*3.4. Anti-Measures of the Readability Issues*

For avoiding the 14 specified readability issues, and consequently, improving the clarity of reading and understanding the sub-contracting's tender documentation, their anti-measures should be determined. This purpose is the scope of the second question of this paper: "what are the measures for enhancing the readability in the sub-contracting's tender documents?". To answer this question, the research associated with discussing the readability issues of the contracts (e.g., [15,25]) and their countermeasures (e.g., [13,23,26]) have been reviewed. Indeed, these studies do not include the anti-measures of all the 14 readability issues; they include the countermeasures of the readability issues RI1, RI2, RI6, RI8, and RI9 and parts of those pertinent to RI4 and RI7. However, the deep scrutinizing of these researches guided the author to suggest the anti-measures of the rest of the readability issues. This is on the basis of the concept identified by these studies regarding the role of a countermeasure with respect to a readability issue. This notion is that the function of an anti-measure of a readability issue is minimizing its consequence or preventing its occurrence for making the reading easier, supporting the comprehension, and avoiding the misinterpretation risk. Building on this concept, the author has been enabled to derive the corresponding countermeasures of the rest of the readability issues. Table 5 elaborates the anti-measures of all the readability issues, together with their sources, either from the relevant literature or the author's suggestion. Further, it shows how these anti-measures can improve the readability of the sub-contracting's tender documentation.


#### **Table 5.** Anti-measures of the readability issues.

A: [26]; B: [13]; C: [23]; D: [25]; E: author's suggestion.

#### *3.5. Verifying the Readability Issues and their Anti-Measures*

Although the assembled data have been discussed to be enough for undertaking the CAA and scientific sound steps have been followed to determine the readability issues and their anti-measures, the effectiveness of these factors needs to be verified. This is because, on the basis of the analysis conducted by the author on the compiled tender documents, by using the CAA, the readability issues of Table 2 have been revealed. Further, some of the countermeasures of Table 5 have been defined relying upon the author's suggestion. Hence, the subjectivity in outlining the elements of Tables 2 and 5 may exist. To check the soundness of the outcomes of Tables 2 and 5 as the factors responsible for causing the readability issues and controlling their consequences concerning the sub-contracting's tender documentation, interviews with the construction industry experts have been performed. The interviews have been arranged, employing face-to-face discussions with 3 experts. The number of experts is similar to the sample utilized by Koc and Gurgun [15] for verifying the suitability of their readability risks. Importantly, the experts' bio-data paid the author to appoint them from his personal network for conducting the interviews. In terms of their educational background, 2 of the experts hold Ph.D. in structural engineering, whereas the other has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. As for their expertise within the construction field, it is lengthy, ranging from 16 to 18 years, with broad knowledge of the tendering procedures and their documents. This has been known from the top administrative positions which they occupy in their firms. While 2 of them are the owners of construction companies with grades of 6 and 7, according to the classification system of the EFCBC, the other expert is one of the project managers of a contracting firm with a grade of 1. Moreover, their companies have several contributions in the Egyptian construction sector, either as sub-contractors or general contractors.

To conduct the interviews, a package in a hard copy, encompassing a sample of the tender documentation, the readability issues of Table 2, and the anti-measures of Table 5 have been printed. Subsequently, each expert has been interviewed to discuss the sources of the readability issues as the author found in the sample of the tender documents. Moreover, at the interview, the expert has been asked to examine whether the factors of Table 2 cover the readability issues of the sub-contracting's tender documentation, or if some missing factors have to be involved. In the same vein, the countermeasures of Table 5 have been checked. All the interviewed experts unanimously highlighted that the elements of Table 2 reflect the relevant factors of the readability issues in the sub-contracting's tender documents and the anti-measures of Table 5 are sufficient to avoid their happening. This consensus, in turn, implies that the findings of this study are objective. Consequently, they can be introduced to the drafters of the sub-contracting's tender documents as effective solutions to formulate highly readable and consistent documents.
