Construction Contractor Selection in Taiwan Using AHP

Abstract

In Taiwan, construction-project owners sometimes divide contractor selection into two phases: prequalification and final selection. The first phase entails evaluating the contractors' prequalifications and is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process, with contractors evaluated based on the weighted sum of their criteria scores. However, the criteria weights are usually determined according to the opinions of the project owners or professionals and may have some shortcomings. This study applies the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine criteria weights and overcome these shortcomings. First, this study determines the appropriate evaluation criteria and constructs the hierarchical structure of the criteria. Second, experts' opinions are analyzed to calculate the following criteria weights: technical ability (0.243), management capability (0.239), financial soundness (0.219), reputation (0.168) and health and safety (0.131). The model proposed in this study for evaluating contractors' prequalifications can serve as a good reference for project owners in the process of selecting contractors.

Grey SWARA-FUCOM Weighting Method for Contractor Selection MCDM Problem: A Case Study of Floating Solar Panel Energy System Installation

“…This describes the qualities and ability associated with activities necessary to manage the funds to implement the solar panel installation project [51,71]. The amount of money set aside for the project in order to make it successful is measured as Financing and Investment (C 1-1 ) [72,73]. Moreover, the quality of the fund is measured through the contracts cash flow to determine if it is steady, i.e., unlikely to change or interrupted, and this is described as Financial Stability (C 1-2 ) [49,74].…”

“…This evaluates the ability of the contractor's staff to execute the project of installing the solar panel, including their ability to keep to national electrical regulation standards [72,73]. The contractor's Quality Performance (C 2-1 ) measures their bidding proposal in terms of describing how well they will maintain the national electricity regulatory standards, as well as precautionary measures incorporated into the installation to increase its longevity [73,74].…”

“…Similar Project Performance (C 2-3 ) measures how well or badly the contract would execute a similar project [73,76]. Qualification of Staff (C 2-4 ) measures the number of licensed staff able to complete the project [72,73]. Technical Staff Experience (C 2-5 ) evaluates staff skills for installation [44,78,79].…”

Criteria Evaluation for Contractor Selection in Cultural Heritage Projects Using Multiple Criteria Approach

“…In seeking to select the qualified, experienced, and conscientious contractor for construction projects, many researchers have proposed multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches for solving contractor selection problems. AHP approach (Martin, Koyloss, & Welch, 2018;Assaf, Hassanain, Hadidi, & Amman, 2017;Chiang, Yu, & Luarn, 2017;Hadidi & Khater, 2015;Fong & Choi, 2000) was presented for contractor, sub-contractor and supplier selection. Some researchers have suggested AHP method integrated with other multi-criteria decision-making approaches: AHP and ANP (Sarkis, Meade, & Presley, 2012), AHP and PROMETHEE (Polat, 2016), AHP and Fuzzy AHP technique (Plebankiewicz & Kubek, 2016), AHP and Zero one integer linear programming (Rajaprasad, 2018), and AHP and Value Engineering Technique (Aboelmagd, 2018).…”

“…Presently, researchers have determined the contractor selection criteria. The most common criteria presented in the studies are financial soundness (Fong & Choi, 2000;Polat, 2016;Gao, 2018;(Vahdami, Meysam Mousavi, Hashemi, Mousakhami, & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, 2013), technical capability (Niento-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2012;Zavadskas et al, 2015;Zhang et al, 2018;Vahdami et al, 2013), management ability (Niento-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2012; Chiang et al, 2017;Kaklauskas et al, 2006), health and safety (Chiang et al, 2017;Taylan et al, 2018;Gao, 2018;Holt, 1998) and reputation (Kaklauskas et al, 2006;Keung & Yiu, 2015;Enshassi, Mohamed, & Modough, 2013;Darvish, Yasaei, & Saeedi, 2009). Furthermore, along these criteria was proposed additional criteria, namely, previous performance (Hadidi & Khater, 2015;Cheng & Li, 2004;Ulubeyli & Kazaz, 2016), quality (Martin et al, 2018;Marzouk, El Kherbawy, & Khalifa, 2013;Juan, Perng, Castro-Lacouture, & Lu, 2009); and experience (Yang, H. Wang, W. Wang, & Ma, 2016;Topcu, 2004).…”