Building and Environment, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.

241-248, 1994
~ ) Pergamon Copyright © 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd.
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0360-1323/'94 $6.00+0.00

Factors Influencing U.K. Construction

Clients' Choice of Contractor

G A R Y D. HOLT*
PAUL O. OLOMOLAIYE*
F R A N K C. HARRIS*

This paper presents the findings o f a survey o f 53 major U.K. construction client organizations,
which revealed their perceived importance o f factors influencing their choice o f contractors.
Utilizing the relative index ranking technique and taking into account eaeh factors" frequency as
being the perceived cause Of clients' dissati.~faction with contractors" performance, a weighting
index was determined for each o f the factors. Results indicate the five most important factors are :
contractors' current workload, contractors'past experience in terms of size of projects completed,
contractors' management resource in terms t~f--formal training regime, time o f year--weather
and contractors' past experience in terms o f catchment, i.e. national or local. It wouM seem
prudent therefore, that these most important Jktctors be considered when selecting a contractor
likely to perform to the satisfaction o f the client on construction projects.

INTRODUCTION No initiative to alleviate the above shortcomings is

imminent. Indeed the Government's decision to extend
NOWADAYS, the majority of U.K. construction con-
compulstory competitive tendering, to 90% of white col-
tracts are assigned via one form or another of the selective
lar local authorities by 1994/95 [8] would only accentuate
tendering method. Notwithstanding improvements in
the problem. In particular, the announcement that the
tendering procedure initiated by The Simon Committee
'double envelope' system of tendering [8] is only to be
[1] and complemented by Banwell [2] and the B.E.D.C.
operated on a voluntary basis fuels the existing tendency
[3], it has seemingly failed to mature into a recognized
toward acceptance of the lowest bid from whomsoever
effective selection technique. On the contrary, it is most
received.
often a dull (prequalify then accept lowest tender)
The research on which this paper is based, rests on the
and ineffective (merely identifying lowest bid) selection
process [4]. premise that there is a cocktail of better selection criteria
apart from cost which construction clients should always
The apparent absence of inactivity and innovation in
consider when selecting contractors. If these criteria are
this field [5], served as a springboard for this inves-
identified and their levels of importance determined, the
tigation. The authors' research has examined current
development of an objective quantitative selection frame-
selection methods [6] and identified four main areas of
work could be facilitated. Construction clients may then
weakness. These are as follows. (i) Lack of a universal
apply more objective contractor selection methods as a
approach--fragmented practice prevails with many
means of identifying the most suitable contractor for a
bespoke systems in use and a considerable variance of
selection expertise from organization to organization. (ii) project. This alternative approach will offer a greater
Long term confidence attributed to pre-selection--many probability of the client being more satisfied with a
project outcome.
practitioners express confidence in the longer term cor-
porate stability of contractors, such confidence based
only on their own prequalification process. This is
fraught with risk, particularly when there is an appreci-
able period between prequalification and invitation to SURVEY MOTIVE
tender. Corporate instability is further accentuated by
prevalent macroeconomic/market pressures. (iii) Selec- The weaknesses in current selection methods identified
tion methods--final selection discriminates pre- above, have led to the development of an alternative con-
dominantly on the cost element of tenders, particularly tractor selection decision support framework [6]. The
in the public sector [4] and (iv) reliance on subjective framework furnishes the owner with probability ratings
analysis--subjective and qualitative methods abound, (in the context of client satisfaction achieved via suc-
practitioners are left with no alternative to subjective cessful project performance--time, cost and quality), at
judgment based on experience [7]. three crucial stages of the selection process ;

* School of Construction, Engineering & Technology, Uni- Stage 1 : Prequalification - - P I score

versity of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, Stage 2 : Contractor evaluation - - P 2 score
West Midlands WV1 ISB, U.K. Stage 3 : Final selection - - P 3 score.
241
242 G.D. Holt et al.

The Alternative Selection Framework.

Contractors
Desirous to Tender.

'Hierarchy' of P1 scores
1 ......
2 ......
n .............

