f Saudi A rabia in order to
minim ize or elim inate these causes. A study conducted in 2006 determ ines several factors
that may lead to delay a project's completion time. I have chosen several factors from
Therefore, I w ould greatly appreciate i f you could provide me with information

answer the questions to the best o f your knowledge. If you feel there are causes o f project
questionnaire.
statically analyzed. All the data will only be used for academ ic purposes. If you w ish to
include your email address or other contact details in the indicated fields in the
questionnaire or email m e at eng.suli@ csu.fullerton.edu.
in my research.
I 2
110
! "L U ' ( j* >
i
1liwV+5Uukj-iOl jS145>&^+8 -+>**; D^H5(^r^F C^-*^+ L*-Aaj IjQ
j'ib &i'l*c +Uu, jj*ji»j!6t7S9:'-». ^6 (^!j vl» i (feVj»JIS
.- jjjlj* 2 4 6 > # £ a*aL>. frLul' (SMI®-?-* ^ j4 -* .U ' _>?i> *J*4 *uJ'
*u4<S&*U<*»4W-*y* *VjjI)*v-4*t 02 j-tkbl 67jj i,^)Vc-s^>', -f^V) ~H^';
^ i4 S 2 0 0 6 !I*. > . j(^2 JS. J e . 111. 4 ^ 7 7 8 .9 V S * U - i S 7 V i i < ^ I* < ttA J7 \M 7
! jt 2( _>***4^7J5^bi! )<-4=j£j =<J*l»-«J%>« jc <*j^|
41—1*5535 V"li^5 a- 1 ^ &l^*toc.
(jjjiaaSaSaaI ^Sj ^>j4. S£jiLui£Q^ ^*uu? IajUaj ABsJ j .K^l I&aaI j£La Lje-M
! ,-Vi .,e^c-LLlui_ 501 iXwV, ^jc. <4 ^ y b * aUa!5 Ac-Umo 1i>A
! " J i - ,y a-jUaV 0 2 4 j3’> j*9li ; U-V/ 0 @ ”jSou ^ ^ S J" H S ^ 9 l i J ^ IC '^L
.! v^Su^^Sh-Ai jj l>^jAi(
!
U# i#L-■»/ I()l#a3 {!#* <jj!67 vi#l6;6^/ (j» 6$*" (jVif.>>A» lOAttLu Uj1aa16BF Q
1> Uu l^ <M ) j S j , - M ] J 0 2 4 ^ U i i> = >- a ) (4@-OiS.v ^ G >144iLUVM)JSRKV-0
! 'HP-V((> A A -ij^ U i^ ^ i 3 > 6y #-8 9 6 8 6 ^ 8 > £ 4 y ( ^ ! (*e AiL-U C£uJ( H(B-*i-V(
^j#jjS'J7*+j-jj jjc ^ *jLo*jj #'in g .su li@ c su .fu llerto n .e d u .
i(ifj# LiJ14j»J' -foe. ^ 'jp s (^jjcLuu : ACtji yl fSi ji5 B 4 ji=

I
I 3
Ill
input will only be used in com bination with the responses o f others participating in the
! uyy&v* v&tf
js us i w o m 3 4151 ui 151^ u + y $ j s ii ^ ^
t/ §1U<) <9*11Êl +A*y/
! ac-Uf îi tjli ^5 ^ 3 J *^2 y l » ' U $ ( )<4y-^jc. t-LlSl4,Bj4xjl$ 4^47^14
.! (1) viiaJ10 *5^. (jlc. UU3 =Uad' Cui'( £
*1&
lnl&at^+U^Lu /fS y*.*
Sincerely,
Sulaiman Al-Tami
Fullerton, CA 92831
C e ll:+1-951-643-9074 U.S.
Cell: +966-506-67-9900 K.S.A.!
E-mail: eng.suli@ csu.fullerton.edu
Signature:
1 4
112
If you w ish to be provided with the result o f the study or have any questions regarding it,
please include your email address or other contact details
!
! JJ lijj* LjUS ;t; jL*ju >-pLaiiurf^S/jl I "Lui-pJ+QE^jLij ^c. J
.! >$%-2)y,-. / $
Name (Optional)(! "!■$»■') f**V' : _____________________________
Email (Optional)(! " I j i ') j£$7 jQ* 1 ':_______________________________
Organization Name (Optional)(! "IJU') 1( j * j l « j ^ :________
Section 1: Background Information.

