Using the ordinal priority approach for selecting the contractor in construction projects

Sajjad Ali Mahmood Alkaabi; Ahmed Mohammed Raoof Mahjoob

Open Access

Using the ordinal priority approach for selecting the contractor in construction projects

Sajjad Ali Mahmood Alkaabi

and

Ahmed Mohammed Raoof Mahjoob

| Sep 14, 2023

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal

Volume 15 (2023): Issue 1 (January 2023)

About this article

Cite

Published Online: Sep 14, 2023

Page range: 136 - 156

Received: Nov 12, 2022

Accepted: Jun 04, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0010

Keywords
contractor selection, decision-making, Delphi survey, experts’ evaluation, multi-criteria, ordinal priority approach

© 2023 Sajjad Ali Mahmood Alkaabi et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Common problems associated with some of the MCDM methods. (Mahmoudi et al. 2020). MCDM, multi-criteria decision-making.

A summary of the Delphi survey for identifying the selection criteria.

The flowchart of the proposed experts’ evaluation system.

The proposed framework flowchart for enhancing the decision-making in construction projects. OPA, ordinal priority approach; PCA, principal component analysis.

The main interface of the program proposed in the present study for the formulation of the OPA model subject. OPA, ordinal priority approach.

The weights of alternatives of case study from each scenario.

The weights of criteria of case study from each scenario

The final main criteria/attributes of selection of the best bidder/contractor for the implementation of the construction project that resulted from the Delphi survey and PCA third round.

No.	Criteria	Third round analysis results		PCA results
No.	Criteria	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

The occupational information pertaining to experts’ sample in the Delphi survey.

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

The experts’ answers on the rank of the competing contractors in the case study.

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
Exp. 1	R	2	1	2	2	2	3	1	3	2	4	2	2	4	1	2	2	2	2	4	4
	F	2	1	2	2	1	2	1	2	2	3	2	1	3	1	1	1	2	1	4	3
	A	1	2	2	2	3	1	1	1	1	1	3	3	1	2	2	4	1	3	4	2
	B	3	3	2	1	4	1	1	1	4	2	1	3	2	3	2	3	2	4	4	1
Exp. 2	R	2	1	3	2	2	3	1	3	1	1	2	1	3	1	2	2	2	2	4	4
	F	1	2	3	2	1	4	1	2	1	2	2	2	3	1	1	1	2	1	4	3
	A	3	3	3	2	3	2	1	1	2	4	3	3	2	3	2	4	1	3	4	2
	B	4	4	3	1	3	1	1	1	2	3	1	4	3	2	3	3	2	4	4	1
Exp. 3	R	3	1	3	3	2	2	1	4	3	4	2	2	3	2	2	2	3	2	4	4
	F	2	1	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	3	2	1	3	2	1	1	3	1	4	3
	A	1	2	3	4	3	4	1	2	2	1	3	3	1	1	2	4	2	3	4	2
	B	4	3	3	1	4	3	1	3	4	2	1	4	2	3	3	3	3	4	4	1

The rank of each alternative in the case study according to bid amount.

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

Some of the contractor selection methods from the literature review.

No.	Contractor selection methods	Authors
1.	MOORA method	Brauers et al. (2008)
2.	A fuzzy neural network approach	Lam et al. (2010)
3.	The ANP	Cheng and Li (2004)
4.	The AHP	Razi et al. (2019)
5.	AHP and TOPSIS model	Othoman et al. (2013)
6.	The PCA method	Lam et al. (2005)
7.	BWM and Fuzzy-VIKOR techniques	Naghizadeh Vardin et al. (2021)
8.	An evidential reasoning approach	Sönmez et al. (2001)
9.	SAW-G and TOPSIS GREY techniques	Zavadskas et al. (2010)
10.	The PIPS	Kashiwagi and Byfield (2002)
11.	COPRAS-G	Zavadskas et al. (2009)
12.	The Fuzzy Sets theory	Plebankiewicz (2014)

WV of descriptive frequencies (Jeleva et al. 2017; Mohammed and Jasim 2018).

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

The final weight of each alternative in the case study.

Contractor name	Weight
R	0.234803
F	0.312379
A	0.249111
B	0.203858

Sets, indices and variables for the OPA method (Ataei et al. 2020).

