Holt, G D; Olomolaiye, P O and Harris, F C (1994) Evaluating performance potential in the selection of construction contractors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1(1), pp. 29-50. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
A quantitative contractor selection technique which embraces the pre-qualification, evaluation and final selection processes is being developed. The emphasis is on evaluating contractors' performance potential in terms of their ability to achieve time, cost and quality standards. This approach is in contrast to the majority of current selection techniques which tend to prequalify, then discriminate predominantly on the cost component of tenders. The conceptual model is applied to a hypothetical but realistic scenario of a contractor competing for a small industrial contract. This illustrates the mechanics of the new technique, emphasizing that contractor selection should include identifying the contractor with the best performance potential and not merely the lowest bidder.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor performance; contractor selection; decision making; multi-attribute analysis |
| Index terms: | pre-qualification, bidder, contractor selection, contractor performance, multi-attribute analysis, construction contractor, quality standard, decision-making |
| Subjects: | tendering, quality assurance, practitioner, contract management, decision analysis, bidding |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Contract Administration |
| 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