VU-% UU. :! "V$«>1%
ULUL1231UL3>L. l . i
□ P u b lic !U
□ P riv a te ! u
□ B o th (Public and Private) ! UJS&' U f^ t-tU l %y. JS
?J/#a'( »UJ' L U j 121HU ciLc gul' U 1.2
□ L e s s than 5 years ! V - o***-1> J*-
I 15 to 10 years ! ">i* ,^1+u— ■,>
□ ] 11 to 15 years l u j * * *-**=■ (^l, -W 1>
□ 16 to 20 years L it rf'faic. *u (y.
□ M o re than 20 years L.U a%ic. jiSV
(U S j- ttflji oS(LS ^^jL ^/( 11“*1 234 2 ji «L 4 y j8 '—11.31
□ R e sid e n tia l building construction*1:®*!' M j "Lu
□ L ight comm ercial c o n stru ctio n * * ® ^ '(
□ M u lti-fam ily construction
□ H e a lth -C a re constructioni-’U U fe 'U j ^ i U .
□ E n v iro n m en tal constructionl/j#!&LiJ&
□ in d u s tria l construction j''lLil&*Li!<&fcLUi
□ C o m m e rc ia l building construction<'#Lfji( <yU J(.j...ij
□ in s titu tio n a l construction,^— ■>!' »Lkl'
□ H e a v y civil construction*!®!' *®®' + VlAiy
! 5
113
1.4 W hat is/arc the financial scale o f project/s you have worked on? (You might select
more than one)
a* >S*+Cji#uLS-4 ejj£ / a E314«y 4564 <^31-4/ 9
□ L e s s than 50 m illion SR ($13.3 m illion) , -J*** JW 1j3* ol*** i> J5)
3 j5-!
□ B e tw e e n 50 m illion SR ($13.3 m illion) and 149 m illion SR ($93.7 m illion) CA1-*
<Au " J$* " *h £ ““ +•*4U+ (li^4>**) V+7 cjl*LjU32tlf " jJa j &c. *j5t2 J ( ^ ) B 7j»- Jli) " j$*
( ^ ^ & V) * 4j&>4j~Z) J V ) ( ) j —!!
□ B e tw e e n 150 m illion SR ($93.3 m illion) and 249 m illion SR ($66.3 m illion) ^ u&U
! 4cjl&jU55tj' !j;l*!_>**«? 43512J^*.) JS^j!_>;1«O;-****'
(«,% -& V )*^jU 2512) 3 j S - 3 j i- )
□ B e tw e e n 250 m illion SR ($66.6 m illion) and 500 m illion SR ($133.2 m illion) j'4 t->
(Jlrf; " Aj' (^£Q^«237-5'—
*)2^4aua. " Al*akjJl *+yL**Jlti). j A*. „>“*■
*->! . UjL*
V)*-»LU3U) 1jJ . 1j3X) 7 X ) 42L. J-ja.) ; fj*-!!
□ M o r e than 500 m illion SR ($133.2 m illion) *+j*~ Jtu / A* ^ o* J&9
(,/&*&>!)* 1jJ.1j55U ) 7512)!!

VhiLÎS! ISU3Y' V 1il&>]o/0
( ^ $ .>» ' *t -dSjult/0uiUjl+l jj h«|2.X!
□ L u m p Sum ^ ■ ‘><S£(i.
□ U n i t price lua.jl&tiM*
□ COSt plus J t# ()l-ttiLiu. 4iK'lV|yu ^
□ in c e n tiv e
x^/Sy*) .>-= *UJ1 a3j U»/^ J &
□ P e rc e n ta g e o f construction fee contract
Other (Please indicate)(e~“# ulL-i , » ? + > - . / QA 3^6 J6 _____________________________
ft#* +U™Jf. tius+-tf5 L. 2.2&
□ N e g o tiatio n s !
□ O p e n tendering '<*■y** a ^ jU .
□ S e le c tiv e tendering V5tjjj() t~.SU.
□ P r iv e t tendering L~.u. % —iU.
Other (Please indicate) (jy -# 4lLaj » ? + > , / Qh 3^6 J 6 ____________________________
Section 3: Projects
4'#LU( :Cu!li!%>l%
3.1 How many construction projects have you been involved in?
n#S ^ u: uuL 6 » fS. 3 ,i
i 6
114
□ L e s s than 25 projects tc#jdu u(> lc# a* JV

