Search results

Project delay is becoming a problem in the Sultanate of Oman as evidenced by many delayed projects across the country. The purpose of this study is to examine causes and effects of delays in megaprojects in the Sultanate of Oman with recommendations to mitigate same.

A systematic review of literature identifies through main stakeholders the numerous causes, impacts and methods of mitigating delay from previous studies. A questionnaire survey on Oman was carried out to sample opinions from the practitioners; 53 questionnaires were received and analysed using the relative importance index (RII) method.

The five most frequent causes of delay in the Sultanate of Oman, in rank order, are: selection of the lowest bid, instead of best bid for the client (RII: 0.698); the financial condition of the main contractor (RII: 0.664); delay in decision-making by the client (RII: 0.656); and poor construction planning by the main contractor (RII: 0.649). Also, the findings indicate that extra cost (RII: 0.754) and project time overrun (RII: 0.724) are the most significant effects of the delay in the Oman megaprojects. The use of experienced contractors and consultant (RII 0.675), efficient construction planning by the main contractor and effective site management and supervision (RII: 0.667) are essential mitigation methods of construction delay in Oman megaprojects.

The study recommends three-part novel solutions to mitigate delay in the Oman construction industry.

This study provides a framework for comparing construction management contracts in the UK and the US construction practices. It starts by reviewing previous studies on UK and US contracting practices and explores the main delivery methods, inform of comparison with construction management contracting systems. It examines construction management contracting types, processes and procedures and interaction between the construction manager and other stakeholders. This study was based on a literature review and the result shows the similarities and differences between the American and British CM systems within each practice and between both practices; the distribution of responsibilities and risks both in pre‐construction and during the construction stages; and allocation of responsibility in both practices.

This study was motivated by a belief that existing knowledge on management of a contractual claim in international contracting practice is different from a standardised local practice. The paper is aimed at building competence for managing contractual claims in a standardised practice.

Comparative studies of British and Finnish contracting practices were used to determine the reason why claims are not pronounced in a standardised practice. Empirical study via direct interviews and questionnaires of a Finnish‐based contractor operating in the Russian markets was used. The players are three‐dimensional in nature where the client, consultants, and contractor come from different countries/practices and two of the projects studied were joint ventures.

The findings show the effects of: legal system, procurement methods, standardised practice and size of the market on the management of contractual claims. The remedial measures suggested include: operational management, i.e. learning through personal contacts, and management competence development of employees by learning through proper communication and education programmes in a form of continuing professional development.

Management of claims in the construction industry is vital to a successful implementation of the project. It brings about a fair dealing between the project owner and the contractor, improves contractor's cashflow and discourages abandonment of project and disputes. Lack of knowledge in managing claims constitutes a threat to successful implementation of project. The engagement of an expert and knowledge transfer through joint ventures/partnerships are suggested as solutions.