Input from clients own Input from

experience analysing
and knowled~,e PI scores

Invitation to tender

~!:ii!i!i!i!i!!!i~EN~ER!::!i!i!:i!!!!ii!i!~ Tenders;
Estimates and
subsequent
bids

£ bids
scores

Chosen contractor
Fig. 1.

Figure 1 illustrates this alternative framework.
The prequalification element (P1), evaluates a given
contractor in the context of several discriminating factors
based on the Multi Attribute Analysis (MAA) technique
[9]. The secondary investigative element (P2) which is
applied to contractors invited to tender also employs
MAA, but additionally introduces 'utility' in line with
the Multi Attribute Utility Theory [9, 10, 11]. This allows
the owner's assessment of performance dimensions to be
attached to each discriminating factor, thereby influ-
encing the factor's level of importance [11]. This renders
the proposed selection framework dynamic, by respond-
ing to the specific circumstances pertaining to a given
project--and a client's perception of a successful
outcome. To aid final selection, the practitioner makes
use of a final ranking (P3) for all tenderers. P3 score is a
quantitative amalgam of P2 score and tender sum.
For this proposed framework to mature into a fully
functional model requires : (a) confirmation of the con-
tractor selection criteria to be employed, (b) relative
weighting indices for each, as a means of nullifying sub-
jectivity and, (c) criteria scores for the given contractor
under assessment, attained via predetermined quan-
titative measures of previous performance.
The method of acquiring (c) is the subject of current
work by the authors. Hence, the prime purpose of this
paper is to present the findings of a recent survey of
construction clients, which confirms and ranks the
factors they consider in contractor selection, i.e. (a) and
(b) above.
 Factors Influencin9 Choice of Contractors
Table 1. Composition of the survey sample
No %
Project managers 58 26
Q.S. practices 50 22
Architectural practices 11 5 sible for only 15% of the value of work done. This is
Public Sector (LA etc.) 106 47
Totals 225 100
DATA COLLECTION
Discriminating criteria are referred to herein as factors
[generic title attributed to a given set of criteria of a
like subject e.g. 'financial stability'] and variables [given
criterion under a particular factor e.g. 'turnover history'].
Variables presented to the construction sector for
confirmation of significance were initially established
through literature search and investigation of current
methods as being important or essential in contractor
selection.
A structured questionnaire was employed. This
included introductory questions for data classification
purposes and an intermediate section which sought
to establish clients' reliance on their modes of pre-
qualification, levels of satisfaction with in-house selection
methods and contractors' performance. The principal
section of the questionnaire was for ranking factors and
variables, i.e. potential P1 and P2 discriminating criteria.
Here respondents were invited to : (a) delete any variables
from those presented that were considered irrelevant, i.e.
those that would not influence their choice of contractor,
(b) add further variables not already listed that they
considered important, i.e. those that would influence their
choice, (c) rank their perception of importance for the
suggested variables [and those in (b) above where appli-
cable] on a 3 point scale and (d) finally indicate the
number of times that any criterion in (c) was judged to
have been the cause for their dissatisfaction with con-
tractors' performance during the period. In view of the
general downturn in construction activity of late it was
decided that the period should span the last two years.
A pilot survey was conducted to test the questionnaire
before an industry-wide survey was launched. This con-
firmed that the data collected would be comprehensible
and established the most productive form of data analy-
sis. Following minor cosmetic refinements to the ques-
tionnaire, the main survey was initiated. This survey
sample was made up as in Table 1. The prime aim in
the composition of the sample, was to achieve a reason-
ably balanced blend of private and public sector con-
tractor selection procedures. These were represented as
53% and 47% respectively.
Table 2 provides the number and value of contracts
awarded by the respondents. The total amount of work
awarded of £3,327,000,000, is a significant part of the
Table 2. Work awarded by respondents for the period
Total £G Total no. contracts
Private sector 2.843
Public sector 0.484
All respondents 3.327
243
industry's work during this recession. This figure equates
to 4,255 contracts each worth an average value of £782,000
awarded by each respondent for the period.
It is also worth noting, that while 47% of sample
population were public sector clients they were respon-
because the private sector projects were much larger.
However, the public sector awarded 70% of the work in
terms of number of contracts. Thus the survey encom-
passed a broad sample of contractor selection prac-
titioners, i.e. those awarding many low value jobs and
those awarding fewer but higher value projects. Discussion
of the results later in this paper highlights some of the
differences between public and private sector clients.
Participants were invited from England, Scotland and
Wales. The randomly chosen client group was forwarded
a letter introducing them to the theme of the research
area. The letter also explained why they had been chosen
to take part and offered the opportunity to notify the
writer if they felt they were unsuitable or did not wish to
contribute. No refusal was received within the 2 weeks
prior to mailing the enquiry and a total of 53 completed
questionnaires were returned, which represented 23% of
those surveyed.
ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA
The fundamental aim of data analysis was to establish
a weighting index for each variable, which is repre-
sentative of its overall significance in the context of
selecting a contractor. Such an index may be debated on
the basis that no established scale or datum exists at this
time for a comparative analysis. However, validation of
the indices will be achieved by application of the weighted
variables to new alternative selection techniques, to case
studies of projects awarded in the recent past. Com-
parison of contractors' P scores with their relevant past
(project) performance, will ascertain whether the dis-
criminating power for any given variable needs to be
adjusted.
Determination of the final weighting index (W) for
each variable consists of two elements : the importance
response (IR) and the problem frequence response (PR).
The importance response (IR )
IR represents practitioners' perceived importance of
each variable. This was measured by inviting respondents
to rank each variable on a scale of 1-3. The response was
scored : critical importance : 3, some importance : 2 and
no importance : 1, the latter being the same as deleting a
variable which was therefore also classified as 1.
Using the relative index ranking technique [12], the
aggregate response for each variable was converted to
relative importance via the formula
Mean value each contract
1,113 £2,554,357
3,142 £154,042
4,255 £781,903
244 G . D . Holt et al.