□ B e tw e e n 25 and 50 proj ects o(— »# u, _>dc# *—«• uO u
□ B e tw e e n 51 and 75 p r o j e c ts '* # ^ u %m ) *■*“ >•) 0%**) -M) u°^L>
□ B e tw e e n 76 and lOOprojects!" jAn AjLa" j W Aomi L*
□ M o r e than 100 projects ! ">L> t> > S,

^!lul 4 uiiilu s()Ad) sj*ul) <y=L» 3 .2 J t
□ 0 % delay j'^Li iiL d fy j L -
□ L e s s than 10% delay s i-d ^ a* J*+-
□ 10 to 20% delay sjLd+jî cJj^- O*
1 121 to 30% delay iSL df^ j'KU ^ 2 0 3 ^ - 6 1>
□ 3 1 to 40% delay j ' ^ o 'l u l + ^ u ^ j* 6 6*
□ 4 0 to 50% delay o w J lu V 4 5 u -
□ M o r e the 51% delay 3jUl+,yi j'U a .0 j»-0 o* J&6
3.3 W hat percentage o f the delay time was forgiven?

m giWjaxmaJ%U231S ^ T y ^ T ^ Z ,- , U « .3 &
I IThe contractor paid all penalties for the delayed tim e ! 'k jJW-d, JS .siUiJ ji6
* 1 ^ 0 -2 ^ !
□ L e s s than 10% iJ - 4 ^ » )_>2e. JS1
□ 10 to 20%SjtdL ufjdc- J - . juC.
□ 2 1 to 30% ^-db ofDC J , j-j2k. l i>
□ 3 1 to 40%3iU!b o (-j*+ J- o£&0 -^30 0*
□ 4 0 to 50%Cl X i. J , / o-
□ A l l the tim e ^»_>!%£
3.4 W ho w as held responsible for the aforem entioned delays? (if multiple projects have
been delayed, please indicate w ho, in y o u r experience, is held responsible the m ajority o f the tim e)
l_rl&oLu(J*. ■-HI.ini y*; IcS^La <li= sluli JBJ? 4" iC-V^Jlum 3.4
*lu\&-
□ C o n tra cto r! "lid'
□ C o n s u lta n t! "LS».y(
□ D e s ig n e r <“ *-“ 1%
n Owner
Other (Please indicate) (!■** ulLki ,> ) * + > ._____________________________

^ U d $ ^ <.u2<y j 'i b i L L c u r !
7
115
factors cause delay. The boxes are arranged from “ Strongly Agree” m eaning the factor
plays an important role in delay while “Disagree” means the factor plays little to no part
in delay. If you believe that the factor is not a part o f delay please check “Not
Applicable” .
s - u jjj (3 j i j . jai-tjlt . 11..il 4jiUil J p I jiJ I j l It'i.'i (J.V. <^11 4.1 d j\ju j* it
^1 j i ^ u u j i l j ' V Ia u j jaihUl' U U Ij j j jjiid i ji j i
J *.'*V>i*ifct Ijjj 1_J4y* <1 jjSj
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Not applicable Somewhat Disagree
M l JBjiV
4 .1 C a u se s o f d e la y tim e r e la te d to t h e c o n s u lta n t
^jUVjmVI JJjiJL ‘i,>1 | |
No. Delay caused by the following factors

