See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257371615

A fuzzy sets based contractor prequalification procedure

Article in Automation in Construction · March 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.11.003

CITATIONS READS

52 365

1 author:

Edyta Plebankiewicz
Cracow University of Technology
70 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Hybrid Techniques for Construction Engineering" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edyta Plebankiewicz on 02 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

A fuzzy sets based contractor prequalification procedure

Edyta Plebankiewicz ⁎
Section of Technology and Building Management, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Kraków, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Contractor prequalification makes it possible to admit for tendering only competent contractors. The paper
Accepted 20 November 2011 presents a proposal for contractor prequalification schema involving two stages of prequalification: “on a
Available online 9 December 2011 standing list” and “per project”. A model of prequalification employing the theory of fuzzy sets to evaluate
the “per project” contractors is precisely described. A simple numerical example illustrates the model
Keywords:
operation and a description of a program supporting the prequalification procedure follows.
Contractor
Prequalification
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Standing list
Short list
Fuzzy sets

1. Introduction prequalification process is not an easy task. In contractor evaluation,

Choosing the right contractor increases the chances of reaching
the goals of the project which, first of all, keep the schedule within
the estimated costs, time-frame and quality. In order to select the
right contractor, the owner checks his/her qualifications in a variety
of ways and at various stages of preplanning and executing the
project. Generally speaking, there are three basic stages of checking
and verifying the contractor's qualifications. The stages include pre-
qualification, i.e. various forms of the before-tendering procedure,
final selection ensuing shortly after the submission of the tender,
and evaluation of the contractor after cooperation with him/her
finishes, i.e. after the project is completed.
The contractor's qualifications can be fully evaluated even before
the proper tender offer procedure begins. In many countries there
are official records or registration systems. The aim of registration,
which may be understood as a formal system of prequalification, is
to show in advance those contractors who are capable of accomplish-
ing particular kinds of orders. The information required of contractors
is verified at the registration stage, and is subsequently checked and
updated on the regular basis. When a specific project is to be carried
out, there is no need to check the contractor's qualifications anew,
except when it is necessary to make sure the information about the
contractor is still up to date. In effect, a “standing list” is created. On
the other hand, prequalification may also mean selecting a group of
contractors who are most suitable to execute a given project. This is
a so-called “per project” prequalification. In this case a “short list” of
contractors is formed.
“Per project” selections are often supported by mathematical
models. Building a model comprising all conditions of a
⁎ Tel.: + 48 608 45 00 81.
E-mail address: eplebank@izwbit.pk.edu.pl.
numerous criteria are taken into account, which, in turn, are charac-
terized by appropriate subcriteria. In many countries a considerable
number of researchers employed criteria used by construction
owners [1–6]. However, evaluation of so numerous criteria is subjec-
tive and ambiguous in meaning, such as the one which evaluates
“contractor's reputation”. It is also not an easy task to determine
one common scale of evaluation for all criteria. Additionally, the ne-
cessity to include in the model evaluations of numerous decision
makers may also be a problem.
In the literature there are several models which can be used in the
process of construction a contractor's selection. The one which is the
simplest and most frequently used in practice is the dimensional
weighting model. Its application in prequalification problems and its
possible modifications were described by Jaselskis and Russell [7].
Some authors have formed contractor selection models by using the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [8–10]. Among other models of
contractors’ evaluation is the model making use of an expert system
which is worth consideration. The model and the software
(QUALIFIER 2) facilitating its usage were described in Ref. [11]. On
several occasions, artificial neural networks were used to build a
prequalification model [12–14]. Fuzzy sets were for the first time
used to build a contractor selection model by Nguyen [15]. Prequalifi-
cation models, based on fuzzy sets, were presented by Singh and
Tiong [16], Li, Nie and Chen [17] and Plebankiewicz [18]. Chow and
Ng [19] used the fuzzy sets theory to build a model for evaluating
the performance of engineering consultants. Ng [20] developed a
case-based reasoning system for contractor prequalification. Lam,
Palaneeswaran and Yu [21] developed a support vector machine
model for contractor prequalification. The problem of the selection
of a contractor is a multi-criteria problem. Many multi-criteria tech-
niques are proposed and applied for the solution of these problems
[22–35].

