Marsh, K and Fayek, A R (2010) SuretyAssist: Fuzzy expert system to assist surety underwriters in evaluating construction contractors for bonding. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(11), pp. 1219-1226. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In construction, many owners mitigate the risk of unforeseen contractor default by accepting only bonded contractors who must endure a rigorous evaluation process by surety brokers and surety underwriters. This evaluation process includes a financial analysis and a review of work on hand and past performance, all of which have reliable structured methods for their evaluation. Additionally, a number of subjective criteria are considered that are more difficult to capture and assess objectively but which can be modeled effectively using fuzzy logic. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how fuzzy logic and expert systems can be combined to provide a structured approach to evaluating contractors for surety underwriting purposes. Fuzzy logic is used to model both the objective and subjective factors considered in contractor evaluation using linguistic terms, and expert rules are used to capture the surety experts' reasoning process. A fuzzy expert system, SuretyAssist, is presented that can be used to provide an initial evaluation of general contractors as well as periodic reviews to determine whether or not to accept them as clients for bonding. SuretyAssist was validated using 31 actual cases of contractor evaluation and found to be accurate in 81% of the cases.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bids; bonding; contractors; expert systems; fuzzy sets; knowledge-based systems; questionnaires |
| Index terms: | fuzzy logic, owner, knowledge-based system, fuzzy set, expert system, questionnaire, construction contractor, reasoning, broker, default, general contractor, surety, financial analysis |
| Subjects: | warranties, sociology, cognitive psychology, data management, decision-making and optimization, profession, data collection methods, practitioner, dispute resolution, design economy, data science, artificial intelligence |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Contract Administration, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| 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