The first and crucial task that claimants have to accomplish in filing potential claims is to identify subjects. Since it is widely perceived that construction is inevitably operated in a chaotic environment, detecting problems that lead to claim is not easy. Thus, on-site people, who are directly involved in day-to-day activity, should have sufficient awareness and knowledge of the claim procedure (Kululanga et al. [12]). Moreover, the contract is extremely important to guide people regarding the projects dealing with any claim.

The order of ranks suggests that the most concerned problems, as contractors, associated with the process of claim identification are “lack of awareness of the on-site people”, “inadequate knowledge of the on-site people regarding the contract ”, and “lack of skilled personnel” (Table 4). It is not unexpected that matters relating to people’s awareness and knowledge arise as the most serious obstacles. The literature fact-finding also confirmed that lack of awareness and knowledge of the contract and claim procedure are the main factors causing problems in this phase. Additionally, insufficiently qualified personnel involved in the claim identification create further problems for contractors.

According to the findings, it was revealed that people’s awareness and knowledge critically became a major concern during the construction phase, as confirmed by the high values of Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W_claim = 0.550 and W_value = 0.743). It could be interpreted that Vietnamese contractors have significantly agreed to this aspect in spite of their perceptions coming from different claim experiences and project value experiences. A possible reason that could explain this overwhelming problem is that on-site people do not thoroughly read the contract. This assumption is supported by an exploratory study [6] reporting that only a few contractors take time to carefully read and entirely understand the contract. Moreover, Vietnamese engineers are not trained for this issue as their major attention is focused on technical aspects. Further in-depth interviews found that the responsibility of contract administration is mostly assigned to the management. As on-site people do not understand the contract well, when problems suddenly arise, there is a high risk of failure to comply with the contractual procedures. In addition, in Vietnam, claim identification is not regularly perceived as a very important aspect as contractors always have a concern for a long-term relationship, therefore, minor claims might arbitrarily be overlooked.

Notifying owners regarding the existence of potential claims in an acceptable timeframe is very important and generally required by the contract. Thus, non-conformance with this requirement might legally waive claimants’ right of compensation, even though the damages might be clearly proven. Furthermore, Vidogah and Ndekugri [10] revealed that all the aspects of claim procedures were essentially time-consuming, especially in preparing documents and identifying relevant information. Besides, problems related to site records originate partially due to inexperienced and unskilled on-site people, who collect the information [16].

Table 5 summarizes the results of the analysis regarding the causes of problems in this phase. It suggests that the most challenging facets are “inaccessibility of documents submitted with notices”, “no standard format of notice”, and “queries back due to the ambiguities of notices”. The facts confirmed that the inadequate documentation system is the main cause of these problems. Meanwhile, non-conformance with claim procedure and lack of time in notifying and preparing a claim that has been found in the literature are not very serious problems in the process of claim notification in Vietnamese construction companies.

The low value of concordance (W_claim = 0.492 and W_value = 0.315) suggested the difference in the perception among respondents experienced in various contracts. It could be interpreted that problems of claim notification essentially differ according to the project type, size and provision. These facts could logically describe the reason why Vietnamese contractors have pertinently experienced problems regarding the inaccessible relevant documentation substantiating claims or even accessible but still inadequate documentation. Moreover, the lack of standard format may be an important obstacle at this stage, as it could cause further problems of confusion and query over claims. In-depth interviews found that the nature of using a technical-term style in Vietnam might create ambiguity in this phase. Additionally, ISO 9001-2015 has not been applied widely in quality assurance, therefore, probably not much effort has been put in creating proper standard formats for claims.

For survey claim practices, claim examination is substantially an important subject that must be observed. The accurately quantified and qualified claims can ultimately prevent contractors from losses by enabling them to completely recover all the entitled costs. Additionally, well-documented claims are based on four aspects which include foreseeability, control, causation, and legal responsibility [17]. Well-documented claims based on these aspects have significantly improved the chances of recoveries. Furthermore, the formula of the computation of claims must be acknowledged concerning its suitability, reasonableness as well as reliability. To deal with these complicated tasks, knowledgeable staff is required to cope with the process of claim examination.

The findings in Table 6 suggest that major problems at this stage are “lack of contract knowledge for establishing legal and factual grounds”, “unavailability of records used to access potential recoveries”, and “insufficiently skilled staff to assess claims”. It is again confirmed from the literature that the lack of an adequate documentation system, together with insufficient knowledge of the on-site people, are the main causes of problems in claim examination.

