OPTIMIZING CONTRACTOR’S SELECTION
AND BID EVALUATION PROCESS IN
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY: CLIENT'S
PERSPECTIVE
Abstract—Construction in developing countries is often encountered
with multifarious challenges including contractor’s performance due
to lack of qualification and resources. According to Public
Procurement Regulatory Authority, “lowest bid” criterion is a binding
in public procurements; however, contractors exploit the loopholes in
the existing bid process management system. The core reason for this
underperformance is the continuous use of lowest bid selection. This
paper scrutinizes the prevalent rules for bid evaluation, and
investigates the criterion used by both clients and consultants in
selecting the contractors, during the bids evaluation phase of
construction project in Pakistan. It was discovered that proper
planning, creditworthiness, transition plans, plant and equipment
holding, financial stability, past performance and quality were the most
imperative factors used by clients and consultants for the contractor’s
selection. The paper contributes to the body of knowledge by revealing
the significant factors impacting the contractor’s selection and bid
evaluation process in a developing country.
Keywords—Contractor’s selection; Bid evaluation; Client's
perspective; Construction industry; Pakistan
I. NTRODUCTION
T he construction industries in developing countries are
usually daunted with diverse challenges, such as contractor’s
performance due to lack of qualification and resources (Huang,
2011). The inefficient contractor’s selection criteria, being
adopted by the employers for procurement of civil work, result
in persistent cost and time overruns and imminent quality issues
(Holt, 2010). Resultantly, experienced contractors manage to
exploit the loopholes in the existing bid evaluation processes
(Mahdi, 2002).
The construction projects pass through various complex stages,
starting with the primary stage of bidding in which a project is
awarded to a contractor. Awarding a project to a suitable
contractor is a difficult process (Idrus et al. 2011). Alhazmi and
McCaffer (2000) argue that the successful completion of a
construction project is directly impacted by the selection of a
suitable constructor.
Sajjad Shuker Ullah, Capital University of Science and Technology (phone:
0092-333-5888444442; sajjadbajwacda@gmaill.com)
Choosing the best contractor is a critical decision for both
project managers and owners. Huang (2011) argues that a
competent contractor is an indispensable component required
for the completion of a construction project throughout its
project lifecycle. A major issue that hinders the success of a
construction project is bid evaluation and contractor’s
prequalification, faced by numerous construction industries
around the world (Huang, 2011; Idrus et al., 2011; Mahdi, 2002;
Hatush and Skitmore, 1997; Holt, 1997; Holt et al., 1993; Holt
et al., 1994). Causes of this issue vary depending on the culture,
environment, processes, and organization of the construction
industry. Researchers have found that mismanagement within
the bidding and procurement process, and the lowest bid
criterion cause failure or delay in the completion of construction
projects (Holt, 2010). Nevertheless, many construction
industries in developing countries’ are still using the lowest bid
selection process for awarding the contract.
Though, alternative bidding systems are suggested in previous
studies to ensure quality of construction projects, developing
countries are slow in adapting them (Rao et al., 2018; Elsayah,
2016; Taylor et al. 2014; Cristobal, 2011; Palaneeswaran &
Kumaraswamy, 2000). Farooqui et al. (2008) found that
outcomes of alternative bidding systems produce high
competition in the construction industry, eventually leading to
higher performance of the contractors. Thus, developed
countries shifted to “best value procurement” bidding system.
On the contrary, in developing countries the construction
industry is underperforming although solutions to the issues
have been proposed. The core reason that underperformance has
become epidemic in developing construction industries is the
apathy to change, and continuous use of lowest bid selection
process (Farooqui et al., 2008).
 Construction industries vary in terms of their process of bid
evaluation based on the countries they operate in and the
environment that industry offers. Hence, the process of
contractor selection and bid evaluation is reliant on differing
decision criteria based on geographic location. Research
conducted in different countries of the construction industry
reveal the existence of various decision criteria when it comes
to choosing an appropriate contractor. Recognized universal
factors considered in the process of assessing a contractor
includes project packaging, invitation, prequalification, short
listing and bid evaluation (Idrus, et al., 2011; Hatush &
Skitmore, 2010; Holt, 2010). Aforesaid in view, it has become
imperative to understand whether the indicated universal factors
influencing the contractor’s evaluation during the bid process
are equally effective in a specific region or not?
In Pakistan, Government has developed and enforced Public
Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) rules in 2004 for the
procurement of public works. According to PPRA, “lowest bid”
criterion is a binding in public procurements, and the guiding
factors followed for contractor’s selection are: experience, past
performance, personnel, financial position, plant and
equipment, and management capability. Despite, adhering to
the recommended procedures, key construction stakeholders
still concede that flaws and short comings exist in the
contractor’s selection, bid evaluation, and procurement system.
A study conducted by Haseeb et al. (2011) found that 80% of
construction projects in Pakistan faced delays, and only 20%
were completed within the scheduled time and cost. Based on
the analysis by Haseeb et al. (2011), a major portion of delay in
large-scale projects is associated with contractors, such as
inadequate experience, improper planning, and poor site
management. Others have found that poor contractor’s selection
method used in Pakistan lead to cost and time overruns causing
disputes between clients and contractors (Ahmad et al., 2015;
Khan et al., 2015; Farooqui et al., 2008). It is evident that there
are specific issues in Pakistan associated with selecting an
appropriate contractor during the bidding process for awarding
construction projects. Moreover, consultants also play a key
role in bidding process to select the most suitable contractor.
Of the universal factors cited in published literature, it is
imperative to analyze which of them are essential in choosing a
contractor. Therefore, it is important to uncover essential
criteria used for contractor’s selection and bid evaluation in the
construction industry of Pakistan. Hence, the current study
identifies and examines contractor’s selection and bid
evaluation criteria through a complete assessment of published
literature, as well as, the criteria stated by PPRA. The study also
introduces the analysis of other unique factors that may impact
the decision for bid evaluation and contractor’s selection.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Published literature within this sphere has identified different
sets of criteria and other factors that can be used when assessing
a contractor for their appropriateness in a construction project
(Biruk et al., 2017). Holt et al. (1994) is noted as being one of
the first academics to identify prequalification requirements
using a quantitative model for choosing contractors. In a further
study conducted by Holt et al. (1995), it was revealed that
choosing a contractor needs to be based on the value of money
instead of automatically picking the one with the lowest bid, as
the primary aim of the process is to identify the best tender and
not the lowest bidder. Hatush and Skitmore (1997) and Shrestha
et al. (2014) argued that many clients of construction projects
have varied methods of quantifying the criteria, while others
resort to a subjective assessment of contractors based on the
information solely provided by the contractor under assessment.
