PEER-REVIEWED PAPER ASSESSMENT OF WoRK PERFORMANCE OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS IN SAUD! ARABIA By Abdul-mohsen Al-Hammad' and Sadi Assaf? Member, ASCE ‘ApsTRACT: In Saudi Arabia as well as in other countries, building owners often differ in ‘their approach to evaluating the work performance oftheir maintenance contractors. To unify ‘the approach for such evaluation, the intent ofthis paper isto assess the evaluation approaches used by a variety of building owners and then focus on the main criteria used for the eval- ‘ation. To achieve this objective, this study i divided into two phases. The frst phase includes 4 review of literature on the main criteria that can be used to evaluate maintenance contracts, followed by interviews with building owners and maintenance contraciors to modify and ‘update the criteria obtained from this review, The result ofthis phase is grouped into eight ‘major categories. Each category involves a detailed list ofthe criteria used for the evaluation, ‘The main categories include providing proper planning and scheduling: procuring materials forthe ste; providing suggestions on cost cutting: providing safety precautions atthe building site; subcontracting control; and ensuring management efficiency, equipment availabilty, and ‘man-power competence. The second phase consists of developing and then distributing a ‘questionnaire for both building owners and maintenance contractors to rank the importance of each one of the detailed criteria indicated inthe first phase ofthe study. The results ofthis survey indicate the significance of the criteria that should be used to evaluate contractors. Furthermore, the study indicates that owners and maintenance contactors generally agree on the ranking of the importance ofthe performance criteria INTRODUCTION ‘Saudi Arabia has experienced an unprecedented con- struction boom during the past 20 years, including the ‘erection of new cities, airports, public and private build- ings, highways, etc. These facilities were constructed at a very fast pace. Many multinational designers and con- tractors were involved, and different international codes and specifications were used, which were mostly un- suitable for the Saudi Arabia environment. The forego- ing factors have led to the early deterioration of these facilities, and the requirement of major maintenance work, involving different owners and maintenance con- tractors. The increased use of maintenance contractors requires selection and evaluation of these contractors on ‘consistent basis in order to improve the performance of facilities. Owners differ in their approach to the eval- "Dean, Coll. of Envi, Det, King Fahd Univ. of Pet & Minerals, ‘Box No. 222, Dhabvan 31261, Saud Arabia "assoc. Prof, Cone. Engrg. and Mes. Dept, King Fad Univ of et. & Minerals, Box No. 680, Dhahran 31261, Saul Arabs "Nate Discusion open antl September 1, 1996 T extend the los ing date one month, 4 wren request mast be filed wit the ASCE ‘ManagsrofJounals. The manvscrp for this paper was submited for review and posible publicaon on January 23,1995, This paper is ‘part the Journal of Management in Engineering, VOL. 12, No.2, MarctvApel, 1996. QASCE, ISSN 0742-597%96/0002-0044 0019) ‘4.00 + 8.50 per page, Paper No, 9985. |44/ JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING /MARCHAPRIL 1008 uation of maintenance contractors. The objective of this paper isto assess the criteria used by the owners to eval- uate the performance of maintenance contractors and to ‘offer conclusions based on this assessment. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Based on a literature review and on a pilot study of interviews with owners and contractors, the main per- formance criteria are identified as follows: Providing Proper Planning and Scheduling Planning and scheduling of maintenance work can be a very difficult task due to the fact that, in general, main- tenance work cannot be done continuously, access to the site might not be easy, space is restricted, and there is a problem of interference between building occupants and workers (Lion 1982), Performance evaluation of planning and scheduling of. maintenance work involves many measures including: meeting schedules and deadlines set by company rep- resentatives, efficiency of the work schedule, and quality of the completed task. Procuring Materials for Site ‘Procurement of material is a very important factor be- ceause the quality of the maintenance work depends onthe choice of proper material. The cost of the entire maintenance project may vary due to variation in the cost of the material. In addition, the execution time of the project may be extended due to delay in the delivery Of the material to the building maintenance site (Lawson 1988). ‘The measure of performance evaluation of this factor includes providing the same material specified in the contract, providing the same quantities specified in the contract, and providing the required material on sched- ule, Providing Suggestions on Cost Cutting ‘Maintenance costs involve the cost of labor, material, equipment, and