Risk Assessment in Construction of Gautam Buddha International Airport

Journal of Advanced Research in Construction and Urban Architecture Volume 4, Issue 1 - 2019, Pg. No. 17-34 Peer Reviewed Journal Research Article Risk Assessment in Construction of Gautam Buddha International Airport Sujata Shakya1, Anjay Kumar Mishra2 1Master’s Research Scholar (M.Sc CM), Institute of Engineering, Pulchowk, Kathmandu, Nepal. 2Faculty of Management Science, Shanker Dev Campus, Putalisadak, Kathmandu, Nepal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903

INFO ABSTRACT

Corresponding Author: Risk is possibility of occurrence of negative or adverse effects that lead Anjay Kumar Mishra, Faculty of Management exclusively to damage or loss in a project. Since Risk Management Science, Shanker Dev Campus, Putalisadak, approach has not been applied in Gautam Buddha International Airport, Kathmandu, Nepal. the identified issues and uncertainties that are impacting negatively E-mail Id: in the progress of the project are operationally defined as risk. The [email protected] objective of this paper is to identify the risk factors during construction Orcid Id: of the airport, and rank them on the basis of the scores they obtain. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2803-4918 The main Research methodology applied here is literature study and

How to cite this article: the Key Informant Interview. On the basis of literature review and Shakya S, Mishra AK. Risk Assessment in consultation with experts, 14 Risks Categories and 96 Risk Factors Construction of Gautam Buddha International were listed. Key Informant Interviews were conducted with 35 people Airport. J Adv Res Const Urban Arch 2019; 4(1): 17-34. from the Employer, Consultant and Contractor. Each Risk Factor was given scores for their severity and frequency of occurrence, followed Date of Submission: 2019-03-05 by calculation of final Risk Score using Risk Matrix. Out of 96 risk Date of Acceptance: 2019-03-27 factors, it was found 33 significant risk from employer’s perspective, 41 significant risk from consultant perspective and 72 significant risk from contractor’s perspective. The degree of agreement between all the three parties were tested using Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient and Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance. Risk factors associated with Design, Specification, Estimation and Scheduling are found to be the highly significant risk factors. Keywords: Risk Factors, Risk Identification, Risk ranking, Severity, Prioritization

Introduction volume, many hours hold on position in sky due to limited Background number of international airport with poor quality service of terminal building for passenger and lack of other facilities Nepal has a large airport network, made up of a total are adversely affecting the image of aviation sector in of 48 airports distributed all over the country (CAAN, the global market. That’s why the another international 2012). But there is only one international airport which airport Gautam Buddha International Airport is under is under operation i.e. Tribhuvan International airport. construction. Nepal is considered to be one of the most Here, many incidents related to airport such as skidding expected developing countries in the sector of tourism. One off aircraft and crashes in the runway, highly air traffic of the magnetic factors from the perspective of tourism is Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Advanced Research in Construction and Urban Architecture ISSN:( 2456-9925) https://www.adrpublications.in Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 18 that, Lumbini is the birth place of Lord Buddha. Gautam phase, this will lead to cost overrun, delay in operation and Buddha International Airport is targeted as South Asian even hazard during operation. The construction industry Tourism Development Project. in the global context has advanced to the forth level Airport is one of the complex and highly sophisticated through zero wastage, zero defects and zero accidents construction project. Each and every part of the airport whereas construction industry of Nepal is still reluctant construction is very much critical and need hundred percent in practicing the basic requirement of Risk Management. perfection. The most critical part is the runway construction Risk Management is even critical in large construction where the construction with zero defect and zero error is project like an international airport. Without Proper Risk crucial. Similarly, building infrastructure such as control Management plan is like construction of the house in the tower and control administrative building are also very air, or construction of the house without the foundation. much important for the proper operation of the aircraft Research Objectives movement. In parallelly, terminal building also plays a key The objective of this study is to identify and rank the role in managing passengers and creating impression to risk factors along with their severity and prioritization the visitors, enhancing aviation business. Any accident in construction of Gautam Buddha International Airport. due to construction or management inconsistency would cause giant hazards and financial loss (Li-Jeng & Chi- Operational Definition of Risk Hsuan, 2014). The construction quality of airport plays a “Risk Management Approach” has not been applied in significant role in both the aviation safety and the aviation Gautam Buddha International Airport. So, the identified business. Risk Identification, Assessment and Control during issues and uncertainties that are negatively impacting construction of both airfield and land field provide powerful the progress of the project is considered as Risk in this tool in reducing the risk of accidents after the airport research work. come into operation. Airport projects are considered to Literature Review be very complex, as they face a number of challenges which inevitably expose them to risks. The consequences Risk and Uncertainties of the risk in construction of airport are as follows: Cost According to Macquarie dictionary, Risk is defined as overrun, Time overrun, Threat to Operation Safety, and “Exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or Threat to Flight. So, this research will be focused on the dangerous chance, to run risks”. study of identification of risks that are being faced during construction of this airport and management practices to Risk is defined as the possible occurrence of negative or mitigate the impacts of these risks. The study is significant adverse effects that lead exclusively to damage or loss for all the stakeholders to get in depth idea about risk or (Garrido, 2011).Risk includes two components: exposures ensuring the project success by overcoming risk. Thus, and uncertainty. So risk can be defined as exposure to this is the pilot project for other two international airports uncertainty whose failure of proper management may lead Pokhara and Neejgadh Airport. Risk management practice to negative consequences that harms a project. (Holton, defines success or failure of project. So, the document will 2004) . be the guiding document for new construction managers Risk Exposure for a construction project can be defined and engineers to manage the risk in their project effectively. from the following formula (Chitkara, 2014). Problem Statement: Several runways related issues and many other safety related issues in the International Airport of Nepal have Risk Management implied that, apart from the aviation operation, the proper Risk Management is the art and science of managing risks and precise construction of both the airfield and land field is that are caused by unforeseen changes (uncertainties), very critical in entire Airport construction. In 5th December which may require deviations from the planned approach, 2013, European Commissioner warned the Tribhuwan affecting the achievement of the project’s. International Airport for many safety reasons through 7 indicators. Though it was an operation and maintenance objectives. It involves systematically identifying, analyzing, issue, the similar story repeats if an airport is not properly planning and controlling risks (Chitkara, 2014). constructed. Thus, the proper risk management from Risk is a multi-faucet concept. In the context of construction conceptualization phase to till its completion is very crucial. industry, it could be the likelihood of the occurrence of Airport construction is a complex project which need large a definite event/ factors which occur during the whole amount of budget and resource allocation. If there is lack process of construction to determine the project a lack of of proper risk assessment and management from the initial predictability about structure outcome or consequences in

