Phillips, S; Dainty, A and Price, A (2007) The development of a tender analysis support tool for use in social housing best value procurement. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
A number of studies have highlighted the problems and challenges that have been encountered with the analysis of best value tenders carried out in the UK public sector. This research has developed a methodology which enables project stakeholders to streamline the tender analysis procedure allowing tenders to be dealt with effectively and efficiently whilst also creating a transparent and auditable decision making process. A robust support tool has been developed which aids the multi objective decision making process by provoking rational discussion with respect to; the construction industry’s key performance indicators (KPI’s), the client’s attitude to risk and provides a transparent audit trail of the decisions taken. The underlying rationale for the support tool is based on a combination of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), multi utility attribute theory (MAUT) and whole life costing (WLC). The methodology has been developed into user friendly software and the paper demonstrates the practical utility of the tool in operation.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best value; contractor selection; factor analysis; multi attribute utility theory; whole life cycle costing |
| Index terms: | factor analysis, project stakeholder, best value, best value procurement, methodology, whole-life costing, costing, construction industry, best value tender, social housing, multi-attribute utility theory, whole life cycle, key performance indicator, contractor selection, public sector, audit, decision-making process |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, industry analysis, decision-making and optimization, occupational health, administrative law, decision analysis, sociology, housing and residential development, tendering, accounting and finance, research methods, performance measurement, sustainability assessment, project delivery, bidding |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Urban Studies, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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