Factors Contributing to Delay of Interim Payment in Civil Engineering Projects
Corresponding email: wanno134l@uitm.edu.my
Published at : 28 Jun 2023
Volume : IJtech
Vol 14, No 4 (2023)
DOI : https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v14i4.3370
Ismail, W.N.W., Adnan, H., Azmi, W.F.W.M., Yusop, N., Isa, S.S.M., 2023. Factors Contributing to Delay of Interim Payment in Civil Engineering Projects. International Journal of Technology. Volume 14(4), pp. 867-876
| Wan Norizan Wan Ismail | Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, 32610, Seri Iskandar,Perak, Malaysia |
| Hamimah Adnan | College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA Selangor Branch, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia |
| Wan Faida Wan Mohd Azmi | Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, 32610, Seri Iskandar,Perak, Malaysia |
| Norhafizah Yusop | Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, 32610, Seri Iskandar,Perak, Malaysia |
| Siti Sarah Mat Isa | Department of Built Environment Studies and Technology, College of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch, 32610, Seri Iskandar,Perak, Malaysia |
Delay of interim payment remains a chronic problem in the Malaysian
construction industry and has relatively increased in number in recent years.
Other than causing conflict among the contracting parties, the impacts it
brings could shatter the entire delivery chain. Thus, the unfavorable
contractual behavior of the client is a matter of great concern that should be
addressed by all parties involved to ensure satisfactory project performance.
However, research has revealed that the factor causing it is not solely because
of the client's faults but also caused by other factors. Therefore, the purpose
of this research is to determine the factors that lead to the occurrence of
delay of interim payment in government-initiated civil engineering projects in
Malaysia. The perceptions of civil engineer consultants and contractors were
compared in relation to a list of factors derived from the literature review.
The data were collected through an industry-wide questionnaire survey from 288
respondents. This research developed a list of 22 items that might influence
the delay of interim payment based on four domains, namely project
characteristics, quality of Standard Form of Contract (SFoC), external factors
and participants and local attitude. The results found that the occurrence of
delay of interim payment in civil engineering project is very high frequency.
Correlation analysis performed revealed that the three major factors are
positively correlated, namely project scope and design changes, ground
uncertainty under the project characteristics domain, and bureaucracy in
government agencies under the participants and local attitude domain. These
results can help the project participants to better understand the relationship
between the groups of factors and the delay of interim payment and encourage
them to find solutions or implement mitigating actions to improve the outcomes
of civil engineering project.
Civil engineering; Construction; Delay; Payment; Standard form of contract
Interim payment is among the critical factors emphasized by many researchers in achieving project success (Ismail and Adnan 2020; El-adaway et al., 2016; Jatarona et al., 2016; Adnan et al., 2012). In fact, interim payment can be considered as the ‘blood’ of the contractor in the construction process. The purpose of the interim payment is to ensure that the contractor regularly paid throughout the progress of construction works, thus helping to maintain the contractor’s cash flow and minimizing the contractor’s cash deficit which may affect the smoothness of project implementation (Judi and Rashid, 2010). In addition, the interim payment is important to the contractor due to the high investment made by the contractor at the preliminary stage of the construction process. Besides, the received interim payments enable the contractor to finance his expenditures, such as payment to material suppliers, workers’ wages, rental of plant and equipment, and other payments in relation to the implementation of the project.
Unfortunately, the literature is filled with examples of payment issues
that often lead to conflicts between contractors and clients. Some notable
studies highlighting this issue include (Ismail and Adnan, 2020; Jaffar et al., 2011; Cheung et al., 2008; Cheung and You, 2006); Kumaraswamy, 1997). In
Malaysia, for instance, based on the study done by Abidin
(2007) from the perspectives of contractors found that delay in paying
interim payment was the main factor of payment disputes. Besides, Sambasivan and Soon
(2007) argue that inadequate client finance and delay in payments for
completed work will cause slowness in construction progress, which eventually
leads to a total construction delay. Similarly, civil engineering projects also
face payment problems. For instance, the Rawang Bypass project and the
Upgrading of the road project from Batu to Pancur Hitam Project in Labuan were
reported that the delay in making interim payments to the contractor was among
the factors that contributed to the project problems (Auditor’s
General Report, 2016).