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 19 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) a decision or planning situation, the uncertainty associated Probability-Impact Matrix is one of the effective tool of with estimates of outcomes-there is a chance that results analyzing risk factor qualitatively (Chitkara, 2014). Several could be better than expected as well as worse than types of Risk matrices are used in analyzing risk of different expected etc. order such as 3X3, 4X4 and 5X5. One of the simplest matrix Risk Identification and Analysis Techniques: used in construction project is as following. In a construction project, Risk can be identified using Another qualitative approach is to rank the risk exposure different techniques categorized into two categories: by assessing the subjective probability of each risk event, Documentation and Information Gathering (Mishra A. like below 10% for Low Probability, 11%-30% for Medium K., Risk and Risk Management, 2019). Documentation Probability and Higher than 31% for High Probability, and involves study of database, historical data from similar defining monetary value in terms of cash or percentage. The projects, templates, checklists study project documentation outcome of Qualitative Risk Assessment is identification of and study of specialist literature. Information gathering Risk Events/Sources having High, Medium, and Low value includes Interviews, Bench Marking, Consulting Experts, exposures that can be considered for ranking, Sorting of High Past Experiences and Risk Breakdown Structure. exposure Risks that can be considered for quantification and mitigation, prioritizing risks for inclusion in risk register, Table 1.Risk Identification Techniques & Risk segregation of Low Exposure events for placing in the watch Analysis Techniques list. Furthermore, the outcomes can be organized in form Risk Identification Techniques of Probability-Impact Format that gives a clear picture of qualitative evaluation for each risk item of each category in Documentation Information Gathering terms of risk rating and corresponding mitigation measures. Databases Interviews Table 2.Simplified Matrix for the Qualitative Historical data from Benchmarking Assessment similar projects Occurrence Exposure Cost Impact Templates Consulting experts Probability Category Checklists Study project High High High-High documentation (plan, files Past experience etc.) Low High Low-High Study specialist literature Risk breakdown structure High Low High-Low Risk Analysis Techniques Low Low Low-Low Quantitative Qualitative Source: (Chitkara, 2014) Probability Analysis Ranking Options Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has incorporated a detailed 5X5 Risk Matrix with five severity of consequences and five Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Options likelihood of occurrence. Five severity of consequences Simulation Techniques Descriptive Analysis are Catastrophic, Hazardous, Major, Minor and Negligible Source: (Mishra AK, Risk and Risk Management, 2019) given values 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Five likelihood of Occurrence are Frequent, Occasional, Remote, Improbable The identified risk can be analyzed quantitatively and and extremely Improbable given values 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 qualitatively. Qualitative Analysis includes Probability respectively. A matrix is formed out of combination of Impact Matrix, Ranking Options, Comparing Options and these variables and scores are given by multiplication of the Descriptive Analysis. Similarly, Quantitative Analysis can values. CAA defines Unacceptable, Review and Acceptable be done using Probability Analysis, Sensitivity Analysis and Risks according to the following chart. (Safety Management Simulation Techniques. Systems (SMS) guidance for organisations, 2014) Table 3.CAA UK’s CAP 795, Safety Example Risk Matrix from Management Systems (SMS) guidance for organizations

Severity 5 1 0 15 20 25 catastrophic 5 Review Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable 4 8 12 16 20 hazardous 4 Acceptable Review Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 20