Morkunaite et al. (2017) recently found the same trend in this
day-and-age in which construction clients select contractors
based on the lowest bidder, making the lowest price a dominant
requirement in contractor selection. In contrast, Morkunaite et
al. (2017) argue that only considering the lowest price as a
requirement for rewarding the contract may cause the client to
choose an “unqualified, incompetent, inexperienced, and
insufficiently financed contractor”. Polat (2016) also asserted
that selection of an inappropriate contractor can result in
massive additional costs caused from rework of the project due
to “poor quality of work, claims, disputes, litigation, adversarial
working conditions, penalties, abandonment or work, and even
bankruptcy” (p. 1049).
Few of the researchers proposed varying construction selection
criteria. El-Sawalhi et al., (2007) identified five main criteria for
prequalification and bid evaluation which include: financial
soundness, technical ability, management and technical ability,
experience of contractor, performance of contractor, resources,
quality management, and health and safety issues (p. 473).
Hatush and Skitmore (1997) and Choi et al. (2006) also
identified these additional criteria, as universally accepted, for
the selection of contractors and bid evaluation, including:
primarily financial capability, technical capability, team
management, and health and safety track record of the
contractor under consideration. Other common criteria that has
overlapped between researchers for contractor evaluation and
selection, include: financial stability, technical qualification,
technical capacity, knowledge of technical personnel,
experience, management capacity, relationship with others and
past performance, reputation, health and safety (Kang and Kim,
2018; Jafari, 2013; Cheng & Li, 2004; Kaklauskas et al., 2006;
Niento-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2012; Vahdami et al., 2013; Hwang
& Kim, 2016; Darvish et al., 2009; Fong & Choi, 2000;
Zavadskas et al., 2008 a&b; Banaitis and Banaitiene, 2006).
Other researchers have moved away from the criteria that values
financial stability to price or bidder price criteria (Braauers et
al., 2008; Holt, 1998; Marzouk et al., 2013). In addition to the
main financial criteria, researchers have introduced few more
criteria, including: physical and human resources (Woo et al.,
2017; Cheng & Li, 2004; Fong & Choi, 2000), time (Zacadskas
et al. 2008; Holt, 1998; Banaitis & Banaitiene, 2006; Chinyio et
al, 1998), quality (Zavadskas et al., 2008; Holt, 1998; Turskis,
2008; Banaitis & Banaitiene, 2006; Enshassi et al., 2013), risk
(Turskis, 2008; Banaitis & Banaitiene, 2006), and past
relationships with clients and other contractors (Fong & Choi,
2000; Zacadskas et al., 2008).
 The literature indicates that the selection of a contractor for a
construction project varies depending on the client. The
priorities and requirements of clients and consultant vary
depending on the nature of project for contractor. Chinyio et al.
(1990) conducted a study to uncover details of specific
requirements that can be used as guidelines for the process of
contractor selection. Another study determined the ranking of
35 different criteria followed in the contractor selection process
by Ng and Skitmore (1999). The results showed that there is
huge difference in the use of selection criteria as per the ranking
of consultants and clients. Similarly, a conceptual model to
measure the impact of different criteria for bid evaluation is
developed for the construction industry of Saudi Arabia by
Alsugair (1999). A single prequalification or selection criteria
has different significance depending on the requirements and
nature of selection committee and environment of the specific
industry. A survey was conducted in UK to know the perception
of different clients and consultant about single criteria by Ng et
al., (1999). The perceptions of clients about factors to be
considered for selection of contractor greatly associate with
each other when they are asked about a same project in both
public and private sector (Wong et al. 2000).
Idrus et al. (2011) produced a tabulation of criteria for selection
of main contractor from the literature review. The table is
outdated as further research has been conducted in the area and
therefore needs to include literature that has identified some of
the universal contractor selection criteria. A continuation of the
Idrus et al. (2011) is presented in Table 1
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Data Collection
Development of the research method used in the current study
entails examining traits or parameters of the construction
industry population in Pakistan. The population used in the
current study is a group of individual units that entail some form
of commonality that is useful to the study. The current study
uses a representative sample of the population to draw data from
in order for the results of the study to be generalized to the
population as a whole. The study derives its participants from
authorized construction consultants that are involved in contract
awarding activity and are registered with Pakistan Engineering
Council. Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) has 1,924
registered valid consultant firms employing thousands of
consultants in Pakistan. The actual list amount of consultants is
unavailable making is difficult to choose a concrete sample size.
However, analyzing the requirements of the current study a
conclusion was drawn that a sample size of 200 was adequate
to represent the population. The sample size range is
recommended and used in Maqsoom et al. (2017), Basir (2015),
and Bageis and Fortune (2009). Pakistan Engineering Council
was sent 200 questionnaires with the instruction to randomly
distribute it amongst registered construction consultants.
Questionnaires that were appropriately completed without
missing entries were included for analysis in the current study.
The current study uses a questionnaire developed by the
researcher. The first portion of the questionnaire asks
participants to provide information on their company, their
experience, job title, and opinions on contract procurement
processes and the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority
Ordinance, 2002. This questionnaire was developed using 21
sub criteria that impacted the contractor’s selection and bids
evaluation which was extracted from literature including Liu et
al. (2017), Biruk et al. (2017), Ahshar and Amiri (2010), Salama
et al. (2006), Choi et al. (2006), Topcu (2004), Palaneeswaram
and Kumaraswamy (2001), Skitmore (1999), Hatush and
Skitmore (1997), and Holt et al. (1995). The criteria derived
from this extensive review of literature was grouped further into
five main criteria. The scale developed was based on the Likert
five-point scale – (1) not important, (2) slightly important, (3)
important, (4) very important, and (5) extremely important. The
Likert scale used is to judge the severity of indices of different
criteria adopted for the contractor’s selection and bids
evaluation. The last portion of the questionnaire outlines items
identified as issues associated with successfully completing a
construction project. Participants are asked to identify the
threshold of the issue by indication its rating severity from a
choice of low, medium, and high. The last question asks the
participant to indicate the type of evaluation that carries the
most weight in selecting a contractor, once again providing a
severity scale of low and high
.
B. Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted using the developed research
instrument. The purpose of the pilot study was to comprehend
the research instrument which is used in the main study of this
research. Mani et al. (2017) exclaims that pilot studies assess
the feasibility of the process and research instrument which are
considered to be the key to success in the mail study. The
research paradigm used for conducting the pilot study is
positivism, a continuation of the philosophical arguments
previously made. The pilot study used ten participants that are
contractors employed in Pakistan’s construction consultation
industry and are registered with PEC. The purpose of
