An Investigation into the Causes of Payment Delays and Deliberate Delay Tactics in Public Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Many scientific publications pointed out delays in the progress of payments by owners as one of the top direct causes of project delays and disputes. This research investigates the causes of payment delays and explores deliberate delay tactics and their reasons within Saudi Arabian public construction projects. This research employs a robust mixed methodology, an extensive literature review, and preliminary semi-structured interviews to identify the causes of payment delays and possible tactics and reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinated payment. Subsequently, a questionnaire survey is distributed among experienced personnel. The survey aims to verify the results of the first phase, assess occurrence rates of the causes of payment delays, study tactical forms used by parties to delay payment, and identify reasons for such practices. The findings of the study reveal that the contractual issues group has the highest score for occurring, deliberate disruptions occur although they are not prevalent, tactics to deliberate delays exist and are practiced, and all the possible forms of deliberate delays under investigation and reasons for deliberate delays are confirmed valid. This study provides valuable insights for businesses and policymakers seeking to comprehend the issue of payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects.

1. Introduction

Payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects pose significant challenges to contractors and subcontractors, affecting project timelines, financial stability, and industry confidence [1,2,3]. The definition of payment delays in this study includes terms of non-payment, late payment, or partial payment. Addressing the causes of payment delays is crucial for improving the efficiency and sustainability of the Saudi construction industry. Delays are some of the most prevalent causes of disputes in construction projects, and their prompt resolution is of utmost importance [4]. By streamlining administrative processes, enforcing prompt payment policies, enhancing collaboration, and providing financial support, the government can help alleviate payment delays and foster a more conducive environment for construction project execution [5,6,7]. Debits and credits are identified as the most common sources of disputes [8]. Debit and credit-related issues represent 45% of the disputes identified in court files within the Turkish construction industry [9]. The history of delays in projects in Saudi Arabia illustrates that delays in construction projects are not a recent phenomenon [10]. As early as 1983, Zain Al-Abidien [11] found that nearly 70% of projects undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and Public Works experienced delays. Further, Al-Sultan [12] studied the performance of different projects in the Kingdom and concluded that 70% of public projects experienced time delays. A preliminary survey by the Water and Sewage Authority in the Eastern Province of KSA found that 45 (59%) out of 76 projects completed from 1985 to 94 experienced delays [13]. Another study by Falqi [14] illustrated that 952 (40%) out of 2379 projects in KSA experienced delays. Al-Kharashi and Skitmore [15] suggested some improvements have been observed over the past decade. Moreover, in 2017, the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) addressed that about 75% of public construction projects exceeded their planned time and were delayed [16].

The literature review reveals a gap in research focused on the payment flow process within the context of Saudi Arabian public construction projects. Moreover, there is limited research that investigates the causes of payment delays. Furthermore, research on intentional disruptions in payment disbursement, including reasons and forms, is lacking. These disruptions can cause delays in payment or procrastination. Therefore, the present study represents a pioneering effort in shedding light on this subject, thereby attaining originality and novelty essential in academic research.

Consequently, the research problem is the prevalence and causes of payment delays in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The study aims to investigate the underlying causes of payment delays, assess the rate of occurrence of various causes contributing to payment delays, and identify deliberate disruptions in payment disbursement. Additionally, the research seeks to identify the possible forms and reasons for deliberate practices that lead to the procrastination or delay of payment in these projects.

The research involved qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative phase included semi-structured interviews to gather insights into payment delay causes, especially those not covered in the literature. The quantitative phase involved a questionnaire survey distributed among experienced personnel in the Saudi construction industry. The survey aimed to verify results from the literature review and interviews, examine tactics to delay payment, and explore reasons for deliberate delays. The research provided statistical data on the occurrence rates and ranking of payment delay causes and insights into deliberate delay practices.

The study found that contractual issues were the leading cause of payment delays in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Intentional disruption of payment disbursement was not highly prevalent but did exist in the industry. The findings indicate that tactics to deliberate delays or procrastinate payment exist and are practiced. In addition, the study identified the top four reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment. These findings provide crucial academic and practical implications for businesses and organisations to develop effective strategies to mitigate its adverse effects.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Identification of Payment Delays

The clock for processing payments in construction projects typically starts upon the contractor or subcontractor submitting a valid invoice or payment application. Odeyinka and Kaka [17] cited the “Construction Act” in the UK, which requires the payer to issue a payment notice within five days of the due date, specifying the sum due and the basis on which it is calculated. Similarly, they referenced the United States where prompt payment regulations for federal construction projects specify that the government agency must pay the contractor within 14 days of receipt of a proper invoice. In the context of Saudi Arabia, the duration stipulated in the Executive Regulation of the Government Tenders and Procurement Low (Article number 109) that commenced on 24 April 2020 is between 60 and 70 days (depending on the situation) from the date of receipt of the invoice from the contractor. Furthermore, the clock for processing payments may also be governed by the terms and conditions outlined in the construction contract, which may specify the time frame within which payments must be processed after submitting a valid invoice or payment application.

2.2. Payment Delays: International Perspective

International references investigated the payment delay issue as a significant factor in construction project delay. The construction industry is globally known for facing challenges related to delayed payments, which can substantially affect project cash flows, financial stability, and overall project success [18]. The construction sector is particularly susceptible to the impact of delayed payments on project timelines and completion; however, consistent payments to facilitate project cash flows are uncommon in the construction industry [19]. In construction projects, debit- and credit-related dispute types, including price adjustment requests, additional payment requests, unit price determination, and owner cash flow problems, emerge as the most prevalent forms of disputes [8].

In developed states such as the UK and European nations, based on [20], less than 50% of companies in the construction industry pay invoices on time. On average, 42.8% of companies in the European Union pay invoices on time compared to the dismal record of 32.7% for the UK. Delayed payments in the United Kingdom, for example, have climbed from GBP 18 billion to GBP 35 billion, impacting 125,000 firms and leading to the closure of 4000 companies [20] as cited in Chadee et al. (2023) ref. [19].

2.3. Payment Delays: Saudi Arabia’s Perspective

Payment delays in public construction projects have been a persistent challenge in the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Timely payment is crucial for the financial viability of contractors and subcontractors and for the successful completion of projects [2]. Several research works have looked into the issue of project delays in Saudi public construction projects, e.g., [2,13,15,16,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. These references discuss various factors causing delays in construction projects, including the delay of payments.

Given that the above, Almutairi et al. [22] identified delays in the progress of payments by owners as one of the top direct causes of disputes in construction projects. This underscores the potential for payment delays to lead to disputes and legal issues, further affecting project timelines. It also highlights the direct impact of payment delays on project timelines and successful completion. An assessment of the level of impact of the delay factors by ranking them was performed [16], and it was found that the delay of payment by the owner (government entities are late in granting financial rights to contractors) is ranked number one in the group of factors after the award of the tender and is one of the top five causes of delay in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Payment delays by the owner are consistently identified as some of the top factors causing delays in Saudi public construction projects.

2.4. Administration of the Payment Flow Process in Saudi Public Construction Projects

In Saudi Arabia, the government follows a system where the Ministry of Finance directly pays contractors from its bank accounts using a digital platform (Etimad) to ensure the preparation and implementation of the budget expenditure [32]. The mechanism of payment flow from the government to contractors in the execution of construction projects involves understanding the steps and processes involved in ensuring timely and accurate payment projects [33]. Below is the general overview of how this mechanism is implemented:

Budget Allocation: The government allocates a budget for the construction project within the Ministry of Finance, usually involving entities in the budget preparation. The relevant government entity performs all the needed studies and then discusses it with a representative from the Ministry of Finance. The budget is determined based on the project scope, estimated costs, and available funds, aligning objectives and needs and considering raising expenditure efficiency [32].