1 |
Applicable
Somewhat
disagree
jga»bH
Not
i h
1 Conflicts b / w c o n tra c to r a n d o th e r p a rtie s
(c o n su lta n t a n d d e sig n e r/o w n e r)
j j i i '—itji.1 j (Jjlidl j! j jj djliblA
faliLdl ji ^ . ...It y jjU '..,V I jy,~*^ J - )
2 P oor c o m m u n ica tio n /co o rd in a tio n
b e tw e e n c o n su lta n t a n d o th e r p a rtie s
(c o n tra c to r a n d d e sig n e r o w n er)
._il jial j j j ' /-...VI jp jjl j j j j Juai jail ♦ ’47.
j J J i.) tJjAi
3 In a d eq u a te ex p erien ce o f c o n su lta n t
j J.W..VI jjiAlt »jA ...lit.■di
4 Delay in in sp ectio n b y c o n su lta n t
j.jii'iM fljilt jc- jjl.tw .y t jj.wll j i u
5 Delay in review ing d o cu m en ts by
c o n su lta n t
dji ^t j . t (jial jdu.1 j c j jl .tw.yt j_;.C" jA-Ij
jjiijllj
6 C hanges in specifications du rin g
co n stru ctio n
pUJl AjUc pUji d jli-a ljjt j j dlljjjiu J aiu
8
<Ac.
5.1 Please write down the m ost important causes o f delay that you have faced that
were not m entioned above or/and write down in your com m ents, suggestions, etc.
!
i
i 9
117
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY: OWNERS/DESIGNERS
CALffotNusun umvnsin
FULLERTON
California Slate University,
Fullerton
800 N State College Blvd.
+1 657-278-2011
Questionnaire Survey
Prepared by:
S u la im n A l-T am i
,)Lj

+1 657-278-2011
118

currently working on m y thesis investigating the causes o f construction delays as part o f
construction delay in the construction industry in K ingdom o f Saudi A rabia in order to
minimize or elim inate these causes. A study conducted in 2006 determines several factors
that may lead to delay a project's completion time. 1 have chosen several factors from
Therefore, I would greatly appreciate i f you could provide me with information

answer the questions to the best o f your knowledge. I f you feel there are causes o f project
questionnaire.
statically analyzed. All the data will only be used for academic purposes. I f you w ish to
include your email address or other contact details in the indicated fields in the
questionnaire or email me at eng.suli@ csu.fullerton.edu.
in m y research.
I 2
o\
I
S
}Pt®
i M?
? i l l i
CO
120
input will only be used in combination w ith the responses o f others participating in the
JS j S jji L»£ U ' j 1 2 1 3 'i 13j U t& y 1J £ C *U lj A=^)MtlU (_ u f S i J $ u 2
j iU t- , ji.'f-y L U U 8 ! J£ iM K H +>Y / UUJ1+

! "jjUj *£■b+ ^2 jU 4>3 lW-iS ! "‘k$p3uc- 3—
.! yum(t) i< > J * U L 2 1 g g t ;
^ 4UalÂA*+L«)iul
Sincerely,
Sulaiman Al-Tami
Fullerton, CA 92831
C e ll:+1-951-643-9074 U.S.
Cell: +966-506-67-9900 K.S.A.!
E-mail: eng.suli@ csu,fullerton.edu
Signature:
4
121
If you wish to be provided with the result o f the study or have any questions regarding it,
please include your em ail address or other contact details
!
! "<^! ji lijjc. jJU > -P I "Curgal+QEg*!*! J >— -fP
.! >SH-3)y,- / $
Name (Optional)(! ^ V ' : _______________________________
Email (Optional)(! "1$#') > !* ;_____________________
Organization Name (Optional)(! "1$*') !(* *— > .! '; ___________________________
Section 1: Background Information.

