Hatush, Z and Skitmore, M (1997) Assessment and evaluation of contractor data against client goals using PERT approach. Construction Management and Economics, 15(4), pp. 327-340. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A methodology for assessing and evaluating contractor data for the purpose of prequalification and bid evaluation is presented. The PERT approach is used to develop a linear model for the assessment of contractor data. The model incorporates a multiple ratings permitting the uncertainty in contractor data to be evaluated. An empirical study investigating the importance of different contractor criteria is described. A lexicographical ordering with aspiration levels and risk analysis with sensitivity methods are used to evaluate and select or rank-order contractors against the main client goals of time, cost, and quality. A literature review is reported regarding client goals and current evaluation strategies. The assumptions, advantages and disadvantages of this work as well as an example are also presented.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bid evaluation; client goals; contractor data; criteria; pert; prequalification |
| Index terms: | methodology, risk analysis, strategy, literature review, client goal, empirical study, bid evaluation |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, research methods, tendering, management, data analysis and analytics, client relations |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Procurement, Stakeholder 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