3 6 9 1 2 15 major 3 Acceptable Review Review Unacceptable Unacceptable 2 4 6 8 10 minor 2 Acceptable Acceptable Review Review Unacceptable 1 2 3 4 5 negligible 1 Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Review E x t r e m e l y Improbable Remote Occasional Frequent improbable 1 2 3 4 5 Likelihood Source: (Safety Management Manual - (DOC 9859) - English, 2018) Unacceptable Risks are those which obtain the Risk Score Inadequate risk management plan. Subcontractor specific in the Risk matrix more than 9, namely 10, 12, 15, 20 risks includes poor subcontractor work productivity, and 25. In this study, Unacceptable Risk is termed notion subcontractor breaching contract, subcontractor financial “Significant Risk” failure, material availability, material quality, project Consultant’s specific risks Risk Categories and Risk Factors in Airport Construction: type know-how skills. includes inadequacy of specifications, lack of experience, quality (Chitkara, 2014) has developed a checklist of 16 categories assurance, project type know-how skills. Political risks in which risk events or factors can be included. These are include Bureaucratic problems, Threat of war, labor issues, Project Scope Risk, Design and Specification Risk, Quality Corruption, Changes to laws. Social risks include Crime rate Risks, Time Overrun Risks, Cost Overrun Risks, Leadership and Cultural differences. Financial risks include Inflation Risks, Organizational Risks, Physical Resource Utilization and Currency fluctuation. Natural risks include Poor site and Mobilization Risks, Technology Risks, Contractual Risks, conditions and Pollution. Natural phenomena include Force Majeure and Ecological Risk, Political, Regulatory Earthquakes, Fires, Floods and Severe weather conditions. and Social Risks, Financial and Economic Risks, Safety, Health and Environmental Risks, Funding Failure Risks, and In case of the construction of Gautam Buddha International Communication and Network Failure Risks. Airport, based on Literature Study and consultation with experts, 14 Risks Categories and 94 Risk Factors were listed For the Risks associated with Airport Construction Project, for this study, which are verified and evaluated through Key the most detailed study has been done for Saudi Arabian Informant Interview (KII). They are as following: Aviation Construction Projects. According to ( Baghdadi & Kishk, 2015) ,the authors have identified 54 risk factors Table 4.Risks Category A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, in their research based on risks inherent in construction K, L, M, and N projects in Saudi Arabia, risks inherent in construction Category A: Employer Associated Risks projects in the Middle East (neighboring countries), and 1. Payment Delays risk inherent in global construction projects. The risk 2. Setting Tight Schedule by Employer factors that have identified areClient-specific risksinclude 3. Inappropriate Intervention by Employer payment delays, tight schedule set by client, inappropriate 4. Design Changes by Employer intervention by client, design changes by client, inadequate 5. Site Access Delays scope, site access delays, contract breaching by client, client 6. Ill-defined project Scope financial failure, Lack of experience of client, Obtaining/ Category B: Risk due to poor Coordination between issuing required approval, Issue of sustainability, Inadequacy working parties of requirements, Poor coordination, Changing demands. 7. Dispute between Client and Contractor Designer-specific risks include design errors, incomplete 8. Dispute between Client and Consultant design, constructability, poor quality of design, project 9. Dispute between Consultant and Contractor type know-how skills. Contractor-specific risksinclude Poor 10. Delay in Obtaining and Issuing Required Approval quality of construction, Lack of experience of contractor, from concerned parties Contractor financial failure, Low or poor contractor work 11. Unsatisfactory Conduct of Status Review Meeting productivity, Errors during construction, Accidents and between Parties safety issues, Quality and control assurance, Contractor 12. Inability to take timely corrective action for Design breaching by contractor, Project type know-how skills, and Construction Mistakes

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 21 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

Category C: Design, Specification, Estimation and Category H: Quality Risk Scheduling Risks 56. Poor or low work productivity by Contractor 13. Design Mistakes and Errors 57. Unintentional Errors during construction by 14. Inadequate Design Information Contractor 15. Incomplete Design 58. Lack of proper Quality Assurance Plan and its 16. Inadequate Detailing from Designer implementation 17. Mismatching between Arch., Str. And MEP 59. Poor or low work productivity by Sub-Contractor Drawings 60. Improper Quality of Material 18. Poor Design Constructability 61. Inappropriate testing of materials 19. Poor Site Assessment before Design 62. Unwillingness to rework on Defects during 20. Inadequacy of Specification construction 21. Miss-match between Design, Details, Specification 63. Inadequate and Low Quality procurement of and BOQ Resources Outdated Technology due to excessive 22. Excessive Variation Order delay in the project 23. Unrealistic Specification Category I: Physical Resource Mobilization and 24. Errors and Omissions in Bill of Quantities utilization Risk 25. Incomplete Assessment of Project Cost 64. Lack of Availability of Required Materials 26. Inaccurate Cost Estimates 65. Machine Breakdown 27. Inaccurate Time Estimation and Schedules 66. Non - availability of Machine Spare Parts Category D: Contractual Risk 67. Non - availability of Special Equipment and 28. Contract Breaching by Client Materials 29. Contract Breaching by Local Partner of Consultant Category J: Political, Regulatory and Bureaucratic Risk 30. Misinterpretation of Contract Clause 68. Blockade and Strikes in the region 31. Contract Breaching by Contractor 69. Institutional Corruption 32. Contract Breaching by Consultant 70. Changes of Law, Regulations and Policies 33. Contract Breaching by Sub-Contractor 71. Political Risk/Change in Government 34. Insufficient Insurance and Surety 72. Unnecessary Bureaucratic Process in getting Category E: Financial and Economic Risk approval and decision 35. Client Financial failure Category K: Organization and Human Resource 36. Financial Failure of Contractor Management Risk 37. Financial Failure of Sub-Contractor 73. Improper Risk Management Plan 38. Inefficient use of budget and resource 74. Improper Task Movement 39. Currency Fluctuation 75. Ambiguous Operation Sequence 40. Market Inflation 76. Postponed Response of Task 41. Inadequate Control over Cash Flow 77. Ill-defined Task Category F: Risk due to inadequate knowledge, skills 78. Undefined Authority Delegation and experience 79. Inflexibility in correcting design error 42. Lack of Experience of Client 80. Designer’s delay in providing design and detail 43. Lack of Experience of Design Consultant drawings 44. Lack of Experience of Site Consultant 81. Indecisiveness 45. Lack of Experience of Contractor 82. Lack of Senior Management Support 46. Lack of Project specific Skills for Contractor 83. Limited Authority of the Project Manager 47. Lack of Project specific Skills for Sub-Contractor 84. Non-availability of Suitable Sub-contractor 48. Lack of Project specific Skills for Design consultant 85. Communication difficulty between working parties 49. Lack of Project specific Skills for Site Consultant due to language difference because of foreign project team Category G: Safety and Health Risk 86. Inadequate Staffing in Consultant 50. Unsafe Working Conditions/Absence of Safety 87. Inadequate Staffing in Contractor Audits 51. Safety issues of technical persons Category L: Force Majeure, Environmental and Social 52. Inadequate budget allocation for safety Risk 53. Inadequate physical facilities for the site staffs 88. Climate specific difficulties/Severe Weather 54. Pollution in the site Conditions 55. Site related Hazards such as fire, chemical spillage 89. Flood in the site and short circuit of electricity 90. Earthquake