conducting the research trail with these participants was to
comprehend the extent of the questionnaire to engage
participants and extract viable information. The questions
designed were closed-ended which limited the respondent’s
answers with a list of answer choices which is recommended by
Dillman et al. (2009).
Severson et al. (1994) argues that a research instrument has to
derive maximum information from participants which can only
be done if the questions are straight forward but targeted to
answering the research questions. Therefore, the questions need
to be brief with a straight answer but still be meaningful enough
to extract conclusions during the analysis phase of research. The
questionnaire is considered effective to the extent that it is able
to provide the current study with rich data that is not available
in the current academic literature published on this topic. The
current questionnaire’s effectiveness is resultant from its
targeted questions that are an adaptation of the literature
reviewed. All questions within the pilot study were easily
answered by all participants, with not one question being left
out or unanswered. However, the questionnaire was reviewed
and adjustments were made by reducing the sub-criteria of
contractor’s selection and bid evaluation to 18 factors.
IV. FINDINGS
A. Demographic Results
The proposed sample designated for the current study was 200.
The questionnaire was sent to Pakistan Engineering Council
(PEC) to distribute among consultants and clients to respond to.
However, only 119 questionnaires were considered and
incorporated into the study as the remaining questionnaire were
incomplete. Based on the demographic analysis of the
questionnaires, a total of 87 were clients while the remaining 32
were from consultants. Table 2 illustrates the total number of
questionnaires returned as well as the response rate of the
sample population. The total response rate of the population
sample is 59.50% which is considered to be a decent response
rate. Each of the respondents was analyzed for their personal
experience in the construction industry and the experience of
the organization that employed them.
A majority of the respondents (i.e. 93 in total) in the study had
an individual experience of 16 to 20 years. The data reflects that
88 individuals with 16 to 20 years of experience also worked for
their current organization, garnering organization experience, of
16 to 20 years. Of the 119 returned responses, only 12
respondents had personal experience of 6 to 12 years. The
composition of experience is illustrated in the figures 1 and 2.
A key question asked to respondents in the questionnaire was
about the type of procurement (contract) offered to contractors
in the last five to ten years. The responses of participants as
shown in Table 3 indicate that traditional contracts were most
awarded to contractors in the last five to ten years in the Pakistan
construction industry, with 59 respondents indicating this
choice on their questionnaire. The remaining 32 respondents
indicated that Turnkey procurement contracts were widely used
in the industry over the last ten years. Respondents were also
asked to indicate which method of evaluation they believed to
be the most effective in selecting the ‘best’ contractor to obtain
value for the client. The respondents’ answers were tabulated
with procurement contract to draw a comparison between the
two. According to Table 4, 61 respondents indicated that multi-
criteria method of evaluation would provide clients with the best
value from a contractor. On the other hand, 58 respondents
indicated that the single step criteria that only included bid price
was the best method to evaluate a contractor. Respondents that
showed preference to the multi-step method also indicated that
(41 participants) traditional contracts were most awarded to a
contractor. This is followed by 32 respondents who preferred
the single criteria of contractor evaluation indicating that
Turnkey was preferred when awarding contractors their
contracts.
B. Reliability Results
Reliability is a measure that analyzes if the items in a survey
questionnaire are reliable enough to provide consistent results
after respective testing in variable environments. The test is
based on the principles of evaluating internal consistency that
may extent between the items of the designated variables. A
method of conducting this test is Cronbach’s Alpha; the
measure is a representation of if the items involved in measuring
the desired variable are a good fit or not. This means, if the
proposed items on the scale are attributed to a variable may
bring about the right answer in each of the attempts made.
Values greater than 0.7 are considered a good fit. DeVeillis
(2012) provided the rules for identifying internal consistency.
Cronbach’s Alpha values for scale items related to contractor
criteria were analyzed for reliability. The results show that the
items produced an alpha of .855 which lies between 0.9 ≥ α ≥
0.8, considered as ‘good’ (See Tables 5 and 6).
The remaining 14 questions in the questionnaire asked
respondents for experience (i.e. individual and organization),
severity indexes, procurement method preferences, and other
questions related to contracts and procurements. The alpha
produced .845 also lied between the values considered ‘good’.
It is therefore concluded that the questionnaire produced will all
its items holds a fair internal consistency making the items in
the study’s questionnaire measured as one-dimensional.
Although alpha value is considered imperative by many
academics to measure and included in research; there are other
studies like one conducted by Cortina (1993) and Cheng et al.
(2014) that argues that the use of alpha is overrated. Cheng et
al. (2014) asserts that the greater the number of items on the
analyzed list, the greater the influence on artificially inflating
the value of alpha.
C. Normality Results
The data collected from the questionnaire was then analyzed
for normality. In order to test for normality, the following
hypotheses were developed:
H0: The sampled population is normally distributed.
H1: The sampled population is not normally distributed.
To test these hypotheses, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test
for normality was conducted using IBM’s SPSS. The results of
the test are displayed in the Table 7. The results show that the
population is normally distributed as soon by the K-S statistic
value and the significance value being greater than 0.05
(Sig.>0.05). In a normal distribution, the significance value
must be greater than 0.05. Hence, it can be concluded that there
is not enough evidence to reject the claims that the sampled
population is normally distributed. Therefore, the data in the
study came from a normally distributed population. We reject
the H1 hypothesis and accept H0.
Relative Importance Index (RII) Results
1) Financial Soundness
The first category for which the relative importance index was
calculated was financial soundness. Each of the factors were
then calculated for relative important index (RII) and then
ranked according to these values. Values of RII once rounded
to two significant figures were then ranked many of which were
ranked into the same value category. As seen in Table 8 ‘credit
worthiness’ of a contractor was ranked as first based on
respondent answers. The RII of credit worthiness was 0.86
making it the most important factor considered by clients and
contractors when it came to contractor selection and bids
evaluation. Rank number two was designated to ‘financial
stability of contractor’ as the RII value produced was 0.84.
Lastly, rank three was designated to both ‘banking
arrangements and bonds’ and ‘satisfactory settlement of final
accounts on past projects’, with RII of 0.82 and 0.82
respectively. Based on the RII values produced for financial
stability, the most important factors considered for this category
are 1st credit worthiness, 2nd financial stability of contractor,
and 3rd belonging to bother banking arrangement and bond, and
satisfactory settlement of final accounts and past projects. The
RII values produced for this category provided better insight to
the descriptive statistics of participant responses.
2) Technical Ability
