No. | Criteria | Third round analysis results | PCA results | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | KMO | Factor pattern coefficient | ||
1. | The technical expertise of the contractor’s current team | 4.5833 | 0.66856 | 0.759 | 0.810 |
2. | Previous experience in the project field (similar projects) | 4.5000 | 0.90453 | 0.725 | 0.776 |
3. | Contractor bid price | 4.5000 | 0.67420 | 0.775 | 0.727 |
4. | Collaboration with other designers and contractors | 4.4167 | 0.51493 | 0.661 | 0.815 |
5. | Contractor’s cash flow | 4.4167 | 0.90034 | 0.585 | 0.691 |
6. | General experience of the contractor | 4.3333 | 0.65134 | 0.792 | 0.774 |
7. | History of legal disputes | 4.3333 | 0.77850 | 0.675 | 0.856 |
8. | Technical bid quality and organising | 4.3333 | 0.88763 | 0.598 | 0.526 |
9. | Number of failed projects in the contractor’s record | 4.2500 | 0.86603 | 0.579 | 0.679 |
10. | Technical approach and work progress program | 4.2500 | 0.96531 | 0.771 | 0.847 |
11. | Number and status of the contractor’s current projects (under construction) | 4.1667 | 0.38925 | 0.661 | 0.757 |
12. | Financial stability of the contractor | 4.1667 | 0.71774 | 0.674 | 0.770 |
13. | Complete projects within the specified time | 4.0833 | 0.79296 | 0.672 | 0.784 |
14. | Financial obligations and debts | 4.0833 | 0.90034 | 0.729 | 0.867 |
15. | Willingness to offer advice and suggest construction methods | 4.0000 | 0.60302 | 0.546 | 0.322 |
16. | Quality systems and cost control | 4.0000 | 0.73855 | 0.695 | 0.803 |
17. | Availability of construction equipment and tools | 3.9167 | 0.51493 | 0.708 | 0.560 |
18. | The occupational safety program | 3.9167 | 0.79296 | 0.668 | 0.765 |
19. | Relationship with the employer or his representative | 3.7500 | 0.62158 | 0.548 | 0.455 |
20. | Record of accidents during previous years | 3.7500 | 0.62158 | 0.607 | 0.371 |
Total | 0.672 |
Experts’ names | Institution name | Work sector | Current position | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | A. J. | Buildings Directorate | Public sector | Planning Engineer |
(2) | S. J. | Al-Mansour General Engineering Company | Public sector | Division Manager |
(3) | H. M. J. | Al-Arabia Company for Engineering Technologies and Contracting | Private sector | Project Manager |
(4) | A. M. J. | The General Company for Iraqi Railways | Public sector | Project Manager |
(5) | A. A. A. | National Center for Engineering Consultancy | Public sector | Depart. Manager |
(6) | M. W. | Buildings Directorate | Public sector | Planning Engineer |
(7) | K. W. | Debajeh Engineering Consulting Office | Private sector | Project Manager |
(8) | H. S. | Buildings Directorate | Public sector | Division Manager |
(9) | A. M. | Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Consulting Office | Private sector | Project Manager |
(10) | H. H. | X-Line Engineering Office | Private sector | Project Manager |
(11) | A. S. | Office Of Externally Funded Projects | Public sector | Division Manager |
(12) | S. Y. | Buildings Directorate | Public sector | Division Manager |
Exp. | Alter. | The selection criteria | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | C16 | C17 | C18 | C19 | C20 | ||
RANK | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | ||
2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||
1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | ||
2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||
3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | ||
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | ||
2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | ||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | ||
4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
The rank | ||
---|---|---|
Contractor name | Bid amount (ID) | Rank |
R | 2,908,346,500 | 4 |
F | 2,563,811,500 | 3 |
A | 2,022,069,000 | 2 |
B | 2,001,704,000 | 1 |
No. | Contractor selection methods | Authors |
---|---|---|
1. | MOORA method | |
2. | A fuzzy neural network approach | |
3. | The ANP | |
