Tensem: A multicriteria and multidecision-makers' model in tender evaluation

Pongpeng, J and Liston, J (2003) Tensem: A multicriteria and multidecision-makers' model in tender evaluation. Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), pp. 21-30. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

In tender evaluation, there appears to be a lack of a realistic working models capable of simultaneously (1) compiling multiple decision-makers' inputs, (2) incorporating risk and uncertainty, and (3) offering computer interaction that makes a model flexible to any change in situation. Thus, the research has developed a more realistic working model including the necessary capabilities mentioned. The vital theory behind the model was a combination of a utility function and a social welfare function. The model was divided into two main steps (step1: evaluating contractor ability and step2: evaluating tenders) consisting of three main processes: (1) the contractor ability criteria selection process; (2) the contractor ability criteria balancing/measuring process; and (3) bid price and contractor ability balancing/measuring process. The model incorporated computer interaction in which Microsoft Excel performed calculation tasks while Visual Basic for Application (VBA) was coded for user interaction. To obtain a realistic working product, the model was tested for user friendliness, verification, sensitivity analysis, and validation. The test has shown that the multicriteria and multidecision-makers' model, TenSeM, is a rational and realistic approach in solving a tender evaluation problem.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: interactive model; multicriteria; multidecision-makers; social welfare function; tender evaluation
Index terms: sensitivity analysis, tender evaluation, validation, interaction
Subjects: tendering, behavioral psychology, professional development, environmental hazards
Topics: Procurement, Information Management, Sustainability, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

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