In Malaysia, PWD 203A SFoC is commonly used for government-initiated
civil engineering projects, while FIDIC SFoC is generally used for projects
involving international contracts. Both PWD 203A and FIDIC stipulate that when
the Contractor completes or executes the works, interim payment should be made
to the Contractor. However, Clause 28 of PWD 203A requires the S.O. to evaluate
the works carried out by the Contractor and assess the value of unfixed
materials and goods delivered to the site before issuing the interim
certificate. Commonly, the contractor will participate in the valuation
process. Within 14 days after the valuation date, the S.O. shall issue the
Certificate of Interim Payment (CIP) stating the amount to be paid to the
contractor by the client. Next, the payment will be made by the client within
the stipulated date in the Appendix of the contract. If there is no date stated
in the Appendix, the payment must be made within 30 days after the date of
issuance of CIP to the contractor. Unfortunately, under PWD 203A, the
contractor is not entitled to suspend work as a remedy for late payment by the
client. In fact, PWD 203A does not include any specific grounds for the
suspension of work by the contractor or for slowing down the progress of the
works. Furthermore, the options available to the contractor in such situations
are limited. The contractor can either choose to continue with the construction
until completion and then proceed with arbitration after practical completion or
terminate the employment under the contract based on common law principles.
Consequently, this matter creates dissatisfaction among contractors in Malaysia
who contracted under PWD 203A, where the delay in payment by the government as
the client under this type of contract is prevalent in this industry.
|
Possible Factors Affecting the Delay of Interim Payment |
Reference | |
|
Project Characteristics |
Project scope and design changes, Ground uncertainty, Project
complexity, Site Surrounding problems, Site access, Level of design
completion before the project start, Scope definition before a bid is
invited, project type, project size, procurement method, type of SFoC. |
Ismail et al., (2022), Tereshko and Rudskaya (2021), Riazi and Nawi (2018), Alfakhri et al., (2018), Guo et al., (2016) |
|
External
Factors |
Bureaucracy in government agencies, Weather conditions, Technological
advancement, Resource availability. |
Ismail and Adnan (2020),
Riazi and Nawi (2018), Yong and Mustaffa (2012), Sambasivan and Soon (2007) |
|
Quality of Standard Form of Contract |
SFoC details the right and obligations, SFoC fairly shared risks and liabilities, Clarity of SFoC, Trust produced by SFoC. |
Rameezdeen and Rodrigo (2010), Ali and Wilkinson (2010), Chong and Zin (2010) |
|
Participants and the Local Attitude |
Poor in understanding the content of SFoC by participants, Poor
cooperation in solving problems by participants. |
Ismail et al., (2022), Alfakhri et al.,
(2018), Shehu et al., (2014), Ahmed and
Othman (2013), Alkhamali et al.,
(2010) |
Following a critical review of the literature on
characteristics of projects, external factors, quality of SFoC, and
participants and local attitudes, a list of 22 factors causing a delay of
interim payment was developed, which forms the focal point of this study. The
target population of this study was the contractor who carried out the
construction process and the civil engineer who led the consultant team in
managing civil engineering projects. This study conducted a questionnaire
survey inviting respondents (Table 2) to determine factors that they deemed to
be major causes of delay of interim payment from the perspective of G7
contractors and civil engineer consultants who have experience dealing with
civil engineering projects in Malaysia. The list of respondents was obtained
via the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) and the CIDB Malaysia websites. The
questionnaire was divided into two sections: the first section asked the
characteristics of the respondents, as summarised in Table 1, and the second concentrated
on the factors causing a delay of an interim payment. These factors were
measured by using a series of five-point Likert scales where (5) denotes very
high influence, (4) high influence, (3) moderate influence, (2) low influence,
and (1) very low influence. The twenty-two factors were randomly arranged and
presented for assessment in this way to determine which of them has a
significant influence on the delay of interim payment. The frequency
distribution method was used to present the profile of the respondents and the
frequency of delay of interim payment occurrence in civil engineering projects.
Then, a Mann-whitney U analysis was conducted to ascertain if there exists any
statistical variation between the mean values (between the Contractor and Engineer
involved) computed for the level of occurrence of delay in interim payment.
Next, the factors causing a delay of interim payment were determined using
Spearman correlation coefficient analysis.
Prior to distributing the questionnaires, a pilot survey was
carried out on a smaller scale of targeted respondents, which involved 10 civil
engineer consultants, fifteen G7 contractors, and five academicians in
verifying the completeness (Sambasivan and Soon,
2007), content, and face validity of the research instrument (Fan and Yan, 2010). The sampling method used in
this research was non-probability convenience sampling using the convenient and
snowball methods. This approach is similar to the methodology used by (Shehu et al., 2014; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007),
where the questionnaire was distributed to individuals who were friends or
relatives working in civil engineer consulting firms and G7 contractor firms.
