Moderating Influence of Process Monitoring on the Relationship between Contractors Capacity Evaluation in Tender Award and Performance of Road Construction Infrastructural Projects

^*Correspondence: James Mushori, School of Open & Distance Learning, OdeL Campus, University of Nairobi, Kenya, Email:

Keywords

Process Monitoring • Contractors • Capacity • Road Performance • Infrastructural Projects • Contractor Evaluation

Introduction

Rapid economic development coupled with an upsurge in the degree of motorization has in the recent times shaped the dynamics of urban transport system in Kenya. Atieno and Muturi argue that inappropriate infrastructure emerged under the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS) for Wealth and Employment Creation of the period 2003-07 [1]; it was identified as a key limit to the ease of doing business. Moreover, Kenyan Vision 2030 acknowledges infrastructure as significant beacon for sustainable development as enshrined in the economic pillar. Zenabu and Getachew assert that the various stakeholders often consider construction project completion within budget as a major criterion for project success [2].

An appraisal report by African Development Fund stated that the stock of transport infrastructure in Nairobi is lagging the prevailing demand as demonstrated by the 2006-2025 Master Plan for Urban Transport in the Nairobi Metropolitan Area [3]. It was noted by Onyango, Bwisa and Orwa that in order to release economic prosperity and well being in a developing country like Kenya, it is paramount that the focus should be on infrastructure projects [4]. According to the Kenyan Vision 2030, among the significant determinants of sustainable economic advancement is the infrastructure sector. The Vision further further articulates that this is particularly the case for six major sectors of the economy, namely: business process outsourcing, tourism, financial services, manufacturing, agriculture and livestock, as well as the wholesale and retail businesses [5]. The said blue print acknowledges the vitality of infrastructural development to the social as well as economic transformation. Accordingly, the sector is a major inspiration to the country with international standard modern metropolitan cities, municipalities and towns.

Contextually, the current study focuses on the Eastern Bypass and the Outer-Ring roads. Started in January 2011 and completed in May 2012, the Eastern Bypass project in Nairobi joins Mombasa road at the Cabanas interchange. It runs through Pipeline as well as Utawala Estates via Kangundo Road. It then proceeds to the Thika Super Highway which is equally recent. This part of the road is 39 km in length, made of Asphalt Concrete pavement and classified B class type of road [7]. The bypass has two lanes, it is a two-way single carriageway, each 9 m wide, with an open channel earth surface drain on either side. Its main objective was to assist ease the traffic congestion along Mombasa Road, via Uhuru Highway and into Waiyaki Way.

Approximately 13Km in length with a 2-lane carriageway, the Outer–Ring road is important for the urban transport system in Nairobi. The extent of service was originally low with average journey speed of between 12 and 15kmph. Majority of the port of Mombasa bound freight traffic from Thika Road as well as the Public Service Vehicles (PSVs) use this road from the industrial set-ups in the area. The Government of Kenya, through KURA, improved the road to facilitate easy traffic flow as well as make traffic movement conflations with key corridors such as Nairobi – the Eastern Bypass, Thika Highway, and Nairobi – Mombasa Highway better. The Outer-Ring road links Mombasa Road (A109) and Thika Road (A2) trunk roads [3]. It commences at the junction off GSU along Thika road and terminates at the Eastern bypass road. It traverses the industrial set-ups from GSU to Mathare River Crossing, at Jogoo Road and Outering Junction up to Ngong River and after Tassia Estate. Commercial banks, fuel stations, retails outlets, residential estates as well as market centers are the major establishments along this road, with the highest density experienced at Donholm, Umoja, Kariobangi, Huruma, and Dandora estates.

These mega public sector construction (PSC) projects require competent contractors for effective and efficient performance. The ability to select the appropriate contractor is pivotal to the sector and can heal the problem of compromised project performance such as delayed completion, poor quality and cost overruns. Quality of the road could be determined in the post-delivery stage whereby the user (Public Service Vehicle driver) can attest to that.

Statement of the Problem

Inspite of having a performance based framework for evaluating suitable contractors for road works, the performance of road construction is overlooked and attention drawn to implementation phase of the project. From the reviewed empirical literature, the influence of the variables of contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award (financial ability of contractors technical ability of contractors, management capacity of contractors and lastly contractors’ safety record) has been established in most of construction infrastructural projects up to implementation stage. For instance, studies on the influence of financial capacity of contractors have been done specifically focusing on project implementation [7-10]; but not on performance. Some studies have also pointed out contractors’ management inadequacy and project completion [11-13]. The technical aspects in terms of quality of raw materials, the equipment used and the use of skilled labour have been proved to influence road construction. Safety of roads is key whether during construction phase or when the road is finally handed over for use (postdelivery phase). Some of the issues around a contractor safety record revolve around inadequate regulations, poor management commitment to use of signage and barricades to minimize unnecessary accidents and adequate standards to address safety outcomes [14-16]. Similarly, for those studies done in Kenya, road safety remains a concern during implementation and little or no attention is paid to road performance upon road completion. The need and importance of incorporating monitoring and evaluation in infrastructural projects has been broadly emphasised [17-20]. However a gap exists in terms of process monitoring. In this regard, the study aims to assess the moderating influence of process monitoring on the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects.

Objective of the study

To assess the moderating influence of process monitoring on the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya.

Research question

In what ways does process monitoring moderate the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya?

