Developing a generic fuzzy multi-attribute analysis model for EPC contractor selection

Dissanayake, N; Xia, B; Skitmore, M; Trigunarsyah, B and Menadue, V (2026) Developing a generic fuzzy multi-attribute analysis model for EPC contractor selection. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 16(1), pp. 1-19. ISSN 2044-124X

Abstract

Purpose – This study introduces a novel fuzzy multi-attribute analysis (FMAA) model to enhance decision-making in engineering-procurement-construction (EPC) contractor selection by effectively addressing the complexities and uncertainties inherent in these processes. Design/methodology/approach – The FMAA model was developed through a comprehensive methodology comprising an extensive literature review to identify challenges and criteria in contractor selection, expert consultations to refine the model framework, and validation via in-depth interviews with experienced EPC project managers. Key steps include defining selection criteria, determining appropriate weights, and employing fuzzy set theory to manage uncertainties. Findings – Compared to traditional methods, the FMAA model offers a structured and scalable approach to contractor selection, effectively reducing uncertainty and enhancing decision-making accuracy. Validation through expert interviews confirmed its practical relevance and adaptability across diverse EPC project contexts. Research limitations/implications – While the model provides valuable insights, further research utilizing quantitative validation methods and case studies is essential to assess its applicability across various construction sectors and geographical regions. Practical implications – By adopting the FMAA model, project managers can systematically evaluate contractors, ensuring the selection of candidates best suited to achieve long-term project success and sustainability. Social implications – Structured decision-making frameworks like the FMAA model promote improved project outcomes and sustainable practices, contributing to enhanced performance within the construction industry. Originality/value – This study advances contractor selection methodologies by integrating contemporary decision-making approaches with empirical validation, addressing critical gaps in managing the complexity and uncertainty inherent in EPC projects.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction project management; contractor selection; engineering-procurement-construction; fuzzy set theory; integrated design and construction practices; multi-attribute analysis; multi-criteria decision making; sustainable construction
Index terms: accuracy, literature review, sustainable construction, integrated design and construction, interview, complexity, construction sector, adaptability, validation, decision-making, methodology, multi-attribute analysis, project outcome, fuzzy set theory, project success, sustainable practice, project manager, case study, contractor selection, selection criteria, construction industry, construction project management
Subjects: data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, profession, sustainable practices, decision analysis, systems engineering, industry analysis, construction integration, professional development, project management theory and practice, user focus, project completion, decision-making and optimization, research methods, tendering, sustainable construction
Topics: Design Practice, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Sustainability, Risk 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