Wong, C H (2001) Investigation of contractor selection criteria and development of contractor classification model: a UK case. PhD thesis, University of Wolverhampton, UK.
Abstract
"Contractor selection practices in UK construction industry have long been criticised. Evidence shows a divergent use of selection methods and different preferences during selection exercises. Albeit, many are adopted and comply with good guidance practices and recommendations from construction reports and commentators. This research focused on UK construction clients contractor selection preferences i.e. prequalification criteria (PC) and project-specific criteria (PSC), and development of contractor classification models to assist construction clients decision-making during tender evaluation. The research also placed emphasis on identifying current selection practices, and gives recommendations to standardisation of contractor selection practices. Tracing client selection preferences and behaviours are the main focus of this research. However, attention also emphasised contractors views upon selection, from prequalification to invitation-to-tender. The pilot (questionnaire) survey findings identify factors affecting clients non-use of standard prequalification practices, particularly, the conflicting views regarding Latham s recommendations (standardisation of contractor prequalification). A second questionnaire survey was conducted to collect information regarding the use of PC and PSC both for building and civil engineering projects from UK construction practitioners. Quantitative analysis of these data from public clients, private clients and contractors represents an in-depth study of these selection criteria and their levels of importance assigned (LIA) by construction practitioners. Significant views and differences on LIA for each selection criteria, and with respect to various selection settings were identified. A multivariate discriminant analysis (MDA) technique is used to classify and predict good and poor contractor groups. The technique used in contractor classification is fully elucidated via sixty-eight case studies of both (completed) building and civil engineering projects; by the first Z1 model and subsequently the (main) Z2 model. The models were tested using independent samples and have been found to have a high degree of accuracy in contractor performance classification."
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accuracy; civil engineering; contractor performance; contractor selection; prequalification; selection criteria; UK; discriminant analysis; quantitative analysis; case study; questionnaire survey; client |
| Index terms: | decision-making, tender evaluation, evidence, questionnaire, quantitative analysis, preference, selection method, construction practitioner, survey, accuracy, standardization, investigation, selection criteria, public client, construction industry, contractor selection, discriminant analysis, Latham, exercise, case study, contractor performance, construction client |
| Subjects: | practitioner, health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, data analysis and analytics, contract management, professional development, performance measurement, tendering, decision-making and reasoning, industry analysis, statistical analysis, industry policy reports, sociology, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Governance, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Contract Administration, Procurement, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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