overheads. Any reduction in any of these costs would be beneficial to both owner and contractor (Halpin and Ronald 1980) This evaluation measure involves providing ideas for reducing man power, material costs, and operating costs. Providing Safety Precautions at Building Maintenance Site ‘Safety is very important in construction as well as in building maintenance. Safety involves humanitarian, ec- ‘onomic, legal, and regulatory concems. Safety precau- tions include, for example, driving vehicles inside the maintenance site within the speed limit, wearing hard hhats and safety shoes during work, fastened formwork, and avoiding loose electrical connections (Levy 1987). ‘The evaluation measures involve the availability of safety shoes, gloves, and hard hats; specifying speed lim- its inside the building maintenance site; providing first aid supplies; providing a clear safety program; and con- ‘ducting regular meetings to explain the safety program. Subcontracting Control ‘The control of the subcontractor is important because the quality and timely completion of his work has a di- rect effect on the overall performance of the general con- tractor. This criteria involves providing well-qualified subcontractors, who can do the work efficient. Ensuring Efficient Administration and Supervision 10 Site Administration staff are vital to the efficient execution of the maintenance work. Record keeping and distribu- tion is important to communication between owners and contractors. The supervision of maintenance work by the contractor assures the quality and timely execution of the assigned work. ‘The performance measures of this criteria include pro- viding the required man power for supervision, provid- ing well-organized mobile offices to the site, and organ- izing current documents and records. Ensuring Availability of Required Equipments and Facilities It is important to have the proper equipment available for maintenance workers to perform their work ade- quately. The success and failure of completing the main- tenance task depends on the utilization and availability of the right equipment. ‘The performance measure in this criterion involves providing the required quantity and quality of equip- ment, making sure that the equipment and facilities are well-maintained, and providing the required vehicles. Ensuring Technical Competence and Workmanship of Building Maintenance ‘Man Power In Saudi Arabia, most ofthe laborers are brought from many foreign countsies. They come from various West- fem, Southern, and Middle Easter countries. The im- proper selection of skilled labor affects the quality and productivity of the maintenance work. ‘The measure of this criterion includes providing skilled man power and providing employees with high productivity levels. ‘SURVEY Based on the aforementioned performance criteria, a survey of 24 building owners and 27 maintenance con- tractors, randomly selected from Saudi Arabia and mea- suring the level of effectiveness of each criterion, was conducted, Table 1 shows the owners’ evaluation while Table 2 shows the maintenance contractors’ evaluation, Results of Survey Severity Index Based on the survey response a severity index was calculated to reflect the relative effectiveness of the aforementioned criteria. This index was calculated as follows (Al-Hazmi 1987): Sax = 100%) (1) ayx where a, = constant expressing the weight given to J; X, variable expressing the frequency of the response for; i=0, 1,2,3,4, and illustrated as follows: X, = Frequency of the “extremely ineffective" response and correspond- ing to ay = 0; Xp = frequency of the “‘not effective” response and corresponding to a; = 0: X; = frequency of the “effective” response and corresponding to a; = 2; 1X, = frequency of the “very effective’” response and corresponding to a, = 3; and X, = frequency of the “ex- tremely effective” response and corresponding to ay = 4. severity index (2 ‘The average index for each major criterion is the av- ‘erage of all the indexes of the individual. ‘Spearman rho (p) This formula is used to measure the degree of agree- ment between both owners and contractors in their an- swers regarding the factors that measure the perfor- ‘mance. The Spearman tho can be computed as follows (Pifaffenberger and Patterson 1977): JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING /MARCHIAPRIL 1008/45_ 6x Dt (Continued) nora @ o Tete[olole[e 7) dag Sion sine wd wren BeBe where D = difference between the owners’ ranking and wang riea the contractors’ ranking ofeach factor and Nemumbor meme | 1 1g | |g ase of ranked variables. ig ANALYSIS OF DATA mem fa [ef ef «| 0 [oss ‘able 1 and Fig. 1 show the severity index of all per- mena” formance criteria for building owners. Table 2 and Fig. sorte s 2 s 7 2 7s 2 show the severity index of all performance criteria for -—_—_ Mins ese een at estes ee maintenance contractors. ater ‘The severity indenes were grouped to refect the re» ammo’ | | | | ST da spondents rating as follows water + Extremely effective: 80 | © | © | 9° |S tremely effective,’ 12 that are rated as “very effective,”” smecormae | | |g | |g fess and one that is rated as “moderately effective.” Also, rr enn according to the contractors, 17 individual performance ce | | a | + | s | 0 fears criteria are rated as “very effective” and five perfor- a) vie ley pin weg mae tance criteria are rated as “moderately effective.” Ac- ata cording to the owners, there are thee major performance ‘aya criteria that are “extremely effective" and five that are a ws | a] «| 0 | © Jas “moderately effective: according othe contractors, six Sie ae criteria are rated as “extremely effective"” and two are soaremre) | o] | y rated a8 “very effective.” rata St ‘Table 3 shows thatthe result of the degree of agree- pee | eile rent (tho) between the owners’ and contractors ranking “es of performance criteria is 0.69. ‘eosar ewan ‘The use of a F-test, at a 95% confidence level of the Se) Lg Las {0 | fears ll hypothesis that “building owners and maintenance -_ toner contractors do not agree on the ranking of the impor- ——— tance of performance criteria,” resulted in rejection of onal ne the null hypothesis, Therefore, the altemative hypothesis sree te,| thatthe two partis generally agree on the ranks is ac- sre] 6 |e | a Lo | o fas Shea, {46 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING MARCHAPRIL 1906PROPOSED METHOD FOR PERFORMANCE, EVALUATION Having identified the major performance criteria and the relative importance from the viewpoints of both the ‘owners and maintenance contractors, a method is pro- posed in this paper, which uses the major performance criteria important to owners (Assaf and Jannadi 1995), TABLE 2, Results of Maintenance Contractors’ Survey | very |Mosor| not | vemay [ever . terry | ec. | stay | ate: | ee | iy o @ lol |o | lo (Frog pope pain sd edi sey company ‘cont! gony (e) Peviingsnanoiont on cov ang” Be] | et es |e fan ad 2 2 2 2 o [na (a) viding wey pecans bling mance” (1) Proving tien adie nd spendin oe Bt onion of TABLE 2. (Continued) [elo Tole To (aking raid equine elie vane ‘heaven ete emp rome eri “wh felony 3 fhonhase| ‘This method compares the major performance criteria as they relate the preference of owners, then criterion weightings are entered in a matrix, which evaluates maintenance contractors according to their characteris- tis. Application Example of Method The following is a step by step process of the appli- cation of the proposed method: 1. List all major performance criteria that are consid- ‘ered important in the performance evaluation of contractors. All pertinent criteria should be listed. If they are not pertinent, they will receive zero ‘weighting. In the example shown, the important criteria are: planning and scheduling, procurement of materials, cost cutting suggestions, subcontract- ing control, administration, equipment and facli- ties, and technical competence. 2. Determine how important each of these criteria is to the owner and the specified project. When listed fon the criteria-weighting process format, each is assigned @ letter of the alphabet as shown in Fig. 3, These assigned letters are used to compare A against B, A against C, and so on. When selecting between two criteria, the degree of importance of the selection can also be indicated. The importance of one criteria over another can be major (given 3 points), medium (given 2 points), minor (given 1 point), or none (given 0 points). For example, when planning and scheduling (A) is compared to safety precautions (D), it is decided that A has a major preference over D, so it receives a score of 3. Hence the comparison between A and D in the cri- teria-scoring matrix is recorded with an A-3 nota- tion. In the same manner, the comparison between ‘A and E in the criteria-scoring matrix is recorded by an A-2 notation, which means that A has a me- JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING /MARCHAPRIL 1990/47evety Ine) A ec 0 & F @W Major Pectarmance erate FIG. 1. Results of Owners’ Evaluation o every Inde A ec 0 ef F Gow FIG. 2. Results of Contractors’ Evaluation TABLE 3._Degree of Agreement between the Two Parties ‘A [panning & Scheatig 8 » 1c | et Cuting Suggetions 5 6 D_|saset Precasions 1 1 | Subcontrncting Conte! 1 1 [Administration 2 3 6 _|wauipment & Fuses @ » | Technien! Comptance a 0 o Bc pe Fou © 4 [we] aifaa [a2] a2 [wo]ns >. arson enrenece » [outer for!n2 FIG. 3. Determining Welghts for Evaluation: (a) Criteria. conn oomaeral ‘Wolghting Process Format; (0 Crlterla-Scoring Matrix Factor: raniong | ranking | O™ : © a] a | 1 each, administration has a total score of 2, equip- rent and facilities and technical competence have roving proper paming aod pe ei 2 otal score of 8 each Proving teil oe ste. |S 3 : 4, Adjust the raw scores to a scale of 1=10, with 10 Prvig ageons on con | ‘ ; being assigned tothe criteria with the highest raw coming. score; other scores are adjusted accordingly. A cri- Providing efetyprcestons at coe ee eel 7 . terion receiving no score is dropped from the ma- ce cael 3 ; : tix. So A, B, C, D, E, F,G, and H have adjusted Providing efit admin scores of 10, 9, 6, 1, 1, 3, 10, and 10, respectively. ton and aperision othe Fig. 3 includes