الفهرس 
abstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 161 |  |  |
| | | from | 161 | | |
Abstract
The Roads Construction Projects (RCPs) in general are considered risky projects due to their special nature. They are usually subjected to many risks due to their interconnected activities, long period of execution, financial intensity, and involvement of many stakeholders in the project. Such characteristics of the roads’ projects are generating more risks which might lead to failure to achieve the project’s objectives in terms of time, cost, and quality as well. In particular, the roads construction industry in Egypt is considered one of the most promising fields of investment that have been significantly increased during the past decade. Therefore, the study of the associated risks has become a mandatory demand to serve this industry.
This study was mainly divided into 2 phases. In phase 1, the main execution activities associated with roadways construction projects (RCPs) in Egypt were identified, and categorized into five main activities of RCPs as follows: (A) Preliminary Preparations; (B) Earth works (cut/fill); (C) Implementing of sub-base, and base layers; (D) Implementing of bituminous layers, and (E) Traffic safety, and road furniture. A field survey was conducted, and a comprehensive practical risk checklist consists of crucial 39 risk factors affecting RCPs activities was introduced. The probability of occurrence, and the impacts on RCPs objectives (time, cost, and quality), and the risk severity were determined while the key risk factors were highlighted. The correlations between the risk factors indices were measured, and the strongest relationship was found between time and cost severities. The weights of time and cost percentages of each activity were identified as well as the expected percentages of time, and cost overruns. Activity (B) had the highest percentages of execution time, and associated cost among the whole activities i.e., 31% for time, and 29% for cost. While the average overall time and cost overruns were found (15-20) %, and (10-15) % respectively. The effect on the quality of each activity and the overall effect on the project’s final quality were also evaluated. The results indicated a high effect on the quality of activities (A), (B), and (D), and a moderate effect on activities (C), and (E). Furthermore, the influence on the overall quality of the entire project was found with a high effect.
Whereas, phase 2 of the study focused on the allocation, and classification of the risk factors due to their responsibilities. In many cases, it was obvious that risks were underestimated, and poorly allocated to the proper party who can control, and manage them. Moreover, due to the absence of risk allocation models, the owner tends to convey all risks to the contractor who attempts to convey the same to the suppliers, and subcontractors, causing series of conflicts, and disputes which will eventually affect the success of the project. In this study, a classification is developed for the risk factors based on the responsibility, and to allocate the risks to the party who can control the risk factor as well as introducing the most effective risk response actions. The risk responsibility was introduced through classifying 88 identified risks into 7 responsibility groups. A Risk Allocation Model (RAM) was developed to allocate the major risk factors to the appropriate party (Owner, contractor, or shared responsibility between both). Furthermore, the model proposed a risk response plan to be assigned to each risk factor i.e., the risk management action. In order to develop the RAM, the Delphi technique was adopted to allocate the risks to the appropriate party and to propose the proper risk response as well. In addition to that, the model can be utilized to compare among the projects to help the decision-makers to select the least risky project. The impact on time, cost, and quality were determined, and the top-ranked 21 risks were identified based on the value of their Risk Factor Indices (RFIs) values. The major risks were allocated, 57% to the contractor, 10% to the owner, and 33% were shared liability between both. Furthermore, the percentages of risk management actions allocated to each risk factor were, the “risk control” represented 33% while the “contract clause” represented 24%. However, both “avoidance”, and “mitigation” represented 19% for each action while the “insurance” represented 5% of the proposed risk responses.