Jennings, P and Holt, G D (1998) Prequalification and multi-criteria selection: A measure of contractors' opinions. Construction Management and Economics, 16(6), pp. 651-660. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The procurement of a construction contractor normally involves some form of prequalification. The better prequalification regimes adopt a structured multi-criteria approach (i.e. contractor evaluation based on a multiple of factors over and above cost). This research solicits contractors' viewpoints on prequalification, in contrast to earlier works which have tended to present clients' perspectives. Contractors are dissatisfied with the frequency and adequacy of current prequalification regimes. An investigation of the mutual benefits of multi-criteria selection leads to the suggestion that such benefits could be better capitalized upon. Contractors' perceived levels of importance (with respect to selection criteria considered by clients during the selection process) are evaluated and show that, in line with earlier findings, 'cost' is still the predominant selection factor, followed by 'contractor experience' and 'company reputation'. A comparison between contractors' rankings of the selection criteria with similar rankings derived from an earlier survey of clients, finds significant correlation, indicating that contractors agree with clients' importance levels of multi-criteria selection factors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor; multi-criteria selection; prequalification; procurement; tendering |
| Index terms: | construction contractor, survey, selection criteria, investigation |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, tendering |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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