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 Source: Al-Musallami 1992 Frequency % A/E Selection Methods 66Competitive bidding 48Direct method 39Design competition 30Nomination

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 SurveyData Collection and Survey Scoring MethodScoring Method Sample SizeSample Size % No. of questionnaireDescriptionNo 100 A/EPS 60 No. of questionnaire handed out 1 3030 82 A/EPS 49 No. of questionnaire completed & returned 2 2326 18 A/EPS 11 No. of questionnaire did not returned 3 74

10. Data Results & Analysis (Public Sector) Importance E Index Rank Average Rank 987654321 Criteria DescriptionNo. NUMBER OF RESPONSES 79.4987.15 6 210620000Current Work LoadCR.1 93.1628.38 14 100200000ExperienceCR.2 72.65126.54 0 661040000Experience in Geographic LocationCR.3 73.50116.62 4 44680000Economical ConstraintsCR.4 76.07106.85 4 621040000Firm CapacityCR.5 78.6397.08 6 46640000Firm OrganizationCR.6 65.81135.92 0 212440220Head Office LocationCR.7 98.2957.92 8 122400000Past PerformanceCR.8 88.8948.00 8 140400000Project Management CapacityCR.9 91.4538.23 8 162000000Quality PerformanceCR.10 81.2077.31 2 10 220000ReferencesCR.11 94.0218.46 14 102000000Staff and QualificationCR.12 83.7667.54 6 414200000Quality ControlCR.13 The confidence coefficient is 95%

11. Data Results & Analysis (Consultant opinions) Importance Index Rank Average Rank 987654321 Criteria DescriptionNo. NUMBER OF RESPONSES 74.6076.714012840000Current Work LoadCR.1 88.8918.008128000000ExperienceCR.2 62.96115.670444120300Experience in Geographic LocationCR.3 69.8496.29448404400Economical ConstraintsCR.4 60.32125.43044840800Firm CapacityCR.5 66.67106.00088044400Firm OrganizationCR.6 52.69135.144044401200Head Office LocationCR.7 85.7166.8641200 0000Past PerformanceCR.8 74.2186.68394444000Project Management CapacityCR.9 87.7037.8911120140000Quality PerformanceCR.10 88.1027.934194100000ReferencesCR.11 87.3047.868124400000Staff and QualificationCR.12 86.9057.827912000000Quality ControlCR.13 The confidence coefficient is 95%

12. 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 Recommended A/E Selection Criteria

13. The correlation coefficient (r s ) is 0.8242 Total Combined % Weight of Criteria The A/E Selection Criteria Description Combined Criteria No. 20.20ExperienceCR1, CR21 19.60Project Management CapacityCR6, CR92 11.00Staff and QualificationCR123 10.70Quality PerformanceCR104 10.30Past PerformanceCR85 9.80Quality ControlCR136 9.50ReferenceCR117 8.90Firm CapacityCR58 100TOTAL WEIGHT The critical test value (t 0.05 ) is 0.5549

14. A/E Consultant Conceptual Selection Model (CCSM) List Selection Criteria Are They The Major and Common Criteria? Add and Modify Additional Criteria List Prospective A/Es Pre-qualify for A/Es Short list Apply AHP Model Test for Consistency Synthesis for Priorities Rank A/Es Select A/Es Negotiate & Agree with Selected A/E Conduct Pairwise Comparison Sign A Contract YesNo Yes

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 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 Recommendations 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