They in turn distributed to their friends who are qualified to participate in
the survey. This method was successful in obtaining a large number of completed
questionnaires economically in a very fast way. In fact, Shehu et al. (2014) argue that this method
is preferred when it is difficult to acquire responses from statistical
sampling.
3.1 Demographic
background
Table 2 Response rate and
demographic data
|
Types of
organisation |
Response
received |
(%) |
|
Engineer |
137 |
48 |
|
Contractor |
151 |
52 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
|
Respondents'
position |
Response received |
(%) |
|
Manager |
36 |
12.5 |
|
Civil
engineer |
140 |
48.61 |
|
Quantity
surveyor |
112 |
38.89 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
|
Years of
experience in civil engineering projects |
Response
received |
(%) |
|
Less than 2
years |
0 |
0 |
|
2-5 years |
12 |
4 |
|
6-10 years |
136 |
47 |
|
More than 10 years |
140 |
49 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
|
Project type |
Frequency |
(%) |
|
Road/highway |
259 |
90 |
|
Railway |
39 |
14 |
|
Bridge |
101 |
35 |
|
Drainage/canal |
36 |
13 |
|
Tunnel |
26 |
9 |
|
Port |
14 |
5 |
|
Airport |
56 |
19 |
|
Dam |
17 |
6 |
|
Procurement
method |
Response
received |
(%) |
|
Traditional |
217 |
75 |
|
Design and Build |
71 |
25 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
|
Types of SFoC
used |
Response
received |
(%) |
|
PWD203A |
216 |
75 |
|
PWD DB |
61 |
21 |
|
FIDIC with
modification |
11 |
4 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
3.2. Delay of
Interim Payment by Client
Table 3 depicts the overall frequency of delay
in paying interim payments to contractors rated by all respondents. The results
indicate that a majority of contractors in civil engineering projects face late
payment from clients. Specifically, 33% of the respondents rayed a high
frequency of late payments, while 65% rated frequent occurrences in their
projects. Based on the Mann-U Whitney result in Table 4, there was a
significant difference (p-value < 0.05) in the level of occurrence of delay
in interim payment rated by both types of respondents. With an overall mean
value of 4.04, this can be concluded that the delay of interim payment problems
in civil engineering projects was quite severe. This finding was accorded with Mohd-Danuri et al. (2006), who compared the
delay in payment problem faced by contractors between public and private
projects from the contractor perspectives, where 80% of respondents face late
payment in government projects. While only 60% of them face late payments in
private projects. It is supported by Safri (2009),
who states that the slow payment of completed works is among the common
complaint among contractors particularly in public work projects. Since the
government-initiated civil engineering projects was the scope of this study,
the finding was in line with the authors ‘earlier finding that many governments
project faced delay in payment based on both Engineer and Contractor
perspectives. Based on 288 responses which exceed 255 required sample size,
this finding could be generalized that government-initiated projects,
regardless of whether they are building projects or civil engineering projects,
mostly face delays in interim payment.
Table 3 Frequency of delay of
interim payment by client
|
Delay of
payment by client |
Frequency
(No) |
Percentage
(%) |
|
High frequent |
96 |
33.3 |
|
Frequent |
187 |
64.9 |
|
Neutral |
5 |
1.7 |
|
Low frequent |
0 |
0 |
|
Never |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
288 |
100 |
Table 4 Mean score of delay of interim payment
occurrence
|
Delay of
interim payment by client |
Overall |
Engineer |
Contractor |
Mann-U
Whitney Sig.P |
|
Mean |
Mean |
Mean | ||
|
4.04 |
4.01 |
4.07 |
0.025 |
3.3 Significant Factors
Affecting Delay in Payment
Since the data collected in
this study is nonparametric and ordinal variables, the powerful method of
examining the relationship between pairs of variables is by using Spearman’s
correlation (Bryman and Cramer, 2005). Hence, Spearman correlation coefficient
tests are carried in this study to determine the significant factors that
influence the delay of interim payment based on correlation value coefficient 
value. The closer 
is to +1 or -1, the more closely the two variables
are related, hence shows the strength on their relationship. The strong
relationship indirectly means the factor has significant influence on delay of
payment.
As tabulated in Table 5, out of 22 correlations,
only 8 were significantly correlated. The other 14 factors had no correlation.