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 22

Contract Period: 91. Injustice to the local stakeholders 92. Deforestation and Bio-diversity destruction The duration allowed to accomplish all the works included in the project were 1097 calendar days starting from contract Category M: Risk of hindrance of current airport signing date 13th Nov 2014. The commencement date is operation during new construction January 1, 2015. The completion date is December 31, 93. Risk of hindrance in the present airfield (such as 2017. The first extension of time is th15 Jun 2018. And the Runway) th 94. Risk of hindrance of the present passenger second extension of time is 28 Jun 2019 (Gautam Buddha facilities (such as Terminal building) Airport Upgrading Components, 2014). Category N: Non Compliance with International Body Scope of the Works: ICAO The scope of works includes the construction of airfield and land field area. Here, airfield area includes Runway, Methodology converting existing runway into taxiway and aproan and land Study Area field area includes construction of International Terminal building, Crash fire rescue building, Admin block and Interior This research is an action based case study research. So, design and construction (Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading thorough study of risk management practices in construction Components, 2014). of Gautam Buddha International Airport has been done. Design and Construction: Project Description: The consultant for this project is Yoshin Engineering Gautam Buddha International Airport is the second Co-operation Korea in association with Building Design international airport in Nepal. It is an airport located in Authority Nepal. The contractor is Chinese contractor Siddhartha Nagar municipality located in Rupandehi District Northwest Civil Aviation Airport Construction Group in Province No. 5 of Nepal. The original contract value is (Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading Components, 2014). NRs. 6,225,120,227.91 (including VAT) which is funded by Civil Aviation Authority Nepal (CAAN), Asian Development Data Collection Bank (ADB) and Organization of the Petroleum Exporting This study examined the study of risk management practices Countries (OPEC) Fund for International Development on construction of airport and its impact. Here, this research (OPID). The main purpose of this project is to relief pressure methodology is carried out in four phases. currently sustained by the congested Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA). This is the project planned under National Pride Project by National Planning Commission in which other two international airports are also being planned for construction, namely Pokhara Regional International Airport and Nijgadh International Airport. (Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading Components, 2014). Contract Type: The Contract of the main Civil works for this project is Unit Rate Contract based on the FIDIC Red Book Conditions of Contract. Whereas the Interior works of the terminal building is the design and build contract. The tender for this project was advertised as a competition unit price contract through International Competitive bidding. (Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading Project, 2013). Contract Price: The contract agreement was done on 13th November 2014 Figure 1.Research Frame work between Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal, Gautam Buddha Phase: 1.Preparation Airport Upgrading Project and Northwest Civil Aviation Airport Construction Group Ltd. and the contract price is In this phase all the preparation regarding the research Nepalese Rupees6,225 million 6,225,120,227.91 including such as preliminary meeting with people related to the VAT (Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading Components, project collection of suggestions and drawing outline of 2014). methodology are done.

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 23 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

Phase: 2.Literature Review significant risk factors. For identified highly significant risk factors documentation of subjective opinion of interviewee In this phase review of literatures related to methodology regarding the impacts, reasons, mitigation practices and and similar research project are done. Here, risk assessment mitigation suggestions are done. Finally, conclusion is made methods, categorization and analysis method are studied for the research, and learnings are extracted for future from various literatures to identify appropriate approach international airports to be constructed in Nepal. for this research. Study of similar project researches help in identifying possible risk factors which is later verified Key Informant Interview (K.I.I.): through consultation with experts and through Key In Key Informant Interview, the key persons related Informant Interview. to the Project from all the three parties i.e. Employer, Phase: 3.Field Research Consultant and Contractor are taken interview. The question for interview is structured to include both objective and From the literature review and consultation of experts subjective questions. The objective questions constitute it was determined to advance the research through key severity of risk, frequency of risk, responsibility and dealing informant interview supported by document study and strategy. This finally gives risk score for the identified risk field observation. factor which is later used for risk ranking. Similarly, the Phase: 4.Data Analysis and Final Output subjective questions constitute impact of risk, reasons In this phase, risk score for each identified risk factors is of occurrence and practiced and suggested mitigation determined using risk matrix. According to the risk score, measures. The Structure of Key Informant Interview is risk factors are prioritized to find out significant and highly shown in figure 15.

Figure 2.Structure of Key Informant Interview (KII)