Contractual Agreements: The Government Tenders and Procurement Low commenced by Royal Decree No. M/128 on 16 July 2019 pertains to regulating government tenders and procurement in Saudi Arabia. This decree aims to improve transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the procurement processes of government entities. It sets out the legal framework for government tenders and procurement, outlining the procedures, criteria, and requirements for the awarding of contracts. After the project budget allocation is approved, the relevant government entity prepares the bid documentation, including contractual documentation, and completes all needed procedures. The Saudi government has certain contract types that must be followed as appropriate to the project type [34]. The government enters into contractual agreements with contractors, outlining the projects’ terms and conditions, including payment milestones and schedules. It is worth mentioning that payment is based on the work completed by the contractor at all times.

Progress Monitoring: The construction project progresses, and the government monitors the contractor’s work by the relevant government entity to ensure it aligns with the agreed-upon schedule and quality standards. Regular inspections, site visits, and progress reports are typically conducted to assess the work completed.

Payment Certification: At each payment milestone or when the contractor submits a financial claim (invoice), the government’s representatives, project management team, and/or project’s execution consultant evaluate the work completed by the contractor. Then, if the work meets the agreed-upon standards, a payment certification is issued, verifying that the contractor is eligible for payment.

Payment Processing: Once the payment certification is issued, the Ministry of Finance or relevant government entity initiates the payment process. With the “Etimad” platform, the contractor can initiate the payment process by placing the financial claim on it and providing all supporting documents. The “Etimad” platform is an electronic platform aimed at facilitating and improving the payment and collection process in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [35]. The Saudi Ministry of Finance launched it and operates it as an online interface between the government, suppliers, contractors, and other beneficiaries. “Etimad” is part of the Saudi government’s digital transformation initiative and aims to secure and streamline payment and collection operations easily and efficiently. The platform provides an interactive interface through which suppliers and contractors can log in and manage their accounts, invoices, and payments.

Four parties are usually involved in the payment processing process. Those are the contractor, the project owner—the relevant government entity and/or execution consultant—the financial inspector representing the Ministry of Finance, and the “Etimad” officer. The contractor places the financial claim by producing the invoices and submitting all required documentation. The role of the project owner, the relevant government entity, is divided into two roles. First, the technical role is to monitor progress and approve contractor invoices. Second, the administrative role is to process the payment order after ensuring the eligibility and completeness of required documentation and managing the cash flow schedule required for the project, including raising financial support requests to the Ministry of Finance.

The role of the financial inspector who represents the Ministry of Finance in the payment processing of contractor invoices involves overseeing and ensuring the compliance of financial transactions with applicable laws and regulations and facilitating adherence to established financial protocols. The role of an ‘’Etimad’’ officer is to process the financial claim, check the required documentation, check the availability of cash designated for the projects, and raise financial support requests to the Ministry of Finance to be able to complete the disbursement of the due amount and oversee the whole payment process flow.

The payment is typically made through a direct transfer from the government’s bank account to the contractor’s designated bank account. The duration stipulated in the Executive Regulation of the Government Tenders and Procurement Low (article number 109) that commenced on 24 April 2020 is that the process of payment disbursement takes 60 to 70 days. It includes the following steps: 10 days are needed for the execution consultant review, 15 days are required for the government entity to approve and process the payment order after they receive the approval report from the execution consultant or 15 days from the date they receive the invoice from the contractor, and 45 days are allocated for the Ministry of Finance to disburse the due amount. Suppose a payment order is returned to a government entity for amendment or clarification by the Ministry of Finance. In that case, the deadline mentioned in the article begins on the date the government entity sends the payment order back after completing the necessary actions required. In the case of disagreement between the execution consultant and the contractor, the execution consultant raises the issue to the government entity within ten days of receiving the invoice from the contractor, combined with their comments. The government entity then reviews the issue and makes a decision within 15 days. Meanwhile, the part of the total amount that has already been agreed upon should not be delayed and should complete the procedure cycle until the disbursement.

Documentation and Records: Proper documentation and records are maintained throughout the payment process to ensure transparency and accountability. This includes invoices, payment certificates, receipts, and other relevant financial documents.

2.5. Deliberate Practices by Parties to Procrastinate or Delay Payment

It is important to note that deliberate delays in payment can be challenging to study since they often involve subjective intent or hidden motivations. While specific research on deliberate delays in payment for contractors in the construction industry is minimal, there is substantial evidence and literature available on the impacts and consequences of payment delays in general. Procrastination or deliberate delay of payment in construction projects can be a strategic move by the parties involved, leading to various strategies being practiced to achieve this. Ansah [36] cited in Odenigbo et al. [37] that personnel in charge of processing and supervising certificates tend to withhold payment from contractors, hoping to receive kickbacks or gifts before releasing payment.

Implementing the Project Bank Account has successfully curbed the unethical practice of principal contractors holding back payment from their subcontractors to inflate their working capital and profit margins [38]. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in construction confirmed that clients and main contractors still do not comply and still adopt pay-when-certified tactics [39], cited in Swai, et.al. (2020) [38]. In contrast, SMEs exploit this by attempting smash-and-grab adjudications where employers do not issue timely notices [40], cited in Swai, et.al. (2020) [38]. Construction project payment procrastination involves intricate dynamics and strategic manoeuvres. It is crucial to understand the fundamental motives, tactics, and strategies underlying a given situation comprehensively.

2.6. Causes of Payment Delays

Several factors cause delayed payment; most of the time, it involves clients, consultants, and contractors. It is worth reiterating that payment under a construction project is made after preparing interim and financial payment certificates. Indeed, a delay in the certification automatically delays the payment. The previous research papers collectively provide evidence on the causes of payment delays in public construction projects. The main reason for delayed payment is errors in submitting claims by the contractor [41], cited in Azman, et.al. (2014) [42]. This includes claims without adequate supporting documents, wrongly calculated claims and those submitted without using the proper procedures. Contractors sometimes need to represent their claims, and a repeat of the whole process is inevitable after making necessary corrections. However, factors of payment delays can be classified into disputes, arbitration, litigation, total abandonment of the project, slow decision-making, waiting time for approval of tests and inspection, change orders, mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents, major disputes and negotiations, inappropriate overall organisational structure linking to the project, lack of communication between the parties, and regulatory changes [18].

Subsequent studies [6,7,43,44,45,46] have identified several critical causes of payment delays in public construction projects, including delay in certification, poor financial management by either of the parties, withholding of payment by clients, ambiguous contractual provisions, conflict among the parties, and financial crisis in a country. The importance of effective project management approaches in minimising delays and highlighting the negative impacts of delays on the country’s social and economic development was suggested [10]. Given that, it can be observed that the absence of practical project management approaches is one of the causes of payment delays.

Identification of 26 causes of delayed payment and their division into client-, contractor-, consultant-, and contractual-related factors were performed by Akinsiku and Ajayi [47], as shown in Table 1. Critical Causes and Effects of Payment Delays in the Execution of Public Construction Projects in Ghana were studied by Wuni, Boafo, and Agyei-Kumi [7], who found 11 causes of payment delays, as shown in Table 1. Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy government agency approval processes often lead to payment delays [48]. These processes involve multiple levels of review and excessive paperwork, leading to administrative inefficiencies and delays in payment disbursement. The construction industry is severely affected by inefficiency, corruption, and mismanagement, which contributes to the problem of late or non-payment [49]. Accrediting incorrect planning, administration problems, difficulties in financing, lack of experienced staff, and poor communication are common causes of payment delays, which have been highlighted as causes of payment delays [1]. Two remarkable causes, deliberate underpayment and deliberate delays for their own financial advantage, were highlighted by Kathpalia and Deepika [50].