Hypothesis of the study

H₀: Process Monitoring does not significantly moderates the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya

H₁: Process Monitoring significantly moderates the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya

Literature Review

Performance of road construction infrastructural projects

In practice the word “performance.” is multidimensional. Therefore, it entails key performance indicators (KPIs), whose origins are traceable to Australia, and which implies the specified road network contracts’ performance; measures of performance, which are its conceptualization according to the Transport Association of Canada’s (TAC) survey of Canadian Road Networks; performance indicators as they are used in the European Harmonization on Performance Indicators [21]. The terminologies: performance indicators; key performance indicators; and performance measures have fondly as well as interchangeably been used in the road construction sector.

There is wide literature onto what constitute project success. Omran, Abdalrahman and Pakir claim that the success of construction project is determined by timeperformance, budget-performance, and quality standard-performance [22]. There have been substantive arguments on performance measurement as noted by Neely who describes the research into performance measurement as a revolution, he notes that 3,615 article have been published and a new book on the subject was published in 1996 [23]. Scholars such as Bassioni, Price and Hassan assert that construction companies have so far implemented some performance measurement frameworks, such as European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) excellence model, KPI, and the Balanced Scorecard [24]. Each of these frameworks evaluates performance measurement from different perspective that either complement each other or even overlap with each other. These frameworks point out significant variables to consider in measurement of project performance. According to Ogweno, Muturi and Rambo, project performance of road works can be measured on timely completion of the road within the scope, cost, and at the appropriate level of performance, as determined by the consumer, end-user consummation with the project and the project utility [25].

This is in tandem with the assertions by Shenhar, Levy and Dvir that project success can be separated into four elements [26]: customer impact, project efficiency, business accomplishment and preparation for future. However, Sadeh, Dvir and Shenhar later outline five dimensions: user-advantage, developing firm benefits, meeting the design goals, benefit to the national infrastructure and defense [27]. Obare, Kyalo Mulwa and Mbugua focused their study on the project control framework, diversity of the project team training and the rural roads’ construction project performance in Kenya: the specific dimensions in this regard included timely, budgetary and quality completion of projects [28]. Other dimensions under focus in this regard were customer, and project team satisfaction [28]. The fundamental criteria for performance of construction projects according to Thomas, Palaneeswarm and Kumaraswamy are: work progress; quality standards; health and safety; fiscal stability; asset utilization; as well as the quality of relationship with consultants, clients, and subcontractors [29]. Other criteria according to this same framework are claim and contractual disputes, as well as reputation and subcontracting levels.

The terminology “performance.” is often used in economics, engineering, and other disciplines. However, it has both general and specific dimensions. From the latter perspective, and more so in the road construction context, the concept ought to be measurable. This is because it is very necessary for the assessment of prevailing and expected road infrastructure outlook, in addition to the institutional service efficiency as well as provision of safety to the ultimate users. It is also critical for cost-effectiveness, productivity, environmental conservation, investment preservation and related functions [21]. Rao, Kumar and Kumar on the other hand, summarized fifteen performance assessment conditions that covered contracting company attributes; potential and past performances, experience record, fiscal stability as well as project-specific criteria, contractor evaluation considerations [30].

These main contractor selection or evaluation criteria are further broken down to sub-criteria as follows [30]: firstly, the attributes of the contracting concern include age (imputing “experience”) and contractor’s firm registration. Others are experience, implying past record of undertaking projects of similar type and size; and contractor’s past performance would be explanatory of the work quality in previously completed projects, time-performance (adherence to schedule in previous work). The other factors include any case of blacklisting in prior projects, as well as the quality of service within the defect-liability window period, as well as contractor’ fiscal capacity assesses the contractor based on prevailing commitments as well as turnover; moreover, the contractor’s potential performance which seeks to assess him/her based on the requisite asset availability, and existing workload.

Contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award

Contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award for this study is limited to the prequalification and bidding processes. In the other words, the study incorporates key factors used to assess the contractors’ ability to deliver quality roads. Rashvand, Majid, Baniahmadia and Ghavamirad point out that the choice of an appropriate service provider for a construction project is among the fundamental decisions confronting a client for the project development [31]. On one hand, this assertion is in tandem with Chiang, Yu and Luarn who claim that project owners should select contractors with capability to meet quality expectations, cost, and time [32]. On the other hand, Dwarika and Tiwari observe that many countries currently use bid assessment and contractor pre-qualification techniques, and this whole process entails the development and broad assessment of requisite as well as suitable decision criteria to adjudge the overall contractors’ suitability [33].

This selection of a contractor is most relevant since, service providers might fail to fulfil contractual obligations; thus, pre-qualification of contractors is an important stage especially at the beginning of a project. In view of Trivedi, Pandey & Bhadoria, the selection of construction contractor in general contains two stages namely prequalification and bid evaluations [34]. However, Hatush and Skitmore hold the view that bid evaluation as well as contractor pre-qualification decisions consist of the analysis of three main elements:

• Contractors’ overall information

• Prequalification yardstick, and

• Bid evaluation benchmark [35].

Pre-qualification is a procedure to examine and gauge the competency and skills of contractors to successfully complete a project if it is given to them. During the pre-qualification stage, service providers are invited to apply for a project, and they are normally evaluated based on a pre-determined criterion that is utilized to shortlist them.

Conversely, during the bid evaluation stage, the contractors who are shortlisted during the pre-qualification stage are, once again, invited for further scrutiny. The capacity of each applicant was compared with the predefined sets of minimum values. Researchers in earlier studies have shed more light on this process [36,37]. Pre-qualification avails to a client, a list of contractors who are regularly invited to tender. This approach is the most popular among nations, and it is from the said list that various criterion types are used to assess the aggregate contractor suitability [35].