all relevant criteria and their aw or : bd : and adjusted scores. Once the criteria elements and nna . [ their weightings have been established, the next pening chlo sompenace task is to enter these values in the evaluation ma- “nd workmanship of aint: ix ane man pow 1 1 ° 5. Evaluate each contractor for each criterion given. ‘Note: Spearman bo) p = 1 ~ @26V8(@ ~ 1) = 008, otal dium preference over B. When there is no prefer- ence between two criteria, the two criteria can be indicated as being equal by using both letters in the scoring matrix (and giving a zero to each), this be- ing the case with planing and scheduling (A) and procurement of materials (B) where the owner felt that both were equally important. The notation, then, is recorded in the matrix as A/B. 3. Establish the total raw score of each criterion when all comparative evaluations are made. In our ex- ample, planning and scheduling has a total score Of 8, procurement of materials has a total score of 7, cost cutting has a total score of 5, safety pre- caution and subcontracting control have scores of, ‘The scoring system used in the evaluation matrix is to assign 1-5 points on a scale of poor to ex- cellent: poor, 1; fair, 2; good, 3; very good, 4; and excellent, 5 6. Multiply the rank of each with the weighting of cach criterion and enter the result in the space pro- vided. For example, as shown in Fig. 4, if contrac- tor Lis rated poor in planning and scheduling, good in procurement of materials, fair in cost cutting, good in safety precaution, fair in subcontracting control, fair in administration, good in making ‘equipment available, and fair in technical compe- tence, he will have a total score of 110. 7. Find the total score for each contractor. Fig. 4 shows the scores for cach criteria and the total score for each contractor evaluated, ‘This method will help the owners evaluate the main-a ee ee | =. +8 ef oats ee ee geen geo ee 1 poe eosooo fee ee [spe i | tec aes ce BU eg deuau Tae ion ee cee eae st : ioe cen tours po eoeetoo Tf ciototaiele cre io ee ee ieee ere t@wwowe & & IPG TPs acs tpt PP ee for 7.) te Oot tw ww SSE vw oo oo. Geter eer ee ia Been FIG. 4, Evaluation Matrix tenance contractors based on their work performance and ‘demtification of their strengths and weaknesses. ‘SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A survey of building owners and maintenance con- tractors was conducted on the basis of the relevant per- formance criterion for the evaluation of maintenance ‘contractors by owners. The results of this survey shows that building owners evaluated performance criterion as follows Extremely effective: 1. Providing proper planning and scheduling 2. Providing safety precautions 3. Ensuring technical competence and workmanship ‘Very effective 1. Procuring material to the site 2. Providing suggestions on cost cutting 3. Subcontracting control 4, Providing efficient administration ‘5. Making required equipment and facilities available ‘The maintenance contractors evaluated the perfor- mance criterion as follows: Extremely effective Providing proper planning and scheduling Providing safety precaution Subcontracting contro! Providing efficient administration “Making required equipment and facilities available Ensuring technical competence ‘Very effective 1. Procuring material to the site 2. Providing suggestions on cost cutting ‘The agreement on the ranking of performance criteria, bby both the building owners and maintenance contractors is high (69%). This shows that the aforementioned per- formance criteria and theit relative importance are eval- uated in much the same manner, and that they are valid and useful criteria for evaluation of the performance of building maintenance contractors. ‘A proposed method to assist the owners in using the foregoing criteria according to their preferences was pre- sented with an illustrated example. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ‘The writers appreciate the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, for pro- viding time and facilities to carry out this study. The ‘writers would also like to thank Mohammad Al-Walid for his help in collecting the references and the survey data used in this research. APPENDIX. REFERENCES [A-Haz. M. (1987) “Couses of delay in large building construction ‘roerts” MS thesis, King Fahd Univ. of Pet. & Mineral, Dshran, Saudi Arabia, ‘Assaf, and Jenna, ©. (1994). “A mult rtrion decision making ‘model for contractors preqalification selection.” Bul. Res. and Information, 2(6), 332-335, Halpin, D, and Rona, W. (1980), Construction management. John Wiley & Sons, Ine, New York, NY. Lawson, M. (1988). “Operation and maintenance taking off.” Engr. ‘News Rec, Vol 221,36 Levy, 8. (1987). Projet management in construction. MacGraw-Hl ‘Book Co, Inc, New York, NY. Lion, E. (1982). Building renovation and recycling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY Prafenberger, R, and Paterson, J. (1977. Statistical methods for business and economics. Richard. Irwin, In, Homewood, JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING /MARCHAPRAL 1998/48