Nevertheless, unstable political climates and the delay in employer issuance of variation orders are the leading causes of delayed payments within the industry [19]. Also, it was found that bureaucratic culture within the construction industry can be a leading cause of delayed payments due to a lack of knowledgeable employees involved within the payment system. Moreover, government budget constraints and delayed fund allocation can delay contractor payments [19]. Insufficient cash flow management within government agencies can exacerbate the problem, causing delays in releasing funds to contractors and subcontractors. Moreover, ambiguous contract terms, variations in work scope, and quality disputes can delay payment [51]. Disagreements and legal disputes between parties can prolong the payment process and hinder timely disbursements.

The Identified Causes of Payment Delays Based on the Literature Review

The findings of the literature review revealed a total of 61 causes of payment. Notably, some of these causes were observed to be redundant, characterised by similar meanings albeit with varying terminologies. This insight underscores the need for a more streamlined and standardised approach to classifying these causes of payment delays to avoid redundancy, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. The 61 causes of payment delays identified from the literature review.

#	References	Causes of Payment Delays
1	Reeves, 2003 [41]	Claims without adequate supporting documents
2		Wrongly calculated claims
3	Reeves, 2003 and Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [41,47]	Claims submitted without using the right procedures
4	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007 [18]	Total abandonment of the project
5		Slow decision-making
6		Waiting time for approval of tests and inspection
7		Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
8		Inappropriate overall organisational structure linking to the project
9		Regulatory changes
10	Alajmi and Memon, 2022, Wuni et al., 2017 and Sambasivan and Soon, 2007 [1,7,18]	Lack of communication between the parties
11	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007, and Adaku et al., 2023 [18,51]	Disputes, arbitration, litigation, negotiations over work scope and quality and/or disagreements and legal disputes between parties
12	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007, Chadee et al., 2023, and Adaku et al., 2023 [18,19,51]	Slow processing of variation orders and failure to approve variation orders
13	Samaraweera et al., 2019, Wuni et al., 2017, Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016, and Haron and Arazmi, 2020 [6,7,43,44,45,46,47]	Delay in certification
14		Poor financial management
15	Samaraweera et al., 2019, Wuni et al., 2017, Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, and Haron and Arazmi, 2020 [6,7,43,44,45,46]	Withholding of payment by clients
16		Conflict among the parties
17		Financial crisis in a country
18	Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, Wuni et al., 2017, Samaraweera et al., 2019, Haron and Arazmi, 2020, and Adaku et al., 2023 [6,7,43,44,45,46,51]	Ambiguous contractual provisions
19	Alotaibi et al., 2016 [10]	The absence of effective project management approaches
20	Chadee et al., 2023, and Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [19,47]	Delayed fund allocation
21	Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [47]	Unrealistic cash flow
22		Client’s failure to agree to the valuation of work
23		Client’s failure to understand the contract agreement
24		Client’s failure to implement good attitude by wrongfully withholding payment to the contractor unduly by the client
25		Contractor failure to agree to the valuation of work
26		Error in contractor claims
27		Contractor failure to follow certain procedures and claims
28		Contractor failure to do work based on BOQ
29		Contractor failure to understand the contract agreement
30		Contractor failure to substantiate their claims
31		Contractor failure to apply for claims
32		Contractor delay in submitting claims
33		Lack of co-ordination of project team activities
34		Inadequate flow of information within project team
35		Consultant failure in treating claims
36		Inability of consultant to manage funds
37		Delay in valuation of work performed by quantity surveyor
38		Poor estimation of project cost
39		Contract used is not comprehensive in dealing with payment issues
40		Improper choice of standard form of contract
41		Unfair contract terms
42		Contract used is too complicated to be understood by the parties
43	Wuni et al., 2017 [7]	Delay in solving technical problems
44		Shortage of resources of current year’s project
45		The use of pay when paid clause in subcontractors’ payment
46		Local culture or altitude
47	Peng and Lu, 2020 [48]	Multiple levels of review and excessive paperwork
48	Chadee et al., 2023 and Peng and Lu, 2020 [19,48]	Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes within government agencies
49	Spalazzi et al., 2021 [49]	Inefficiency
50		Corruption
51		Mismanagement
52	Kathpalia and Deepika, 2022 [50]	Deliberate underpayment by the client
53		Deliberate delays by clients for their financial advantage
54	Alajmi and Memon, 2022 [1]	Incorrect planning
55		Administration problems
56		Difficulties in financing
57		Lack of experienced staff
58	Chadee et al., 2023 [19]	Unstable political climates
59		Lack of knowledgeable employees involved within the payment system
60		Government budget constraints
61		Insufficient cash flow management within government agencies

Table 1. The 61 causes of payment delays identified from the literature review.

#	References	Causes of Payment Delays
1	Reeves, 2003 [41]	Claims without adequate supporting documents
2		Wrongly calculated claims
3	Reeves, 2003 and Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [41,47]	Claims submitted without using the right procedures
4	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007 [18]	Total abandonment of the project
5		Slow decision-making
6		Waiting time for approval of tests and inspection
7		Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
8		Inappropriate overall organisational structure linking to the project
9		Regulatory changes
10	Alajmi and Memon, 2022, Wuni et al., 2017 and Sambasivan and Soon, 2007 [1,7,18]	Lack of communication between the parties
11	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007, and Adaku et al., 2023 [18,51]	Disputes, arbitration, litigation, negotiations over work scope and quality and/or disagreements and legal disputes between parties
12	Sambasivan and Soon, 2007, Chadee et al., 2023, and Adaku et al., 2023 [18,19,51]	Slow processing of variation orders and failure to approve variation orders
13	Samaraweera et al., 2019, Wuni et al., 2017, Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016, and Haron and Arazmi, 2020 [6,7,43,44,45,46,47]	Delay in certification
14		Poor financial management
15	Samaraweera et al., 2019, Wuni et al., 2017, Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, and Haron and Arazmi, 2020 [6,7,43,44,45,46]	Withholding of payment by clients
16		Conflict among the parties
17		Financial crisis in a country
18	Ayudhya, 2012, Motaleb and Kishk, 2013, Enshassi and Abuhamra, 2015, Wuni et al., 2017, Samaraweera et al., 2019, Haron and Arazmi, 2020, and Adaku et al., 2023 [6,7,43,44,45,46,51]	Ambiguous contractual provisions
19	Alotaibi et al., 2016 [10]	The absence of effective project management approaches
20	Chadee et al., 2023, and Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [19,47]	Delayed fund allocation
21	Akinsiku and Ajayi, 2016 [47]	Unrealistic cash flow
22		Client’s failure to agree to the valuation of work
23		Client’s failure to understand the contract agreement
24		Client’s failure to implement good attitude by wrongfully withholding payment to the contractor unduly by the client
25		Contractor failure to agree to the valuation of work
26		Error in contractor claims
27		Contractor failure to follow certain procedures and claims
28		Contractor failure to do work based on BOQ
29		Contractor failure to understand the contract agreement
30		Contractor failure to substantiate their claims
31		Contractor failure to apply for claims
32		Contractor delay in submitting claims
33		Lack of co-ordination of project team activities
34		Inadequate flow of information within project team
35		Consultant failure in treating claims
36		Inability of consultant to manage funds
37		Delay in valuation of work performed by quantity surveyor
38		Poor estimation of project cost
39		Contract used is not comprehensive in dealing with payment issues
40		Improper choice of standard form of contract
41		Unfair contract terms
42		Contract used is too complicated to be understood by the parties
43	Wuni et al., 2017 [7]	Delay in solving technical problems
44		Shortage of resources of current year’s project
45		The use of pay when paid clause in subcontractors’ payment
46		Local culture or altitude
47	Peng and Lu, 2020 [48]	Multiple levels of review and excessive paperwork
48	Chadee et al., 2023 and Peng and Lu, 2020 [19,48]	Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes within government agencies
49	Spalazzi et al., 2021 [49]	Inefficiency
50		Corruption
51		Mismanagement
52	Kathpalia and Deepika, 2022 [50]	Deliberate underpayment by the client
53		Deliberate delays by clients for their financial advantage
54	Alajmi and Memon, 2022 [1]	Incorrect planning
55		Administration problems
56		Difficulties in financing
57		Lack of experienced staff
58	Chadee et al., 2023 [19]	Unstable political climates
59		Lack of knowledgeable employees involved within the payment system
60		Government budget constraints
61		Insufficient cash flow management within government agencies