According to Hatush and Skitmore, the procedure for the evaluation of tender bid submissions by prequalified contractors is called bid evaluation [35]. Herbsman and Ellis, for instance, suggested a multi-parameter system for the evaluation of bids [38]. According to this framework, both primary and auxiliary criteria ought to be considered in the process, the primary factors are the bid quantity; execution time; as well as the quality of prior work. Over and above the foregoing basic parameters, secondary factors too ought to be considered.

It is agreed that financial ability of a contractors is necessary for procurement of construction materials even though some contractors face under-capitalization challenges hence poor quality of completed roads [39,40]. In view Omran, et.al contractors’ technical ability in terms of knowledge and skills remains crucial in road construction to limit cost estimate risks [12]. Therefore technical ability can influence construction design [41]. Aje, et.al posit that management capacity is a primary criterion that needs to be used to assess contractors at the prequalification and tender assessment stage [13]. In addition, Greenfield and Morgan argue that prior to engaging a contractor it is necessary to be certain about contractor’s competence and ability to carry out work safely. This is a clear indication that safety must be made part of evaluation process [42].

Process monitoring

The urgency of having a monitoring system in place for construction projects especially the road construction infrastructural project is to ensure quality in terms of performance. Monitoring is also necessary to improve on knowledge transfer and learning for future projects. Onatere, Nwagboso and Georgakis define monitoring as, “ [a] stage [that] entails the data gathering to ascertain progress according to targets [43]. Formal reporting of proof facilitates the matching of expenditure and outputs to measure successful delivery and the meeting of milestones. According to Quiroz, a properly maintained paved road ought to stay for a period of 10 to 15 years preceding a resurface, even though inadequate maintenance can lead to deterioration within 5 years [44].

Quiroz, therefore, proposed five steps to aid in conducting monitoring in quality manner, these include [44]: self-control framework by the contractor; interval inspections; both formal and informal inspections by supervisors and project managers; as well as the maintenance of a record book to trail the road users’ comments or compliments. By so doing, maintenance work quality can be assured. Further, Quiroz emphasizes that in order to realize the desired outcome of projects, sufficient systems, processes and procedures guided by enabling laws, alongside proper enforcement and monitoring need to be put in place. Other scholars affirm that process monitoring should be regularly done through gathering and processing of vital project information to make sense on how the project is being run or implemented [45,46]. In view of International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC), process monitoring involves tracking activities and it works in tandem with compliance monitoring [47]:

“Process (activity) monitoring tracks the use of inputs and resources, the progress of activities and the delivery of outputs. It examines how activities are delivered – the efficiency in time and resources…. It is often conducted in conjunction with compliance monitoring, [whereby it] ensures compliance with donor regulations and expected results, grant and contract requirements, local governmental regulations and laws, and ethical standards….” [47]

Evaluation of a program entails measuring the process, the needs, inputs and outcomes [48]. Program or project process monitoring involves methodical and incessant documentation of key program’s or project’s aspects. According to Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman, these key aspects assess whether program is performing according to appropriate standards or as intended [49].

There are indicators to whether a program is performing well or not and this is measured through a methodical and incessant monitoring of certain process’ aspects related to a program. This allows for continuous assessment that gives way for frequent feedback on program’s performance, which is requisite in facilitating effective management of the program. From management point of view, process monitoring aims to find out how the program is being implemented and also putting in place corrective actions or measures where it is deemed necessary. This is important at the piloting stage of the program because it offers an opportunity to deal with unexpected problems. This kind of monitoring can also be done in ongoing programs or projects such as road construction projects to get information about its performance, and to determine if the target population benefits from the project or not [49].

Hassan opines that Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) should be considered as a determinant in successful completion of the roads [50]. He goes further to state that Monitoring has a critical role in minimization and prevention of time and cost overruns hence required quality standards are attained during project implementation. Kamau and Mohamed on the other hand point out that M&E present a control action to reduce the variances from the set standards [51]. Project monitoring has been defined as the continuous appraisal of project execution process in accordance to the pre-set schedules, including the application of infrastructure, services, and inputs by beneficiaries of projects. Hence, both contractors and clients view quality as a critical component in construction works. Mwangu and Iravo determined that project monitoring had a positive correlation to project performance [52].

In view of Ngosong, these manifestation by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), include mediocre or non-resilient workmanship, as well as unsafe structures, deferments, cost overruns and construction contract disputes [53]. Ngosong asserts that the quality and worth of construction are of significant attention to public as well as private sector clientele alike. Beltran, Mozingo and Harcourt suggest that regular meetings are essential to ensure contractor performance is satisfactory and that project specifications are being met; moreover, the authority of monitoring staff who control contractor performance also needs to be clarified and understood by contractors [54]. Generally, the public sector as a responsibility of delivering almost all public goods and services at all levels. Nsasira, Basheka and Oluka posit that an appropriate process of managing and monitoring contracts assists in the improvement of quality of commodities and causes a reduction in the cost of procurement, hence leading to achievement of three general goals, namely: product and service quality; on-time delivery; as well as budgetary effectiveness [55].

Davison and Sebastian determined the probability of contract issues for a certain category of contract; and of which is likely to face the challenges the most [56]. For instance, for construction contracts, order alteration, stays, and cost statistically bear similar chance of prevalence and significantly more probable as compared to the other categories, and that construction contracts are more susceptible to problems than other forms of contract. Salapatas concluded that performance of project could be measured using a system for monitoring and major indicators; as is the case with all systems, a project monitoring ought to start with commitment from the management [57]. The original methodologies for contracting are more susceptible to corruption due to the environment surrounding the processes of decision. The study by Ojok and Basheka concluded that M&E facilitated management decisionmaking, accountability, learning and growth as well as better governance standards [58]. According to the study M&E ought to not only be associated with nominal compliance but also foster decision-making that is anchored on evidence.

