Tender evaluation through efficiency analysis for public construction contracts

Given the European Public Procurement Directive 2014/24/EU, policymakers have ordered the inclusion of various criteria, such as the price, life-cycle costs, environmental, and social aspects, in the evaluation of tenders for public construction projects. Consequently, the relevance of non-monetary award criteria has gained significant value. However, the established evaluation formulas, which are used to obtain the best value for money procurement, have resulted in legal disputes. The existing evaluation formulas exhibit mathematical weaknesses, wherein scoring indices do not express economic efficiency adequately. Thus, a conflict is observed between the political requirement of non-monetary award criteria and their evaluation by contracting authorities. To overcome such dilemma, an extensive literature review is conducted. Specifically, this study explores the essential problems of existing evaluation formulas and develops a more reliable method. The technique from the field of efficiency analysis, i.e., Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), is adopted in this study. For contract awarding, the DEA is extended by introducing a decision theoretical framework. For public procurement, the proposed method combines two advantages. First, the proposed method ensures the derivation of a robust tender ranking given that with respect to clients’ preferences, irrelevant and insufficiently tailored tenders do not influence the scoring. Second, the proposed method supports the intention of policy makers to promote public goals, such as sustainable aspects. By disclosing the strengths and weaknesses of bidders with respect to their competitors, all bidders can obtain a precise overview of their performance regarding the award criteria. In sum, the proposed method allows a targeted improvement of certain criteria values in future tenders and consequently leads to an enhancement of public goals.

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessment of Construction Project Contractor Selection Success Factors considering Their Interconnections

Critical Selection Factors for Contractors to Make Bid/No-Bid Decision in Construction Projects in Sri Lanka