The next category of the question went onto analyze the
opinions of respondents based on what they believed was to be
of most importance for a contractor’s technical ability. Based
on the collection of answers obtained, the RII analysis took
place to produce the following results in Table 9. The top three
factors that respondents though were most important amongst
the group were ‘proper planning’ which ranked at 1, plant and
equipment holding ranked at 2, and quality assurance which
ranked at 3. Proper planning produced an RII of 0.868, plant and
equipment holding produced an RII of 0.857, and quality
assurance produced an RII of 0.828. It should be noted that with
regards to past experience of contractors, the variable was
ranked 5th with an RII of 0.812 while compatibility of the
project was ranked as 6th with an RII of 0.807. The findings
related to technical ability add to the findings of the descriptive
statistics by providing better insight into what client and
contractors believed to be important criteria to consider when
selecting contractors for a construction project. The findings
from the descriptive statistics were very preliminary and did not
provide the needed insights to understand the true importance
of the factors that impacted the decision for contractor selection.
However, with the RII values produced it is evident that specific
factors were given more importance over others.
3) Management Capability
The third category that was analyzed for contractor selection
was management capabilities. It included give criteria
specifications from which ‘transition plan’ was ranked as 1st
have the most importance in the category with an RII value of
0.863. The next two variables as seen in Table 10 had ranked
2nd, with ‘past performance and quality’ with an RII of 0.833,
and ‘organization and management capabilities’ with an RII
value of 0.832. The third most ranked variable for contractor
selection includes ‘methodology of managing sub-contractors’
with a RII value of 0.825. The descriptive statistics in section
4.5 were unable to provide how important each of the factors
truly were for clients and consultants. However, with RII value
calculations a better idea can be made as to which of the
variables in the category are considered important.
4) Health and Safety
The category of health and safety has become an important
criteria set for selection of contractors. According to the
literature review in chapter two, Banwell (1964) stated that
health and safety requirements in contractor selection have
become and imperative variable to analyze before choosing a
contractor during bid evaluation. The clients and consultants
studied in Pakistan provided their opinions with regard to this
category (see table 11). The most important factor in selection
of contractor based in this category is OSHA incident rates
(accident rates) with an RII value of 0.823 ranking as 1st in
terms of importance. The variables of health and safety
procedures were valued with an RII as 0.812 ranking as 2nd in
the set. Management safety accountability had an RII of 0.812
as well ranking as 2nd. Lastly, the variable of attention to site
welfare and safety produced a RII value of 0.797 that ranked as
3rd in the set.
5) Reputation
The last category analyzed for RII values was reputation of the
contractor. This category had five variables that needed to be
analyzed for RII in order to understand the importance of the
factors. Table 12 provides the results of the RII analysis. The
variable ‘behavior with staff’ was considered to be the most
important in the set as it produced a RII value of 0.827 and
ranked as 1st. Successive factors were ranked as 2nd. Table 12
shows that past client contractor relationship, past failures
(incomplete projects), and current reputation in market are
ranked as 2nd, with RII values as 0.822, 0.817, and 0.815
respectively. The last criteria ranked as 3rd was length of time
in business with a RII of 0.805.
D.Severity Index Results
In addition to the relative importance index ranking previous
discussion, many academics in the construction field laud the
application of a ‘Severity Index’ score that can be used analyze
responses based on their severity score to between understand
how respondents perceive their importance (Idrus et al., 2011).
To further the examination of the current study’s results, the
severity index was used to analyze the frequency of responses.
Idrus et al. (2011) proposes the following equation that can be
used to determine severity of factors:
[∑ a i × xi ]
Severity Index (I) = × 100%
[5 ∑ xi ]
Where, xi is the variable that expresses the frequency for the
responses for i; in which i is one of the Likert scale responses
(i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). With the Severity Index, the researcher is able
to prioritize the criteria in the study. The criteria with the highest
severity index (5) are ranked as the top criteria, while those
criteria holding the least severity index (%) are ranked at the
bottom. This was accomplished by transforming the five-point
Likert scale to relative importance indices for each of the
criteria in the category using the above equation and
recommendations from Idrus et al. (2011). The results of the
severity index have been documented in the Table 13.
The Severity Index presented in Table 13 is further illustrated
in Figure 3 which provides a visual understanding of the criteria
used in contractor selection based on preference of Pakistan
consultants and clients. According to the results of severity
index, proper planning is the top ranked criteria for contractor
selection in Pakistan with a severity index value of 88.0%.
Proper planning is a criterion found under ‘technical ability’ in
which it ranked 0.868 on the RII index. The next two top ranked
factors for contractor selection was ‘creditworthiness’ with a
severity index of 87% and ‘transition plan’ with a severity index
of 87%. Both of these requirements were ranked 2nd in the
newly formed index. Clients and consultants in Pakistan hold
the open that both these requirements are equally important
when it comes to contractor selection on bids evaluation. The
3rd ranked requirement based on responses and the severity
index is ‘plant and equipment holding’ with a value of 86%.
V. DISCUSSION
According to Relative Importance Index (RII), the top criteria
for financial soundness category are: ‘creditworthiness’,
‘financial stability of the contractor’, ‘banking arrangements
and bonds’, and ‘satisfactory settlement of final accounts on
past projects’. Cristobal (2012) conducted a similar study in
which criteria was analyzed for contractor selection based on
financial requirements that they must have. The study found that
the criteria of ‘financial stability of a contractor was the most
important considered by individuals that evaluated bids. The
study conducted by El-Abbasy et al. (2013) also has results
similar to the current study’s interpretation of financial
soundness in contractors. The study conducted by Idrus et al.
(2011) has found that financial capacity of a contractor was
ranked as 2nd in their study based on the Malaysian
construction industry. The significance of financial soundness
in terms of creditworthiness, financial stability, settlement of
payments, and banking arrangements was crucial for Pakistani
clients and consultants. Idrus et al. (2011) finds that financial
capacity of a contractor is significant because it enables clients
to obtain information regarding the overall financial position of
the contractors. In today’s construction industry climate, clients
still aim for higher profit returns but are now more concerned
with the satisfaction from the products and services that are
offered from contractors. Topcu (2004) argued that due
diligence checks aimed at assessing the financial capacity of
contractors to fulfill their contractual obligations is a best
practice in risk management towards the entire construction
project. Warszawki (1996) asserted that a contractor’s financial
strength adds to their overall credibility and reputation which
impacts the perceptions of clients and suppliers. The current
study’s severity index also pointed to creditworthiness holding
a rank 2 with a severity index value of 87%. The respondents of
