IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v18y2000i5p547-557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Sik-Wah Fong
  • Sonia Kit-Yung Choi

Abstract

Some contractor selection methods currently in existence are criticized as incomplete and biased, and lacking consideration in terms of the contractor's ability to achieve simultaneously, time, cost, quality and safety standards. This research examines an alternative contractor selection model called the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), which will help construction clients to identify contractors with the best potential to deliver satisfactory outcomes in a final contractor selection process which is not based simply on the lowest bid. The AHP comprises three parts: hierarchic structure, prioritization procedure, and calculation of results. This model is tested by a hypothetical scenario where three contractor candidates are evaluated. The criteria used for contractor selection in the model have been identified, and the significance of each criterion has been arrived at by conducting a questionnaire survey in public organizations in Hong Kong. Comparisons are made by ranking the aggregate scores of each candidate with regard to their performance against each of the criteria, and the candidate associated with the highest scores is the best contractor on this occasion.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Sik-Wah Fong & Sonia Kit-Yung Choi, 2000. "Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(5), pages 547-557.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:18:y:2000:i:5:p:547-557
    DOI: 10.1080/014461900407356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014461900407356
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stéphanie Boulenger & Marcelin Joanis, 2015. "Analyse économique des marchés publics dans l’industrie de la construction au Québec," CIRANO Project Reports 2015rp-23, CIRANO.
    2. Franco Cheung & Judy Leung Fung Kuen & Martin Skitmore, 2002. "Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of architectural consultants," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 569-580.
    3. Amirhosein Jafari, 2013. "A contractor pre-qualification model based on the quality function deployment method," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(7), pages 746-760, July.
    4. Junn-Yuan Teng & Wen-Chih Huang & Maw-Cherng Lin, 2010. "Systematic budget allocation for transportation construction projects: a case in Taiwan," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 331-361, March.
    5. Martin Ekstrom & Hans Bjornsson & Clifford Nass, 2003. "Accounting for rater credibility when evaluating AEC subcontractors," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 197-208.
    6. repec:pal:jorsoc:v:61:y:2010:i:6:d:10.1057_jors.2010.13 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Puying Li & Simon Huston, 2015. "International Competitiveness of ChinaÕs Construction Firms," ERES eres2015_67, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    8. K. C. Lam & T. S. Hu & S. T. Ng, 2005. "Using the principal component analysis method as a tool in contractor pre-qualification," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7), pages 673-684.
    9. Mimović Predrag & Krstić Ana, 2016. "Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis in the Public Procurement Process Optimization," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 54(1), pages 103-128, March.
    10. Sai-On Cheung & Henry Suen, 2002. "A multi-attribute utility model for dispute resolution strategy selection," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 557-568.

    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:taf:conmgt:v:18:y:2000:i:5:p:547-557. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.