Table 3. Example of PR calculation for the variable size attained via the formula W = 0.5(IR)+0.5(PR), i.e., 0.5
(IR+PR).
No. contracts
n Respondent awarded No. of times Decimal A summary of I R / P R values and final weighting
indices for all variables, is given in Table 4.
1 l 100 2 0.02
2 4 24 l 0.04
3 6 l0 6 0.60 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4 12 250 2 0.01
5 13 ll 6 0.55 Before analysing the variables, it is important to
6 14 30 30 1.00 observe the following findings.
7 15 65 4 0.06
8 16 16 I 0.06 Respondents' let~el of satisfaction with contractors' per-
9 26 27 1 0.04
10 29 40 2 0.05 Jormance
1! 38 6 5 0.83 F r o m Table 5 it is apparent that public sector clients
12 40 8 2 0.25 are more content with the overall performance of con-
13 42 10 2 0.20 tractors, however, one must not overlook the fact that
14 49 16 3 0.13
some consultant organizations taking part in the survey
15 51 3 I 0.33
may well represent public clients, which would offset this
Total: 4.27 finding somewhat. Since no definition of 'satisfaction'
was offered in the questionnaire, it was left to respon-
Therefore mean = 4.27/16 = PR = 0.267. dents" own perception of its meaning relative to their
organization.
variable total points score
IR= Twenty per cent [public] and 5% [private] respondents
3 (sample size)
were totally satisfied with contractors' performance. More
The subsequent decimal (0-1) represents a 50% con- important perhaps is that 5% of the private sector were
tribution to the final weighting index (W). totally dissatisfied, which suggests that private sector
clients seek more stringent performance levels, or have
The problem response (PR) higher expectations than their public counterparts. It is
This is the second component of the final weighting. clear that any aid that helps to select the most suitable
In order to ensure that ' W ' was symbolic of a given contractor, will improve underlying levels of satisfaction
variable's significance, it was necessary to consider how for clients generally.
often each variable was judged to be related to the cause
of clients' dissatisfaction with contractors' project per- Perception o[ the effectiveness 0[ in-house selection
formance. For instance, a contractor's lack of per- methods
formance due to a poor site manager is a function of Table 6 shows that 10% of all practitioners purport to
'qualification of key personnel' and 'formal training have in place a totally effective selection process. Whilst
regime'. Hence the P R influence on W is directly no practitioner admits to a totally ineffective system, 60%
proportional, to the 'frequency response' indicated by believe their method satisfactory with only 2% on the
practitioners. ~anything less than satisfactory' side of the scale. These
Ultimate disappointment will often be felt by clients statistics confirm that most organizations believe their
when a contractor becomes insolvent however, occasion- contractor selection method to be adequate. However,
ally a client may be glad to be relieved of a contractor! the results may be biased as one might not expect prac-
Other forms of dissatisfaction may be in terms of contract titioners readily to recognize or admit failings of their
overruns, non/late compliance with instructions, unsat- own system. Indeed, from comparison of Tables 5 and 6
isfactory quality, equipment breakdown etc. Obviously it can be seen that 85% of respondents are 'just satisfied'
not all respondents would have had problems with every with contractors' performance yet almost all the sample
variable. (98%) believe their selection method to be between 'satis-
Therefore, P R is expressed as a variable's problem factory' and 'totally effective'.
frequency in relation to the number of contracts awarded
for each respondent. The mean of all such values from Reliance upon prequalification
all respondents for a given variable, is its PR. The most prominent feature to emanate from Table 7
Table 3 illustrates a PR calculation for the variable is that after prequalifying a contractor, 63% of con-
size. struction clients woutd not investigate the contractor fur-
ther before awarding the firm a contract. O f the remain-
Consolidation o[data into final indices ing 37% who would investigate further, it is possible that
The greater the relative importance ranking the greater they will use home grown investigation techniques [6].
the IR value and likewise, the more 'problem potential' In some cases these 'more specific' secondary evalua-
a variable exhibits, the greater its PR value. The basic tion variables are often integrated with (initial)
philosophy behind consolidation of these two elements prequalification. Where this happens, and there is a time
into a final weighting index (W), is that a variable's delay between prequalification and final selection, then
overall importance to the selection process is a product any decline in a contractor's corporate stability/
of its intrinsic relative importance (IR) and its potential performance during this time will not necessarily be
to create 'havoc' if not taken care of (PR). This is detected.
achieved via a balanced input of IR and PR, and is Let us now discuss the selection factors/variables.
 Factors Influencing Choice of Contractors 245