the current study also found financial stability to be important
as it ranked four on the severity index with 86%.
Technical ability category produced the top three ranks of:
‘proper planning’, ‘plant and equipment holding’, and ‘quality
assurance’. The management capability set had the top three
ranks allotted to: ‘transition plan’, ‘past performance and
quality’, ‘organization and management capabilities’, and
‘methodology of managing sub-contractors’. According to
Idrus et al. (2011) technical capacity was the third most
important criteria with a severity index of 87.87%. The study
found that respondents perceived this requirement to be highly
significant because clients use it to measure contractor’s
technical ability which includes experience, plant, equipment
and staff based performances. This means that clients have the
tendency to assess technical competency of a contractor by
focusing on technical expertise and physical assets (Diekmann,
1981). The current study further broke down the concept of
technical ability to specific requirements that are found to be
universal when assessing contractors for a construction project.
According to the current study, proper planning was the most
important criteria for technical ability with an RII value of 0.868
and ranking 1st in its category. Furthermore, when the severity
index was used on all the variables, proper planning was ranked
1st with a severity index of 88%
VI. CONCLUSION
With the drastically increasing clients’ and regulatory
agencies’ demands in the construction industry together with
high competition among contractors of the industry, make it
extremely imperative to implement effective management of
construction projects. Contractors are known to play a key role
in successfully completing construction projects. Hence, it
becomes essential to pick the most competent contractor for a
construction project. Through the choice of a competent and
qualified contractor the probability of project success increases
drastically as the contractor is able to achieve the objectives and
goals laid out by clients while also maintaining constraints like
quality, cost, and time.
This paper investigated the actual criterion that is used by both
clients and consultants in Pakistan to select contractors during
the bids evaluation phase of construction project. It was found
that proper planning, creditworthiness, transition plans, plant
and equipment holding, financial stability and past performance
and quality were the top most important criteria used by clients
and consultation for the selection of contractors. The decision
of accepting a bid or its evaluation directly impacts the
economic viability of a contractor. Hence, it is not
recommended to make that decision solely on the basis of
intuition of experience. To avoid losses and make the bidding
process more transparent potential evaluators of bids should
analyze acceptable solutions using reliable methods and
credible input. The approach proposed in the current research
may enable contract awarding bodies to place in-house
procedures and managerial decision support system that will aid
in the bid evaluation process.
VII. THEORETICAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Evident from the discussion taken place, the construction
industry in Pakistan is negatively impacted by poor
performance in terms of construction project delivery. A
majority of construction projects in Pakistan are not completed
in time and within the allocated resources or budget. Cost and
time overruns area major causes of project failure in Pakistan,
leading to disputes between clients and contractors. According
to preliminary review of the literature, a leading cause for these
issues – cost and time overrun – is attributed to the poor
selection methods implemented in choosing a contractor. By
analyzing the underlying causes attributed to this phenomenon,
Pakistan’s construction industry can move forward in
improving the process in order to progress the industry. The
current study adds to the literature by incorporating other factors
that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating
contractors for bid selection. This was developed through
extensive research of previously published literature and
through the results obtained in the current study.
The current study can be used by construction professionals
and academics to better assess the bids evaluation environment
in the country. Pakistan currently does have rules for assessment
of prequalification of contractors described in the Public
Procurement Rules 2004. However, it is recommended that
clients and consultants are taught to evaluate contractors for
prequalification of a bid. The current study provides insight into
what clients and contractors current prefer. This can be
incorporated into teaching clients, consultants and suppliers’
better methods to awarding a contract. It has become imperative
for Pakistan’s construction industry to shift to a multi-criteria
method for bids evaluation especially for contractor selection.
Many clients and consultants still prefer the single criteria
method of bid price to be the determining factor of selecting a
contractor. With better awareness and governmental programs
for public procurement the private sector will also benefit. This
mandatory if the construction industry in Pakistan wants to
survive and thrive by competing with transnational and
international construction companies that are finding markets in
Pakistan,
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] Afshar, A. and Amiri, H. (2010). A Min-max Regret Approach to
Unbalanced Bidding in Construction. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
14(5), pg. 653-661.
[2] Ahmad, A., Younis, M. S., Ahmad, N., and Anwar, N. (2015). Critical
factors influencing the project success in Pakistan. Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences, 6(3), pg. 815-822.
[3] Arditi, D., Akan, G.T., and Gurdamar, S. (1985). Reasons for delays in
public projects in Turkey. Construction Management Economics, 3,
pg.171-81.
[4] Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction
project. International Journal of Project Management, 24 (4), pg.349-57.
[5] Alarcon, L. F., Mourgues, C. (2002). Performance modeling for contractor
selection. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18 R (2), pp. 52-60,
2002.
[6] Alhazmi, T., McCaffer, R. (2000). Project procurement system selection
model. 126(3), pg.176–184
[7] Banwell, G. H. (1964) The Placing and Management of Contracts for
Building and Civil Engineering Works, Ministry of Building and
Works, London: HMSO.
[8] Biruk, S., Jaskowski, P., and Czarnigowska, A. (2017). Modelling
contractors’ bidding decision. Engineering Management in Production
and Services, 9(1), pp. 64-73.
[9] Choi, M., Kim, J., and Kim, M. (2006). A Study on the Price Escalation
System in a Construction Contract. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
10(4), pg. 227-232.
[10] Cristóbal, J. R. S. (2012). Contractor selection using multicriteria
decision-making methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 138(6), pg. 751-758
[11] De Araújo, M. C. B., Alencar, L. H., Mota, C. M. M. (2016). Model for
contractor performance evaluation in construction industry. Systems Man
and Cybernetics(SMC) Conference.
[12] Dennis L. (1993) Handbook of Engineering Management, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.
[13] Diekmann, J. E. (1981). Cost-plus contractor selection: a case
study. Journal of the Technical Councils, ASCE, 107(1), pg.13–25
[14] El-Abbasy, M. S., Zayed, T., Ahmed et al. (2013). Contractor selection
model for highway projects using Integrated Simulation and Analytic
Network Process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
139(7), pg. 755-767
[15] Ellis, R. D. and Herbsman, Z. J. (1991). Cost-time bidding concept: an
innovative approach. Transportation Research Record, pg. 89–94.
[16] Elsayah, O. .S. (2016). A framework for improvement of contractor
selection procedures on major construction project in Libya. Edinburgh
Napier University, Doctorate Thesis.
[17] Gupta, S. (2001). The effect of bid rigging on price: A study of highway
construction market. Review of Industrial Organization, 19(4), pg.451-
465
