IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jopppp/jopp-05-2018-0020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriteria approach to select the most economically advantageous tender

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriella Marcarelli
  • Andrea Nappi

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to show how the proposed approach (two analytic hierarchy process [AHP] models) may allow dealing with the best tender selection process in an organic and simple way and ensure the consistency check of the judgements, the necessary step for having reliable results. At first, this paper highlights some critical issues regarding the weighted sum model (WSM) and the algorithms frequently used to evaluate the most economic advantageous tender. Then, it proposes to extend the AHP approach to the evaluation of both the qualitative and quantitative components of a public procurement award. Finally, the WSM and the AHP are applied to the same case study to show, step by step, some criticisms of the former and some advantages of the latter. Design/methodology/approach - This paper proposes to apply two AHP models to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative components of a public tender. The quality and cost models allow to identify and select the tender associated with the highest quality/cost ratio. Findings - The assessment of the WSM and the AHP models, and some differences between them, build upon their application as an example of public procurement. A case study is used as a teaching device (Yin, 2003) to highlight why the AHP may provide different results. In particular, an important issue concerning the evaluation of qualitative requirements is explored: the consistency of judgements expressed by the committee members. Social implications - This approach provides analytical tools for public management that allow appropriate implementation of their management function and allow a realisation of the strategic objectives of European Union law and Italian legislation on public procurement. It would help managers to prioritise their goals and criteria and evaluate them in a scientific way. The model integrates multiple qualitative and quantitative criteria, simplifies the selection process, achieves optimal use of funds and leads to cost savings. It allows to reduce the discretional power of both the contracting issuer, in the choice of the formula to adopt for calculating the coefficients, and the committee members, allowing tender evaluation to have more trust and ensure the fairness of public procurement matters and quality of the object purchased. Originality/value - This paper proposes the use of two hierarchical models to evaluate qualitative and quantitative requirements and provide the ranking among several tenders.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriella Marcarelli & Andrea Nappi, 2019. "Multicriteria approach to select the most economically advantageous tender," Journal of Public Procurement, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(3), pages 201-223, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jopppp:jopp-05-2018-0020
    DOI: 10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JOPP-05-2018-0020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:jopppp:jopp-05-2018-0020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.