However, based on the Correlation Coefficient (r) value, 5 of them (out of 8
significant correlation) were weak to be associated with affecting delay in
payment. They were poor in understanding the content of SFoC by participants,
poor cooperation in solving problems by participants, project complexity, SFoC
details the right and obligations and SFoC fairly shared risks and liabilities.
The other three factors that significantly correlated to delay in payment
were project scope and design changes (r = 0.547), ground uncertainty (r = 0.419) and bureaucracy in government agencies (r = 0.388) which the strength of relationship were between week to
moderate. This could be concluded that the influence of all of the above
factors towards delay of interim payment was limited where based on the
correlation coefficient (r) value only project scope and design changes, ground
uncertainty and bureaucracy in government agencies have significant influence
on delay of interim payment.
Table 5 Factors affecting
Delay in Payment
|
Factors Affecting Delay of Interim Payment |
Correlation Coefficient |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
Project scope and design changes |
.547** |
0.000 |
|
Ground uncertainty |
.419** |
0.000 |
|
Bureaucracy in government agencies |
.388** |
0.000 |
|
Poor in understanding the content of SFoC
by participants |
.188** |
0.001 |
|
Poor cooperation in solving problems by
participants |
.185** |
0.001 |
|
Project complexity |
.161** |
0.06 |
|
SFoC details the right & obligations |
.159** |
0.001 |
|
SFoC fairly shared risks & liabilities |
.147** |
0.011 |
|
Site Surrounding problems |
0.08 |
0.169 |
|
Site access |
0.039 |
0.507 |
|
Level of design completion before project
start |
0.085 |
0.144 |
|
Scope definition before bid is invited |
-0.032 |
0.584 |
|
Changes in government regulations and laws |
0.21 |
0.724 |
|
Weather condition |
0.037 |
0.527 |
|
Technological advancement |
-0.022 |
0.705 |
|
Resource availability |
0.038 |
0.513 |
|
Clarity of SFoC |
0.064 |
0.274 |
|
Trust produced by SFoC |
0.107 |
0.066 |
|
Project type |
-0.39 |
0.47 |
|
Project size |
0.012 |
0.823 |
|
Procurement method |
-0.071 |
0.222 |
|
Type of SFoC |
-0.058 |
0.311 |
|
**p<.001 (2-tailed) |
|
|
3.3.1. The effects of project scope
and design changes on delay in payment
Due to complexity and uncertainty that
prevalently characterized civil engineering projects, the changes are difficult
to be avoided. However, when there so many design changes or project scope
changes, there would be more unforeseen problems resulting to, many
interpretations which might not be covered in the Standard Forms of Contract.
Undeniably this could introduce variation works (Guo
et al., 2016) whether involve additional works beyond the
original scope or omission of parts of original scope. Most of the time, this
make rework or redesign work cannot be avoided and this process involve a lot
of negotiations between contracting parties to reach agreement. The worst is
that the payment on the variation works done usually will not be released until
the agreement has been reached. Besides, the other problems brought by the
introduction of variation work also could be severe. As argued by Hao et al. (2008) changes in construction project could create conflict especially in
terms of payment. They revealed that the client blamed for bid shopping and for
playing tricks in payments in most of variation works. Likewise, contractor’s
attitude in claiming over billing, front-end loading and playing change-order
games could create dissatisfaction. All of these, eventually prolong the
payment claim resolution.
3.3.2. The effects of ground uncertainty on delay in payment
Payment on time concerns the timeliness of
payments by the client and in fact, could create a good relationship between
both contracting parties. However, in high-uncertainty projects like civil
engineering projects, it is often challenging to fulfill on-time payment to the
contractor to a certain extent. This is due to most civil engineering projects,
for instance, roads, railways, tunnels, and bridges, involving large
geographical areas; hence the ground condition could be unpredictable. The
uncertainty in ground conditions significantly contributes to changes in the
original design or, in some cases, even leads to alterations in the original
project scope. These changes, most of the time, introduce variation works (Ke et al., 2015; Kumaraswamy, 1997). Oladapo
(2007) outlines several impacts of variation works on contractors due to
variation works such as adversely affecting labor productivity, material
wastage due to changes in original design and planning, and marginalizes
project quality. All of these matters need quite some time to be resolved and
agreed upon by the contracting parties. Unfortunately, these unresolved
problems hold up payments in most cases until agreement by all parties is
achieved.