4. | The AHP | |
5. | AHP and TOPSIS model | |
6. | The PCA method | |
7. | BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR techniques | |
8. | An evidential reasoning approach | |
9. | SAW-G and TOPSIS GREY techniques | |
10. | The PIPS | |
11. | COPRAS-G | |
12. | The Fuzzy Sets theory |
Descriptive frequency | CI | WV |
---|---|---|
Very low | 1 ≤ CI ≤ 1.8 | 1 |
Low | 1.8 < CI ≤ 2.6 | 2 |
Medium | 2.6 < CI ≤ 3.4 | 3 |
High | 3.4 < CI ≤ 4.2 | 4 |
Very high | 4.2 < CI ≤ 5 | 5 |
Contractor name | Weight |
---|---|
R | 0.234803 |
F | 0.312379 |
A | 0.249111 |
B | 0.203858 |
Set of experts ∀i ∈ I | |
Set of attributes ∀j ∈ J | |
Set of alternatives ∀k ∈ K | |
Index of the experts (1,..., |
|
Index of preference of the attributes (1,..., |
|
Index of the alternatives (1,..., |
|
Objective function | |
Weight (importance) of |
|
The |
Expert name | Weight |
---|---|
Exp. 1 | 0.589135 |
Exp. 2 | 0.262262 |
Exp. 3 | 0.148754 |
Selection criteria | Weight |
---|---|
C1 | 0.092762 |
C2 | 0.10515 |
C3 | 0.0666 |
C4 | 0.039449 |
C5 | 0.022768 |
C6 | 0.061125 |
C7 | 0.0478 |
C8 | 0.029022 |
C9 | 0.0685 |
C10 | 0.034672 |
C11 | 0.077974 |
C12 | 0.110802 |
C13 | 0.08656 |
C14 | 0.044946 |
C15 | 0.021029 |
C16 | 0.020759 |
C17 | 0.021233 |
C18 | 0.024357 |
C19 | 0.006592 |
C20 | 0.018051 |
The traditional method (weighted form) | |
---|---|
Contractor name | Score |
R | 80.56 |
F | 83.36 |
A | 77.6 |
B | 68.61 |
The questions | Answers | AM | Degree of importance | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V. high (5) | High (4) | Medium (3) | Low (2) | V. low (1) | ||||
(1) | Is the proposed framework applicable to construction projects? | 3 | 8 | 3 | - | - | 4 | High |
(2) | Is the sequence of issues in the proposed framework suitable? | 2 | 11 | 1 | - | - | 4.07 | High |
(3) | Based on your opinion, does the proposed framework contribute towards enhancing decision-making in construction projects? | 1 | 7 | 6 | - | - | 3.64 | High |
(4) | What do you think about the importance of the proposed framework for your workplace? | 1 | 6 | 3 | 4 | - | 3.28 | Medium |
(5) | Does the proposed framework deal well with changes and updates? | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | - | 3.57 | High |
No. | Selection criteria of the design consultant | The experts | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exp. 1 | Exp. 2 | Exp. 3 | |||
Rank | |||||
C1. | The technical expertise of the contractor’s current team | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
C2. | Previous experience in the project field (similar projects) | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
C3. | Contractor bid price | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
C4. | Contractor’s cash flow | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
C5. | Collaboration with other designers and contractors | 11 | 4 | 10 | |
C6. | General experience of the contractor | 3 | 5 | 3 | |
C7. | History of legal disputes | 3 | 8 | 4 | |
C8. | Technical bid quality and organising | 11 | 4 | 11 | |
C9. | Number of failed projects in the contractor’s record | 2 | 6 | 2 | |
C10. | Technical approach and work progress program | 5 | 5 | 7 | |
C11. | Number and status of the contractor’s current projects (under construction) | 2 | 2 | 5 | |
C12. | Financial stability of the contractor | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
C13. | Complete projects within the specified time | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
C14. | Financial obligations and debts | 4 | 4 | 8 | |
C15. | Quality systems and cost control | 7 | 7 | 9 | |
C16. | Willingness to offer advice and suggest construction methods | 8 | 9 | 12 | |
C17. | Availability of construction equipment and tools | 6 | 6 | 6 | |
C18. | The occupational safety program | 9 | 5 | 10 | |
C19. | Relationship with the employer or his representative | 6 | 10 | 7 | |
C20. | Record of accidents during previous years | 10 | 9 | 13 |
