Tender Evaluation Methods in Construction Projects: A Comparative Case Study

H Odeyinka

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    A review of tender evaluation practices from around the world revealed theinadequacy of the ‘lowest bidder’ criterion for contractor selection. In responseto this inadequacy, many countries have introduced qualifications to this criterionand established procedures for the evaluation process. The objectiveof the qualifications is to select a suitable contractor whilst fostering competitiveness.Using a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach, the studyidentified eight contractor attributes from the literature, which are thought to beindicators of contractors’ capability to execute a contract and meet certainproject-specific criteria. Employing a case study project, the tenders of eightcontractors short-listed for the project were evaluated with the attributes usingthe “lowest bid”, multi-attribute analysis (MAA) and analytic hierarchy process(AHP) methods. The results showed that the two multi-criteria decision makingmethods indicated the selection of contractors other than what the ‘lowestbidder’ criterion indicated. Comparing the results of the MAA and AHP methods,it is evident that the two methods differed very little in their ranking of thecontractors. This implies that the more complex nature of AHP and the extraefforts it requires have only a minor influence on the final ranking of contractorsand seems to suggest that the extra cost of using AHP is not justified.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages106-131
    JournalActa Structilia
    Volume13
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2006

    Fingerprint

    Construction project
    Analytic hierarchy process
    Comparative case study
    Evaluation method
    Contractors
    Ranking
    Qualification
    Multicriteria decision-making
    Multi-criteria decision
    Evaluation practice
    Costs
    Competitiveness
    Bid
    Contractor selection
    Evaluation

    Keywords

    • analytic hierarchy process
    • contractor selection
    • multi-attribute
    • analysis
    • pre-qualification
    • tender evaluation

    Cite this

    @article{44aa3a8aad63415db224388419bffda6,
    title = "Tender Evaluation Methods in Construction Projects: A Comparative Case Study",
    abstract = "A review of tender evaluation practices from around the world revealed theinadequacy of the ‘lowest bidder’ criterion for contractor selection. In responseto this inadequacy, many countries have introduced qualifications to this criterionand established procedures for the evaluation process. The objectiveof the qualifications is to select a suitable contractor whilst fostering competitiveness.Using a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach, the studyidentified eight contractor attributes from the literature, which are thought to beindicators of contractors’ capability to execute a contract and meet certainproject-specific criteria. Employing a case study project, the tenders of eightcontractors short-listed for the project were evaluated with the attributes usingthe “lowest bid”, multi-attribute analysis (MAA) and analytic hierarchy process(AHP) methods. The results showed that the two multi-criteria decision makingmethods indicated the selection of contractors other than what the ‘lowestbidder’ criterion indicated. Comparing the results of the MAA and AHP methods,it is evident that the two methods differed very little in their ranking of thecontractors. This implies that the more complex nature of AHP and the extraefforts it requires have only a minor influence on the final ranking of contractorsand seems to suggest that the extra cost of using AHP is not justified.",
    keywords = "analytic hierarchy process, contractor selection, multi-attribute, analysis, pre-qualification, tender evaluation",
    author = "H Odeyinka",
    year = "2006",
    month = "6",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    pages = "106--131",
    journal = "Acta Structilia",
    issn = "1023-0564",
    number = "1",

    }

    Tender Evaluation Methods in Construction Projects: A Comparative Case Study. / Odeyinka, H.

    In: Acta Structilia, Vol. 13, No. 1, 06.2006, p. 106-131.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Tender Evaluation Methods in Construction Projects: A Comparative Case Study

    AU - Odeyinka, H

    PY - 2006/6

    Y1 - 2006/6

    N2 - A review of tender evaluation practices from around the world revealed theinadequacy of the ‘lowest bidder’ criterion for contractor selection. In responseto this inadequacy, many countries have introduced qualifications to this criterionand established procedures for the evaluation process. The objectiveof the qualifications is to select a suitable contractor whilst fostering competitiveness.Using a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach, the studyidentified eight contractor attributes from the literature, which are thought to beindicators of contractors’ capability to execute a contract and meet certainproject-specific criteria. Employing a case study project, the tenders of eightcontractors short-listed for the project were evaluated with the attributes usingthe “lowest bid”, multi-attribute analysis (MAA) and analytic hierarchy process(AHP) methods. The results showed that the two multi-criteria decision makingmethods indicated the selection of contractors other than what the ‘lowestbidder’ criterion indicated. Comparing the results of the MAA and AHP methods,it is evident that the two methods differed very little in their ranking of thecontractors. This implies that the more complex nature of AHP and the extraefforts it requires have only a minor influence on the final ranking of contractorsand seems to suggest that the extra cost of using AHP is not justified.

    AB - A review of tender evaluation practices from around the world revealed theinadequacy of the ‘lowest bidder’ criterion for contractor selection. In responseto this inadequacy, many countries have introduced qualifications to this criterionand established procedures for the evaluation process. The objectiveof the qualifications is to select a suitable contractor whilst fostering competitiveness.Using a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach, the studyidentified eight contractor attributes from the literature, which are thought to beindicators of contractors’ capability to execute a contract and meet certainproject-specific criteria. Employing a case study project, the tenders of eightcontractors short-listed for the project were evaluated with the attributes usingthe “lowest bid”, multi-attribute analysis (MAA) and analytic hierarchy process(AHP) methods. The results showed that the two multi-criteria decision makingmethods indicated the selection of contractors other than what the ‘lowestbidder’ criterion indicated. Comparing the results of the MAA and AHP methods,it is evident that the two methods differed very little in their ranking of thecontractors. This implies that the more complex nature of AHP and the extraefforts it requires have only a minor influence on the final ranking of contractorsand seems to suggest that the extra cost of using AHP is not justified.

    KW - analytic hierarchy process

    KW - contractor selection

    KW - multi-attribute

    KW - analysis

    KW - pre-qualification

    KW - tender evaluation

    M3 - Article

    VL - 13

    SP - 106

    EP - 131

    JO - Acta Structilia

    T2 - Acta Structilia

    JF - Acta Structilia

    SN - 1023-0564

    IS - 1

    ER -