2.7. Mitigation Strategies

Innovative approaches, such as automated payment mechanisms through smart contract-based blockchain frameworks, have been proposed as potential solutions to formalise and streamline construction payments and mitigate the challenges associated with delayed payments [52]. Smart contracts’ automatic execution function has been demonstrated to solve delayed payment issues in the construction industry, providing a potential solution to the challenges associated with delayed payments [53].

Moreover, implementing project bank accounts and developing assessment tools for payment performance have been suggested as strategies to address the barriers to timely payments in the construction industry [54]. The same suggestion of project bank accounts has been proposed to promote fair and prompt payment practices in the construction industry [55]. These findings support the idea that implementing project bank accounts and developing assessment tools can potentially address the issue of timely payments in the construction industry.

In the context of Saudi Arabia, project management tools and techniques have the potential to address the main factors contributing to the occurrence of delays in construction projects in Saudi Arabia’s public sector [10]. The Saudi government has taken serious actions to mitigate the issue of payment delays. Saudi Arabia adopts a centralised budget management approach. The Ministry of Finance oversees budget planning and execution at the national level. The central government determines the government’s budget priorities and allocations for public construction projects, including infrastructure development and social services [32]. However, there are ongoing efforts to decentralise budget management and empower local authorities in certain areas in Saudi Arabia, which is linked to the Vision 2030 initiative [56]. Vision 2030 is a comprehensive plan introduced by the Saudi government in 2016 to diversify the country’s economy, reduce its dependence on oil, and promote sustainable development across various sectors. The decentralisation of budget management aligns with the broader objectives of Vision 2030, particularly in enhancing governance, empowering local communities, and promoting regional development [56]. The government has established local development funds to support decentralised budget management. These funds provide financial resources to local municipalities for implementing local development projects, including infrastructure, public services, and community initiatives. The funds aim to enhance local decision-making and ensure the equitable distribution of resources across different regions of the country [57].

The Saudi government also tightens payment policies within the contractually specified period. It threatens penalties for those who intentionally delay payment to the private sector, including contractors and suppliers (the regulation of the conduct and ethics of those responsible for implementing the government competition and procurement system and its executive regulations were issued on 24 April 2020). The clear timelines for payment disbursement are stipulated within The Executive Regulation of the Government Tenders and Procurement Low (article number 109). The Executive Regulation of the Government Tenders and Procurement Low was modified and reissued on 24 April 2020, with many alterations to replace the old one issued on 27 September 2006. The “Etimad” platform was launched on 21 January 2018, an electronic system introduced by the Saudi Ministry of Finance to streamline and enhance the payment and collection process in the Kingdom. On 23 February 2021, a Cabinet decision created the Expenditure Efficiency and Project Authority (EXPRO) under Resolution No. (389). EXPRO’s main objective is to improve government agencies’ spending efficiency while enhancing the quality of their projects, assets, facilities, and infrastructure planning. Additionally, the program aims to monitor the implementation of these initiatives and programs to ensure that the state’s general budget is used effectively and efficiently.

Furthermore, the Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority has been reformed to combat corruption and promote transparency and integrity. This authority regularly visits construction sites to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations for construction projects, financial transactions, and administrative processes. In addition, a Royal Decree number (25107) was issued on 11 February 2018 to inventory all outstanding payments owed to suppliers and contractors by government agencies. The same royal decree instituted a committee of several government agencies, led by the Minister of Commerce, to list all outstanding payments and find immediate solutions to address them. As a result of this committee, the Minister of Finance stated on 11 December 2022 that 99% of the private sector’s due amount was paid [58]. The committee is working to ensure that delayed disbursement does not happen again.

3. Research Methodology

The research implements a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Before the commencement of data collection, ethical approval was secured, and informed consent was obtained from all participants, aligning with the ethical guidelines prescribed for academic research. The first phase is based on a qualitative method using preliminary semi-structured interviews with expert professionals that helped gather in-depth insights into the causes of payment delays, especially unveiling causes not mentioned in the literature review and/or more related to Saudi Arabian public construction projects. Moreover, since the literature review lacks investigation on deliberate delay tactics, semi-structured interviews helped reveal these possible tactics and their related reasons. In total, six interviews were conducted.

The second phase is based on a quantitative method using a questionnaire survey. The data analysis using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the primary data. The questionnaires were distributed among related experienced personnel who worked within the Saudi construction industry, e.g., contractors, consultants, client representatives, and experts in the subject matter. The questionnaire survey objective was first to verify the results of the research literature review and preliminary semi-structured interviews regarding the causes of payment delays and study their suitability and redundancy of occurrence within the Saudi Arabian public construction projects. This provided statistical data on the occurrence rates and ranking of the identified causes of payment delays. The second objective was to examine the possible ways and tactics that may be employed by parties and/or individuals in public construction projects to deliberate delays or procrastinate payment. The third objective was to investigate the potential reasons for intentional delays or procrastination in making payments. This research gathered statistical data on the different deliberate practices that parties use to delay payments, as well as the reasons behind these practices. The questionnaire survey used a 5-point Likert scale. Responses equal to or above 1.00 and less than 1.8 were considered to mean strong disagreement, equal to or above 1.8 and less than 2.5 were considered to mean disagreement, equal to or above 2.7 and less than 3.5 were considered to mean neutrality or moderate agreement, equal to or above 3.5 and less than 4.2 were considered to mean agreement, and those above 4.2 were considered to mean strong agreement. According to the extensive literature review, this is the first attempt to uncover this subject in academic research. In total, 123 questionnaires were returned and analysed.

Research Hypothesis

The research hypothesis outlines the specific hypotheses tested during the study. These hypotheses were developed based on the literature review and preliminary interviews conducted on payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects. The study aims to comprehensively understand the key factors contributing to payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects.

H1. 

The causes of payment delays identified in the literature review and preliminary interviews will exhibit high occurrence rates (equal to or above 3.5 mean scores), indicating their suitability and common nature within the Saudi Arabian public construction projects.

H2. 

Deliberately disrupting payment disbursement is commonly practiced within Saudi Arabian public construction projects.

H3. 

There is significant evidence that possible forms of deliberate practices (tactics) identified in the parties to procrastinate or delay payment exist and are practiced within Saudi public construction projects.

H4. 

There is significant evidence that the identified possible reasons for deliberate practices of parties of procrastinating or delaying payment are confirmed to be valid explanations of the party and/or individual behaviour causing payment delays.

4. Findings

4.1. The Identified Causes of Payment Delays Based on the Semi-Structured Interviews

The findings of the semi-structured interviews with expert professionals in the payment processes resulted in identifying 24 causes of payment delays. Notably, some of these causes overlap with those previously identified in the literature review, albeit with different phrasing. This insight underscores the need to merge the causes of payment delays (identified from both the literature review and the semi-structured interview) to avoid redundancy, as shown in

Table 2. The 24 causes of payment delays identified from the interviews.

