A1261267205iIPKY

1
KING FAHD UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM
MINERALS COLLEDGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
For Dr. Sadi A. Assaf
A Conceptual Model for Consultant Selection in
Saudi Arabia By MUBARAK FARAJ SAEED
AL-BESHER December, 1998
Summarized By Mohammed-Ali Al-Khunaizi December
25, 2004
2
CONTENT

• Introduction
• Literature Review
• A/E Selection Criteria
• Research Methodology
• Data Results Analysis
• Development CCSM Model
• Conclusion Recommendations

3
Introduction

• Need for A/E prequalification
• Statement of the Problem
• Objectives
• Selection Criteria
• CCSM Model
• Limitation of the Research
• Research Significance

4
Literature Review

• Al-Shiha (1993) A/E poor selection criteria
  affects the design, construction stages and
  maintenance cost.
• Aitath (1988) Projects in Saudi Arabia are
  awarded on basis of lowest bid (usually, low
  performance quality)
• All mentioned researches have one common
  objective Shortlist the competing A/Es and
  select only capable A/Es having the proper
  qualification.

5
The Selection Methods

• Direct Selection Method
• Competitive Selection Method
• - Fee selection
• - Design competition
• Comparative Selection Method

Frequency A/E Selection Methods
66 Competitive bidding
48 Direct method
39 Design competition
30 Nomination
Source Al-Musallami 1992
6
Saudi Consulting Organizations
7
Consultant Selection Criteria

• 01) Current Work Load
• 02) Experience
• 03) Economic Constraint
• 04) Quality Control
• 05) Experience in Geographic Location
• 06) Firm Capacity
• 07) Firm Organization
• 08) Staff Availability and Qualifications
• 09) Head Office Location
• 10) Project Management Capabilities
• 11) Reference
• 12) Past Performance
• 13) Quality Performance

8
Research Methodology

• Data Collection and Survey
• Scoring Method
• Sample Size

No. of questionnaire No. of questionnaire No. of questionnaire Description No
100 A/E PS 60 No. of questionnaire handed out 1
100 30 30 60 No. of questionnaire handed out 1
82 A/E PS 49 No. of questionnaire completed returned 2
82 23 26 49 No. of questionnaire completed returned 2
18 A/E PS 11 No. of questionnaire did not returned 3
18 7 4 11 No. of questionnaire did not returned 3
9
(No Transcript)
10
Data Results Analysis (Public Sector)
The confidence coefficient is 95
Importance E Index Rank Average Rank 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Criteria Description No.
Importance E Index Rank Average Rank NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES Criteria Description No.
79.49 8 7.15 6 2 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 Current Work Load CR.1
93.16 2 8.38 14 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Experience CR.2
72.65 12 6.54 0 6 6 10 4 0 0 0 0 Experience in Geographic Location CR.3
73.50 11 6.62 4 4 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 Economical Constraints CR.4
76.07 10 6.85 4 6 2 10 4 0 0 0 0 Firm Capacity CR.5
78.63 9 7.08 6 4 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 Firm Organization CR.6
65.81 13 5.92 0 2 12 4 4 0 2 2 0 Head Office Location CR.7
98.29 5 7.92 8 12 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 Past Performance CR.8
88.89 4 8.00 8 14 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Project Management Capacity CR.9
91.45 3 8.23 8 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quality Performance CR.10
81.20 7 7.31 2 10 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 References CR.11
94.02 1 8.46 14 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Staff and Qualification CR.12
83.76 6 7.54 6 4 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 Quality Control CR.13
11
Data Results Analysis (Consultant opinions)
The confidence coefficient is 95
Importance Index Rank Average Rank 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Criteria Description No.
Importance Index Rank Average Rank NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES NUMBER OF RESPONSES Criteria Description No.
74.60 7 6.71 4 0 12 8 4 0 0 0 0 Current Work Load CR.1
88.89 1 8.00 8 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Experience CR.2
62.96 11 5.67 0 4 4 4 12 0 3 0 0 Experience in Geographic Location CR.3
69.84 9 6.29 4 4 8 4 0 4 4 0 0 Economical Constraints CR.4
60.32 12 5.43 0 4 4 8 4 0 8 0 0 Firm Capacity CR.5
66.67 10 6.00 0 8 8 0 4 4 4 0 0 Firm Organization CR.6
52.69 13 5.14 4 0 4 4 4 0 12 0 0 Head Office Location CR.7
85.71 6 6.86 4 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Past Performance CR.8
74.21 8 6.68 3 9 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 Project Management Capacity CR.9
87.70 3 7.89 11 12 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 Quality Performance CR.10
88.10 2 7.93 4 19 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 References CR.11
87.30 4 7.86 8 12 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 Staff and Qualification CR.12
86.90 5 7.82 7 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Quality Control CR.13
12
Recommended A/E Selection Criteria

• 01) Current Work Load
• 02) Experience
• 03) Economic Constraint
• 04) Quality Control
• 05) Experience in Geographic Location
• 06) Firm Capacity
• 07) Firm Organization
• 08) Staff Availability and Qualifications
• 09) Head Office Location
• 10) Project Management Capabilities
• 11) Reference
• 12) Past Performance
• 13) Quality Performance

13
Recommended A/E Selection Criteria
Total Combined Weight of Criteria The A/E Selection Criteria Description Combined Criteria No.
20.20 Experience CR1, CR2 1
19.60 Project Management Capacity CR6, CR9 2
11.00 Staff and Qualification CR12 3
10.70 Quality Performance CR10 4
10.30 Past Performance CR8 5
9.80 Quality Control CR13 6
9.50 Reference CR11 7
8.90 Firm Capacity CR5 8
100 TOTAL WEIGHT TOTAL WEIGHT TOTAL WEIGHT
The correlation coefficient (rs) is 0.8242
The critical test value (t0.05) is 0.5549
14
A/E Consultant Conceptual Selection Model (CCSM)
15
Conclusion

• Selection method is varied from one public
  sectors to another.
• The existence selection methodology is not
  helping the Saudi public sector to choose a
  consistent, an effective, an effective and
  well-defined A/E services.
• There was strong agreement between the public
  sector and consultants in ranking the mentioned
  criteria.
• Economic Constraint, Experience in Geographic
  Area and Head Office Location are not applicable
  issues in Saudi public sector.
• CCSM Model is useful in comparing prospective
  A/Es in terms of selection criteria.
• The implementation of CCSM is consistent,
  flexible, practical, and effective selection for
  selecting a qualified A/E.

16
Recommendations Future Studies
Recommendations

• Reasons for using CCSM Model
• CCSM Model is a standard method
• Fast but accurate in evaluation
• Flexible modification while holding the quality
• Handling single group judgments

Future Studies

• Sub-criteria research
• Further studies on A/E
• Any Contract should be studied to have
  standards
• Classification of A/E based on quality ability
• Similar selection model for private sector

17

• Q A