Process monitoring as part of M&E ought to be financed and institutionalized in order to intervene in the policy planning, implementation, and delivery of service. Hassan is of the view that M&E in the context of road project execution is key to the determination of the overall project success [50]. Accordingly, he developed a conjecture that improperly designed M&E framework relating to road construction projects could be part of the reasons for the pervasive delays in project completion and mediocre workman ships on such road projects, hence substandard road project performance.

Bulle and Makori in a study on the strategic planning influence on urban road projects’ performance in the Kenyan context found that M&E influences performance [59]. Their study was descriptive and therefore it lacked statistical strength to show the relationship and strength of the independent and dependent variables. Byaruhanga and Basheka in a study on contractor monitoring and road infrastructure projects performance in Uganda found that contractor monitoring is a predictor of road infrastructure projects’ performance [60]. Mwangu and Iravo demonstrated that project supervisors and contractors make use of monitoring instruments in the operations of their project, hence generating satisfactory degree of success [52]. Umugwaneza and Kule evaluated the role of the combined M&E processes in terms of accountability (r=0.347, p<0.01), effective communication (r=0.466, p<0.01), partnership for planning (r=0.506, p<0.01) and supportive supervision (r=0.612, p<0.01) and concluded that significantly they correlate with sustainability of projects [61]. Minyiri and Muchelule also found that the organization would be able to practice monitoring intensity so as to enhance performance in procurement and further recommended that contractors should be allocated with the right amount of resources for project completion [20].

Ng’etich and Otieno pointed out that the fast worsening state of roads in Kenya calls for more M&E processes during road construction [17]. Asinza, et.al investigated the effect of monitoring and financial capacity on quality of projects [19]. The overall regression model gave the R squared (R2) of 0.354. This is to mean that 35.4% of variations in project quality can be associated with financial capacity and monitoring. Wanjala, et.al observed that over the years, there has been a challenge in monitoring practices implementation which have led to many organizations crumble as a result of failing to mastering the monitoring best practices in respect to performance of their own projects [18]. The results of the study showed that monitoring techniques had significant influence on the project performance (techniques (β3= 0.674, p<0.05). The study however emphasized on the importance of monitoring but failed to show how monitoring particularly influences performance in road construction projects, hence the need for the current study.

Theoretical framework

The study was guided by Resource Based theory. Wambugu, Kyalo, Mbii and Nyonje states that a theoretical framework attempts to give an explanation of a phenomenon descriptively thereby specifying the relationship between variables together with the laws governing them.

Resource based theory

According Rugman and Verbeke, the Resource based theory was founded by Penrose in 1959 and originally captured in her book entitled “The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.” [64]. The theory has gained popularity as demosntrated by wide application by array of scholars in the strategy thematic area. Rugman and Verbeke note that the theory availed the intellectual underpinning for the modern, resource-based view of an organization. Others such as Theriou, Aggelidis and Theriou examined the conflation between two dominant views of the concern, namely: Resource-Based View (RBV) as well as the Knowledge-Based View (KBV), by analyzing the comparative effect of concern-specific assets as well as knowledge endowments on the competitive advantage of the organization [65].

An integrated framework was suggested elaborating on the causal effect of both views on the competitive advantage of a concern. Müller & Jugdev point out that when considering project success the words of Isaac Newton that “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants,.” should not erode our minds [66]. Theriou, Aggelidis and Theriou assert that knowledge capacity effects, overt and covert, affecting the performance of a concern in the same manner as the unique assets of such a concern would, as well as ‘knowledge complementarity or its dynamism’ subtle effects on a concern’s unique assets as well as abilities, leading to the betterment of prevailing or novel marketing, organizational, as well as technical abilities [65]. Theriou and colleagues therefore coined the term ‘dynamic knowledge capabilities’, a conflation that is imperative due to its emphasis on the significance sustainable competitive advantage [65]. Penrose’s theory is considered to have key lessons in management practice and as such, has become a canonical reference resource, capabilities, and knowledge-based theory literature [67].

The resource based view shifted attention from a market perspective to a firm perspective when trying to explain differences in firm performance. From the start, with Edith Penrose and The Growth of the Firm in 1959, an ongoing process of development lasted over 20 years until the idea of inter-firm differences in resources as a factor explaining firm success was presented [68]. This theory was further popularized by Barney who viewed a firm as sum of physical capital resources, human capital resources and organizations [69].

Resource base theory therefore beliefs that firms that can properly mix its resources and capabilities stand a better chance to gain competitive advantage over other firms. However, Hijzen, Gorg and Hine warn the negative impact of international outsourcing on the demand for unskilled labour [70]. A similar article by Jaafar, Rashid and Aziz that focused on the same theory articulated factors antecedent to the SMCEs’ performance in the Malaysian context; it was observed that the ability of the theory to explain the usefulness of a firm’s resources in developing superior performance, is actually its key strength [71].

Through inferential statistics, the study proposed that SMCEs ought to place more emphasis on managerial capacity about financial, project, and marketing as well as supplier relationships to foster superior performance of a concern [71]. Nevertheless, given the industry uniqueness, the study also established that the characteristics of the owner are insignificant in light of performance of an enterprise. The study results availed evidence to the effect that a firm’s survival is a function of its key resources, including, appropriate managerial abilities to develop strategies for sustainable industry competitive advantage. Hence, the theory stood out to support the following the variables used in this study to measure performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya.

Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework adopted in this study presents the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Thus, the independent variable was contractors’ capacity whereas the dependent variable is performance of road construction infrastructural projects, and the moderating variable is process monitoring. Figure 1 illustrates this relationship in detail.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award (independent variable), process monitoring (moderating variable) and performance of road construction infrastructural projects (dependent variable). The concept of contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award is explained by these indicators: financial ability of contractors, technical ability of contractors, management ability of contractors and contractors’ safety record. The indicators for moderating variable, process monitoring, are compliance with construction specification,, compliance with regulatory bodies’ requirements, compliance with county by-laws, resolution to complaints management, adherence to allocation and utilization of resources for accomplishment of project’s objectives. The moderating influence on contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award is hoped to lead to performance of road construction infrastructural projects in the following ways: Quality of completed road in terms of condition of drainage and water table, absence of potholes; Mobility and speed – delays, congestion, average speed; Comfort and convenience in terms of smoothness and roughness of the road; Road User benefits in terms of cost reduction, travel time reduction, vehicle operating cost reduction; and, Safety - properly constructed footbridges, pedestrian walkways, cycling lanes, road properly marked, adequate road signs, bus stops.

Research Methodology

The study was embodied a pragmatic mixed method approach by employing descriptive survey research design and correlational design [72,73]. The target population comprised of road contractors and public service drivers totaling to 460 from which we got a sample of 210 using Krejcie and Morgan table. The drivers sampled are plying Outering Road and Eastern Bypass Road in Nairobi County, Kenya. A pilot study was conducted in a nearby Kiambu County which has same characteristics as those participants in Nairobi County to avoid biasness. This was aimed at improving on the validity and reliability [74,75]. Content validity and construct validity was preferred in this study. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient which was above 0.6 as indicated by Kothari [76]. Descriptive data was presented in frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviation. Gakuu, Kidombo and Keiyoro consider the means and the standard deviations are ideal for setting up interval data [77]. Inferential statistics was performed to find out how the predictor correlated with the outcome. First of all, multivariate analysis was conducted to find of out the strength of the combined factors under contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award, then followed by hierarchical regression whereby the moderator, process monitoring was introduced. Qualitative data gathered was analyzed thematically. To be able to perform further statistical tests such as t-tests, linear regression and even analysis of variance, it important to have a normally distributed data [77]. In view of Bierman, Bonini and Hausman and when W statistic (Shapiro Wilk) is closer or equals to the value of 1 then the data being used is deemed normal [78]. This was done and presented in Table 1. Questionnaires were distributed to the road contractor whereas the interview schedules were given to the Public Service Vehicles (PSVs) drivers, also referred to as matatu drivers. Stratified sampling was used to categorize the respondents as per their group sizes [79]. This was followed by proportionate sampling so as to get exact sample size in each strata and finally simple random used to pick individual respondents in the study. Since the population in each strata was above 30, census was not preferred [80]. Ethical issues were observed by obtaining a letter of authority from the government of Kenya through National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) (Table 1).

It is evident that the values of W-Statistic for all the variables under the study range between 0.923 and 0.985 implying that the data was normally distributed (Table 1). This is because all values were near to one [78].

Conclusion

The objective of the study was to assess the moderating influence of process monitoring on the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects in Nairobi County, Kenya. The null hypothesis tested in this regard was that process monitoring does not significantly moderate the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects.

The results were presented in two steps. That is, in step 1: R=0.826, adjusted R2=0.673, F (4,148)=79.226, p=0.000<0.05 hence F-value was considered statistically significant and in step 2: R=0.837, adjusted R2=0.690, F (5,147)=68.520, p=0.000<0.05 hence F-value was statistically significant; the null hypothesis was thus reject, and it was concluded that process monitoring has significant influence on the relationship between contractors’ capacity evaluation in tender award and performance of road construction infrastructural projects. Moreover the results revealed that upon introduction of process monitoring as a moderator, the percentage rose by 1.7% resulting to 69.0% of performance of road construction infrastructural projects. This little improvement as a result of process monitoring indicates that the if the construction industry would engage more in monitoring of the road projects by sticking to the required processes then we are likely to experience huge impact. It would then mean that there is need to institutionalize M&E aspects in road construction projects and any other infrastructural projects.

Recommendations

The assessment of the contractor ability could be enhanced by adding up more factors or assessment criteria and most importantly incorporating process monitoring as part of the criteria to be able to arrive at the right decision on contractors selection. The indicators used to explain the aspects of process monitoring (compliance with construction specification, compliance with regulatory bodies’ requirements, compliance with county by-laws, resolution to complaints management, adherence to allocation and utilization of resources for accomplishment of project’s objectives) should be made part and parcel of road performance. There is need to effectively implement policies that support process monitoring in road construction so as to boost the image of the industry and contractors at large.

Further Studies

A similar study may be carried out on building construction using the same variables. focused on Nairobi County, and therefore generalization of the findings to other parts of the regions or counties can not be scientifically practical and hence to replicate the same study to other geographical areas in Kenya.

Acknowledgement

We are highly grateful to all the participants beginning with the Road Engineers and Contractors and also the Public Service Vehicle (PSV) drivers who took their valuable time to participate in this study. We also wish to thank the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) for granting us the permission to undertake this study.

Author Contributions

Mushori conceived the project’s idea and guided data collection, analysis and report writing. Prof. Charles Mallans Rambo and Dr. Charles Misiko Wafula assisted in selection and defining indicators of the study. They also played critical role in reviewing the paper.