[18] Han, Heon, S., et al (2009).”Analyzing Schedule Delay of Mega Projects
Lessons Learned From Korea Train Express”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 56, NO.5.
[19] Haseeb, M., Lu, X., Bibi, A., Diyan, M., and Rabbani, W. (2011). Cause
and effects of delays in large construction projects of Pakistan. Journal of
Business Management Review, 1(4).
[20] Haswell, C. K. and Da Silva, D. S. (1982). Civil Engineering Contracts:
Practice and Procedure, Butterworths.
[21] Hatush, Z., and Skitmore, M. (1997) Criteria for contractor selection.
Construction Management and Economics,15(1), pg.19-38
[22] Herrera, F., Herrera, V. E.(2000). Linguistic decision analysis: steps for
solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets
System, 115, pg.67–82
[23] Herrera, F., Herrera, V.E., Verdegay, J. L.(1996). A model of consensus
in group decision making under linguistic assignments. Fuzzy Sets
System, 78, pg.73–87
[24] Holt, G.(2010). Contractor selection innovation: examination of two
decades ‘public research’, Construction Innovation,10(3), pg.304-328
[25] Holt, G. D., Olomolaiye, P. O. an
[26]
[27] Procedure ford Frank, C. H. (1993). A conceptual alternative to current
tendering practice. Building Research and Information, 21(3): pg.167–
172
[28] Holt, G. D., Olomolaiye, P. O. and Frank, C. H. (1994). Factors
influencing UK construction clients' choice of contractor. Building and
Environment, 29(2): pg.241–248
[29] Huang, X. (2011). An Analysis of the Selection of Project Contractor in
the Construction Management Process. International Journal of Business
and Management, 6(3), pg. 184-189.
[30] Hunt, H. W., Logan, D. H., Corbetta, R. H., Crimmins, A. H., Bayard, R.
P. and Lore, H. E. (1966). Contract award practices. Journal of the
Construction Division. Proceedings of the ASCE, 92(1): pg.1–16.
[31] Hwang, J. S., and Kim, Y. S. (2016). A Bid Decision-Making Model in
the Initial Bidding Phase for Overseas Construction Projects. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(4), pg. 1189-1200.
[32] Idrus, A., Sodangi, M., Husin, M. H. (2011). Prioritizing project
performance criteria within Client Perspective. Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 3(10), pg.1142-1151.
[33] Idrus, A., Sogdangi, M., Amran, M. A. (2011). Decision criteria for
selection main contractors in Malaysia. The Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, 3(12), pg. 1358-1365.
[34] Jaselskis, E. J. and Recarte Suazo, G. A. (1994). A survey of construction
site safety in Honduras. Construction Management and Economics,
12: pg.245–255.
[35] Kang, H. W. and Kim, Y., S. (2018). A Model for Risk Cost and Bidding
Price Prediction Based on Risk Information in Plant Construction
Projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 00(0), pg. 1-15.
[36] Kagapaylan, B. (2008). Determinants of Project Performance in Russian
Construction Industry.
[37] Khan, A., Choudhary, M. A., Khushnoond, S., and Masood., S. A. (2015).,
Development of econometric models for cost and time over-runs: An
empirical study of major road construction projects in Pakistan. Technical
Journal, University of Engineering and Technology, 20(4), pg. 79-85.
[38] Krishna Rao, M. V., Kuamr, V. S.S., Rathish Kumar, P. (2018). Optimal
contractor selection in construction industry: the fuzzy way, Journal of
The Institution of Engineers, 99(1), pg. 67-78 .
[39] Lam, K. C., Hu, T. S., Ng, S.T., Skitmore, M., Cheung, S.O. A fuzzy
neural network approach for contractor pre-qualification. Constr. Manag.
Econ. 19, 175–188 (2001).
[40] Liu, B., Huo, T., Liao, P., Yuan, J., Sun, J., and Hu, X. (2017). A Special
Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Decision Modeling for Bid Evaluation
of Large Construction Projects. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
21(3), pg. 579-592.
[41] Mahdi, I. M., Riley, M. J., Feregi, S. M., Alex, A. P. (2002). A multi‐
criteria approach to contractor selection. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 9(1), pg.29-37.
[42] Mani, N., Kisi, K. P., Rojas, E. M., and Foster, E. T. (2017). Estimating
construction labor productivity frontier: A pilot study. Journal of
Construction and Engineering Management, 143(10), pp. 1-12.
[43] Moore, M. J. (1985). Selecting a contractor for fast-track
projects. Quantitative evaluation method: Plant Engineering,
39(18): pg.54–56.
[44] Nahapiet, H. and Nahapiet, J. (1985). A comparison of contractual
arrangements for building projects. Construction Management and
Economics, 3: pg.217–231.
[45] Nawaz, T., Shareef, N. A., Ikram, A. A. (2013). Cost performance in
construction industry of Pakistan. Industrial Engineering Letters, 3(2), pg.
19-32.
[46] Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M.(2001). Recent advances and
proposed improvements in contractor prequalification methodologies.
Building Environment, 36(1), pg.73–87
[47] Potter, K. J. and Sanvido, V. (1994). Design/build prequalification
system. Journal of Management in Engineering, 10(2): pg.48–56.
[48] Russell, J. S. and Skibniewski, M. J. (1988). Decision criteria in
contractor prequalification. Journal of Management in Engineering,
ASCE, 4(2), pg.148–164.
[49] Russell, J. S., Hancher, D. E. and Skibniewski, M. J. (1992). Contractor
prequalification data for construction owners. Construction Management
and Economics, 10, pg.117–129.
[50] Russell, J. (1996). Constructors prequalification: Choosing the best
constructor and avoiding constructor failure. New York, ASCE Press.
[51] Samelson, N. M. and Levitt, R. E. (1982). Owner's guidelines for
selecting safe contractors. Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE,
108(4): pg.617–623.
[52] Severson, G. D., Jaselskis, E. J. and Russell, J. S. (1993). Trends in
construction contractor financial data. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 119(4), pg.854–858.
[53] Severson, G. D., Russell, J. S. and Jaselskis, E. J. (1994). Predicting
contract surety bond claims using contractor financial data. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2), pg.405–420.
[54] Shi, J., Cheung, S., Arditi, D. (2001). Construction delay computation
method. Journal of Construction Engineering Management. ASCE.
127(1), pg.60-65.
[55] Shrestha, P. P., Pradhananga, N., and Mani, N. (2014). Correlating the
Quantity and Bid Cost of Unit Price Items for Public Road Projects. KCSE
Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(6), pg. 1590-1598.
[56] Singh, D., and Tiong, R.L.K. (2005).A fuzzy decision framework for
contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 131(1), pg. 62-70
[57] Skibniewski, M., and Chao, L. (1992). Evaluation of advanced
construction technology with AHP method. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 118, pg.255-261.
[58] Taylor, T, Sturgill, R., McDowell, M., Deep, A., and Goodrum, P. (2014).
Contractor evaluations in the contractor selection process. Kentucky
Transportation Center [report].
[59] Topccu, Y.I. (2004). A decision model proposal for contractor selection
in Turkey. Building and Environment, 39, pg. 469-481
[60] Turskis, Z. (2008). Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by
applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of
preferability technique. Technological and Economical Development of
Economy, 14(2), pg. 224-239
[61] Vahdani, B., Mousavi, S.M., Hashemi, H. (2013). A new compromise
solution method for fuzzy group decision-making problems with an
application to the contractor selection. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 26, pg. 779-788.
[62] Warszawski, A. (1996). Strategic planning in construction companies.
Journal of Construction Engineering Management, 122(2), pg. 133-140.
[63] Watt,D. J., Kayis, B., Willey, K.(2009).Identifying key factors in the
evaluation of tenders for projects and services. International Journal of
Project Management, 27(3), pg. 250-260
[64] Wong, Ch. H. (2004). Contractor performance model for the United
Kingdom construction contractor: study of logistic regression approach.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(5), pg.691-
698.
[65] Woo, S., Kee, S., Cho, C. S., and Kim, S. B. (2017). Study on the Issues
of the Lowest Bidding through the Analysis of Working Budget Ratio of
 Korean Construction Companies. KSCR Journal of Civil Engineering,
21(5), pg. 1587-1594.