3.3.3. The effects of bureaucracy in government agencies on delay in payment
The bureaucracy of
government agencies has long been a critique and dilemma by all industry
players, not only complicating the process but, to some extent, could delay the
construction projects. Similarly, the bureaucracy also found in this study
significantly causes delays in payment. This might be due to multilevel
approval needed to be acquired before the interim payment could be released
into the contractor’s bank. This might be true indeed when Ren et al. (2012), in their study of public
projects in Ghana, complained that the bureaucracy in processing payments is
outrageous. They added that the contractors were frustrated with the
bureaucracy, which involves over 30 steps from invoicing to the release of the
payment cheque. In the context of Malaysia, several scholars have also
acknowledged that excessive bureaucracy within government agencies contributes
to the delay of interim payment. This observation is supported by studies
conducted by (Judi, Mustaffa, and
Nayan, 2017; Ye and Rahman, 2010). In fact, not only the
multilevel procedures must be undergone for the payment process, but the
attitude of officers in the government agencies who delay the process makes the
problems worst. This situation worries the local contractors as they need a
timely payment to finance the project implementation.
Civil engineering
projects require major investment outlays in most developing countries like
Malaysia, yet most construction projects in this country are characterized with
unsatisfactory performance in terms of quality, time and cost overruns as well
as conflict among the project participants. One of the contributing factors to
the unsatisfactory performance replete in literature is delay of interim
payment and the finding of this study support this literature statement where
the result shows that the level of occurrence of delay of interim payment was
very high. This finding supports the previous studies finding that the
government-initiated projects regardless whether building projects or civil
engineering projects, mostly face delay of interim payment. Hence, this matter
must be put more concern by all industry players. On top of that, a firm
project definition and scope and a comprehensive design are very important to
be well developed before the construction starts since the result shows that
this factor contribute significant influence on delay of interim payment.
Similarly, concerns must be put during site and soil investigation at the onset
to reduce the impact of unpredictable ground condition. Likewise, the
bureaucratic red tape must be reconsidered because the findings found that this
significant as well in causing the delay. Besides, the quality of SFoC (in
terms of fairness and completeness) and attitude of participants also must be
put more concern to reduce the delay. These factors, if properly addressed, are
likely to reduce or completely eliminate the delay of interim payment problems.
Abidin, A., 2007. The Profile of Construction
Disputes. Unpublished Master Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai
Adnan, H., Bachik, F., Supardi, A., Marhani, M.A., 2012. Success Factors of Design and Build Projects in
Public Universities. Procedia-social and
Behavioral Sciences, Volume 35, 170–179
Ahmed, A., Othman, E., 2013. Challenges of Mega
Construction Projects in Developing Countries. Organization, Technology and
Management in Construction, Volume 5(1), pp. 730–746
Alfakhri, Y.Y.A., Ismail, A., Khoiry, M.A., 2018.
The Effects of Delays In Road Construction Projects In Tripoli, Libya. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 9(4), pp. 766–774
Ali, N.A.N.A., Wilkinson, S., 2010. Modernising
Construction Contract Drafting – A Plea For Good Sense. In: Proceedings of
the 18th CIB World Building Congress, pp. 323–345
Auditor’s General Report, 2016. Aktiviti Kementerian/Jabatan
Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Badan-badan Berkanun Persekutuan (Activities
of Federal Government Ministries/ Offices and Fellowship Berkanun Agencies).
Available online at: https://lkan.audit.gov.my/laporan/manage/39, Accessed on
May 27, 2018
Bryman, A.,
Cramer, D., 2005. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A Guide
for Social Scientists. London: Routledge
Cheung, S.O., Yiu, T.W., 2006. Are Construction Disputes Inevitable? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Volume 53(3), pp. 456–470
Cheung, S.O., Wong, W.K., Yiu, T.W., Kwok, T.W., 2008. Exploring the Influence of Contract Governance on Construction Dispute Negotiation. Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Volume 134(4), pp. 391–398
Chong, H.Y., Zin, R.M., 2010. A Case Study into
The Language Structure of Construction Standard form in Malaysia. International
Journal of Project Management, Volume 28(6), pp. 601–608
El–adaway, I., Fawzy, S., Burrell, H., Akroush, N., 2017. Studying Payment Provisions under National and
International Standard Forms of Contracts. Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Volume
9(2), p. 04516011
Fan, W., Yan, Z., 2010, Factors Affecting Response Rates of the Web Survey: A Systematic Review, Computers
in Human Behaviour, Volume 26(2), pp. 132–139
Guo, L., Li, H., Li, P., Zhang, C., 2016.
