Wong, C H; Holt, G D and Harris, P (2001) Multi-criteria selection or lowest price? Investigation of UK construction clients' tender evaluation preferences. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(4), pp. 257-271. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The lowest-price wins' philosophy has been a consistent theme of contractor selection over the years. To comprehensively elucidate this selection preference and compare it with the use of a multi-criteria selection (MCS) approach in the tenderer evaluation process, this paper investigates MCS tender price selection preferences. That is, project-specific criteria (PSC) and lowest-price wins selection practices of UK construction clients, in both building and civil engineering works at in detail via results of the empirical survey. The investigation provides further insight into the evaluation of contractors' attributes (i.e. PSC). Levels of importance assigned (LIA) for each criterion were analysed (i.e. quantitative analysis of the differences in opinions and, variance amongst the respondents) in a multivariate statistical method. Importance attached by construction clients to the lowest-price wins' philosophy is also presented. Contrast was made between the MCS approach and the lowest-price wins' option amongst the surveyed construction clients. It was found that increased awareness of the use of PSC prevailed amongst the survey construction clients. This indicated that cost has to be tempered with the evaluation of PSC and the attempt of construction clients searching for a new evaluation paradigm (i.e. adoption of MCS approach rather than basing on the lowest-price wins alone).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contractor evaluation; evaluation criteria; lowest-price wins; multi-criteria selection; project-specific criteria |
| Index terms: | option, statistical method, investigation, paradigm, construction client, variance, contractor selection, preference, quantitative analysis, tender evaluation, philosophy, survey, tender price |
| Subjects: | decision analysis, measurement and scaling, statistical analysis, philosophical studies, decision-making and reasoning, tendering, education and knowledge transfer, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, practitioner |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Risk Management |
| 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