i'UJH UjLu.:! "V$tJ«J%
i c u a - i 2 ! u « a f f l i .i
□ P u b lic lit
□ P riv a te ! ^
□ B o th (Public and Private) ! UJ°£'U^/djtUUl0/ ^ JS
ta#tlull( cU*!1 I2bli .'iUr ^jl' ^9 t* 1.2
□ L e s s than 5 years ! i> J*S
I 15 to 10 years ! ">i** _>-=■ (.A+u***. 6*
□ l 1 to 15 years t-A*- j**- v<«» J , jt*- >
□ 16 to 20 years td* u%'l t J ^j^- **- i>
□ M o r e than 20 years LA* (j%*5* o* J&V
( ^ 0 - Ja * + U i < M i ^ ? l ^ ^ U li^ 6/(ldLd-2342j2uL4> j8 M 1 .3 !
□ R e sid e n tia l building construction*’!^-!’ ^W*!' a"ii3
□ L ig h t commercial construction<j#Afe'#'-îl( cds
□ M u lti-fam ily construction !"a»i*l(*'SjUl(^r iUd(
□ H e a lth -C a re construction*'!a--!&'le.jl<s ^ li.
□ E n v iro n m en tal constructionv j#I&'->*!&
□ in d u s tria l construction->''!AA& fLA®*!**-
□ C o m m e rcial building construction*1# ^ srM ( j ..da
□ in stitu tio n a l construction^^*-> !' *l*A
□ H e a v y civil construction*!#*!' *#**!' + VlAiy
5
122
1.4 W hat is/are the financial scale o f project/s you have worked on? (You might select
more than one)
-J r.S c 2U i4( 4564>i*^ 9 kjvd/ j~ "*!l .4 &
□ L e s s than 50 m illion SR ($13.3 m illion) >!=■ ^ tJ}**), -j* " Jk) 1j3 - aJ**! j> J*)
(vS#>«& V )*^«a-ExJ) 3 j S-!
□ B e tw e e n 50 m illion SR ($13.3 m illion) and 149 m illion SR ($93.7 m illion) j'!f U
Jk) " J$* " J*0 *ht^H-3jU+(lifS4ja*) V+ 7 " J$« Jiae. *2)12 ^ 1 ^ ) B7j*-“ Jk) " jJ<
V) * 4 j4 - 4 J*)*) ?
□ B e t w e e n 150 m illio n S R ($93.3 m illio n ) and 249 m illio n S R ($66.3 m illio n ) j& u
!j- m .^ ! USU' ( ^ U - t W 4 ^ 1 & )U 5 il2 l | j ; i . | U5U I j;i .
V) * cil& jU Etj) 3 j 5 * 3 j 3*«) J : >») < V J'yj 3 j5-*!
□ B e tw e e n 250 m illion SR ($66.6 m illion) and 500 m illion SR ($133.2 m illion) j'lj
J k ) " J$* <jUuui. b^Q>«237-5 >-tl2<jl-u»*. " j$ 4 " jiu . jjl;^ )" JU) ( j)L ( > u W ( UiL.
i j $ . 1j l X ) ? 5*5) 42U ^ 1 - ^ ) , V - ! !
□ M o r e th an 500 m illio n S R ($133.2 m illio n ) UL. J 'j a . ) * +yuj J(y / jflaiiU uiai. > j2S9
( , / i W l V ) * J - a . ) Ij3 -lj5 5 t5 ) 7*5)!!

VjiLul) I UU3Y'
( » £ > jSS*+Ui#iiu| tt#i C iJ 4tSjul+/()j5Ujl$»/®i Ui.2.1!
□ L u m p Sum
□ U n i t price
□ C o s t plus c # Liuu ()l+ULjo^
□ in c e n tiv e
□ P e rc e n ta g e o f construction fee contract ui*!0/ ^ ) o*** sU^ **4%
Other (Please indicate)(jy-# ,> ) ?+ j » . / Oh. 3tj6 J 6 ______________________
tt#> +U-J+. tflis+^5 L. 2 .2 *
□ N e g o tiatio n s ! L i$ ii.
□ O p e n tendering 3j .j Su <_*SLL.
□ S e le c tiv e tendering v’a iij()
□ P r iv e t tendering 3—u
Other (Please indicate) (C““# ÎLii t>) -+ .A / Qh. 3156 J 6 __________
Section 3: Projects
S'»UJ(:»4J13%>1%
3.1 How m any construction projects have you been involved in?
tt#> oS( US LU - tje. 3.1
I 6
123
□ L e s s than 25 projects u(j*1®#5—*» j * JV

□ B e tw e e n 25 and 50 projects L.
□ B e tw e e n 51 and 75 proj ectsM jA * u(«x«# w i # j ( a a # j »,3# o (j U
□ B e tw e e n 76 and lOOprojects ! jv x ' jtl.
□ M o r e than 100 projects ! "jA» SjU j * j2£

j^bl)<j*jl L»3.2Jfe
□ 0 % delay j 'x b >—
□ L e s s than 10% delay j'x b 5XJ+î .îc. j* Ji+-
□ 10 to 20% delay j'X b j / j J t J 3 4 j Ac 6*
□ 2 1 to 30% delay j'Sdi 3 jU + ^ j'S X L>J2o3>lc 6 d»H6 i>
□ 3 1 to 40% delay j ’x b j 'X i +lJl 3 j '5 ^ j - 6 j -
□ 4 0 to 50% delay j ’x b 3 x 4 + ^ J i x . J l j"»-45 j*
□ M o r e the 51% delay iX J+ î j'X X O ^ - 6 1> 6
3.3 W hat percentage o f the delay tim e was forgiven?

