Chow, L K and Ng, S T (2003) Performance-based evaluation for engineering consultants: A study of assessment criteria. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
Selection of engineering consultants by bid price alone is considered problematic, as the quality of service provided by incapable or unsuitable consultants could in turn affect the time, cost and quality throughout the entire project life cycle. In view of the deficiencies of fee-based methods, project owners in many advanced countries now in favor of adopting Quality-Based Selection (QBS) approaches for selecting consultants. When determining consultant’s competence, previous performance should be carefully examined as the quality of consultants can be directly or indirectly reflected through their performance of similar previous assignments. The importance of performance evaluation is reflected by the high weighting attached to performance-related criteria in many real-world QBS systems. Despite its significance, Consultant Performance Evaluation (CPE) has never been a subject of thorough investigation. In practice, various owners have their own evaluation procedures, criteria and emphasis (reflected in the weightings assigned to the evaluation criteria), and it is difficult to establish a transparent and objective practice for CPE. There is a need to examine whether a universal set of CPE criteria and weightings can be derived for project owners in order to prevent any discrepancies in consultant selection decisions. This paper reports the results of an empirical study conducted with owners and engineering consultants in Hong Kong. The significance of CPE criteria is examined and a list of predominant CPE criteria for QBS approaches is proposed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | consultant selection; consultant’s performance; evaluation criteria |
| Index terms: | performance-based, quality of service, performance evaluation, empirical study, engineering consultant, competence, investigation, owner, life cycle, Hong Kong |
| Subjects: | Geography, personnel development, performance measurement, public and environmental health, research methods, professional, sociology, value management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Human Resources, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here