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 24

The respondents of this research project are those who categories. Very few interviewees (those who are involved are directly or indirectly involved in the construction in managerial level and can oversee all the project activities) phase of the Gautam Buddha International Airport. Here, were informant on all the Risk factors. Otherwise, according key interviewees are those who have overall or specific to the nature of the work and the responsibility they are knowledge of the risk factors of concern. To have fair results assigned, interviewees were aware of selected categories. as much as possible, all the persons from all the three Therefore, while determining the scores of each risk factor parties having experience on the problems encountered for the given party, the representative score is chosen the in the project are taken interviews. Additionally, external highest score amongst the scores given by each interviewee stakeholders indirectly related to the project such as, Air in that party. Risk ranking was done accordingly. However, Traffic Controller of exiting airport are also taken interview. for general risk ranking according to the scores obtained Interviewees are asked to response the questions on from all the three parties, both highest score amongst the Risk Assessment and Control in the respective risk factor interviewees and the average score obtained from the category they are experienced in. The interviewees are representative score of all the three parties were used. selected using handpick and snowball technique. Document study: For this research, chosen interviewees are followings: In Document study, related documents supporting the • Project Director KII such as Contract document, progress report, detail • Project Manager design report, drawings, specification, bill of quantities, old • Senior Site Engineer photographs, letters etc. are studied and referred. • Site Engineers Evidence Collection (Direct Observation): • Site sub engineers • Safety in charge In direct observation, it collection of evidences through • Quality Control Officer photographs, supporting the identified risk factors were • Air Traffic Controller done. • Financial Analyst Data Analysis The distribution of key interviewees is shown in table 4 According to (Safety Management Manual - (DOC 9859) below: - English, 2018), the data collected from Key Informant Table 5.Distribution of Key interviewees interviews were analyzed using 5X5 matrix. On this basis, each risk factor was calculated for the Final Risk Score. Risk Interviewee Number Scores are organized in three Perspective groups: Employer’s Employer 7 Perspective, Consultant’s Perspective and Contractor’s Consultant 11 Perspective. For the given Perspective group, not all the respondents are informants on all the risk factors. However, Contractor 14 when all the respondents are taken, the given Perspective Others 3 group provides a complete information. In order to be Total 35 risk averse, the representative score for a given risk factor for a given Perspective group is taken to be the one with Key Informant Interview (KII) was conducted for total 35 the highest score. After obtaining the risk score for each interviewees: 7 from employer team, 11 from consultant risk factor for the given Perspective group, the factors are team and 14 from the contractor team, all who are involved arranged according to the scores they obtained. As per in the Gautam Buddha International Airport project. CAA (2014), those risk factors obtaining score more than 9 Additional 3 interviewees who are indirectly related to are coined “Unacceptable” or “Significant”. But, there is a the project (a financial analyst of Asian Development Bank, perspective difference between the Employer, Consultant Air Traffic controller of existing Gautam Buddha Airport and Client, the final representative score is taken to be the and a senior officer of Central Investigation Agency looking one with the average score. after the project) were taken interviews. The interviewees Reliability Test: from all the three parties constitute almost all the levels of technical persons from Team Leader, specialized Engineers, In order to measure the agreement on the ranking of the risk Safety In-charge and Health workers. factors by all the three parties, Spearman’s Rank Correlation is being used. Spearman’s Rank Correlation is used to As per the nature of the interview (being taken with key measure the agreement between any two parties such as person informant on key issue), not all the interviewees Contractor and Consultant, Consultant and Employer, and possessed all the information. This is particularly true for a Employer and Contractor. For calculating rank correlation given party. There were 96 risk factors listed divided into 14

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 25 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) coefficient, first of all the actual observations are replaced Significant Risks from all the three parties were collected by their ranks. If two or more values happen to be equal, and each risk factor was given score then average of the ranks which should have been assigned On the basis of the Highest Score obtained from all the to such values had they been all different, is taken and the three parties same rank is given to concerning value (Kothari, 2004) . On the basis of the Average Score obtained from all the Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient, r, is worked out three parties as under:

2 2 On the basis of the highest score obtained from all the three Spearman’s r =1-[{6*Sd }/ {n (n -1)}] parties, the risk factors are ranked as following. Where: The comparison of the score between three parties is shown d=rank difference for each pair of observation (here, given in above table along with the rank of the risk factors on the risk factor) basis of average score and high score. From the table it can n=number of observations (here, number of risk factors) be seen that the risk factor that scored number one in both the average score and the highest score rank is “Improper Because there are more than 30 items, the sampling Risk Management Plan”, followed by “Poor Site Assessment distribution of r is approximately normal with a mean of before design”, “Risk of Hindrance in the present Airfield” zero and a standard deviation of 1/√(n-1). Thus the standard and “Dispute between Client and Contractor”. Though there error=1/√(n-1). Table under the normal curve is being used is general agreement between the three parties about the to find appropriate z values for testing hypotheses about significant risk, some risk factors which are ranked the the population rank correlation and draw inference. first by one party are considered insignificant by another Null hypothesis that there is no correlation between the risk party. Most of the design related risks scored high as per scores from any two parties isµ r = 0. Alternative Hypothesis contractor’s perspective while they are coined insignificant that there is positive correlation between any the risk (less than or equal to 9 in score) by the consultant. scores between any two parties isµ r > 0. Where, µr=Mean Reliability Test: of Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient. In order to find out the degree of agreement about the For the analysis, one tailed test is being applied. The Risk Ranking from all the three parties, Spearman’s Rank hypothesis is tested for 1% confidence level (i.e. 0.01 level Correlation (r) was used. Following values of Spearman’s of significance). coefficient are obtained between a pair of parties Results and Discussion (Employer-Consultant, Consultant-Contractor and Employer -Contractor) Risk Factors and Risk Ranking Spearman’s Coefficient (between Employer and Consultant), According to the Risk Scores obtained using 5X5 Risk r 1-2 =0.478 matrix, three sets of Risk Factors, each from the Employer, Consultant and Contractor, are listed. Here, only those risk Spearman’s Coefficient (between Consultant and factors which come under “Unacceptable” of ‘Significant” Contractor), r 2-3=0.476 are listed. This corresponds to the score 10 or more that Spearman’s Coefficient (between Employer and Contractor), they obtain. r 1-3 =0.440 Risk Factors according to Employer’s, Consultant and Since there are n=72 factors taken, the standard error Contractor’s Perspective: =0.119 From Employers’ perspective, 33 out of 96 risk factors were Testing at 0.01 level of significance, it is found that found to be significant, with 3 risk factors scoring 20, 1 appropriate z value for 0.49 of the area under normal risk factor scoring 16, 9 risk factors scoring 15 and 20 risk curve to be 2.32. As a test for null hypothesis, putting µr factors scoring 12. Similarly, from Consultants’ perspective, = 0, the corresponding the upper limit of the acceptance 41 out of 96 risk factors were found to be significant in region as under is given by which 10 risk factors scored 20, 2 risk factors scored 16, 11 risk factors scored 15 and 18 risk factors scored 12. Finally, µr + (2.32)*0.119=0 + 0.275=0.275. from Contractors’ perspective, 72 out of 96 risk factors were Since each of the r-values, r 1-2, r 2-3 and r 1-3 is greater than found to be significant in which 30 risk factors scored 20, 0.275, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative 7 risk factors scored 16, 22 risk factors scored 15 and 13 hypothesis is accepted. That means there is agreement risk factors scored 12. between the parties at 99% level of significance.