The findings showed that W_claim = 0.719 and W_value = 0.659, which could interpret that respondents significantly perceived the same problems despite difference in the claim experience and the project value experience. The problems regarding skilled staff, the same as in the previous phases, increased to the highest rankings, the first and third. This finding could reasonably emphasize the intensity of these problems in Vietnam. The ineffective documentation system is another severe aspect - also indicated by many scholars - which significantly affects the ability to recover the entitled compensation. There is another complaint made by most individuals in consulting firms, criticizing contractors’ practice regarding their over-inflated evaluation of the claim that is increasingly becoming a culture in Vietnam. The alleged quantification is anticipated to cut negotiation, contractors, therefore, claim with some margin. This practice could substantially generate an onerous conflict during the negotiation when both parties have to resolve with a great deal of merits.

Without effective and complete documentation substantiating the alleged claims, chances to win are drastically reduced [18]. The construction industry is notorious for not documenting procedures and transactions; for instance, while information explosion during construction processes, there is a large number of relevant documents flowing every day in the project. Site records may seem to have little present value, but as problems arise, their value becomes significant in identifying claims [6]. Thus, due to the lack of a good documentation system, together with on-site people’s inadequate understanding and knowledge, contractors would not be capable of capturing complete documents, not even just to retrieve them when required.

The results indicate that an insufficient documentation system causes the most serious problems in this phase. According to the literature, both contractors and consultants agreed that the critical problem of claim documentation in Vietnam arises due to the fact that “some information is not kept in writing”. Moreover, “ineffective recording and keeping system” and “inaccurately recorded information” are ranked at the second and the third place, respectively (Table 7). The importance of recording information in writing is confirmed by the value of Spearman’s ‘r’ which is equal to 0.583, which means that there is an agreement on the ranking order at a 10% level (p < 0.1).

In-depth interviews additionally revealed that underlying causes of problems in the claim documentation might partially arise from the on-site people, who do not completely understand the importance of the documentation system, for example, documents are not detected, recorded, and kept accordingly. This is crucial because sometimes oral instructions, directives, etc., which are not recorded and considered least important, cause issues that are unexpected to be encountered at that moment. Hence, when these are required for reference, they are not available. Therefore, despite the implementation of ISO 9001-2015 in the Vietnamese construction industry, which requires very strict information recording, the problems still arise. In the current practices, Vietnamese contractors are probably not conforming completely to the clauses of ISO 9001-2015, which creates room for a poor documentation system.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the problem regarding “no standard format to record data” was ranked as sixth for contractors and second for consultants. During the construction processes, the Vietnamese contractors have to deal with a great amount of working documents and records coupled with the wide implementation of ISO 9001-2015. If the standard format of documentation has been developed and followed properly, the Vietnamese contractors would not have to face much trouble. On the contrary, the Vietnamese consultants perceived this problem as the second-order. Perhaps, it originates from the unclear duties which need to be recorded as documents and by not adopting and following ISO 9001-2015 in the consulting firms.

By conducting further investigation into fundamental problems associated with the documentation system, this study aims to identify the most important specific documents that Vietnamese contractors should keep in mind and look for during the construction period. Overall ranking suggested that the most serious problems were related to the lack of documents regarding “oral instructions”, “photograph depicting problems”, and “correspondence between parties” (Table 8). It was emphasized again that the problem was associated with the quality of site records since these documents are basically generated on-site every day. Oral instruction was significantly agreed as the highest-ranked and seemed to be the most difficult source of information for retrieving when problems are faced. In Vietnam, the engineers generate instructions on the projects mostly on-site, which is not usually considered important at the moment. However, when problems arise, the pertinent recording of instructions becomes invaluable depicting the right in recovering damages incurred. Without written documentation, it is difficult to prove claims if disputes develop Wilson [1]. A good recording system is useful for eliminating this problem; therefore, all the information, such as oral conversations and instructions given or received by contractors, should be recorded [19].

As to be entitled in such assertion, after the notices are submitted to alert the owners of valid claims, a full detailed submission of the claim presenting the entitlement and the quantum must be prepared. The claim presentation is, therefore, another crucial process requiring serious consideration to efficiently complete this task.