#	Causes of Payment Delays
1	The presence of a lien letter on the contractor’s dues or the presence of a debt owed by the contractor
2	Failure of the contractor to complete the snag list of the initial or final receipt minutes
3	Miscommunication between the administration departments and technical departments
4	A transaction that does not comply with contractual procedures
5	Delayed approval of financial administration or the presence of comments
6	The contractor’s lack of eligibility, the contractor’s failure to fulfil contractual obligations, or the presence of comments
7	The presence of a lien letter on the contractor’s dues or a debt on the contractor under a letter from the labour office, the court, the Ministry of Finance, or any other governmental entity
8	Contractors’ failure to meet the justifications for disbursement
9	The contractor’s failure to fulfil the notes of the initial or final handover report
10	Delay of the approval of the financial inspector
11	The transaction requires modifications in the Etimad platform
12	Missing documentation
13	Delayed audit and review procedures at the Projects Administrative and Financial Affairs Department
14	Delay in approving subcontractors
15	The existence of complaints from the contractor’s employees that their salaries are not paid or are late
16	Lack of training and qualification
17	Exaggerated fear of regulatory authorities
18	The request of contractors not to disburse the invoice for reasons related to them with the bank and requesting that the amount of the invoice be transferred to a subcontractor
19	Weak honesty and integrity
20	Personal problems and/or issues
21	Intentional delays by the consultant for reasons that are in their interest, whether by extending the duration of the project or imposing overtime hours on the contractor
22	Delay by the design consultant in responding to technical inquiries submitted by the implementation team or delay in making the necessary modifications
23	The presence of a lien letter on the contractor’s dues or the presence of a debt owed by the contractor
24	Failure of the contractor to complete the snag list of the initial or final receipt minutes

.

4.2. The Combination of the Identified Causes of Payment Delays from Both Literature Review and Semi-Structured Interviews

The causes of payment delays were synthesised for the identified causes through both a literature review and semi-structured interviews to develop the questionnaire survey. Moreover, four distinct groups were identified as causes of payment delays: Contractual issues, Management issues, Procedure issues, and External issues. This process yielded 21 combined causes of delays, as shown in

Table 3. The 21 causes of payment delays identified from both literature review and semi-structured interviews.

#	Grouping	Causes of Payment Delays	# of Questionnaire	Wording of the Causes in Questionnaires
1	Contractual issues	Literature Review:	1	Contractual issues: Lack of understanding of the contract, disagreements and legal disputes between parties which is a result of ambiguity and lack of comprehensiveness in contracting documents
		Ambiguous contractual provisions, mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents, client’s failure to understand the contract agreement, contractor failure to understand the contract agreement, contract used is not comprehensive in dealing with payment issues, improper choice of standard form of contract, unfair contract terms, contract used is too complicated to be understood by the parties, disputes, arbitration, litigation, negotiations over work scope and quality and/or disagreements and legal disputes between parties, conflict among the parties, client’s failure to implement good attitude by wrongfully withholding payment to the contractor unduly by the client, and total abandonment of the project
		Literature Review:	2	Contractual issues: Failure to approve variation orders and/or slow processing of variation orders
		Slow processing of variation orders and failure to approve variation orders
		Literature Review:	3	Contractual issues: Contractor failure to conduct work based on the approved BOQ
		Contractor failure to conduct work based on BOQ
		Interviews:
		The contractor’s lack of eligibility, the contractor’s failure to fulfil contractual obligations, or the presence of comments
2	Management issues	Literature Review:	4	Management issues: Slow decision-making that deals with the claims
		Slow decision-making and withholding of payment by clients
		Interviews:
		Delayed audit and review procedures at the Projects Administrative and Financial Affairs Department and delay in approving subcontractors
		Literature Review:	5	Management issues: Delays in complete certification, delays in approval of work performed on site, and delays in approval of invoices
		Delay in certification, client’s failure to agree to the valuation of work, contractor failure to agree to the valuation of work, waiting time for approval of tests and inspection, and delay in valuation of work performed by quantity surveyor
		Interviews:
		The contractor’s failure to fulfil the notes of the initial or final handover report, delay of the approval of the financial inspector, and failure of the contractor to complete the snag list of the initial or final receipt minutes
		Literature Review:	6	Management issues: Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes
		Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes within government agencies and multiple levels of review and excessive paperwork
		Interviews:
		Delayed approval of the financial administration or the presence of comments
		Literature Review:	7	Management issues: Inefficiency in the people involved in the preparation and approval cycle of the invoices
		Inefficiency, administration problems, mismanagement, lack of experienced staff, lack of knowledgeable employees involved within the payment system, inability of consultant to manage funds, unrealistic cash flow, poor estimation of project cost, shortage of resources of current year’s project, poor financial management, and incorrect planning
		Interviews:
		Lack of training and qualification
		Literature Review:	8	Management issue: Inappropriate overall organisational structure linking to the project
		Inappropriate overall organisational structure linking to the project
		Literature Review:	9	Management issue: Lack of communication between the parties
		Lack of communication between the parties, lack of co-ordination of project team activities, and inadequate flow of information within project team
		Interviews:
		Miscommunication between the administration departments and technical departments
		Literature Review:	10	Management issue: The absence of effective project management approaches and tools, e.g., electronic project management systems
		The absence of effective project management approaches
		Literature Review:	11	Management issue: Delay in solving technical problems
		Delay in solving technical problems
		Interviews:
		Delay by the design consultant in responding to technical inquiries submitted by the implementation team or delay in making the necessary modifications
		Literature Review:	12	Management issue: Deliberate delays from the parties and/or individuals
		Deliberate underpayment by the client and deliberate delays by clients for their financial advantage
		Interviews:
		Personal problems and/or issues: the consultant intentionally delays for reasons that are in their interest, whether by extending the duration of the project or imposing overtime hours on the contractor
3	Procedure issues	Literature Review:	13	Procedure issues: Missing documents required to complete justifications for disbursement
		Claims without adequate supporting documents, contractor failure to substantiate their claims, and the use of pay when paid clause in subcontractors payment
		Interviews:
		Contractors’ failure to meet the justifications for disbursement
		Missing documentation, the presence of a lien letter on the contractor’s dues or the presence of a debt owed by the contractor, and the existence of complaints from the contractor’s employees that their salaries are not paid or are late
		Literature Review:	14	Procedure issues: Errors in calculating claims
		Wrongly calculated claims and error in contractor claims
		Interviews:
		The transaction requires modifications in the Etimad platform
		Literature Review:	15	Procedure issues: Failure to follow pre-set procedure
		Claims submitted without using the right procedures and contractor failure to follow certain procedures is claims
		Interviews:
		A transaction that does not comply with contractual procedures
		Literature Review:	16	Procedure issues: Contractor delay in submitting invoices
		Contractor failure to apply for claims and contractor delay in submitting claims
		Interviews:
		The request of contractors not to disburse the invoice for reasons related to them with the bank and requesting that the amount of the invoice be transferred to a subcontractor
		Literature Review:	17	Procedure issues: The Supervision Consultant delays in treating claims
		Consultant failure in treating claims
		Interviews:
		Exaggerated fear of regulatory authorities
4	External issues	Literature Review:	18	External issues: Regulatory changes
		Regulatory changes
		Literature Review:	19	External issues: Financial crisis in a country and/or unstable political climates
		Financial crisis in a country and unstable political climate
		Literature Review:	20	External issues: Local culture and corruption
		Local culture or altitude and corruption
		Interviews:
		Weak honesty and integrity
		Literature Review:	21	External issues: Government budget constraints and delayed/insufficient cashflow allocation
		Difficulties in financing, government budget constraints, delayed fund allocation, and insufficient cash flow management within government agencies

.