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 26

Table 6.Risk Ranking on Average score and High score basis Contractor Employer Consultant Rank based on Rank Based on S.No Risk Factors Score Score Score Average Score Highest Score Average Score High Score 1 Improper Risk Management Plan 20 20 20 20.00 1st 20 1st 2 Poor Site Assessment before Design 20 16 20 18.67 2nd 20 1st Risk of hindrance in the present airfield 3 20 20 16 18.67 2nd 20 1st (such as Runway) Dispute between Consultant and 4 20 15 20 18.33 3rd 20 1st Contractor Communication difficulty between 5 working parties due to language difference 20 15 20 18.33 3rd 20 1st because of foreign project team 6 Inadequate Control over Cash Flow 20 20 12 17.33 4th 20 1st Unsatisfactory Conduct of Status Review 7 20 15 15 16.67 5th 20 1st Meeting between Parties Inability to take timely corrective action 8 20 15 15 16.67 5th 20 1st for Design and Construction Mistakes Mismatching between Arch., Str. And MEP 9 20 15 15 16.67 5th 20 1st Drawings 10 Inaccurate Time Estimation and Schedules 20 8 20 16.00 6th 20 1st Unsafe Working Conditions/Absence of 11 20 8 20 16.00 6th 20 1st Safety Audits 12 Design Mistakes and Errors 20 12 15 15.67 7th 20 1st 13 Misinterpretation of Contract Clause 20 12 15 15.67 7th 20 1st 14 Inefficient use of budget and resource 15 12 20 15.67 7th 20 1st Inadequate physical facilities for the site 15 15 12 20 15.67 7th 20 1st staffs

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 27 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

16 Improper Task Movement 15 15 15 15.00 8th 15 17 Payment Delays 20 12 12 14.67 9th 20 1st Miss-match between Design, Details , 18 20 12 12 14.67 9th 20 1st Specification and BoQ 19 Market Inflation 20 12 12 14.67 9th 20 1st 20 Lack of Experience of Site Consultant 20 15 9 14.67 9th 20 1st Lack of Project specific Skills for Site 21 20 15 9 14.67 9th 20 1st Consultant Designer’s delay in providing design and 22 20 9 15 14.67 9th 20 1st detail drawings Delay in Obtaining and Issuing required 23 20 8 15 14.33 10th 20 1st Approval from concerned parties 24 Inadequate Detailing from Designer 20 15 8 14.33 10th 20 1st 25 Safety issues of technical persons 15 8 20 14.33 10th 20 1st 26 Inadequate Design Information 20 12 8 13.33 11th 20 1st 27 Incomplete Design 20 12 8 13.33 11th 20 1st 28 Inflexibility in correcting design error 20 12 8 13.33 11th 20 1st 29 Design Changes by Employer 15 12 12 13.00 12th 15 3rd 30 Lack of Experience of Contractor 15 12 12 13.00 12th 15 3rd 31 Indecisiveness 20 8 9 12.33 13th 20 1st 32 Financial Failure of Contractor 20 1 15 12.00 14th 20 1st 33 Inadequate budget allocation for safety 20 1 15 12.00 14th 20 1st 34 Postponed Response of Task 20 8 8 12.00 14th 20 1st Lack of proper Quality Assurance Plan and 35 16 8 12 12.00 14th 16 2nd its implementation 36 Changes of Law, Regulations and Policies 12 12 12 12.00 14th 12 4th 37 Ill-defined project Scope 15 8 12 11.67 15th 15 3rd

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 28

38 Inadequacy of Specification 15 8 12 11.67 15th 15 3rd 39 Contract Breaching by Sub-Contractor 15 12 8 11.67 15th 15 3rd 40 Currency Fluctuation 15 8 12 11.67 15th 15 3rd 41 Pollution in the site 15 8 12 11.67 15th 15 3rd 42 Lack of Availability of Required Materials 15 8 12 11.67 15th 15 3rd 43 Ambiguous Operation Sequence 15 12 8 11.67 15th 15 3rd 44 Injustice to the local stakeholders 15 12 8 11.67 15th 15 3rd 45 Financial Failure of Sub-Contractor 20 1 12 11.00 16th 20 1st Lack of Project specific Skills for Design 46 16 8 8 10.67 17th 16 2nd consultant 47 Non-availability of Suitable Sub-contractor 16 8 8 10.67 17th 16 2nd 48 Dispute between Client and Contractor 12 8 12 10.67 17th 12 4th 49 Dispute between Client and Consultant 12 8 12 10.67 17th 12 4th Outdated Technology due to excessive 50 12 12 8 10.67 17th 12 4th delay in the project 51 Lack of Experience of Design Consultant 15 8 8 10.33 18th 15 3rd Site related Hazards such as fire, chemical 52 15 8 8 10.33 18th 15 3rd spillage and short circuit of electricity 53 Undefined Authority Delegation 15 8 8 10.33 18th 15 3rd Climate specific difficulties/Severe 54 15 8 8 10.33 18th 15 3rd Weather Conditions 55 Errors and Omissions in Bill of Quantities 16 8 6 10.00 19th 16 2nd 56 Excessive Variation Order 20 1 8 9.67 20th 20 1st 57 Ill-defined Task 15 8 6 9.67 20th 15 3rd 58 Client Financial failure 15 1 12 9.33 21st 15 3rd 59 Lack of Project specific Skills for Contractor 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th Lack of Project specific Skills for Sub- 60 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th Contractor