Table 4. IR/PR values and final weighting indices

Relative Problem Weight

importance response index Factor Overall
(IR) (PR) (W) rank rank

Factor
--Variables
Contractors' organization
--Size 0.74 0.27 0.50 4 27
--Age 0.60 0.27 0.43 5 29
--Image 0.55 0.26 0.40 6 31
--Q.C. policy 0.81 0.25 0.52 3 26
--Health & Safety policy 0.82 0.34 0.58 l 20
Litigation tendency 0.78 0.31 0.54 2 24
Financial considerations
--Ratio analysis accounts 0.75 0.51 0.63 4 18
Bank reference 0.75 0.58 0.66 1 I1
---Credit reference 0.75 0.51 0.63 3 17
--Turnover history 0.72 0.61 0.66 2 12.5"
Management resource
--Qualification of owners 0.60 0.75 0.67 3 9
---Qualification of key persons 0.77 0.53 0.64 4 15
--Years with Co 0.64 0.76 0.69 2 7
--Formal training regime 0.63 1.00 0.81 1 3
Past experience
--Type of projects completed 0.91 0.56 0.73 3 6
Size of projects completed 0.87 0.83 0.85 1 2
--National or local 0.68 0.82 0.74 2 5
Past performance
--Failure to have completed contract 0.95 0.41 0.67 1 8
~ v e r r u n s : time 0.81 0.27 0.54 4 25
~ v e r r u n s : cost 0.82 0.33 0.57 3 21
Actual quality achieved 0.93 0.40 0.66 2 12.5"
Project specific
--Experience geographically 0.66 0.16 0.40 5 30
--Experience of similar construction 0.84 0.29 0.56 2 22
--Plant resource available 0.60 0.38 0.48 4 28
Key persons available 0.79 0.30 0.54 3 23
--Qualification : these key persons 0.68 0.67 0.67 1 10
Other specific
--Current workload 0.72 1.00 0.86 1 1
Prior relationship 0.79 0.52 0.65 3 14
--Home office location 0.62 0.67 0.64 4 16
--Time of year--weather 0.52 1.00 0.76 2 4
- - F o r m of contract 0.64 0.55 0.59 5 19

*Joint ranking.