4.3. The Identified Possible Forms of Tactical Deliberate Practices by Parties to Procrastinate or Delay Payment

Upon completion of a thorough literature review, no viable tactical deliberate practices employed by parties to intentionally prolong payment were identified. As such, the study proceeded to utilise semi-structured interviews as a means of further exploration. This resulted in the identification of seven possible forms of tactical deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment, as shown in

Table 4. The seven possible forms of tactical deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment.

#	Forms of Tactical Deliberate Practices to Procrastinate or Delay Payment
1	Procrastination in approving the complete certificate, approval of work performed on site, and approval of invoices from the Supervising Consultant
2	Requests for resubmission and rejection of the invoice for unjustified reasons intended to gain time, whether by the Supervising Consultant, Project Manager (Representative of the owner), and/or other administration department on the owner’s side
3	Imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, requesting an unnecessary thorough review of the Measurement and Payment Book, and insisting on unnecessary documentation
4	Imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, such as requesting letters of a pledge to raise achievement rates first and requesting the signatures of engineers in various specialisations on the invoice and not satisfied with just the signature of the project manager
5	Requests to correct and reduce the invoice amount to match the existing liquidity (request to split the invoice into two invoices), and perhaps pretend that there are errors in the invoice and the need for further reviews and audits
6	Refraining from working on the principle of proportion of work in progress or reducing the proportion of what was agreed upon for any reason
7	Unnecessarily strict conduct in receiving completed works and perhaps requesting more tests for the completed works that are not stipulated in the specifications book or are unnecessary and not among the principles of the profession. Moreover, avoidance of accepting new works until all previous ones with Code B are treated

.

4.4. The Identified Possible Reasons for Deliberately Delaying or Procrastinating Payment

After completing a thorough literature review, no reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment were identified. As such, the study proceeded to utilise semi-structured interviews as a means of further exploration. This resulted in the identification of seven possible reasons, as shown in

Table 5. The seven possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment.

#	Reasons for Deliberately Delaying or Procrastinating Payment
1	Achieving an illegal interest for an individual or organisation (a form of administrative and financial corruption)
2	Hostility or personal issues, including stubbornness
3	Excessive work and lack of time available for review and audit, in addition to indifference and/or negligence
4	Exaggerated fear of inspection and oversight bodies, which creates a state of hesitation in accreditation or constant scepticism and loss of confidence in the documents submitted, which requires review more than once without the real need
5	The existence of a controversial issue or an ongoing dispute under negotiation and discussion, as well as the contractor’s deliberate delay in submitting the invoice for reasons that concern them and serve their interest
6	The change of the person concerned with the approval and arrival of a new person, so they deliberately delay until becoming familiar with the project and gaining confidence
7	A means of putting pressure on the bill holder, whether to control and improve their performance or for other reasons

.

4.5. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Information of the Respondents

Descriptive statistics were used to provide demographics and frequencies of responses to the questionnaire’s questions. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability tests were utilised to examine reliability. The validity test using Pearson correlation analysis was also used to examine the association between the considered variables and their respondent’s scores. The results are provided in the tables below based on a comprehensive illustration of the data.

The total number of respondents was 123; the participant education qualification was distributed as follows: 84 (68.3%) of the respondents were Bachelor’s degree holders, 28 (22.8%) of the respondents were Master’s degree holders, 10 (8.1%) of the respondents were PhD degree holders, and 1 (0.8%) of the respondents was a High School degree holder. Participants’ years of experience were distributed as follows: 87 (70.7%) had more than 15 years, 14 (11.4%) had from 11 to 15 years, 12 (9.8%) had from 6 to 10 years, and 10 (8.1%) had less than five years of experience. Participants’ current employers were distributed as follows: 44 (35.8%) were employed by a government entity—owner, 36 (29.3%) by consultants, 28 (22.8%) by contractors, and 15 (12.2%) by others in the private sector. The number of participants with a working experience within construction public projects of more than three years was 112 (91.1%), and the number of those with less than 3 years of experience was 11 (8.9%). Participants’ level of experience on the subject of payment delays was distributed as follows: 64 (52.0%) were experts, 55 (44.7%) declared average experience, and 4 (3.3%) did not have the knowledge and experience.

A decision was made to exclude the respondents who had experience within construction public projects for less than three years (11 respondents) and those who did not have knowledge and experience of payment delays (4 respondents). As a result, the total number of valid respondents considered in the descriptive statistics is 110.

4.6. Descriptive Statistics of Causes of Payment Delays Group

The univariate analysis employed the mean approach to offer a comprehensive overview of the key variables under investigation. By computing the mean values for each variable group, typical or average responses were summarised, allowing for comparisons across different groups. This descriptive statistical analysis approach provided contextual information about the central tendencies and variability within the data, laying the groundwork for more advanced analyses. Systematic reporting of the mean values was crucial in establishing a foundational understanding of the variable characteristics, essential for addressing the research objectives and interpreting the findings. Based on the descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of the causes of payment delay groups, the contractual issues group had the highest mean (3.4788), followed by the management issues group (3.2768), the procedure issues group (2.7782), and then the external issues group (2.7068), as shown in

Table 6. The descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of the causes of payment delays group.

#		Mean		Std. Deviation
		Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
1	Contractual issues group	3.4788	0.06760	0.70895
2	Management issues group	3.2768	0.07552	0.79210
3	Procedure issues group	2.7782	0.08607	0.90274
4	External issues group	2.7068	0.09429	0.98896
	Valid N (listwise)

.

4.6.1. The Average Score of All Groups

Based on the descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of the causes of payment delays, the value of combined groups was 3.0601 (

Table 7. The average score of all groups.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation
groups_combined	3.0601	0.61065
Valid N (listwise)

illustrates it).

4.6.2. Reliability and Validity Tests

The study evaluated the reliability of the measurement scales using Cronbach’s Alpha analysis, a widely accepted statistical technique. This assessment was essential to establish the internal consistency of the scales and contribute to the overall construct validity of the study. The comparison of Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients against established guidelines allowed for the identification of any problematic scale items and the refinement of the measurement scales, thereby strengthening the quality of the measurement instruments and supporting the validity of the study’s findings. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the causes of payment delay groups was utilised to examine the reliability of the causes of payment delays, which resulted in a score of 0.680 (

Table 8. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the causes of payment delay groups.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
0.680	4

illustrates this). The validity test using Pearson correlation analysis was significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) for all four causes of payment delay groups.

4.7. Descriptive Statistics of Causes of Payment Delays (Occurrence Rate)

Based on the descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of the causes of payment delays, slow decision-making that deals with the claims had the highest occurrence rate based on the mean (3.96), followed by failure to approve variation orders (3.95), complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes (3.64), delays in certification of work done and delays in approving the invoices (3.47), government budget constraints and delayed/insufficient cashflow allocation (3.43), contractor failure to perform work based on the approved BOQ (3.43), delay in solving technical problems (3.35), the absence of effective project management approaches and tools (3.33), inefficiency in the people involved in the preparation and approval cycle of the invoices (3.12), missing documents required to complete justifications for disbursement (3.12), lack of understanding of the contract and a dispute (3.05), the supervision consultant delays in treating claims (2.95), deliberate delays from the parties and/or individuals (2.89), inappropriate overall organisational structure linked to the project (2.87), lack of communication between the parties (2.86), failure to follow pre-set procedure (2.79), regulatory changes (2.65), contractor delay in submitting invoices (2.54), errors in calculating claims (2.50), financial crisis in a country (2.45), and local culture and corruption (2.30), as shown in (

Table 9. The descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of the causes of payment delays.