Conflict of Interests

The authors wish to declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

1. Atieno, Oguya, Sarah and Muturi, Willy. “Factors Affecting Performance of Road Construction Projects in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas in Kenya.”  Int J Soc Sci Inf Tech 2 (2016): 908-929.
2. Tebeje, Zewdu, Zenabu and Teka Aregaw, Getachew. “Causes of Contractor Cost Overrun in Construction Projects: The Case of Ethiopian Construction Sector.”  Int J Bus Econ Res 4 (2015): 180-191.
3. https: //www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Project-and-Operations/Kenya_-_Nairobi_Outer_Ring_Road_Improvement_Project_-_Appraisal_Report.pdf
4. Onyango,  Bwisa and Orwa. “Critical Factors Influencing the Implementation of Public Infrastructure Projects in Kenya: A Case of Thika Sub-County, Kiambu County Kenya.”  Int J Sci Res Publications 7 (2017): 2250-3153.
5. https: //www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwilm6aLwbzoAhUlRBUIHRuYAbMQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftreasury.go.ke%2Fcomponent%2Fjdownloads%2Fsend%2F89-2010%2F52-physical-infrastructure-sector.html&usg=AOvVaw2rlqaWm0XvO598CbyIPfzO
6. Kimani, ME. Performance Analysis of Nairobi Eastern ByPass. Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta Memorial Library (Book Shelf): University of Nairobi (2015).
7. https: //www.iajournals.org/articles/iajispm_v2_i2_111_123.pdf
8. https: //www.semanticscholar.org/paper/FACTORS-INFLUENCING-COMPLETION-OF-GOVERNMENT-ROAD-A-Kithinji/f3a5c1d28a52be2953050938a2270d3f282533f6
9. Ugochukwu and Onyekwena. “Participation of Indigenous Contractors in               Nigerian Public Sector Construction Projects and their Challenges in Managing Working Capital.”  Int J Civil Eng Est Manage 1 (2014): 1-21.
10. http: //ijebmr.com/uploads2018/IJEBMR_02_127.pdf
11. Naik, Sharma, and Kashiyani. “ A Review of Factors Affecting Contractor Performance in Construction Work.”  Int J Adv ResEngSci Manage (2015).
12. Omran, Abdalrahman and Pakir. “Project performance in Sudan Construction Industry. A Case Study.”  Acad Res J 1 (2012): 55-78.
13. https: //doi.org/10.1108/13664380910977619
14. Jannadi, Osama Ahmed and Bu-Khamsin Mohammed. “Safety factors considered by industrial contractors in Saudi Arabia.” Build Environ37 (2002): 539-547.
15. http: //dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojsst.2012.24018
16. http: //www.fissuredworkplace.net/assets/Weil.AssessingOSHAConstruction.JPAM.2001.pdf
17. Ng’etich, KV and Otieno MM. “Factors Influencing Monitoring and Evaluation Processes of County Road Projects in Turkana County Government, Kenya.” International Journal of latest Research in Engineering and Technology 3 (2017): 30-41.
18. Wanjala, Muchelule Yusuf, Iravo Mike Amuhaya, Odhiambo Romanus and Shalle Noor Ismail (2017). “Effect of Monitoring Techniques on Project                 Performance of Kenyan State Corporations.” Eur Sci J 13 (2017): 264-280.        
19. Asinza, Karen, Kanda Edwin, MucheluleYusuf and Mbithi Shedrack. “Influence of Financial Capacity and Monitoring on Project Quality of Housing Construction in Nakuru County, Kenya.” Int J ResManage, Sci and Tech 4 (2016): 38-43.
20. https: //www.academia.edu/37691876/Monitoring_Intensity_and_Procurement_Performance._EmpricalEvidence_from_Elgeyo_Marakwet_County_Kenya..pdf
21. Haas, Ralph , Felio Guy, Lounis, Zoubir and Falls, Lynne Cowe. “Measurable Performance Indicators for Roads: Canadian and International Practice.”  NRC Publications Archive (2009).
22. Omran, Abdelnaser, Abdalrahman alma and Pakir Abdul Hamid Kadir.“Project performance in Sudan Construction Industry. A Case Study.” Acad Res J 1 (2012): 55-78.
23. Neely, Andy. “The Performance Revolution: Why Now and What Next?.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 12 (1999): 69-81.
24. https: //doi.org/10.1061/ (ASCE)0742-597X (2004)20: 2 (42)
25. https: //scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related: CMLuM3Na1uUJ: scholar.google.com/&scioq=25.Ogweno,+B.,+Muturi,+W.+%26+Rambo,+C.+ (2016).+Determinants+of+Timely+Completion+of+Road+Construction+Projects+Financed+By+Kenya+Roads+Board+in+Kisumu+County.+International+Journal+of+Economic+Governance+and+Management,+4 (11),360-402.&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
26. Shenhar, AJ, Levy O and Dvir D. “Mapping the Dimensions of Project Success.”  Project Management Journal 8 (1997): 5-13.
27. Sadeh, Arye, Dvir Dov and Shenhar Aaron “The Role of Contract Type in the Success of R&D Defense Projects unde r Increasing Uncertainty.” Project Management Journal 31 (2000): 14-21.
28. Obare, Josiah Obiria, KyaloDorothy Ndunge, Mulwa Angeline Sabina and Mbugua John. “Implementation Process of Project Control                 Systems, Project Team Training Diversity and Performance of Rural Roads Construction Projects in Kenya.” International Journal of Innovative Research & Development 5 (2016): 12-22.
29. Thomas, SN, Palaneeswaran, Ekambaram and Kumaraswamy Mohan M.“A dynamic e-reporting system for contractor’s performance appraisal.” Advances in Engineering Software 33 (2002): 339-349.        
30. Rao, MV Krishna, Kumar VSS and Kumar P Rathish. “Prequalification of Contractor in the Construction Industry Using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory: A Multiplicative Approach. Malaysian.” J Civ Eng 28 (2016): 467-480.