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.11.003
434 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443
The aim of the paper is to propose a schema of contractor
prequalification involving two stages of the evaluation of the contrac-
tor: “on the standing list” and “per project”. It presents a prequalifica-
tion model employing the theory of fuzzy sets, which is suggested for
the evaluation of the “per project” contractors.
2. The schema of prequalification procedure
For the evaluation of the contractor the author proposes the
following schema including the two basic stages: “on a standing
list” and “per project” (Fig. 1).
At stage I, contractors are classified. A contractor who intends to
undergo a qualification procedure has to state which group, category,
etc. he/she wants to be assigned to. These classifications may have a
variety of forms and may concern the features of both the tender
(e.g. the type of works, facilities, etc.) and the contractor (e.g. the
size of the company). The qualification is performed individually
and depends on the needs of the owner. Such procedure is especially
recommended for those owners who order building works of various
types and to a varying range, which influences the subsequent
shaping of prequalification procedures. For instance, one will require
different equipment in the realization of general building works from
that used for road works. Similarly, hiring a company with appropri-
ate financial potential and appropriate personnel will be necessary to
accomplish a considerable and complex construction, but not neces-
sarily to realize a small renovation project.
The second stage involves the assessment of fulfilling the basic
criteria. The aim of the assessment is to exclude those contractors
who are unreliable, i.e. those who are bankrupt or who in the past
committed serious mistakes in the realization of previous construc-
tions. The questions are assessed according to a 0/1 system and the
contractors who do not fulfill any of the criteria are excluded from
the subsequent steps in the qualification procedure. In such as case
Selection for “a standing list”
Specification of the group or category to
which the contractor will be qualified
Stage I – assessment (0/1) of fulfilling the
basic criteria
fulfills all criteria
Stage II – assessing (in points) the degree to
which the particular criteria concerning the
contractor’s qualities are reached
received the required number of points
Selection for a “a short list”
Mathematical model employing the fuzzy sets theory
receives the required number of does not receive the required number of points
points
Contractor may apply for the Contractor may not apply for
project
Fig. 1. A schema of the prequalification procedure.
they may apply for a new classification in the allotted time following
the change of the situation which has caused the exclusion.
The remaining candidates are admitted to the next stage where
they need to give specific information which will become the basis
of evaluation done by the owner. The type of the information
required, as well as the way of its evaluation, depends on a variety of
factors, such as the type (category or group) of the project to which
the contractor is classified, or the requirements of the owner. The
range of the information usually includes experience, financial situa-
tion, personnel available, equipment, the contractor's reputation, etc.
These issues constitute the basic information obtained from the con-
tractor by means of a specially prepared form. The answers should
allow to formulate an unambiguous and rational evaluation. The
answers to each question are worth a specified number of points,
and the owner should assign an appropriate scale specifying the
minimum number of points which allow the contractor to be admitted
to the list. In the case of failing to gain the required number of points,
the contractor has the possibility to be classified to a different category
or group (if the relevant requirements allow him/her to collect the
right number of points), or he/she may apply for a re-qualification in
another time allotted, after his/her condition improves.
Then those contractors who have found themselves on the list
may apply for the realization of particular project. Such a selection
for a “short list” is typically more careful, and the criteria employed
are relevant also for the particular project.
For example, a contractor may be asked to reveal the sources of the
planned funding of the project (together with the documented state-
ment of the amount of the financial means he/she possesses or his/her
borrowing power), the deadline to pay invoices, the proposed employ-
ment of the positions vital for the completion of the construction with
information about the candidates, names and addresses of the co-
workers who are acquainted with customs procedures, visa endorse-
ment, etc. and who come from the country where the works are to be
Applying for re-qualification in another time
allotted
does not fulfill at
least one criterion
does not receive
the required
number of points
the project
 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443 435

done, and information about any affiliated companies, which are sug- and subjective. Therefore, for the evaluation the author proposes a
gested as reputed subcontractors. In many cases the criteria that has model based on the theory of fuzzy sets, which is presented in the fol-
just been mentioned, as well as the information collected, are imprecise lowing section.

3. General characteristics of the model

In a “per project” prequalification a mathematical model employing the theory of fuzzy sets is used. In the scheme adopted it is assumed that
only contractors from the “standing list” can apply for the realization of the project. The model considers different objectives and criteria. The
basic objectives included in the model are time, cost, and the quality of works. In some particular cases, depending on the kind of construction,
more detailed objectives must be considered. For example, the main attributes and objectives of contractors of dwellings are the following [25]:

– Cost of building management

– Cost of common assets management
– HVAC system maintenance cost (mean)
– Courtyard territory cleaning (in summer)
– Total service cost
– Length of time in maintenance business (experience)
– Market share for each contractor
– Number of projects per executive.