[66] Zavadskas, E.K., Liias, R., and Turkis Z. (2008a). Multi-attribute

decision-making methods for assessment of quality in bridges and road
construction: state-of-the-art surveys. The Baltic Journal of Road and
Bridge Engineering, 3(3), pg.152-160

[67] Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Tamosaitienè, J. (2008b). Contractor

selection of construction in a competitive environment. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 9(3), pg. 181-187.
 Table 1- Main contractor selection criteria extracted from literature

Previous study

Main contractor selection criteria )m

4u
0K
0&
2m
(a
)ur
)5c
29p
19o)
016T
2(0)
(3.0
),n
l21a
4a
(00l
lt2.
0ia
el(P
2V
tai
(-
rlti
zoea
L
uH
sf&
R
a)g
&
3kJn
e1s
et
)0u
ho
92a
C
r0(l
0o.k
2M
la
)(-aK
9)).ot
0lt6e
0an0i
2e00tm
(2ei2a
.(hN
(d
leish
aoina
thveV
eiC
r
s&
at)
agD
i8
kan
0
son
0
dF
a2
aB
(
vd
s
nai
Z
ak
sr
iu
tT
i
a
n
a
B
)
1
0
0
2
(
y
m
a
w
s
a
r
a

a
w
s
e
e
Financial stability ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■
■
Background of company
Technical capacity ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Cost
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Performance
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Standard of quality
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Occupational health and safety
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Time performance
■ ■ ■ ■
Management capability
■ ■
Failed contract
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Progress of work
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Human resource management
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Level of technology
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Relationship with client
■ ■ ■ ■
Relationship with sub-contractors
■
Fraudulent activity
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Competitiveness
Table 2- Respondent Demographics (Source; Questionnaire Data)

No of Questionnaires No of Questionnaires
Respondents Issued Returned Percentage
Clients 100 87 43.50

Consultants 100 32 16.00

Total 200 119 59.50

Figure 1- Respondent Organization's Experience

 Figure 2- Respondent Individual Experience

Table 3- Awarding of Procurement types to Contractors based on the experience of Respondents

Procurement Contract
Traditional Design and
Contract Build Turnkey Total
Individual Experience 6-10 years 4 8 0 12
11-15 years 6 8 0 14
16-20 years 49 12 32 93
Total 59 28 32 119

Table 4- Comparison of Method of Evaluation with Procurement Contract

Count
Procurement Contract
Traditional Design and
Contract Build Turnkey Total
Method of Evaluation Single criteria 18 8 32 58
Multi-criteria 41 20 0 61
Total 59 28 32 119

Table 5- Cronbach's Alpha Results for Contractor Criteria Importance Questions

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.855 .856 28
Table 6- Cronbach's Alpha Results for Remaining Questions

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
.845 .889 14
Table 7- K-S Test Results for Normality of Data