The analysis of the results gathered from contractors, as shown in Table 9, suggests that the most crucial problems in preparing claim submission are “inaccessibility of substantiating documents accompanying with claims”, “lack of skilled staff for preparing claim submission”, and “unclear procedure of claim preparation”. The poor documentation system is again emphasized as the main source that causes problems in the process of claim presentation.

According to the values of concordance (W_claim = 0.456 and W_value = 0.689), there is a change in the perception among respondents. While the claim experience makes respondents’ opinions differ slightly regarding problems in this phase, the project value experience does not much affect respondents’ opinions on the same problems. From the interviews, it was found that documentation is still the major problem requiring particular effective means to resolve it. Despite the adoption of quality assurance by the Vietnamese construction companies, which requires a very strict documentation system, documents are still ineffectively kept on-site. This aspect emphasizes the importance of the documentation system in the Vietnamese construction industry. Moreover, another important aspect is skilled staff that can effectively organize full detailed claim submission to convince the owners. In order to be well-organized, Kululanga et al. [12] suggested that claims must be divided into two major sections, the entitlement and the quantum. These matters require training and experience to deal with successfully, which in Vietnam, is still the cause of problems. Some respondents have disclosed that there is still no specific department or team to deal particularly with matters regarding construction claims. A claim, in turn, is independently prepared differing from site to site, especially for the companies that are not considered large in the Vietnamese construction industry.

Theoretically, the problem becomes a claim when someone asserts for money [17]. Therefore, the objective of the claim is to resolve problems in the best ways that target time, cost, and quality of work. Avoiding litigation and arbitration in claim settlement is the practice that contractors must keep in mind. In dealing with construction claims, cost and time of taking a matter through trial or arbitration are substantially high. Additionally, unfavorable results are likely to occur. Thus, this negative aspect could signify the essence of claim negotiation during a construction project.

Same as other processes, contractors were asked to rate the level of severity of the six problems they experienced. The result was computed for the purpose of analysis as shown in Table 10. Their answers suggested that major problems during the negotiation phase were “conflicts during negotiation”, “lack of experts who have good negotiation skills”, and “inadequate evidence to convince other parties”. These results highlight the problems related to poor documentation system and lack of skilled people as indicated in previous stages, creating conflicts at this stage.

For the calculation of Kendall’s coefficient, it was found that there is a significant agreement in ranking among different perceptions, grouped by their claim experience, at a 1% level with W_claim = 0.834. On the other hand, the low value of coefficient (W_value. = 0.416) grouped by the project value experience could interpret that there are different kinds of problems in different projects. That is, in lower value projects, Vietnamese contractors consider their problems different from those of higher value. Interestingly, the reason that could explain this point would be the difference in expectation from the negotiation. The higher value projects are negotiated and a higher amount of recovery is argued for. The negotiation can be much more serious. Conversely, in lower value projects, they would negotiate amicably since the amount of claim is not so high. In Vietnam, the relationship is more important than arguing for a minor interest in claims.

Theoretically, claims ultimately involve the contract administration; therefore, solutions for conflicts must rely on it. Even the interpretation cannot avoid conflicts occurring among parties. As construction claims have a great deal of merit (e.g., money and time), negotiation over this aspect is more serious than other issues. This may fundamentally be the root cause of conflicts during claim negotiation, which is ranked as the most severe problem by the Vietnamese contractors. The problem associated with experts in negotiation is ranked second. As claim negotiation is generally implemented through meetings, gaining mutual satisfaction requires people who are familiar with negotiating techniques. From the interviews, it was found that most Vietnamese companies do not have this particular function responsible for claiming or related issues. Therefore, the task of negotiation is normally assigned to the on-site project managers or engineers, who may not be good for this duty.

Time extension is a common category of claims frequently alleged in the construction industry. In fact, it is aimed to defray the deduction of liquidated damages when delays are occurring in the projects. Compensated money for overhead costs is separately considered. To deal with this claim, accurate evidence is required to prove the entitlement of time extension and/or the recovery of compensated costs. The Critical Part Method (CPM) of delay analysis is used to determine whether or not such activity will contribute toward delaying the projects [3].

Table 11 shows that the most difficult aspects regarding the preparation of time extension claim are “difficulty in proving the entitlement of claims”, “failure in timely notifying the engineer about potential delays”, and “difficulty in identifying damages associated with the delays”. These findings confirmed that although a claim for time extension is obvious, it is not an easy task for contractors to win this claim.