Decimals in brackets i.e., {0.85} refer to final weighting often determined via legal action so this p r o m i n e n c e is
indices--see Table 4. logical. A firm with a strong litigation history is possibly
experienced at claims a n d m a y be classed as having a n
Contractors" organization eye for o p p o r t u n i t i e s to exploit. F u r t h e r m o r e , a firm sub-
O f all o r g a n i z a t i o n a l variables, Health & Safety policy mitting a n extremely low bid m a y be c o n t e m p l a t i n g re-
with a weighted factor o f {0.58} emerged as being o f couping potential losses via claims. In view o f this, any
most importance. U.K. public sector authorities' pre- correlation between lowest bid a n d litigation tendency
qualification questionnaires also bear this out. The high should be explored when evaluating contractors. Quality
i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d to it m a y be due to the s t a t u t o r y controlpoliey {0.52} r a n k s third reflecting owners' desire
requirements o f the H e a l t h & Safety at W o r k Act 1974
and, the p r o p o s e d enforcements in 1994. Litigation tend-
ency {0.54} ran a close second. Unsettled claims are m o s t
Table 6. Respondents' perceived effectiveness of their own selec-
Table 5. Respondents' levels of satisfaction with contractors' tion method
performance
1 2 3 4 5
Totally Just Totally Totally Totally
satisfied satisfied dissatisfied Scale effective Satisfactory ineffective