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 29 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

61 Non- availability of Machine Spare Parts 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th 62 Blockade and Strikes in the region 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th Unnecessary Bureaucratic Process in 63 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th getting approval and decision 64 Flood in the site 12 8 8 9.33 21st 12 4th 65 Incomplete Assessment of Project Cost 12 8 6 8.67 22nd 12 4th 66 Unrealistic Specification 16 8 1 8.33 23rd 16 2nd 67 Lack of Experience of Client 16 1 8 8.33 23rd 16 2nd 68 Limited Authority of the Project Manager 15 8 1 8.00 24th 15 3rd 69 Inappropriate Intervention by Employer 12 1 6 6.33 25th 12 4th 70 Inaccurate Cost Estimates 12 1 6 6.33 25th 12 4th 71 Poor Design Constructability 16 1 1 6.00 26th 16 2nd 72 Lack of Senior Management Support 15 1 1 5.67 27th 15 3rd

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 30

Highly Significant Risk In order to be inclusive to both the Ranks, the “Highly Significant Risks are defined as those come both within As evident from the above analysis, there is inconsistent ” the first two ranks (minimum score 16) of the “Highest between the Average Score and the High Score i.e. some risk Score Risk” and the first fourteen ranks (Minimum score factors that obtain high rank in High Score fairly obtained 12) of the “Average Score Risk”. very low rank in average score. Accounting this fact, Highly Significant Risks are selected according to the following definition. The Risk Ranking on the basis of the Highest Score Risk has just four ranks i.e. first scoring 20, second scoring 16, third scoring 15, fourth Scoring 12. The Risk According to this definition, 29 Risk Factors are identified Ranking on the basis of the Average Score of all the three Highly Significant Risks, which are as following. parties has 27 ranks first scoring 20 and 27th scoring 5.67. Table 7

Based on Based on Overall Overall Rank S.No Risk Factors Highest Score Average Score Rank (1st to (1st to 2nd) (Min 16) (Min 12) 14th)

1 Payment Delays 20 1st 14.67 9th 2 Dispute between Consultant and Contractor 20 1st 18.33 3rd Unsatisfactory Conduct of Status Review 3 20 1st 16.67 5th Meeting between Parties Inability to take timely corrective action for 4 20 1st 16.67 5th Design and Construction Mistakes 5 Design Mistakes and Errors 20 1st 15.67 7th 6 Inadequate Design Information 20 1st 13.33 11th 7 Incomplete Design 20 1st 13.33 11th 8 Inadequate Detailing from Designer 20 1st 14.33 10th Mismatching between Arch., Str. And MEP 9 20 1st 16.67 5th Drawings 10 Poor Site Assessment before Design 20 1st 18.67 2nd Miss-match between Design, Details , 11 20 1st 14.67 9th Specification and BOQ 12 Inaccurate Time Estimation and Schedules 20 1st 16 6th 13 Misinterpretation of Contract Clause 20 1st 15.67 7th 14 Financial Failure of Contractor 20 1st 12 14th 15 Inefficient use of budget and resource 20 1st 15.67 7th 16 Market Inflation 20 1st 14.67 9th 17 Inadequate Control over Cash Flow 20 1st 17.33 4th Lack of Project specific Skills for Site 18 20 1st 14.67 9th Consultant Unsafe Working Conditions/Absence of 19 20 1st 16 6th Safety Audits 20 Safety issues of technical persons 20 1st 14.33 10th

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 31 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

21 Inadequate budget allocation for safety 20 1st 12 14th Inadequate physical facilities for the site 22 20 1st 15.67 7th staffs Lack of proper Quality Assurance Plan and 23 16 2nd 12 14th its implementation 24 Improper Risk Management Plan 20 1st 20 1st 25 Postponed Response of Task 20 1st 12 14th 26 Inflexibility in correcting design error 20 1st 13.33 11th Designer’s delay in providing design and 27 20 1st 14.67 9th detail drawings Communication difficulty between working 28 parties due to language difference because 20 1st 18.33 3rd of foreign project team Risk of hindrance in the present airfield 29 20 1st 18.67 2nd (such as Runway)

There are 29 Risk factors that are found to be highly construction project. significant, most of them again related to the Design Distribution of Significant and Highly Significant and Specification related issues. Comparing this with risk according to Categories the risk factors identified in Saudi Arabian Construction Project ( Baghdadi & Kishk, 2015), Payment Delays and The distribution of significant and highly significant risk Design Changes illustrate universality of problem in such are as following: Table 8

