Tsai, H; Wang, L and Lin, L (2007) A study on improving the ranking procedure for determining the most advantageous tender. Construction Management and Economics, 25(5), pp. 545-554. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
According to the rules of the current Government Procurement Law in Taiwan, the most advantageous tender is often determined based on the sum of ranks among all tenders. This method is criticized, however, for its violating the basic propositions of the measurement theory, being easily biased by a few members in the evaluation Committee, and lack of distinct bases to discriminate the evaluation differences among the Committee members. The improved procedure suggested in this study, which is based on fuzzy relations and adopts eigenvector method, conforms to the judgment principles as well as the measurement theory. With analysis of a procurement case, the results demonstrate that the improved procedure is able to use quantitative methods to identify the evaluation differences among individual Committee members. Therefore, this improved procedure may enhance the quality in determining the most advantageous tender.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | committee; group decision; procurement; ranking method; tendering |
| Index terms: | judgment, eigenvector, Taiwan, quantitative method, government procurement |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, procurement strategy, data analysis and analytics, Geography, measurement and scaling |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Procurement, Legal Issues, Research Practice |
| 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