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-
Main Categories Factors Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Financial Stability .265 118 .200 .788 118 .700
Estimated Costs .297 118 .412 .821 118 .500
Banking Arrangements .361 118 .201 .734 118 .400
Financial Soundness
Satisfactory Settlement .261 118 .070 .802 118 .900
Creditworthiness .300 118 .502 .764 118 .820
Salary Satisfaction .298 118 .409 .787 118 .500
Past Experience .228 118 .080 .806 118 .440
Plant and Equipment Holding .299 118 .220 .767 118 .700
Permanent Work Force .253 118 .060 .803 118 .900
Compatibility With Project .292 118 .510 .792 118 .600
Technical Ability
Quality Assurance .241 118 .020 .798 118 .440
Labor Force Retention .307 118 .330 .780 118 .120
Proper Planning .299 118 .050 .754 118 .500
Methods Of Execution .250 118 .030 .821 118 .400
Past Performance and Quality .250 118 .800 .794 118 .600
Organization And Mgmt. .261 118 .030 .792 118 .200
Capabilities
Management
Methodology Of Managing Sub- .322 118 .200 .772 118 .360
Capabilities
Contractors
Risk Mgmt. .227 118 .700 .803 118 .270
Transition Plan .297 118 .700 .763 118 .090
Attn. To Site And Welfare and .278 118 .540 .816 118 .580
Safety
Health and Safety Health and Safety Procedures .406 118 .080 .661 118 .430
Accident Rates .332 118 .420 .763 118 .370
Mgmt. Safety Accountability .279 118 .603 .798 118 .420
Length Of Time In Business .324 118 .070 .769 118 .050
Past Failures .296 118 .095 .786 118 .090
Reputation
Past Client-Contractor .311 118 .082 .778 118 .300
Relationship
 Current Reputation .267 118 .300 .800 118 .070
Behavior With Staff .286 118 .900 .796 118 .820
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Table 8- RII Results for Financial Soundness Criteria

S/No Question Factor RII Rank

1 FS5 Credit Worthiness 0.86 1
2 FS1 Financial Stability of Contractor 0.84 2
3 FS3 Banking Arrangements and Bonds 0.82 3
4 FS4 Satisfactory Settlement of Final Accounts on Past Projects 0.82 3
5 FS2 Estimated Cost of Project/Tender Price 0.79 4
6 FS6 Employee's Satisfaction in Terms of Monthly Pay 0.79 4
Table 9- RII Results for Technical Ability Criteria

S/No Question Factor RII Rank

1 TA7 Proper planning 0.868 1
2 TA2 Plant and Equipment Holding 0.857 2
3 TA5 Quality Assurance 0.828 3
4 TA6 Labor Force Retention 0.823 4
5 TA3 Permanent Work Force (Staff) 0.817 4
6 TA8 Methods for Execution 0.817 4
7 TA1 Past Experience 0.812 5
8 TA4 Compatibility with the Project 0.807 6

Table 10- RII Results for Management Capability Criteria

S/No Question Factor RII Rank

1 MC5 Transition Plan 0.863 1
2 MC1 Past Performance and Quality 0.833 2
3 MC2 Organization and Management Capabilities 0.832 2
4 MC3 Methodology of Managing Sub-Contractors 0.825 3
5 MC4 Risk Management 0.820 4

Table 1- RII Results for Health and Safety Criteria

S/No Question Factor RII Rank

1 HS3 OSHA Incident Rates (Accident Rates) 0.823 1
2 HS2 Health and Safety Procedures 0.812 2
3 HS4 Management Safety Accountability 0.812 2
4 HS1 Attention to Site Welfare and Safety 0.797 3

Table 2- RII Results for Reputation Criteria

S/No Question Factor RII Rank

1 R5 Behavior with Staff 0.827 1
2 R3 Past Client Contractor Relationship 0.822 2
3 R2 Past Failures (Incomplete Projects) 0.817 2
4 R4 Current Reputation in Market 0.815 2
5 R1 Length of Time in Business 0.805 3
Table 3- Severity Index and ranking of criteria for selecting contractor for all 119 respondents.

Criteria for Selecting Main × 1 × × × ×

Contractor
( × ) 5 ( ) Severity Index (% ) Rank
Proper Planning 0 0 30 216 275 521 595 88 1
Creditworthiness 0 0 45 188 285 518 595 87 2
Transition Plan 0 0 39 204 275 518 595 87 2
Plant & Equipment Holding 0 0 54 180 280 514 595 86 3
Financial Stability 0 0 66 188 250 504 595 85 4
Past Performance & Quality 0 0 57 228 215 500 595 84 5
Organizationa and Mgmt.
0 0 57 232 210 499 595 84 5
Capabilities
Quality Assurance 0 0 72 200 225 497 595 84 5
Behavior with Staff 0 2 45 264 185 496 595 83 6
Methodology of Managing
0 2 36 292 165 495 595 83 6
Sub-contractors
Past Failures 0 0 51 264 180 495 595 83 6
Banking Arrangements 0 0 33 316 145 494 595 83 6
Labor Force Retention 0 0 48 276 170 494 595 83 6
Accident Rates 0 0 42 292 160 494 595 83 6
Past Client-Contractor
0 0 48 280 165 493 595 83 6
Relationship
Risk Mgmt. 0 0 78 204 210 492 595 83 6
Salary Satisfaction 0 0 54 272 165 491 595 83 6
Permanent Workforce 0 0 69 236 185 490 595 82 7
Methods of Execution 0 4 60 236 190 490 595 82 7
Current Reputation 0 0 66 248 175 489 595 82 7
Satisfactory Settlement 0 0 72 240 175 487 595 82 7
Past Experience 0 0 81 216 190 487 595 82 7
Health & Safety Procedures 0 0 27 360 100 487 595 82 7
Mgmt. Safety Accountability 0 0 66 256 165 487 595 82 7
Compatibility with Project 0 0 66 268 150 484 595 81 8
Length of Time in Business 0 0 57 296 130 483 595 81 8
Attn. to Site and Welfare &
0 2 72 264 140 478 595 80 9
Safety
Estimated Costs 0 8 60 268 140 476 595 80 9
 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF A CONTRACTOR IN PAKISTAN
Severity Index (%)

Estimated Costs 80
Attn. to Site and Welfare & Safety 80
Length of Time in Business 81
Compatibility with Project 81
Mgmt. Safety Accountability 82
Health & Safety Procedures 82
Past Experience 82
Satisfactory Settlement 82
Current Reputation 82
Methods of Execution 82
Permanent Workforce 82
Salary Satisfaction 83
Risk Mgmt. 83
Past Client-Contractor Relationship 83
Accident Rates 83
Labor Force Retention 83
Banking Arrangements 83
Past Failures 83
Methodology of Managing Sub-contractors 83
Behavior with Staff 83
Quality Assurance 84
Organizationa and Mgmt. Capabilities 84
Past Performance & Quality 84
Financial Stability 85
Plant & Equipment Holding 86
Transition Plan 87
Creditworthiness 87
Proper Planning 88

Figure 3- Severity index (%) of criteria for selection of a contractor in Pakistan