31. Rashvand, Pooria, Majid Muhd Zaimi Abd, Baniahmadia Mahmoudand Ghavamirad Farzan, “Contractor Selection at         Prequalification Stage: Current Evaluation and Shortcomings.”  Jurnal Teknologi  77 (2015): 81-89.
32. Chiang, Fu-Yuan, Vincent F and Luarn Pin. “Construction Contractor Selection in Taiwan Using AHP.”  Int J Eng Technol 9 (2016): 211-215.
33. http: //www.ijesi.org/papers/Vol (3)7/Version-2/I0372044048.pdf
34. Trivedi, MK, Pandey MK and Bhadoria SS. “Prequalification of Construction Contractor using a FAHP.”  IntJComput Appl 28 (2011): 39-45.
35. Hatush, Zedan and Skitmore, Martin. .” Assessment and evaluation of contractor data against client goals using PERT approach.” Const Manage Eco 15 (1997) : 327-340.
36. https: //scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related: B_V6Uvefsz0J: scholar.google.com/&scioq=36.Zedan,+H.+%26+Skitmore,+R.M.+ (1994).+Contractors%E2%80%99+prequalification+and+bids+evaluation+%09 (unpublished).&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
37. Russell, Jeffrey S and Skibniewski Miroslaw J. “Decision criteria in contractor prequalification.” J Manage Eng42 (1988): 148-164.
38. Herbsman, Zoharand Ellis Ralph “Multiparameter bidding system-innovation in contract administration.”  J Construct Eng Manage 118 (1992): 142-150.
39. https: //scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related: Hn2dizp9nmAJ: scholar.google.com/&scioq=39.Ogbebor,+P.O.+ (2002).+Enhancing+Indigeneous+Construction+Industry+as+a+National+Goal+%09on++Nigerian+%09Development.&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
40. https: //pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6145/3e8fd1e7df093ea1ec515981f088a135148a.pdf?_ga=2.121585160.1612128320.1575632024-369761160.1575632024
41. file: ///C: /Users/Administrator/Downloads/5725-7821-1-PB%20 (4).pdf
42. Greenfield and Morgan. “Management of Health and Safety Performance of Facilities Management. Hertfordshire, UK: British Institute of Facilities Management.”  (2014).
43. Onatere, Joyce O, Nwagboso Christopher and Georgakis Panagiotis. “Performance Indicators for UrbanTransport Development in Nigeria WIT Transactions on the Built Environment.”  138 (2014).
44. Quiroz. “Options for Implementing Performance-Based Contracts.” . Transport Forum, Washington DC (2005).
45. http: //rszarf.ips.uw.edu.pl/ewalps/dzienne/cipp-model-stufflebeam2015.pdf
46. https: //scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related: ocHF689C_LsJ: scholar.google.com/&scioq=46.Chikati,+J.+ (2009).+Monitoring+and+Evaluation+Handbook.+Nairobi: +Regional+Partnership+for+Resource+%09Development.&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
47. https: //www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/monitoring/IFRC-ME-Guide-8-2011.pdf
48. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bo0MSZ_lIqAC&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=48.O%E2%80%99Sullivan,+R.G.+ (2004).+Practicing+Evaluation: +A+Collaborative+Approach.+London: +Sage+Publications.&ots=AAtP-1Iipb&sig=gdD3PKsbzlEaQKIa5gsOGoC5tQk
49. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eDZ2DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=49.Rossi,+P.H.,+Lipsey,+M.+W+%26+Freeman,+H.E.+ (2004).+Evaluation: +A+Systematic+Approach+ (7th+ed.).+London: +Sage+Publications.&ots=ymJ1KDC3rQ&sig=ExZ83a0Gz61BZrc8idfvssTObKw
50. Hassan, Ali Ibrahim. “An Investigation of Structural Capacity as a Component of Monitoring and Evaluation in Project Success of Road Construction Projects in Kenya.” Int JAcad Res Bus Soc Sci3 (2013): 443-452.
51. Kamau,Charles G and Mohamed Humam Bin.“Efficacy of Monitoring and Evaluation in Achieving Project Success in Kenya: A Conceptual Framework.” Sci J Business Manage 3 (2015): 82-94.
52. http: //hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/How_Monitoring_and_Evaluation_Affects_the_Outcome_of_Constituency_Development_Fund_Projects_in_Kenya_A_Case_Study_of_Projects_in_Gatanga_Constituency.pdf
53. Ngosong. Investigation of Problems or Challenges Faced by the Procurement and Delivery of Quality Construction in Africa and Cameroon. School of the Build Environment, College of Science and Technology, University of Salford, Manchester, the Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT, United Kingdom (2015).
54. http: //documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/881961510728438206/Managing-contractors-environment-and-social-performance
55. Nsasira, Rachael, Basheka Benon C and Oluka Pross N. “Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Enhanced Service Delivery in Uganda: Implications from the Energy Sector. Int J Bus Adm 4 (2013): 48-60.
56. Davidson, Bill and Sebastian Richard J. “The Relationship between Contract Administration Problems and Contract Type.” Journal of Public Procurement 9 (2009): 262-286.
57. Salapatas, JN. “Performance Measurement for Projects and Project Management.” Project Management Journal 16 (1985): 29-33.
58. Ojok, James and Basheka, Benon C. “Measuring the Effective Role of Public Sector Monitoringand Evaluation in Promoting Good Governance in Uganda: Implications from the Ministry of Local Government.” Africa’s Public Service Delivery & Performance Review 4 (2016).