Public 20% 80% zero Public 10% 30% 55% 5% 0%

Private 5% 90% 5% Private 10% 25% 65% 0% 0%
All respondents 12.5% 85% 2.5% All 10% 28% 60% 2% 0%
 246
Table 7. Respondents' reliance upon prequalification
Yes No Total
Private 55% 45% 100%
Public 70% 30% 100%
All 62.5% 37.5% 100%
Yes = proportion of owners who would award to constructor
who has satisfied (PI) factors.
No = proportion of owners who would consider further (P2)
factors before awarding contract.
for attaining a product of suitable standard and is also
cited by many writers on the subject of contractor selec-
tion as important [5, 13, 14]. Contractors could be
assured by consideration of B.S. 5750 [15]. A relationship
between this variable and the actual quality achieved
[{0.66} under the factor past performance] is established
from the results. Resource a v a i l a b i l i t ~ t h e most promi-
nent function of a firm's size {0.50} may be determined
from analysis of current workload (overtrading) and
trading capacity in relation to capital employed/net
assets. (Age) {0.43} of a company ranks fifth. The track
record that 'aging" generates can instil greater confidence
in a company's longer term stability. This is not infallible,
long established and respected companies have failed
during the current economic climate. Nevertheless it is a
Pactor worthy of consideration in the prequalification
process [7] but needs to be assessed in terms of ascer-
taining whether a company has been suitably tested in
the market place, by trading for a minimum number of
years (3 years is common). Corporate image {0.40} comes
bottom of this subset of variables. One might question
its relationship with performance, but it is suggested that
this variable be considered in the preselection procedure,
as certain "prestigious' project owners will have an ob-
vious wish to employ contractors of an equivalent stand-
ing in the market place.
Financial considerations
This is probably the most important factor of all those
considered. The financial stability of a contractor deter-
mines whether he will stand or fall and therefore figures
high on the lists of many authors [5, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18-
21].
Bank reference {0.66} and turnover history {0.66} were
the highest ranked variables under this factor. The latter
is not surprising in that turnover is a measure of long
term capacity [22] and may assist in the analysis of the
company's activities, as well as being a constituent of
several performance and stability ratios [23, 24]. The cost
of this information is negligible companies are required
by the standard formats of The Companies Act 1985 to
disclose turnover (total sales) in their profit and loss
account. Credit r¢/erences {0.63} offer yet further insight
into a company's financial standing and are to be con-
sidered at this stage of appraisal [7]. Surprisingly, ratio
analysis q/aceounts {0.63} achieved the lowest rank. This
is astonishing in view of the vast amount of information
that can be discovered from such an exercise, as was
proven by Abidali [17]. In particular, Abidali used the
'current' and 'net assets/current liabilities' ratios along
with "interest cover' to predict the failure of construction
companies, the value of this technique being demon-
G . D . Holt et al.
strated by his successful prediction of the demise of
Rush & Tomkins PIc some 3 years before it happened.
Contractors" Management Resource
Good managers can turn straw to gold and bad man-
agers can do the converse. Good managerial skills are a
scarce commodity [25], hence the importance of ana-
lysing a contractor to discover his share of this previous
human resource. It is generally accepted that good man-
agers are trained and not born and this has been
reinforced by the importance that owners have expressed
in contractors operating aJbrmal training regime {0.81}.
The number o/ years management have been with a
company .{0.69} came second, which could be construed
as the relationship between the interest a company
bestows in its staff and the reciprocal commitment of
those staff. However, one might argue that long serving
staff are those who are not sufficiently attractive to be
head hunted! This variable was closely followed by quaff-
fieation o/theJirm's owners {0.67~. Scope may exist here
for investigation of a firm in the light of the C.1.O.B.
chartered company membership scheme [26] which
requires the company (managers/owners) to have mini-
mum levels of chartered status. One respondent suitably
summed this up: 'involvement and capability of the
(Contractor companies) owners in the construction pro-
cess is crucial'. The qualification of key persons {0.64}
achieved lowest rank. One client rightly pointed out, that
an encouraging result from an assessment of a company's
management resource does not automatically mean those
particular key persons will be employed on the forth-
coming project, hence the inclusion of key persons avail-
able.[or project under P2 assessment. Perhaps there is
future scope for 'minimum qualification of management
to be employed on the works' to always be incorporated
into the (employer/contractor) contract, ensuring that
the owner is afforded at least a m i n i m u m standard.
Past experience
This is another factor highly ranked by all
practitioners. The size q/'past projects completed {0.85}
emerged from the survey as the most important variable
and incidentally with the second largest W score. The PR
element of this score was 0.83 which seems to suggest
that many owners have experienced problems stemming
from employing contractors who had taken on a project
that was too large for them to handle. Ensuring that
the proposed project does not represent more than the
maximum workload capacity for the given contractor
seems the logical answer and may be determined from
trading capacity and current workload, e.g. many client
organizations will not award a contract if its value rep-
resents more than (say) 20% of the contractor's previous
year's turnover. Local or national experience {0.74}
ranked second and would be of particular interest to
clients seeking a continuity contract or serial tender
where the works may be spread over a large geographic
area. Investigation of this variable will also identify the
firms' mobility potential. Type 01 projects completed
{0.73} came third; obviously contractors with particular
experience, especially oll projects with a specific bias,
