An advanced decision-support system for ranking unbalanced bids

Firat Dogu, A; Damci, A; Arditi, D and Demirkesen, S (2024) An advanced decision-support system for ranking unbalanced bids. Construction Management and Economics, 42(7), pp. 610-623. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Awarding a contract to a bidder who has unbalanced the bid may cost more money to the owner. An owner who determines that a bid has been unbalanced has the legal right to reject the bid. Although several models have been developed to detect unbalanced bids, some researchers still assert that the number of cases in which owners mistakenly identify balanced bids as unbalanced is too great to ignore. One of the reasons of this failure is the use of an inappropriate benchmark against which the offered unit prices are compared. In this paper it is argued that the use of the geometric mean of the unit prices provided by the bidders as a benchmark helps to obtain robust solutions and an advanced decision-making model is proposed in which the Information Entropy and VIKOR methods are used to detect unbalanced bids. The results obtained from an example project drawn from the literature demonstrate how owners may be misled if they use an inappropriate benchmark in detecting unbalanced bids. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by highlighting the negative impacts of using flawed benchmarks in this process, an area of research that is mostly ignored in the unbalanced bidding literature.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: bidding; bid evaluation; unbalanced bidding; decision-making; information Entropy; VIKOR
Index terms: body of knowledge, bidding, bidder, bid evaluation, unbalanced bidding, entropy, owner, decision-making
Subjects: tendering, sociology, decision analysis, bidding, thermal systems, knowledge management
Topics: Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Risk Management, Procurement
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