tl#» j$.bl231S ^ 2 3 7 ^ 2 ^ 2 ^ ; U « .3 &
□ T h e contractor paid all penalties for the delayed tim e ! x«S( tr31, J* .» u iJ <x»6
□ L e s s than 10% *x4jî ) A i> J*1

□ 10 to 20%3XJb o jj-X ->
□ 2 1 to 30%3jUlj j*_pc. 4^1 ,>
□ 3 1 to 40%3jUlj j( ~ * + J - JCÔ ^1) o*
□ 4 0 to 5 0 % « x X j( - i X
□ A l l the time dijl%!S
3.4 W ho w as held responsible for the aforem entioned delays? (If m ultiple pro jects h ave
been delayed, please indicate w ho, in your experience, is held responsible th e m ajority o f the tim e)
Je. (s» vdLai,j*iQ>di*C4.8( ; 1*8j X < U = ^ c lS ?jSjlâlLu* ■+■&,xbi4J£jc Vjlwa ^ > j j c g 9 3. 4
(Cjyl%li*«j t i h . I i j l S ; U0/q>rf»V■ll°^tji
□ C o n tra cto r! "XJ'
□ C o n s u lta n t! "liu«V(
□ D e s ig n e r js*-»d%
□ O w n e r dlXJ%
Other (Please indicate) ( ! dl l xi i>) * + > . _____________________________

s£l»A V vUAS! j j ’xbll XuLa IX.V<fe'hX1 : t ^ e > ) T o
I 7
124
factors cause delay. The boxes are arranged from “Strongly Agree” m eaning the factor
plays an important role in delay while “Disagree” m eans the factor plays little to no part
in delay. I f you believe that the factor is not a part o f delay please check “Not
Applicable” .
u ' S . j ’S h b l - i VSjS- Ja-jkI. 6 7. 9 -'U.î ^ Vftjl- Q ix U j
(J # tl*U( -. ,jj«j j*(4. V Ui6 j&.bl( Ut= (#4>m*J4#jSid( lUU1( - . B. GA> ji(4. i> Gl<u>»!(
^ C a* > .b lo i U - 5 ^ 789 T ^ 7 j£ U 0 jJ J 0 ! "# ^ ( ()*r- ,> J d ( (j5 > 6+7 81 <j£;
.JWiS
StrBMjjtyagese Saaewhat agree Not applicable SaaMMrfcat Ditagree
disagree
M U UM.J&t'a JMRKI
4.1 Causes o f delay time related to the designer/owner

jl!U°/£f^JL *1*3 y#.i&
1
No. Delay caused by the following factors «
1 } i
l 11 i t
1 Conflicts b/w contractor and other parties
(consultant and designer/owner) t* #
oUU”* ' (iiiy,y»ASi.)' >V%>—uJ»A6<9*-J%
2 Delay in revising and approving design

documents by owner i&jJ+fJZ j^h 1'
3 Delay in approving shop drawings and

sam ple m aterials >! **»(>• ^ jO-^X
! USJ' Cj^+J
4 Poor com m unication and coordination by

owner and other parties (consultant and
contractor) u -jy % ju u i
! " l i d '" ! " U i ^ y f j l . ! > V ( / (j0V(i
5 Slowness in decision m aking process by
owner eU-4%rul> q. +0jil%Ujl*.3*c y t~M%
i 8
6 M istakes and discrepancies in design
documentSf'1* - ^ ' t>u, / / uÛ iy,
7 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings !■“ ■
! J^ ljjl(ilS 3 ! J—0$
8 Delays in producing design documents > M &
J»c- <î
S.l Please write down the m ost im portant causes o f delay that you have faced that
were not mentioned above or/and write down in your com ments, suggestions, etc.
...jWSifcUIm ciOj/WiM24-45ac 17jS8^: U3<>> C4-V) G j *
126
REFERENCES
Al-Abedien, Z. (1983). About the effect of delay penalty on the construction of projects
and modification proposals, proceedings. In First Saudi Engineering Conference,
Jeddah (pp. 14-19).
Al-Khalil, M. I., & Al-Ghafly, M. A. (1999). Delay in public utility projects in Saudi
Arabia. International Journal o f Project Management, 17(2), 101-106.
Al-Khalil, M. I., & Al-Ghafly, M. A. (1999). Important causes of delay in public utility
projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 647-655.
Al-Sultan, A. S. (1987). Determination o f construction contract duration fo r public