should be a better prospect on a future similar project(s).
 Factors Influencin 9 Choice o f Contractors
Past performance
Investigation of a contractor's past experience shows
the owner what a contractor has done, whether or not
these projects have been executed successfully will only
be identified from an investigation of performance. This
separation of experience and performance has been fur-
ther substantiated by Birrell [27]. Failure to have com-
pleted a contract {0.67} ranks highest, which is under-
standable to a degree and in general agreement with
findings of work in a similar vein conducted in the U.S.A.
[5]. It seems that a contractor's inability to carry out
obligations of a legally binding document, causes a great
concern. Actual quality achieved {0.66} ranks second and
has been discussed. Number of contract overruns cost
{0.57} and time {0.54} rank third and fourth respectively.
Obviously, when assessing a contractor in the light of
these two variables it will be necessary to determine what
percentage of such overruns are attributable to the firm's
failings. Sometimes clients as well as extraneous cir-
cumstances (e.g., trade union boycotts) cause time and
cost overruns that are totally beyond the control of the
contractor.
Project specific variables
Certain variables may appear to be re-considered
under this factor. This is not the case. PI factors are more
broad in their analysis, whereas P2 factors are project
specific. As an example, the P1 variable qualification of
key persons generally assesses a company's management
personnel resource. Under P2 evaluation the variable key
persons available shall determine the adequacy of the
personnel the contractor intends to make available for
the particular project.
Qualification of key persons available for the project
{0.67} emerges as the most important, confirming the
findings under the Management Resource factor. Experi-
ence of similar construction {0.56} and key persons avail-
able for the project {0.54} rank second and third respec-
tively. These appear to be variables that instil confidence,
the former furnishing the client with an 'experienced'
contractor in the sense that any potential problems
should have been mastered during the execution of pre-
vious similar contracts. Plant resource available {0.48}
ranked fourth, however, one would suspect that this
would be of greater importance had the survey con-
centrated on civil engineering projects--due to their
greater demand of this resource.
Geoyraphic experience {0.40} was commented upon by
many respondents in the context that a contractor needs
to know the strengths, weaknesses and availability of
local labour.
Other specific variables
Current workload {0.86} (to be assessed at the time of
evaluating the tender) ranks highest and also achieves
the top overall ranking of all variables considered in this
analysis. One can sensibly assume that clients' fear of a
contractor being unable to complete a contract due to
overtrading is the fundamental reasoning behind the
response. This variable needs to be assessed during the
tender evaluation period to identify any recent increase
in the contractor's workload. Time of year--weather
247
{0.76} came second. Perhaps this is a reflection of the
way the British climate is often able to hamper con-
struction work. Such an adverse affect on programme
often results in client dissatisfaction in terms of 'time'.
However, it will be difficult to discriminate between con-
tractors because potential exposure is usually common
to all tenderers. Perhaps an 'index' may be possible which
reflects the potential 'downtime' from bad weather--in
relation to geographical location. Although not dis-
criminatory this may help predict one aspect of potential
project success. Prior relationship (owner/contractor)
{0.65} ranked third and has obvious ramifications. Home
office location in relation to the project {0.64} came fourth
and this is relative to communication and speed of
decision making between H/O and site management. In
a similar vein one particular respondent highlighted the
importance of 'the autonomy of site offices'. Form of
contract {0.59} came bottom of the list. Liaison with
clients, has revealed that the majority do not consider
the latter important because they decide what form of
contract is put in place (normally JCT) [28]. However,
where this is not necessarily the case the owner must
assess the apportionment of risk.
CONCLUSION
Variables considered important by various authors on
contractor selection have been presented to construction
clients for confirmation and determination of their levels
of importance. The importance rankings and the
weighted indices may aid other clients to appraise their
existing selection methods with regard to the criteria they
employ and the level of importance they attach to them.
Considering the overall ranking of variables the six
highest scoring are: 1. contractors' current workload, 2.
contractors' past experience in terms of size of projects
completed, 3. contractors' management resource in terms
of--formal training regime, 4. time of year--weather, 5.
contractor's past experience in terms of catchment, i.e.
national or local and 6. experience in terms of type of
projects completed. Because exposure to weather is com-
mon to all tenderers it would be difficult to utilize this
variable to discriminate between contractors. It would
seem prudent therefore that the remaining five variables
should be part of any selection method. The survey
also confirmed the particular importance attached to pre-
qualification by practitioners, and a lack of secondary
investigation as a means of assisting tender evaluation
and final selection. It was not the intention of the survey
to identify the best or most popular contractor selection
factor. Rather, the survey worked on the premise that
there exists a cocktail of other selection criteria apart
from tender sum, which if carefully evaluated by clients
would help identify the 'most suitable' contractor thereby
offering greater probability of a successful project
outcome. A method that properly recognizes other
criteria, might be expected to make better selections,
leading to satisfied clients and also to satisfied users of
construction facilities.
Acknowledgements---Theauthors wish to thank the Leverhulme
Trust for funding this research. Also numerous client groups
and Local Authorities for their generous co-operation and con-
tributions.
248 G . D . Holt et al.

