Manoliadis, O G; Pantouvakis, J P and Christodoulou, S (2009) Improving qualifications-based selection by use of the fuzzy Delphi method. Construction Management and Economics, 27(4), pp. 373-384. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Among prevailing contract-awarding paradigms, the qualifications-based selection (QBS) method offers awarding agencies a substantial level of flexibility and multifactored decision-making capability over traditional cost-based paradigms (such as competitive bidding). QBS is a process used by owners to select proposers to whom they can award a project contract, based on the proposers' professional qualifications in relation to the specific project parameters. Further to being very suitable for the selection of professional engineering design services, QBS can also be applied for the selection of contractors involved in specialized construction or design-build projects. In such cases, the procurement method and the selection criteria used are critical decisions involving several key project team members and decision factors, the formulation of which requires complex evaluation methodologies. Within this context, a process is proposed by which the traditional QBS method can be improved via the utilization of a fuzzy Delphi method (FDM), a cross-mutation of the traditional Delphi method (DM) and fuzzy logic (FL). The method utilizes 'expert' appraisals to identify both the factors and their weights in the overall evaluation process through a 'fuzzy attractiveness ratio' (FAR) which is used for evaluating the bidders' suitability to task.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision making; Delphi method; design-build; fuzzy logic; qualifications-based selection |
| Index terms: | selection criteria, fuzzy Delphi, project team, paradigm, engineering design, bidder, owner, procurement method, Delphi method, fuzzy logic, qualification, agency, suitability, appraisal, methodology, decision-making, competitive bidding |
| Subjects: | project delivery, data science, bidding, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, decision-making and optimization, design criteria, decision analysis, sociology, design process, research methods, tendering, educational resources, education and knowledge transfer, factor and component analysis |
| Topics: | Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Education |
| 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