No. | The element of evaluation | Experts’ qualification | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Exp.1 | Exp. 2 | Exp. 3 | |||
1. | 10 ≤ EX < 15 | ||||
15 ≤ EX < 20 | √ | ||||
20 ≤ EX < 25 | √ | √ | |||
25 ≤ EX | |||||
The Experience Years | 23 | 21 | 17 | ||
2. | Has a good relationship with the senior management? | √ | √ | √ | |
Not have discounts or problems with the work team? | √ | √ | |||
Has acceptability and the ability to deal with different cultures? | √ | √ | |||
Has good relations with other parties outside the organization? | √ | √ | |||
3. | Has not had an administrative penalty for the past five years? | √ | √ | √ | |
Has at least five certificates of thanks and appreciation for the past five years? | √ | √ | √ | ||
has a good professional history characterized by integrity, impartiality? | √ | √ | √ | ||
Has a recommendation certificate from a previous job? | √ | √ | |||
4. | Has no communication and coordination problems in his last three projects? | √ | √ | √ | |
Has the ability to use communication and coordination programs? | √ | √ | √ | ||
Has a high level of negotiation and persuasion skills? | |||||
participation in previous committees in resolving and settling disputes? | √ | √ | |||
5. | participation in workshops or training courses in the building evaluation? | √ | √ | √ | |
Has good experience from previous similar work? | √ | √ | |||
Has knowledge and ability to use engineering programs? | √ | ||||
Has published research in the selected field? | |||||
6. | 10 ≤ E < 15 | ||||
15≤ E < 20 | √ | ||||
20 ≤ E < 25 | √ | ||||
25 ≤ E | √ | ||||
The Employment Years | 25 | 23 | 18 | ||
7. | BSc. | √ | √ | ||
High diploma | |||||
MSc. | √ | ||||
Ph.D. |
The main criteria | AM | SD | Weight % | Sub-criteria | Weight value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | Years of practical experience in the field of specialisation | 4.476 | 0.75 | 16.2362 | – 10 ≤ EX < 15 | 0.25 |
– 15 ≤ EX < 20 | 0.5 | |||||
– 20 ≤ EX < 25 | 0.75 | |||||
–25 ≤ EX | 1 | |||||
(2) | Personal relationships | 4.142 | 0.91 | 15.0247 | – Has a good relationship with the senior management? | 0.25 |
– Has not had discounts or problems with the work team? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has acceptability and the ability to deal with different cultures? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has good relations with other parties outside the organisation? | 0.25 | |||||
(3) | Good conduct and confidence | 4 | 1 | 14.5096 | – Has not had an administrative penalty for the past 5 years? | 0.25 |
– Has had at least five certificates of thanks and appreciation during the past 5 years? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has a good professional history characterised by integrity and impartiality? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has a recommendation certificate from a previous job? | 0.25 | |||||
(4) | The ability to communicate and coordinate between parties | 3.857 | 0.91 | 13.9909 | – Has had no communication and coordination problems in his last three projects? | 0.25 |
– Has the ability to use communication and coordination programs? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has a high level of negotiation and persuasion skills? | 0.25 | |||||
– Participation in previous committees in resolving and settling disputes? | 0.25 | |||||
(5) | Capability for research and development in the field of specialisation | 3.761 | 1.09 | 13.6426 | – Participation in workshops or training courses in the specified field? | 0.25 |
– Has good experience from previous similar work? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has knowledge and ability to use engineering programs? | 0.25 | |||||
– Has published research in the selected field? | 0.25 | |||||
(6) | Employment years | 3.761 | 1.22 | 13.6426 | –10 ≤ E < 15 | 0.25 |
– 15 ≤ E < 20 | 0.5 | |||||
– 20 ≤ E < 25 | 0.75 | |||||
– 25 ≤ E | 1 | |||||
(7) | Academic degree (BSc., MSc., Ph.D.) | 3.571 | 1.08 | 12.9534 | –BSc. | 0.25 |
– High diploma | 0.5 | |||||
– MSc. | 0.75 | |||||
– Ph.D. | 1 |