Evaluation of Procurement Systems of Public Sector Funded Projects

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

References

• Alhola K (2012). Environmental criteria in public procurement: Focus on tender documents. Monographs of the Boreal Environmental Research, 40. Aalto: Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics, Aalto University Google Scholar
• Ballesteros-Pérez P, Skitmore M, Pellicer E, Zhang X (2016). Scoring rules and competitive behaviour in best-value construction auctions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(9): 04016035 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Banker R D, Charnes A, Cooper W W (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078–1092 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bratt C, Hallstedt S, Robert K H, Broman G, Oldmark J (2013). Assessment of criteria development for public procurement from a strategic sustainability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52: 309–316 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chambers R G, Chung Y, Färe R (1998). Profit, directional distance functions, and nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 98(2): 351–364 ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
• Charnes A, Cooper W W, Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6): 429–444 ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
• Cheaitou A, Larbi R, Al Housani B (2019). Decision making framework for tender evaluation and contractor selection in public organizations with risk considerations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 68: 100620 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cheung S O, Lam T I, Leung M Y, Wan W W (2010). An analytical hierarchy process based procurement selection method. Construction Management and Economics, 19(4): 427–437 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Costantino N, Dotoli M, Falagario M, Fanti M P, Mangini A M, Sciancalepore F (2011). Supplier selection in the public procurement sector via a data envelopment analysis approach. In: Proceedings of the 19th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED). Corfu: IEEE, 236–241 Google Scholar
• Darko A, Chan A P C, Ameyaw E E, Owusu E K, Pärn E, Edwards D J (2019). Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management, 19 (5): 436–452 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dini F, Pacini R, Valletti T (2006). Scoring rules. In: Dimitri N, Piga G, Spagnolo G, eds. Handbook of Procurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 293–321 ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Dreschler M (2008). Analysis of price correction award mechanisms applied in the Dutch construction industry. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Public Procurement Conference. Amsterdam, 423–440
• Eder M (2012). VIP—Tender model for infrastructure projects. Geomechanics and Tunnelling, 5(6): 708–717 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Eke G, Wedawatta G, Elgy J (2017). A quantifiable method of assessing the risk of selecting the lowest bidder in construction projects: A literature review. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Postgraduate Research Conference. Salford, 637–646
• Erdogan S A, Saparauskas J, Turskis Z (2019). A multi-criteria decision-making model to choose the best option for sustainable construction management. Sustainability, 11(8): 2239 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• European Commission (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS3). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Google Scholar
• European Court of Justice (2013). Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) from 2013-01-29 in Case T-532/10. ECLI:EU:T:2013:38
• European Court of Justice (2016). Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) from 2016-07-14 in Case C-6/15. ECLI:EU:C:2016:555
• European Court of Justice (2018). Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) from 2018-05-03 in Case C-376/16. ECLI:EU: C:2018:299
• European Parliament, Council of the EU (2014). Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 94(57): 65–242 Google Scholar
• Faire Vergaben (2016). Criteria for Value for Money Procurement. Vienna: GBH-Presse (in German) Google Scholar
• Falagario M, Sciancalepore F, Costantino N, Pietroforte R (2012). Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 218(2): 523–529 ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
• Farrell M J (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3): 253–281 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Federal Court of Germany (2017). Resolution of 2017-04-04. Reference X ZB 3/17
• Hanák T, Serrat C (2018). Analysis of construction auctions data in Slovak public procurement. Advances in Civil Engineering, 9036340
• Hasnain M, Thaheem M J, Ullah F (2018). Best value contractor selection in road construction projects: ANP-based decision support system. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(6): 695–714 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (2010). Resolution of 2010-03-03. Reference VII-Verg 48/09 Higher Regional Court of Munich (2017). Resolution of 2017-03-30. Reference Verg 10/16
• International Tunneling Association (2014). Recommendation of a Tender Model for Infrastructure Projects. Vienna: Austrian National Committee of ITA Google Scholar
• Liu B, Huo T, Liao P C, Yuan J, Sun J, Hu X (2017). A special Partial Least Squares (PLS) path decision modelling for bid evaluation of large construction projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 21 (3): 579–592 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lorentziadis P L (2010). Post-objective determination of weights of the evaluation factors in public procurement tenders. European Journal of Operational Research, 200(1): 261–267 ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
• Mateus R, Ferreira J A, Carreira J (2010). Full disclosure of tender evaluation models: Background and application in Portuguese public procurement. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 16(3): 206–215 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• McCabe B, Tran V, Ramani J (2005). Construction prequalification using data envelopment analysis. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 32(1): 183–193 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• National Agency for Public Procurement (2019). Sustainability criteria. Available at: upphandlingsmyndigheten.se/en/sustainable-publicprocurement/sustainable-procurement-criteria
• Niewerth S (2019). A Decision-Theoretic Extension of the Data Envelopment Analysis for Tender Evaluation in Public Construction Contracts. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Bochum: Ruhr-University (in German) Google Scholar
• Niewerth S, Vogt P, Thewes M (2017). Evaluation of non-monetary award criteria and life-cycle cost for procurement of construction contracts. Bauingenieur, 92(9): 398–405 (in German) ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Polat G (2016). Subcontractor selection using the integration of the AHP and PROMETHEE methods. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(8): 1042–1054 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Shyur H J, Shih H S (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 44(7–8): 749–761 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Thewes M, Kamarianakis S (2012). Multi-criteria decision making of construction methods using the analytical hierarchy process based on fuzzy scales. In: Proceedings of the 13th World Conference of the Associated Research Centers for the Urban Underground Space (ACUUS)—Advances in Underground Space Development. Singapore
• Tran D, Molenaar K R, Gransberg D D (2016). Implementing best-value procurement for design-bid-build highway projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2573(1): 26–33 ArticleGoogle Scholar
• UK Cabinet Office (2012). Government Construction—Common Minimum Standards for procurement of the built environments in the public sector. London
• Vogt P (2013). Model for Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Road Tunnels Considering Technical and Financial Uncertainties. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Bochum: Ruhr-University (in German) Google Scholar
• Vogt P, Thewes M (2012). The calculation of life-cycle costs for road tunnels under the influence of uncertainties. In: Life-Cycle and Sustainability of Civil Infrastructure Systems: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering. Vienna: CRC Press, 1036–1043 Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum (2017). Sustainable Development Impact Summit 2017 Report — Global Agenda. New York
• Yang J B, Wang H H, Wang W C, Ma S M (2016). Using data envelopment analysis to support best-value contractor selection. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 22(2): 199–209 ArticleGoogle Scholar

Funding

Open access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.