projects in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia).
Amado, M., Ashton, K., Ashton, S., Bostwick, J., Clements, G., Drysdale, J. ... &
Anonymous. (2012). Project Management fo r Instructional Designers, 9(5).
Retrieved from http://pm4id.org/9/5.
Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects.
International Journal o f Project Management, 24(A), 349-357.
Asnaashari, A., Knight, A., & Hurst, A. (2009). Delays in the Iranian construction
projects: Stakeholders and economy, challenges, opportunities, and solutions in
structural engineering and construction. Retrieved from
http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Challenges,%200pportunities%20and%20Solution
s%20in%20Structural%20Engineering%20and%20Construction/11.7%20%20Delyay
s%20in%20the%20Iranian%20construction%20projects;%20Stakeholders%20and%2
Oeconomy.pdf
Balakrishnan, S., & A1 Fozan, A. (2014). Saudi building materials: Initiating coverage
report. Riyad Capital. Retrieved from
http://www.riyadcapital.com/en/Images/Bawan%202014 10 15%20_ICR_tcm 10-
4957.pdf
Davids, G. (2014). Volume ofKSA construction market to hit $300bn by 2015. Big
Project Middle East. Retrieved from http://www.bigprojectme.com/news/volume-of-
ksa-construction-market-to-hit-300bn-by-2015/
127
Fahy, M. (2014, February 24). Analysis: Saudi Arabia's contracting market. Retrieved
from http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-26698-analysis-saudi-arabias-
contracting-market/
Ghafour, P. K. (2014). Construction market to hit SRI. 12 trillion by 2015. Arab News,
January 1, 2014.
Holloway Consulting Group, LLC. (2015). PM scheduling critical path delays. Retrieved
from http://www.disputesinconstruction.com/holloway-consulting-groups-
services/cpm-scheduling-consultants-critical-path-delays/
Ibironke, O. T., Oladinrin, T. O., Adeniyi, O., & Eboreime, I. V. (2013). Analysis of
Non-Excusable Delay Factors Influencing Contractors' Performance in Lagos State,
Nigeria. Journal o f Construction in Developing Countries, 18(1), 53-72.
Markgraf, B. (2015). How do delays in projects cost money? Retrieved from

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/delays-projects-cost-money-63540.html
Ponce de Leon, G. (1987). Theories of concurrent delays. Transactions o f the American

Association o f Cost Engineers, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Riyadh Exhibitions Company. (2015). The Middle E ast’s largest building and
construction market. Retrieved from http://www.saudibuild-
expo.com/get_pagecontent.php?appearpage=SB_Saudi%20Arabia_The%20Construct
i&show_id=187&submenu=%27Industry%20Insights%27&menu_id=3&menu_text=
%27Industry%20Insights%27&page=3
Riyadh Exhibitions Company. (2015). Construction market insights. Retrieved from

http://www.saudibuild-
expo.com/get_pagecontent.php?appearpage=SB_Market_Insights&show
_id=319&submenu=%27Market%20Insights%27&menu_id= 1&menu_text:=%27Mar
ket%20Insights%27&page= 1
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Information Office. (2015). Oil. Retrieved from
http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/energy/oil.aspx
SAGIA. (2015). Retrieved April 19,2015 from http://www.sagia.gov.sa/
Shebob, A., Dawood, N., Shah, R. K., & Xu, Q. (2012). Comparative study of delay
factors in Libyan and the UK construction industry. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 19(6), 688-712.
Stumpf, G. R. (2000). Schedule delay analysis. Cost Engineering, 42(1), 32-32.
Trauner, T. J., Jr., Manginelli, W. A., Lowe, J. S., Nagata, M. F., & Fumiss, B. J.
(2009). Construction delays: understanding them clearly, analyzing them
correctly (2nd ed.). Burlington: Elsevier.
128
Tumi, S. A. H., Omran, A., & Pakir, A. H. K. (2009, November). Causes of delay in
construction industry in Libya. In International Conference on Economics and
Administration (pp. 14-15).
University o f Southern California. (2015). Types o f research designs. Retrieved from

http://libguides.usc.edu/c.php?g=235034&p=1559832
Wise, D. (2015, January 21). VA ’s actions to address cost increases and schedule delays
at major medical-facility projects. General Accounting Office. Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667985.pdf
World Population Review. (2014). Saudi Arabia population 2014. Retrieved from
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/saudi-arabia-population/
Zain Al-Abidien, H. M. (1983, May). About the effect of delay penalty on the
construction of projects and modification proposal. In First Engineering Conference,
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah (pp. 14-19).

