**4. Analysis and Comparison of the Results**

In this study, as Table 2 comprises, 14 issues, together with their negative consequences on the readability of the sub-contracting's tender documents, have been determined utilizing the CAA. Table 3 counts the FA of these readability issues as has been found while analyzing the documentation of the 34 sub-contracting tenders. In accordance with Table 3, 8 of the readability issues have been present in all the tender documents. They are RI1, RI2, RI3, RI4, RI5, RI8, RI9, and RI12. Yet, the other 6 issues, encompassing RI6, RI7, RI10, RI11, RI13, and RI14 have appeared in some of the tender documents, with a FA ranging from 9 to 26. Based on the FA of the readability issues, their RFA and R have been computed. Table 4 includes these statistics. As this table presents, given the existence of RI1, RI2, RI3, RI4, RI5, RI8, RI9, and RI12 in all the tender documents, they have the highest RFA of 9.1398%. As a result, they have been awarded the first ranking, and therefore, they are the most-frequent readability issues in the documentation of the sub-contracting tenders. Another observation from the analysis of these eight issues is that the summation of their RFA values is 73.1184%. This consequence, in turn, indicates that 73.1184% of the problems affecting the clarity of reading and understanding the sub-contracting's tender documents are associated with

these 8 issues. Building on this finding, the consequence is that the more the focus on avoiding the occurrence of these issues is, the higher the possibility becomes for providing easy-to-read and comprehensible documentation of the sub-contracting tenders.

As can be extracted from Table 4, additionally, regarding the other six issues of the readability in terms of their RFA and R is that two of them, comprising RI6 and RI10 have been ranked ninth, with an RFA of 6.9892%. Yet, RI7 (RFA = 4.3011%), RI14 (RFA = 3.4946%), RI11 (RFA = 2.6882%), and RI13 (RFA = 2.4194%) have the positions of eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth, respectively. With a deep insight into these six issues together, it can be summarized that they represent 26.8816% of the sources of the unclarity and inconsistency in the tender documents of the sub-contracting practice. Certainly, this small percentage can describe these six issues as factors with limited consequences with respect to the theme being discussed, especially when it is compared to the proportion relevant to the top-eight frequent issues of the readability. Nevertheless, neglecting their avoidance implies that the documents of the sub-contracting tenders are not perfectly functional for being understood without different interpretations or misunderstanding of their clauses. Hence, it is advised that, for drafting the sub-contracting's tender documents in a compatible and understandable manner, the readability issues of both those of the highest and lowest RFA in the tender documentation have to be addressed. Table 5 supports this end by identifying for each readability issue its corresponding anti-measure, along with its possible positive impact on improving the readability of the sub-contracting's tender documentation, regardless of its RFA.

The prior analysis of the readability issues is beneficial, whether for the drafters of the sub-contracting's tender documents or Egypt's construction sector, as this study has been performed with respect to these contexts. Nevertheless, associating the reached findings with those of the relevant literature can afford further consequences from the conducted analysis for being directed to a wider context. In this regard, the top-eight frequent issues of the readability have been compared with the outcomes of Chong and Zin [13] and Koc and Gurgun [15]. These works have been considered because they are the only ones that are concerned with grading the readability issues in descending order of their impact on grasping the construction documentation. Hence, their findings have been deemed appropriate for being compared with the outputs of the current study. As Table 6 illustrates, the context of the present paper is Egypt. In addition, the work of Chong and Zin [13] has been conducted in Malaysia for rating 11 readability issues. Yet, the study of Koc and Gurgun [15] is believed to be associated with Turkey's construction industry for sorting 18 readability risks. These features, in terms of the countries of these studies, indicate that the results of the comparison will be useful to the developing construction markets only.


**Table 6.** Rankings of the top-eight frequent issues of the readability in the developing countries.


According to Table 6, 3 out of 8 of the top-frequent readability issues of the present research have been assessed as highly ranked risks in Malaysia. These issues are RI2, RI4, and RI8, having the first, sixth, and third places, respectively. On the other hand, 4 out of 8 of the most frequent issues of readability, including RI2, RI3, RI4, and RI5, have been marked with high scores in Turkey. Their associated ranks are third, sixth, second, and fifth, respectively. These two facts together mean that while RI2 and RI4 are readability issues, having a full occurrence of 100% in all the investigated countries, RI3, RI5, and RI8, have a rate of frequency of 50%. In the same vein, the rest of the top-eight frequent issues of the readability in the sub-contracting's tender documents, comprising RI1, RI9, and RI12 are with an occurrence proportion of 0%. These statistics, in turn, classify the highly ranked readability issues in the construction documentation of the developing countries into 3 groups, as follows:


Certainly, the aforementioned classification enriches the drafters of the construction documentation and the scholars in the developing countries with a prioritized plan to better comprehend the issues pertinent to their documents' readability. Accordingly, their efforts can be optimized to manage the effects of those issues; particularly this study affords them with the anti-measures of these issues, as Table 5 comprises. Another significant conclusion from Table 6 is that the researches of Chong and Zin [13] and Koc and Gurgun [15] have focused on the same type of construction documents, i.e., contracts. However, the ranks of their readability issues are somewhat different. For instance, in Chong and Zin [13], RI5 and RI8 have the positions of eleventh and third, respectively. Yet, in Koc and Gurgun [15], their associated ranks are fifth and ninth, respectively. These differences, in turn, denote that the ranks of the readability issues are context-bound, varying from country to country. Hence, the top-ranked issues of readability, with respect to the same type of construction document, can differ greatly relying upon the context of the country.