59. https: //pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8d73/0e70153473b8e07eb75769d85208d0c734c6.pdf
60. Byaruhanga, Aloysius and Basheka, Benon C. “Contractors Monitoring and Performance of Road Infrastructure Projects in Uganda: A Management Model.” J Build Const Plan Res 5 (2017): 30-44.
61. Umugwaneza, Alice and Kule Julius Warren. “Role of Monitoring and Evaluation on Project Sustainability in Rwanda: A Case of Electricity Access Scale-Up and Sector-Wide Approach Development Project (EASSDP).” Europe Journal of Business and Social Sciences 597 (2016): 159-177.
62. Wambugu, Kyalo, Mbii, and Nyonje. “Research methods: Theory and practice.” Aura Publishers Nairobi (2015).
63. Rugman, Alan M. and Verbeke, Alain. “EDITH Penrose’s Contribution To The Resource-Based View of Strategic Management.” Strateg Manage 23 (2002): 769-780.
64. Theriou, Nikolaos, Aggelidis Vassilis and Theriou Georgios. “A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the Resource-              Based      Perspective and Knowledge-Based View.” Eur ResStud 7 (2009): 177-190.
65. Muller, Ralf and Jugdeve, Kam.“Critical Success Factors in Projects: Pinto, Slevin, Prescott – the elucidation of Project Success.” Int J Manag Proj Bus 5 (2012): 757-775.          
66. Pitelis, Christos N. “Edith Penrose and the Resource-Based View of (International) Business Strategy.”  Int Bus Rev 13 (2004): 523-532.
67. https: //www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781783479658/9781783479658.00021.xml
68. Barney,Jay. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” J Manage 17 (1991): 99-120.
69. Hijzen, Alexander, Gorg Holger and Hine Robert C. “International Outsourcing and the Skill Structure of Labour Demand in the United Kingdom.”  Economic J 115 (2005): 860-878.
70. Jaafar, Mastura, Rashid Abdul and Aziz Abdul.“Resource-Based View and Critical Success Factors: A Study on Small and Medium Sized Contracting Enterprises (SMCEs) in Malaysia.”  Int J Con Manag 5 (2005).
71. Creswell, JW. “Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (4th Edition) Thousand Oaks.” Sage Publications (2014).
72. Leech, Nancy L and Onwuegbuzie Anthony J. “A typology of mixed methods research designs', Quality and Quantity.” Int J Meth 43 (2009): 265-275.
73. http: //agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300557232
74. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7sZHuhyzBNQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=74.Bernard,+H.R.+ (2000).+Social+Research+Methods: +Qualitative+and+Quantitative+Approaches.+Thousand+%09Oaks,+California: +Sage+Publications.&ots=edTIV5kwTG&sig=vNh_f_dEJCPQrZuSsb-fSnTXVGM
75. Gakuu, Celestine Mutheu, Kidombo and Keiyoro Peter Njenga. “Fundamentals of Research Methods: Concepts, Practice & Applications.”  Aura Publishers: Nairobi 11 (2018): 2259-2262.
76. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hZ9wSHysQDYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA2&dq=76.Kothari,+C.R.+ (2004).+Research+Methodology: +Methods+%26+Techniques.+ (2nd+Edition).+New+Delhi: +New+%09Age+International+ (P)+Ltd.&ots=1s-doGd3F7&sig=eDteMZRK7FgGweYqC3PVWsXsiYM
77. https: //www.researchgate.net/profile/Bee_Yap/publication/267205556_Power_Comparisons_of_Shapiro-Wilk_Kolmogorov-Smirnov_Lilliefors_and_Anderson-Darling_Tests/links/5477245b0cf29afed61446e1/Power-Comparisons-of-Shapiro-Wilk-Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lilliefors-and-Anderson-Darling-Tests.pdf
78. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cOt9yDjlSQMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=78.Bierman,+H.,+Bonini,C.+%26+Hausman,+W.+ (1997).+Quantitative+Analysis+for+Management.+New+York: +Irwin+McGraw-Hill.&ots=ro_RXCIzWy&sig=kVkrKuP-NiE0Tj2VfaNEIRPw-8o
79. Bryman, Alan. “Introduction to Social Research Methods.” Sage Publications (2008).
80. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ko6bCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA19&dq=80.Sekaran,+U.+ (2003).+Research+methods+for+Business: +A+Skill+Building+Approach.+New+York: +John+Wiley+%26+Sons.+Journal+of+Management+in+Engineering,+ASCE,+4 (2),+148-64.&ots=2B5RU4LUqR&sig=uQe35HIyjX5mDPGuNON5Gu491rU
81. Enshassi, Adnan, Mohamed Sherif and Abushaban Saleh. “Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip.”  J Civ Eng Manag 15 (2009): 269-280.
82. http: //citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.736.72&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=945
83. https: //books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dDGPPd_4y5sC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=83.Saunders,+M.,+Lewis,+P.+%26+Thornhill,+A.+ (2009).+Research+Methods+for+Business+Students.+New+York: +Pearson.&ots=YYXFYHOB8j&sig=mSh47GswvNkzTYf3QUv9nQ8_QKE
84. Mugenda and Mugenda.“Research methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approach.” Nairobi: ACTS Press (2003).
85. Holmebeck,NHolmbeck. “Toward Terminological, Conceptual, and Statistical Clarity in the Study of Mediators and Moderators: Examples from the Child-Clinical and Paediatrics Psychology Literatures.”  J Consult Clin Psychol 65 (1997): 599-610.
86. Baron, Reuben and Kenny David. “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social Psychological research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”  J Pers Soc Psychol 51 (1986): 1173-1182.