Oladapo, A A (2011) Multi-criteria contractor selection: a practical application of analytic hierarchy process. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 164(2), pp. 79-88. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been proposed by several authors as a method of contractor selection that eliminates the shortcomings of the 'lowest bidder' approach commonly used in the construction industry. Most authors only demonstrate the conceptual model for using AHP in contractor selection with hypothetical data. The objective of this study was to take the process a step further by using real-life project data. The study also sought to compare the ranking of contractors with the 'lowest bidder' method and AHP. The study concluded that the ranking of the contractors by AHP differed from their 'lowest bidder' ranking for most of the contractors (about 68%). This suggests that the extra effort required using AHP compared to using the 'lowest bidder' method is justified. However, the reliability of these results is limited by the fact that they are based on a single case only.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | management; mathematical modelling; tendering |
| Index terms: | contractor selection, bidder, mathematical modelling, construction industry, project data |
| Subjects: | tendering, bidding, analytical methods, industry analysis, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice |
| 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