Contemporary Causes of Construction Delay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Causes of Construction Delay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTEMPORARY CAUSES OF CONSTRUCTION DELAY IN

SAUDI ARABIA, ACCORDING TO CONTRACTORS,

California State University, Fullerton

of the Requirements for the Degree

Sulaiman Ahmed Al-Tami

UAm A v e T / S M * / ___________________ O 'f/M /J J /J '

^O ri^yw i ^___________ <3 4 / 2^ ) 15~

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

and the cost of the project exceeded because of negligence or mistakes.

developed countries have used in order to complete construction projects more

contractors, consultants, and the owners/representatives in order to ascertain the current

causes of construction delays in Saudi Arabia from an inside perspective.

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ vii

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................. 17

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................. 26

A. QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY A: CONTRACTORS.................................... 97

2.1: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor............................................................. 14

2.2: Causes of Delay Related to the Consultant............................................................. 16

2.3: Causes of Delay Related to the Owner/Designer.................................................... 16

4.1: The Participants Group Analysis.............................................................................. 27

4.2: The Participants’ Construction Sector Type............................................................ 29

4.3: The Participants ’ Experience.................................................................................... 30

4.4: The Participants’ Project Types................................................................................ 31

4.5: Financial Scale of the Participants’ Projects............................................................ 33

4.6: The Participants’ Contractual Agreement Types..................................................... 35

4.7: The Participants’ Tendering Agreements................................................................. 36

4.8: The Participants’ Project Numbers........................................................................... 38

4.9: Project Delay Times................................................................................................... 39

4.10: The Respondents’ Forgiven Delay Time................................................................ 41

4.11: Responsibility for Delay Time................................................................................ 42

4.12: Causes of Delay Related to the Contractor............................................................ 45

4.13: Causes of Delay Related to Material, Manpower, Equipment, and External

4.14: Most Important Causes of Delay According to Contractors................................. 47

4.15: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4 .1 ........................................... 53

4.16: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4 .2 ........................................... 54

4.18: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4 .1 ........................................... 59

4.19: Significant Differences in Causes of Delay Related to the Owner....................... 61

4.20: The Frequencies in Causes of Delay per Section 4 .1 ........................................... 62

4.21: Correlation Among Contractors.............................................................................. 65

4.22: Correlation Among Consultants............................................................................. 66

4.23: Correlation Among Owners.................................................................................... 68

4.24: Correlation in the Combined Sample...................................................................... 69

4.25: Sector Type Deviation Among Contractors........................................................... 70

4.26: Sector Type ANOVA Among Contractors............................................................ 71

4.27: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Contractors................................................ 72

4.28: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Contractors.................................................. 72

4.29: Number of Projects Deviation Among Contractors............................................... 73

4.30: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Contractors................................................ 74

4.31: Sector Type Deviation Among Consultants.......................................................... 75

4.32: Sector Type ANOVA Among Consultants............................................................ 75

4.33: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Consultants................................................ 76

4.34: Years’ Experience ANOVA Among Consultants................................................. 76

4.35: Number of Projects Deviation Among Consultants.............................................. 77

4.36: Number Experience ANOVA Among Consultants............................................... 78

4.37: Sector Type Deviation Among Owners ............................................................... 79

4.38: Sector Type ANOVA Among Owners ................................................................ 79

4.39: Years’ Experience Deviation Among Owners ..................................................... 80

4.41: Number of Projects Deviation Among Owners ................................................... 81

4.42: Number of Projects ANOVA Among Owners...................................................... 82

4.43: Sector Type Deviation in Combined Sample ..................................................... 83

4.44: Sector Type ANOVA in Combined Sample ....................................................... 83