Avoiding and Mitigating Delay and Disruption Claims Conflict: Role of Precontract Negotiation

1. Avoiding and Mitigating Delay and Disruption Claims Conflict: Role of Precontract Negotiation Presented by Mansour Ali Al-Zahrani Author: Ajibade Ayodeji Aibinu

2. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • RESEARCH METHOD • DATA ANALYSIS • FINDINGS • CRITIQUES & LIMITATIONS • Q & A

3. INTRODUCTION • Delay and disruption claims often generate conflict and contract dispute. • Avoiding construction delay climes lead to substantial financial saving projects • Explores the effect of precontract negotiation as a means of avoiding or mitigating delay and disruption claim conflict

4. Why Delay and Disruption Claims Are Contentious • The complex nature of Delay and Disruption claims • Theinconsistency of the available techniques/ methods for quantifying and analyzing delay and disruption claims. • The position of the owner-appointed contractor administratorin the traditional contracting system. • The nature of the conflicts in delay and disruption claims.

5. Role of Precontract Negotiation in Delay and Disruption Claims Resolution • Seek to enhance mutual understanding among parties regarding methodologies, techniques, and procedure for assessing and quantifying anticipated delay and disruption claims. • Seek to improve the quality of information needed for assessing the impact of anticipated delay and disruption

6. Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis • Primary Hypothesis • Precontract Negotiation between the owner and contractor on the rules of assessment and quantification for anticipated delays would moderate the relationship between the outcome favorability and the intensity of conflict on delay. • Secondary Hypothesis • High precontract negotiation- High perceive the quality of decision making. • High perceive the quality of decision making-lower the intensity of conflict

7. Research Method • Using data obtained from a questionnaire survey was adopted to test the research hypotheses. • The constructs of hypothesis were operational zed into measurable indicators. • The items investigated the antecedents of construction conflicts and dispute. • Items developed in form of statements to measure individual construct of the main hypothesis

9. Research Method • Of 200 contractors contacted, 41 responded representing a response rate of 20.5%. • Three procedure for testing the interaction hypothesis: • Multigroup procedure • Two-step construct score procedure • Product indicator approach with (PLS-SEM)

10. Research Method • Product indicator approach with (PLS-SEM)

11. DATA ANALYSIS • Reliability of constructs • The minimum Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.6 • Discriminate Validity: • Used Analysis of cross loading.

12. DATA ANALYSIS • Correlation Analysis • Test of Interactive Effect Hypothesis • Early participation of parties through precontract discussion mitigate the parties reaction to unfavorable decision on the claim when they arise during construction

13. Findings • Whether administrator's decision favorable or not the contractor reported lower intensity of conflicts when there is clear precontrac negotiation and agreement. • Higher levels of precontract negotiation were also associated with higher quality of decision making. • While higher levels of the quality of the decision-making process were associated with a lower intensity of conflict.

14. CRITIQUES & LIMITATIONS • Positive: • 1- Article shows the benefit of prcontract negotiation and its importance. • Negative: • 1- The number of participants in survey questionnaire is very small and response based on their experience. • 2- use many previous research model, scales and statistical analysis that are not clear in his article.

15. Q & A