Highly Significant Significant Total Risk Risk Category Category Name Risks Risks Factors N Non-Compliance with International Body ICAO 0 0 1 Risk of hindrance of current airport operation during M 1 1 2 new construction L Force Majeure, Environmental and Social Risk 0 3 5 Organizational and Human Resource Management K 5 13 15 Risk J Political, Regulatory and Bureaucratic risks 0 3 5 I Physical Resources Mobilization and Utilization Risk 0 3 4 H Quality Risk 1 2 9 G Safety and Health Risk 4 6 6 Risk due to inadequate Knowledge, Skill and F 1 7 8 Experience E Financial and Economic Risks 4 7 7 D Contractual Risk 1 2 7 C Design, Specification, Estimation and Scheduling Risk 8 15 15 Risk due to poor Coordination between Working B 3 6 6 Parties A Employer Associated Risks 1 4 6

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 32

It is found that Risk Category C, Design, Specification, “Organizational and Human Resource Management Estimation and Scheduling Risk, is the most critical one as Risk” in which 13 out of 15 risk factors are found to be all the 15 risk factors out of 15 are identified significant significant and 5 risks are found to be highly significant. out of which 8 risk factors are identified highly significant. The highly significant risks are “Postponed Response Category E, Financial and Economic Risk is also found to of task”, “Inflexibility in correcting design errors” and be critical as all its risk factors are found to be significant “Communication Difficulty due to Language Problem”. out of which 4 are found to be highly significant. This is • “Financial and Economic Risk” has also all its seven followed by Category K, Design, Specification, Estimation factors scoring significant with four factors scoring and Scheduling Risk, in which 13 out of 15 risk factors are Highly Significant. This includes Financial Failure of found to be significant and 5 to be highly significant. Contractor, Inefficient Use of Budget and resources, Conclusion Market Inflation and Inadequate Control Over Cash Flow). Following conclusion can be made. • “Safety and Health Risk” has also all its six factors • “Averaged Score Risks” and “Highly Scored Risk” significant with four factors highly significant (namely analysis, the number one Risk Factor is “Improper Risk Unsafe Working conditions, Safety Issue of Technical Management Plan” (scoring 20 in both Average and Persons, Inadequate Physical facilities of Site Staff and high Scores). Both KII and document study suggest that Inadequate Budget for Safety). there is no Risk Management Plan being prepared prior • “Quality Associated Risk” is the least critical with only to initiation of the construction project. This risk factor two factors out of 9 factors listed significant and 1 is followed by the risk factor “Poor Site Assessment factor listed highly significant. before Design” and “Hindrance in the present Airfield Recommendation during construction”. • “Design, Specification, Estimation and Scheduling Risk” For significant and highly significant risk factors, it is is found to be the most significant category with all its recommended to do further study on mitigation practices 15 factors scoring “significant” and 8 factors scoring and strategies. “Highly significant”. The high risk scores are mainly Limitation associated with Design errors, Lack of Details and The study of Airport construction does not include the Mismatch of drawings. electronic and other highly sophisticated mechanical works • Second significant category is found to be integrated in the construction.

Figure 3.Distribution of Significant and Highly Significant Risk according to Category

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. 33 J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1)

Figure 4.Master Plan

Figure 5.Aerial View of Gautam Buddha International Airport References 6. Canale S, Distefano N, Leonardi S. A Risk Assessment Procedure for the Safety Management of Airport 1. Baghdadhi A. The alloction of risks in the Saudi Infrastructures. University of Catania, Civil and Arabian Domestic and Regional Aviation Construction Environmental Engineering 2014. Catania. Projects. Baghdad: Open AIR Robert Gordon University 7. Chitkara K. Construction Project Management: Planning, Aberdeen. 2017. Scheduling and Controlling. P-24, Green Park Extension, 2. Baghdadi A, Kishk M. Saudi Arabian aviation construction New Delhi 110016: McGraw Hill Education (India) projects: Identification of risks and their consequences. Private Limited. Creative Construction Conference. 2015: 9. 8. Garrido. 2011. 3. Mishra Ak. Risk and Safety. 2019. Doi:10.13140/ 9. Gautam Buddha Airport Upgrading Components. RG.2.2.36668.49284. Contract Document, Civil Aviation Authority Nepal, 4. Burns M. Public sector matters globally blog. 2015. Bhairahawa. 5. Caan CD. National Airports Plan Current Situation and 10. Holton G. Financial Analysis Journal 2004. diagonostic draft. 2012. 11. Jayasudha K, Vidivelli D, Surji EG. Risk Assessment and

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903 Shakya S et al. J. Adv. Res. Const. Urban Arch. 2019; 4(1) 34

Management in Construction Projects. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research2014; 5(8). 12. Koirala MP. Risk in Housing and Real Estate Construction Project in Nepal. Thesis, Singhania University, Pacheri Bari, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), India. 2015. 13. Kothari CR. Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. New Delhi: New Age International Pvt. Ltd. 2004. 14. Latief RU, Pallu S, Adisasmita SA et al. Risk Response Preferences On Public PrivatePartnership (PPP) In Indonesia Airport Infrastructure Development. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management 2014; 3(8): 1-5. 15. Leary ZO. The essential guide to doning your research project. New Delhi: SAGE Publication India Pvt. Ltd. 2010. 16. Li-Jeng H, Chi-Hsuan L. Risk Assessment and Manage- ment of Runways Construction Operation of Military Airports Using FAHP and ORMIT. 2014.` 17. Lymbersky C, Schelp P. Airport Construction Risk Management Services. 18. Mishra AK, Mallik K. Factors and Impact of Risk Management Practice on success of Construction Projects of Housing Developers, Kathmandu, Nepal. International Journal of Sciences Basic and Applied Research 2017; 27. 19. Safety Management Manual - (DOC 9859) - English (4 ed.). (2018). ICAO Publications Regulations. 20. Safety Management Systems (SMS) guidance for organisations. (2014). CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE: Civil Aviation Authority.

ISSN: 2456-9925 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2456.9925.201903