Transaction Costs in Construction Projects Under Uncertainty. Kybernetes,
Volume 45(6), pp. 866–883
Hao, Q., Shen, W.,
Neelamkavil, J., Thomas, J. ., 2008. Change Management in construction
projects. In: CIB W78 25th International Conference on
Information Technology: Improving the Management of Construction Projects
Through IT Adoption, Santiago, Chile, pp. 387–396
Ismail, W.N.W., Adnan, H., 2020.
The Influence of Project Characteristics on Contractual Behaviour of Key
Participants in Civil Engineering Projects. Built Environment Journal, Volume 17(2), pp. 75–84
Ismail, W.N.W., Adnan, H., Masrom, M.A.N.,
Baharuddin, H.E.A., Wahi, N., 2022. Significant Factors Influencing Delay of
Issuing Project Information in Civil Engineering Projects. Malaysian
Construction Research Journal, Volume 38(3), pp. 85–97
Jaffar, N., Tharim, A.H.A., Shuib, M.N., 2011. Factors
of Conflict in Construction Industry: A Literature Review. Procedia
Engineering, Volume 20, pp. 193–202
Jatarona, N.A., Yusuf, A.M., Ismail,
S., Saar, C.C., 2016. Public Construction Projects Performance in
Malaysia. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, Volume 2016, pp. 1–7
Judi, S.S., Mustaffa, N., Nayan, R., 2017. A Framework for
Combating Payment–Related Issues (Pri) in the Malaysian Construction Industry.
Journal of Built Environment Technology and Engineering, Volume 2, pp.
112–132
Judi, S.S., Rashid,
R.A., 2010. Contractor’s Right of Action for Late
or Non-Payment by The
Employer. Journal of Surveying, Construction & Property, Volume 1(1), pp. 1–31
Ke, H., Cui, Z., Govindan, K., Zavadskas, E.K., 2015. The Impact of Contractual Governance and Trust on EPC Projects in Construction Supply Chain Performance. Engineering
Economics, Volume 26(4), pp. 349–363
Kumaraswamy, M.M., 1997. Conflicts, Claims and Disputes in Construction. Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 4(2), pp. 95–111
Mohd-Danuri, M.S., Che Munaaim, M.E., Abdul
Rahman, H., Hanid, M., 2006. Late and Non–Payment Issues in The Malaysian
Construction Industry–Contractors’ Perspective. In: Joint International Conference on Construction
Culture, Innovation, and Management (CCIM), Conference Proceedings. Dubai
Oladapo, A.A., 2007. A Quantitative Assessment of the
Cost and Time Impact of Variation Orders on Construction Projects. Journal
of Engineering, Design and Technology, Volume 5(1), pp. 35–48
Rameezdeen, R., Rodrigo, A., 2010. Textual
Complexity of Standard Conditions used in the Construction Industry. Australasian
Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Volume 13(1), pp. 1–12
Ren, Z., Kwaw, P., Yang, F., 2012.
Ghana’s Public Procurement Reform and the Continuous use of the Traditional Procurement System. Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Volume 2(1), pp. 56–69
Riazi, S.R.M.,
Nawi, M.N.M., 2018. Project Delays in The Malaysian Public Sector:
Causes, Pathogens and The Supply Chain Management Approach. International
Journal of Technology, Volume 9(8), pp. 1668–1680
Safri, D.S., 2009. A Comparative Study of
Construction Project Delays in Johor and Sabah Region. Unpublished Master
Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Sambasivan, M., Soon, Y.W.,
2007. Causes and Effects of Delays in Malaysian Construction Industry. International
Journal of Project Management, Volume 25(5), pp. 517–526.
Shehu, Z., Endut, I.R.,
Akintoye, A., 2014. Factors Contributing to Project Time and Hence Cost Overrun
in the Malaysian Construction Industry. Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Volume 19(1), pp. 55–75.
Tereshko, E., Rudskaya, I.,
2021. A Systematic Approach to the Management of a Construction Complex under
the Conditions of Digitalization. International Journal of Technology,
Volume 12(7), pp. 1437–1447
Ye, K.M., Rahman, H.A.,
2010. Risk of Late Payment in the Malaysian Construction Industry. International
Journal of International Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Volume 4(5), pp. 503–511
Yong, Y.C., Mustaffa, N.E., 2012. Analysis of Factors Critical to Construction Project Success In Malaysia. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Volume 19(5), pp. 543–556