Sets
I	Set of experts ∀i ∈ I
J	Set of attributes ∀j ∈ J
K	Set of alternatives ∀k ∈ K
Indices
I	Index of the experts (1,..., p)
J	Index of preference of the attributes (1,..., n)
K	Index of the alternatives (1,..., m)
Variables
Z	Objective function
$w_{i j k}^{r}$ \[w_{ijk}^{r}\]	Weight (importance) of kth alternative based on jth attribute by ith expert at rth rank
$A_{i j k}^{r}$ \[A_{ijk}^{r}\]	The kth alternative based on attribute j by expert i at rank r

The final weights of each expert in the case study.

Expert name	Weight
Exp. 1	0.589135
Exp. 2	0.262262
Exp. 3	0.148754

The final weights of the selection criteria in the case study.

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 scores of each alternative from applying the traditional method in the case study.

The traditional method (weighted form)
Contractor name	Score
R	80.56
F	83.36
A	77.6
B	68.61

The evaluation questions and their answers.

The questions		Answers					AM	Degree of importance
The questions		V. high (5)	High (4)	Medium (3)	Low (2)	V. low (1)	AM	Degree of importance
(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

The experts’ answers on the rank of selection criteria employed for ascertaining the best bidder or contractor.

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

The qualifications of the selected experts in the case study.

No.	The element of evaluation	Experts’ qualification
No.	The element of evaluation	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 and sub-criteria of selection and evaluation of experts/decision-makers and their weights.

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

eISSN:: 1847-6228
Language:: English

Publication timeframe:: Volume Open
Journal Subjects:: Engineering, Introductions and Overviews, other

Journal RSS Feed

Using the ordinal priority approach for selecting the contractor in construction projects

Article Category: Research Paper

Published Online: Sep 14, 2023

Page range: 136 - 156

Received: Nov 12, 2022

Accepted: Jun 04, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0010

Keywords
contractor selection, decision-making, Delphi survey, experts’ evaluation, multi-criteria, ordinal priority approach

© 2023 Sajjad Ali Mahmood Alkaabi et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

Fig. 5:

Fig. 6:

Fig. 7:

Fig. 8:

Fig. 9:

Fig. 10:

The final main criteria/attributes of selection of the best bidder/contractor for the implementation of the construction project that resulted from the Delphi survey and PCA third round.

The occupational information pertaining to experts’ sample in the Delphi survey.

The experts’ answers on the rank of the competing contractors in the case study.

The rank of each alternative in the case study according to bid amount.

Some of the contractor selection methods from the literature review.

WV of descriptive frequencies (Jeleva et al. 2017; Mohammed and Jasim 2018).

The final weight of each alternative in the case study.

Sets, indices and variables for the OPA method (Ataei et al. 2020).

The final weights of each expert in the case study.

The final weights of the selection criteria in the case study.

The scores of each alternative from applying the traditional method in the case study.

The evaluation questions and their answers.

The experts’ answers on the rank of selection criteria employed for ascertaining the best bidder or contractor.

The qualifications of the selected experts in the case study.

The main criteria and sub-criteria of selection and evaluation of experts/decision-makers and their weights.

Using the ordinal priority approach for selecting the contractor in construction projects

Article Category: Research Paper

Published Online: Sep 14, 2023

Page range: 136 - 156

Received: Nov 12, 2022

Accepted: Jun 04, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/otmcj-2023-0010

Keywordscontractor selection, decision-making, Delphi survey, experts’ evaluation, multi-criteria, ordinal priority approach

© 2023 Sajjad Ali Mahmood Alkaabi et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1:

Fig. 2:

Fig. 3:

Fig. 4:

Fig. 5:

Fig. 6:

Fig. 7:

Fig. 8:

Fig. 9:

Fig. 10:

The final main criteria/attributes of selection of the best bidder/contractor for the implementation of the construction project that resulted from the Delphi survey and PCA third round.

The occupational information pertaining to experts’ sample in the Delphi survey.

The experts’ answers on the rank of the competing contractors in the case study.

The rank of each alternative in the case study according to bid amount.

Some of the contractor selection methods from the literature review.

WV of descriptive frequencies (Jeleva et al. 2017; Mohammed and Jasim 2018).

The final weight of each alternative in the case study.

Sets, indices and variables for the OPA method (Ataei et al. 2020).

The final weights of each expert in the case study.

The final weights of the selection criteria in the case study.

The scores of each alternative from applying the traditional method in the case study.

The evaluation questions and their answers.

The experts’ answers on the rank of selection criteria employed for ascertaining the best bidder or contractor.

The qualifications of the selected experts in the case study.

The main criteria and sub-criteria of selection and evaluation of experts/decision-makers and their weights.

Keywords
contractor selection, decision-making, Delphi survey, experts’ evaluation, multi-criteria, ordinal priority approach