#		Mean		Std. Deviation
		Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
1	Slow decision-making that deals with the claims	3.96	0.110	1.149
2	Failure to approve variation orders	3.95	0.090	0.942
3	Complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes	3.64	0.110	1.155
4	Delays in certification of work performed and delays in approving the invoices	3.47	0.120	1.261
5	Government budget constraints and delayed/insufficient cashflow allocation	3.43	0.124	1.302
6	Contractor failure to do work based on the approved BOQ	3.43	0.119	1.252
7	Delay in solving technical problems	3.35	0.114	1.200
8	The absence of effective project management approaches and tools	3.33	0.121	1.264
9	Inefficiency in the people involved in the preparation and approval cycle of the invoices	3.12	0.123	1.290
10	Missing documents required to complete justifications for disbursement	3.12	0.120	1.254
11	Lack of understanding of the contract and a dispute	3.05	0.118	1.233
12	Supervision Consultant delays in treating claims	2.95	0.121	1.270
13	Deliberate delays from the parties and/or individuals	2.89	0.125	1.309
14	Inappropriate overall organisational structure linked to the project	2.87	0.108	1.134
15	Lack of communication between the parties	2.86	0.121	1.267
16	Failure to follow a pre-set procedure	2.79	0.109	1.142
17	Regulatory changes	2.65	0.119	1.252
18	Contractor delay in submitting invoices	2.54	0.128	1.346
19	Errors in calculating claims	2.50	0.112	1.171
20	Financial crisis in a country	2.45	0.139	1.463
21	Local Culture and corruption	2.30	0.125	1.310
	Valid N (listwise)

).

Reliability and Validity Tests

The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the causes of payment delays was utilised to examine the reliability of the causes, which resulted in a score of 0.864 (

Table 10. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the causes of payment delays.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
0.864	21

illustrates this). Regarding the validity test, using Pearson correlation analysis was significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) for all the 21 causes of payment delays.

4.8. Descriptive Statistics of Possible Forms of Deliberate Practices by Parties to Procrastinate or Delay Payment

Based on the descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of possible forms of deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment, “unnecessarily strict conduct in receiving completed works and perhaps requesting more tests for the completed works that are not stipulated in the specifications book” had the highest agree rate based on the mean (3.0727), followed by “requests for resubmission and rejection of the invoice for unjustified reasons” (3.0273), “procrastination in approving the complete certificate, approval of work performed on site, and approval of invoices from the Supervising Consultant” (2.9909), “requests to correct and reduce the invoice amount to match the existing liquidity” (2.9273), “imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, requesting an unnecessary thorough review of the Measurement and Payment Book, and insisting on unnecessary documentation” (2.8364), and “refraining from working on the principle of proportion of work in progress or reducing the proportion of what was agreed upon for any reason” (2.8000). Factor “imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, such as requesting letters of a pledge to raise achievement rates first” scored the lowest rate (2.7636), as shown in

Table 11. Descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of possible forms of deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment.

#		Mean		Std. Deviation
		Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
1	Unnecessarily strict conduct in receiving completed works and perhaps requesting more tests for the completed works that are not stipulated in the specifications book	3.0727	0.12096	1.26860
2	Requests for resubmission and rejection of the invoice for unjustified reasons	3.0273	0.12078	1.26679
3	Procrastination in approving the complete certificate, approval of work performed on site, and approval of invoices from the Supervising Consultant	2.9909	0.11222	1.17696
4	Requests to correct and reduce the invoice amount to match the existing liquidity	2.9273	0.12368	1.29720
5	Imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, requesting an unnecessarily thorough review of the Measurement and Payment Book, and insisting on unnecessary documentation	2.8364	0.11733	1.23055
6	Refraining from working on the principle of proportion of work in progress or reducing the proportion of what was agreed upon for any reason	2.8000	0.12509	1.31191
7	Imposing impractical conditions before approval of invoices, such as requesting letters of a pledge to raise achievement rates first	2.7636	0.11690	1.22607
	Valid N (listwise)

.

Reliability and Validity Tests

The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying possible forms of deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment was utilised to examine the reliability of the causes for payment delays, which resulted in a score of 0.843 (

Table 12. Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test used to test for possible forms of deliberate practice by parties to procrastinate or delay payment.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
0.843	7

illustrates this). Regarding the validity test, using Pearson correlation analysis was significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) for all the seven possible forms of deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment.

4.9. Descriptive Statistics of Possible Reasons for Deliberately Delaying or Procrastinating Payment

Based on the descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment, “exaggerated fear of inspection and oversight bodies” had the highest rate based on the mean (3.4091), followed by “the change of the person concerned with the approval and arrival of a new person” (3.3182), “a means of putting pressure on the bill holder, whether to control and improve their performance or for other reasons” (3.2727), “excessive work and lack of time available for review and audit, in addition to indifference and/or negligence” (3.0909), “the existence of a controversial issue or an ongoing dispute under negotiation and discussion” (2.8909), and “hostility or personal issues, including stubbornness” (2.7182). Factor “achieving an illegal interest for an individual or organisation (a form of administrative and financial corruption)” scored the lowest rate (2.3636), as shown (

Table 13. Descriptive statistics (mean approach—univariate analysis) of possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment.

#		Mean		Std. Deviation
		Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
1	Exaggerated fear of inspection and oversight bodies	3.4091	0.11716	1.22882
2	The change of the person concerned with the approval and arrival of a new person	3.3182	0.11474	1.20345
3	A means of putting pressure on the bill holder, whether to control and improve his performance or for other reasons	3.2727	0.11178	1.17238
4	Excessive work and lack of time available for review and audit, in addition to indifference and/or negligence	3.0909	0.11591	1.21569
5	The existence of a controversial issue or an ongoing dispute under negotiation and discussion	2.8909	0.11791	1.23664
6	Hostility or personal issues, including stubbornness	2.7182	0.12729	1.33500
7	Achieving an illegal interest for an individual or organisation (a form of administrative and financial corruption)	2.3636	0.12504	1.31140
	Valid N (listwise)

).

Reliability and Validity Tests

The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment was utilised to examine the reliability of the causes for payment delays, which resulted in a score of 0.799 (

Table 14. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test for identifying the possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
0.799	7

illustrates this). Regarding the validity test, Pearson correlation analysis was significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) for all seven possible reasons for deliberately delaying or procrastinating payment.

5. Discussion of the Results

In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted based on the results of the research literature review and preliminary semi-structured interviews regarding the causes of payment delays to study their suitability and redundancy of occurrence within Saudi Arabian public construction projects. The findings provided valuable insights into the causes of payment delays.

First, the questionnaire survey gathered important demographic information from the participants, which was highly relevant to the subject under investigation. Specifically, the vast majority of participants (91.87%) had over six years of general working experience, yet 91.1% worked on public construction projects for more than three years, and 96.7% possessed knowledge and experience regarding payment delays. It is worth noting that 35.8% of the participants’ current employers were government entities—owners, 29.3% were consultants, 22.8% were contractors, and 12.2% were other private sector entities. This indicates that the participants represent all the primary stakeholders involved in the payment processes. This provided a reliable data set from which to extract valuable statistical insights. It is worth reiterating that the research omitted participants with less than three years of experience in public construction projects and those without sufficient knowledge of payment delays. This deliberate choice resulted in a pool of 110 eligible respondents.

Second, according to the descriptive statistics of payment delay groups, it was observed that the contractual issues group had the highest score for occurring rate with a mean of 3.4788. This is not surprising and is in line with the literature review findings, which highlight contractual issues as one of the potential factors causing payment delays.

