Documents Inconsistency and Outdated Designs

Inconsistency between specifications, prevailing international standards and owner's procedures / Specifications factor was mentioned in several papers and it cause delays and quality problems. Afshari did mention this factor lead to delay during the execution mainly (Afshari et al., 2010). Al-Momani also mentioned the inconsistency between client specification and international standard must be resolved and cleared during the design phase under (Al-Momani, 1999). Assaf & Al-Hejji have mentioned in their paper that inconsistency between client procedure and international standard heavily affect the manufacturers, since their products comply to international standard and deviating from that to client specification could lead them to major changes in their design (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006). Assaf, Al-Khalil & Al-Hazmi also mentioned that designing consultant must clear any inconsistency between client specification and the international standards (Assaf, Al-Khalil & Al-Hazmi, 1995). Doloi has recorded the same factor in his paper and considered that data sheets and specifications during the design must be consistent between the client requirements and the international standards (Doloi et al., 2012); Zaneldin also presented this factor and mentioned how this factor affect the vendors and manufacturers which at the end lead to delays and additional cost to comply to this requirement (E. Zaneldin, 2005). El-Razek, Fallahnejad, Faridi & El Sayegh, in their papers have address the inconsistency problems and how this is reflected during the execution (El-Razek et al., 2008; Fallahnejad, 2013; Faridi & El Sayegh, 2006). Hamzah, Haseeb, Kaming, Kumaraswamy & Chan, Le-Hoai, Majld & McCaffer, Marzouk & El-Rasas, Ogunlana, Orangi, Ramanathan, Salama, Hamid, & Keogh, Sweis, Tumi, all in their papers mentioned similar feedback and confirmed that the studied projects showed that inconsistency between client specifications and international procedures and standards caused a big problem to the manufacturers and the construction contractor who buy the systems and equipment and always ended up with additional cost or technical deviation from the original scope and keep the

45

production on hold till these technical conflicts are resolved. Also it was mentioned that the designing consultant must play major role to waive these inconsistencies and must develop a clear specification and data sheets to eliminate this type of contradictions (Hamzah et al., 2011; Haseeb et al., 2011; Kaming et al., 1997; Kumaraswamy & Chan, 1998; Le-Hoai et al., 2008; Long, 2014; Majld & McCaffer, 1998; Marzouk & El-Rasas, 2014; Ogunlana et al., 1996; Orangi et al., 2011; Ramanathan et al., 2012; Salama, Hamid, & Keogh, 2008; Sweis et al., 2008; Tumi et al., 2009). Table(2.1) list down all the references which have addressed inconsistency and absence of clear acceptance criteria as a major delay factor in the Oil & Gas industry.

Outdated design Software factor was presented in few papers as a factor behind poor performance. Assaf & Al-Hejji in their paper have mentioned this factor plays major role in the delay and poor quality of deliverables (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006). Mortaheb also mentioned that same smart software and old revisions causes major mismatching and problems at later stage and systems could not read the old versions (Mortaheb et al., 2013).

Wrong choice of contract type or Improper bidding and award Strategy by Owner and Inappropriate bidding instruction during bidding factor was frequently mentioned in the literatures and always blaming the client for choosing the wrong contracting strategy. Al-Khalil & Al-Ghafly has mentioned that client choosing the contract type without considering the designing consultant requirement and preference, always lead to incomplete designs since the consultant is forced to complete the work within limited time or cost (Al-Khalil & Al-Ghafly, 1999). Assaf & Al-Hejji also mentioned choosing the right contract type for the FEED help the consultant to develop high quality documents since they can spare high experienced engineering team for the project, but once the project contract type is lump sum then the designing consultant starts to save cost by engaging cheaper engineering resources and this at the end cause poor quality and incomplete design in some cases (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006). Doloi, Dr Patrick and Zaneldin have highlighted that choosing the right contract type minimizes the risk on the designing consultant and also on the construction contractor and could deliver

46

good quality product at the end of the project (Doloi et al., 2012; Dr Patrick. X.W. Zou1, 2006; E. Zaneldin, 2005). Fallahnejad mentioned also the bidding strategy and to award to the technical accepted lowest commercial is not the right strategy and client suffer during the execution (Fallahnejad, 2013). Fayek has presented the same and mentioned that commercially lowest is not always is the right awarding strategy, since many bidders underestimate the requirement due to the short bidding duration and once they are awarded they start suffering and claiming losses in the project so quality and face resistance to change by the construction contractor (Fayek et al., 2006); Hamzah, Han and Haseeb, all in their papers mentioned that client awarding the project to the lowest commercial strategy must be reevaluated (Hamzah et al., 2011; Han et al., 2009; Haseeb et al., 2011). Kumaraswamy & Chan, and Long also have addressed that client sending wrong and incomplete bidding instructions during the bidding stage cause misunderstanding and claims by the contractor during the execution (Kumaraswamy & Chan, 1998; Long, 2014). Majld & McCaffer and Marzouk & El- Rasas have listed inappropriate bidding instructions by the client during the bidding stage cause further risk on the bidders and misunderstanding among them (Majld & McCaffer, 1998; Marzouk & El-Rasas, 2014). Odeh & Battaineh and Ramanathan, have listed the client award strategy to the lowest commercial bidder is a major factor behind poor quality of the deliverables and delays to meet schedules (Odeh & Battaineh, 2002; Ramanathan et al., 2012). Salama, Hamid & Keogh, Sambasivan & Soon, Sullivan & Harris and Tumi, have listed this factor as a major factor behind poor quality and claims at later stage and not all the lowest commercial award was completed on time and quality (Salama, Hamid & Keogh, 2008; Sambasivan & Soon, 2007; Sullivan & Harris, 1986; Tumi et al., 2009). Table(2.1) list down all the references behind this factor.