The values of Kendall’s test (W_claim = 0.546 and W_value. = 0.416) indicated that there is an insignificant agreement among respondents, both classified by the claim experience and the project value experience. Therefore, all the aspects regarding time extension claims are significantly difficult. To prove the entitlement of delay claim, great effort is required to find out either owners or contractors are responsible for such delays. Therefore, it can be concluded that analyzing delay claims to prove the entitlement is ranked to be the most critical problem for the Vietnamese contractor. Additionally, due to difficulties in analyzing delay claims, a good documentation system along with the awareness of the on-site people, are the compulsory requirements. However, since the Vietnamese style documentation system and people are not as efficient as expected, it takes time to detect the claim.

Reviews of the literature revealed that change order is the major source of disputes and conflicts. Its impacts are not only directly reflected on cost, time, and quality that cause reworks, but also indirectly on lowering productivity (Veenendaal [20]). Therefore, change order claim is a common aspect and its evaluation is complex and crucial that claimants must take into account.

The results suggested that the most critical factors in dealing with the change order claim are “difficulty in proving due to the engineer’s verbal directives“, “misinterpretation due to the ambiguities in the contract”, and “controversy in negotiating prices varied works” (Table 12). The result further presented considerably low values of agreement in the ranking order (W_claim = 0.194 and W_value = 0.1590) as showed that respondents’ perceptions differed according to their claim experience and project value experience.

From the findings, the problem of no proper documentation is emphasized again. In some circumstances, the engineers may detect areas that need to be corrected or changed, therefore, they immediately issue oral instructions, which are usually not recorded by the Vietnamese contractors. The result shows that increased costs and/or time and recovery claims are necessarily required. Evidence depicting verbal directives may not be so easy to retrieve; therefore, chances to claim additional cost and time would be dramatically decreased. Additionally, for the Vietnamese construction industry, the contracts are drafted independently as international standard contract conditions (e.g. FIDIC or AIA) are used only for large-scale projects. Therefore, errors, mistakes and ambiguities in the contract provision are sometimes found, especially for change clauses - a salient aspect in the contract.

Bramble et al. [17] noted that the most serious cause of construction claims is ‘defective design’. Conflicts in the design are the major source of disputes if not resolved quickly. During construction, while contractors and designers argue about the responsibility for fixing problems, construction processes may come to a standstill. Therefore, design-related claims are an essential category of claims.

The analysis of the results revealed that the most intricate aspects of the claimant in dealing with design-related claims are “ineffective design reviews during bidding stage”, “difficulty in justifying the responsibility for verifying the design”, and “argument about the responsibility for fixing defective designs” (Table 13). Research findings confirmed that defective designs cause problems in construction. Thai contractors make this problem more serious as they do not spend appropriate time in reviewing the designs when bidding for jobs. The low value of Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W_claim = 0.350 and W_value = 0.331, additionally indicated that respondents have different opinions regarding the cause of this problem depending on the claim experience and the project value experience.

Table 14. Summary of the problems encountered in each process of the claim procedure.

Claims Processes	Area of major problems encountered
	Lacking of Awareness of claim	Lacking of Knowledge of the Contract	Insufficient skilled personnel	Ineffective documentation system	Unavailability of evidences	Conflicts between parties	Unclear procedures	Average Relative Index
Claim Identification				-	-	-	-	-0.55
Claim Notification	-	-	-				-	0.50
Claim Examination	-			-		-	-	0.51
Claim Documentation		-	-			-	-	0.49
Claim Preparation	-	-		-		-		0.46
Claim Negotiation	-	-		-			-	0.65

Fig. (2). The analysis of causal links among surveyed problems in claim management.

In some cases, owners may accuse the contractors of project risks by putting the responsibility for problems on them that might arise during contract periods. Thus, contractors are required to investigate site conditions, review the design and avoid using assumptions in estimation, evaluation and further familiar aspects of the project. Research along with in-depth interview found that this problem becomes the most difficult aspect to deal with as time constraint is the major factor preventing the Vietnamese contractors from thoroughly reviewing the design. For complex and large-scale projects, it is extremely difficult to recognize all potential problems by reviewing only. Claims regarding error and omission of the design still need to be filed. Consequently, further investigation is required to justify who is responsible for such errors, either owners or contractors. Even in Vietnam, due to its culture, minor claims are usually amicably compromised, but the major ones that involve a great deal of money and time are not negotiated easily.