REFERENCES
1. Simon Committee, The Placing and Management of Buildiny Contracts. London : HMSO (1944).
2. H. Banwell, The Placing and Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engineering Works.
London: HMSO (1964).
3. B.E.D.C. Action on the Banwell Report. Building Economic Development Committee, London:
HMSO (1967).
4. A. Merna and N. J. Smith, Bid Evaluation for UK Public Sector Construction Contracts. Proc. lnstn
Cir. Enyrs Pt. 1, 88, 91 105 (1990).
5. J. Russell, D. Hancher and M. J. Skibniewski, Contractor Prequalification data for Construction
Owners. Constr. Mnymt & Econ. 10, 117 135 (1992).
6. G . D . Holt, P. O. Olomolaiye and F. C. Harris, A Conceptual Alternative to Current Tendering
Practice. Accepted : Building Research and Information, The International Journal of Building Science
and its Applications (1992).
7. J. Russell and M. J. Skibniewski, Decision Criteria in Contractor Prequalification. J. Mngmt 4, 148
164 (1988).
8. Consu|tants Draw up C.C.T. Battle Plans. Building Magazine p. 13 (November 1992).
9. R.M. Skitmore and D. E. Marsden, Which Procurement System? Towards a Universal Procurement
Selection Technique. Const. Mngmt & Econ. 6, 71-89 (1988).
10. J. Russell, Decision Models for Analysis and Evaluation of Construction Contractors. Const. Mngmt
& Econ. 10, 185 202 (1992).
11. P. (3. Moore and H. Thomas, The Anatomy of'Decisions. Penguin, Middlesex (1979).
12. P.O. Olomolaiye et al., Problems Influencing Craftsmen's Productivity in Nigeria. Bldg Envir. 22,
317-323 (1987).
13. C.M. Tam, Discriminant Analysis Model For Predicting Contractor Performance in Hong Kong.
Current Ph.D. study supervised by F. C. Harris, School of Construction, University of Wol-
verhampton (1992).
14. J.E. Diekman, Selection of Cost Plus Contractors using Normative Decision Methodologies. Unpub.
Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington (1979).
15. A. Griffith, Quafity Assurance in Building. Macmillan, London (1990).
16. M. Baker and S. Orsaah, How do the Customers choose a Contractor? Buildiny Magazine 3(~ I, (May
1985).
17. A.F. Abidali, A Model for Predicting Company Failure in the Construction Industry. Unpub. Ph.D.
Thesis, Loughborough University (1990).
18. N.J.C.C. (National Joint Consultative Committee), Code ~f Procedure for Two Stage Selective
Tenderiny. R.I.B.A. (1983).
19. N.J.C.C., Code of Procedure fbr Selective Tendering fbr Design and Build. R.I.B.A. (1985).
20. N.J.C.C., Code of Procedure fbr Single Stage Selective Tendering. R.I.B.A. (1989).
21. N.J.C.C., Code of Procedure for the Selection of a Management Contractor and Works Contractors.
London : R.I.B.A. (1991).
22. D. Janssens, Desiyn Build Explained. Macmillan, London (199 ! ).
23. (3. Holmes and A. Sugden, Interpreting Company Reports and Accounts, 4th Ed. Woodhead/Faulkner
(1990).
24. R. Pilcher, Principles of Construction Management. McGraw-Hill, New York (1992).
25. S.P. Robbins, Management Concepts and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1988).
26. Chartered Institute of Building, Chartered Building Company Scheme. C.I.O.B., Englemere, Kings
Ride, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 8BJ (1992).
27. G.S. Birrel, Bid Appraisal Incorporating Past PerJbrmances By Contractors. American Assoc. of Cost
Engnrs Trans. DI.I-DI.6 (1988).
28. Joint Contracts Tribunal, Standard Forms of Building Contract. London : R.I.B.A. (various).