Third, investigating the causes of delays in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia yielded a surprising result. Despite the literature review and interviews identifying potential causes of payment delays, only three causes were found to have a high-frequency rate. The three primary causes of payment delays that scored within the common range were “slow decision-making regarding claims”, with a mean score of 3.96, “failure to approve variation orders” with a score of (3.95), and “complex bureaucratic procedures and lengthy approval processes” with a score of 3.64. Furthermore, the other 13 causes scored between equal or above 2.7 and less than 3.5, which means they have neutral or moderate commonality. The remaining five causes had a score of less than 2.7 and higher than 1.8, which means they are less common causes of payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects. It is worth emphasising that the cause of “deliberate delays from the parties and/or individuals” scored a mean of 2.89, which is among the scores of the 13 causes mentioned above. This means it has neutral or moderate commonality.

Therefore, this finding challenges research hypothesis (H1): “The causes of payment delays identified in the literature review and preliminary interviews will exhibit high occurrence rates (equal or above 3.5 mean scores), indicating their suitability and common nature within the Saudi Arabian public construction projects”, suggesting it is not entirely true. At the same time, it accepts research hypothesis (H2): “the practice of deliberately disrupting the disbursement of payment is commonly practised within Saudi Arabian public construction projects.”. The findings of the research confirm hypothesis (H2) as the respondents’ consensus on “deliberate delays from the parties and/or individuals” as a neutral or moderately common cause supports its acceptance.

The present study suggests that, in light of the identified three primary causes of payment delays, the Saudi public construction sector should prioritise improving payment processing efficiency as a means to facilitate timely payments. Furthermore, the industry should monitor the deliberate disruption of payment disbursement and attempt to minimise it as much as possible.

Fourth, the objective of this study is to examine the possible ways and tactics that may be employed by parties and/or individuals in public construction projects to deliberate delays or procrastinate payment. The study yielded meaningful results, with three tactics scoring moderate agreement among respondents. The tactic that received the highest agreement rate based on a mean score of 3.0727 is “Unnecessarily strict conduct in receiving completed works and perhaps requesting more tests for the completed works that are not stipulated in the specifications book”. The second tactic, with a mean score of 3.0273, is “requests for resubmission and rejection of the invoice for unjustified reasons”. It is important to note that the remaining five tactics consistently occur with moderate agreement among respondents. Furthermore, none of the seven tactics scored a mean of less than 2.7. It is worth noting that a threshold score of less than 2.7 indicates disagreement among respondents.

This finding indicates that tactics to deliberately delay or procrastinate payment exist and are practiced. So, this supports research hypothesis (H3): “There is significant evidence that the identified possible forms of deliberate practices (tactics) by parties to procrastinate or delay payment are exist and practiced within the Saudi public construction projects”. Also, all the possible forms under investigation were valid forms and or tactics that may be employed by parties and/or individuals in public construction projects to deliberate delays or procrastinate payment. According to this, the Saudi sector can optimise its performance and drive growth by prioritising measures to mitigate tactics that cause delays or procrastination in payment processing. This finding provides crucial academic and practical implications for businesses and organisations to better understand the intricacies of payment procrastination and develop effective strategies to mitigate its adverse effects.

Fifth, as an objective of this study is to examine the possible reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment, the study yielded meaningful results, with four reasons scoring moderate agreement among respondents. The factor that received the highest agreement rate based on a mean score of 3.4091 is “exaggerated fear of inspection and oversight bodies”. The second factor with a mean score of 3.3182 is “the change of the person concerned with the approval and arrival of a new person”. The third reason with a mean score of 3.2727 is “a means of putting pressure on the bill holder, whether to control and improve their performance or for other reasons”. The fourth reason with a mean score of 3.0909 is “excessive work and lack of time available for review and audit, in addition to indifference and/or negligence”.

It is important to note that the remaining three reasons consistently occur with moderate agreement among respondents, apart from one reason that has a low mean score of 2.3636 (meaning respondents disagree), which is “achieving an illegal interest for an individual or organisation (a form of administrative and financial corruption)”. This finding identified the highest four reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment and confirmed that six out of seven reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment are valid. So, it partially supports research hypothesis (H4): “There is significant evidence that the identified possible reasons for deliberate practices by parties to procrastinate or delay payment are confirmed to be valid explanations of the party’s and/or individual behaviour causing payment delays”. The present study suggests that the Saudi sector ought to prioritise the mitigation of these concerns.

6. Limitations and Recommendations for Further Studies

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our study. The study is constrained by the limitations of its geographical location. This may limit the generalisability of the study findings to other geographical contexts. Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, there is a need for further research to expand our understanding of the effectiveness of mitigated actions implemented by the Saudi government to address payment delays in public construction projects. Moreover, further studies are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of the Saudi Arabian “Etimad” platform in addressing payment delay issues and improving transparency in the payment flow process. By conducting these further studies, researchers can contribute to the existing knowledge on mitigating payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects. The findings can provide valuable insights for policymakers, government agencies, and industry stakeholders, enabling the development of more effective strategies and initiatives to streamline payment processes, enhance collaboration, and improve the overall efficiency of the construction industry in Saudi Arabia.

7. Conclusions

The study provides significant academic and practical implications for businesses and organisations to better understand the intricacies of payment processes in Saudi Arabia. The research study intends to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by better describing the issues surrounding payment delays, ultimately providing valuable insights for industry stakeholders and policymakers in the context of public construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The study adopts a robust mixed methodology that includes a literature review, semi-structured interviews with expert professionals, and a questionnaire survey distributed among experienced personnel in Saudi public construction projects. This provides a reliable data set from which to extract valuable statistical insights. The study also examines the prevalence of deliberate disruption of payment disbursement in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia and the tactics of deliberate practices to procrastinate or delay payment. It validates the identified reasons for such practices, which is the first attempt at such a study so far.

The study aims to identify the causes of payment delays and explore deliberate delay tactics within Saudi Arabian public construction projects. It is observed that the contractual issues group has the highest score of occurrence. The study also identifies three primary causes that contribute to payment delays, which are the most common causes of payment delays in Saudi Arabian public construction projects. It is important to note that deliberate delays in payment are challenging to study since they often involve subjective intent or hidden motivations. Specific research on deliberate delays in payment within the construction industry is found to be very limited. However, the study succeeds in revealing that intentional disruption of payment disbursement in public construction projects in Saudi Arabia exists but is not highly prevalent. Nevertheless, the findings indicate that tactics to deliberately delay or procrastinate payment exist and are practiced. Also, all the possible forms under investigation are valid forms and or tactics that may be employed by parties and/or individuals in public construction projects to deliberate delays or procrastinate payment. Moreover, the research identifies the highest four reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment and confirms that six out of seven reasons for deliberate delays or procrastinating payment are valid.

In conclusion, addressing the causes of payment delays and implementing effective mitigation strategies are crucial for improving the efficiency and sustainability of the Saudi construction industry. Further research and empirical studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation strategies in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, further studies are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of the Saudi Arabian “Etimad” platform in addressing payment delay issues and improving transparency in the payment flow process.

8. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

While preparing this work, the author used Scite.ai to conduct better research and better understand the literature review. Also, Grammarly gen AI was used as a writing assistant tool that helped improve writing, spelling, grammatical errors, clarity, readability and suggested paraphrasing; after using this, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed. The author takes full responsibility for the publication’s content.

9. Declaration

The authors declare that before the commencement of data collection, ethical approval was secured from Taibah University, and all participants were fully informed about anonymity insurance, the reason the reseach is conducted, the usage of their data, and any associated risks. The consent of all participants was obtained online.