Evaluation is usually carried out by a team of decision makers. Moreover, the model offers a possibility of taking into consideration evalua-
tions made by many decision makers.
The advantage of the model is the fact that all evaluations can be presented in the form of linguistic values. In accordance with the fuzzy sets
theory, the linguistic variables are converted into fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy relations are formed, then fuzzy compositions determining the relation-
ship between the objective and contractor through their respective relationships to a criterion. As it results from the specificity of the model it is
difficult to determine a satisfying evaluation. Thus, it is important that all the contractors are evaluated at the same time. The number of con-
tractors evaluated as the best, who are qualified, should be in agreement with the number determined by the owner. A simultaneous evaluation
of all candidates makes the task easier for the decision makers, who can compare the contractors’ characteristics.
In the model the following denotations will be used:

– dp– decision makers,

– cm– objectives of a construction owner in a given project,
– kn– decision criteria,
– Ca– objectives weight (degree to which objective is desired by construction owner),
a = 1,2,…,m; m—number of objectives,
e
– Caj – a objective evaluation, by j decision maker, for e variant,
j = 1,2,…,p; p—number of decision makers,
e = 1,2,3,4; e—number of evaluation variants,
– Caj– objective evaluation matrix,
– Kb– b criterion weight,
e
– Kbj – b criterion evaluation by j decision maker, for e variant,
b = 1,2,…,n; n—number of criteria,
– Kbj– criteria evaluation matrix,
– Wcb– c contractor evaluation according to b criterion (degree of satisfying the criterion by the contractor),
e
– Wcjb – c contractor evaluation, by j decision maker, for e variant, according to b criterion,
c = 1,2,…,t; t—number of contractors,
– Wcjb– contractor evaluation matrix,
– Iab– influence of b criterion on a objective,
– Oi – contractor evaluations,
i = 1,2,…,t; t—number of contractors.

The algorithm used in the model is described as follows.

1) In the first stage, the construction owner has to define the objectives (cm) he/she wants to achieve in the project. In the model three objec-
tives were taken into consideration: time (c2), cost (c2), and quality (c3). The construction owner, however, may take into consideration other
objectives as well.
2) One needs to determine kn criteria which influence the decision about the contractor being qualified. The criteria may be used randomly.
3) Decision makers (dp) evaluate the degree to which the construction owner aims at when achieving a given objective, the degree of criteria
importance for the construction owner and the degree of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors.
3.1) In the evaluation the decision makers use the following linguistic variables: (i) linguistic variables {very important, important, above av-
erage, average, below average, low important, very low important} which refer to the evaluation of the degree of importance in aiming at
reaching a given objective and to the evaluation of a given criterion; (ii) linguistic variables values {very good, good, above average, av-
erage, below average, poor, very poor} which refer to the evaluation of the degree of the contractor satisfying a particular criterion.
436 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443

3.2) Linguistic variables are converted into a fuzzy numbers (Fig. 2 and Table 1) [16].
3.3) For each objective one determines a fuzzy value of the degree to which a construction owner is striving in order to reach a given objec-
k
tive—Caj —a (a = 1,2,…,m) objective evaluation, by j (j = 1,2,…,p) decision maker, for e (e = 1,2,3,4) variant

2


 3
C 111 ; C 211 ; C 311 ; C 411 C 112 ; C 212 ; C 312 ; C 412 … C 11p ; C 21p ; C 31p ; C 41p
6


 7
0 6 7
C aj ¼ 6
k C 121 ; C 221 ; C 321 ; C 421 C 122 ; C 222 ; C 322 ; C 422 … C 12p ; C 22p ; C 32p ; C 42p 7
6 7
4
: 

5
C 1m1 ; C 2m1 ; C 3m1 ; C 4m1 C 1m2 ; C 2m2 ; C 3m2 ; C 4m2 … 1 2 3
C mp ; C mp ; C mp ; C mp 4

ð1Þ

The average score of decision makers:

2
1 



C 11 þ C 112 þ … þ C 11p =p C 211 þ C 212 þ … þ C 21p =p C 311 þ C 312 þ … þ C 31p =p C 411 þ C 412 þ … þ C 41p =p
6
6




6 1 1 1
00
k 6 C þ C 22 þ … þ C 2p =p C 221 þ C 222 þ … þ C 22p =p C 321 þ C 322 þ … þ C 32p =p C 421 þ C 422 þ … þ C 42p =p
C aj ¼ 6 21
6 :
6
4



 i
C 1m1 þ C 1m2 þ … þ C 1mp =p C 2m1 þ C 2m2 þ … þ C 2mp =p C 3m1 þ C 3m2 þ … þ C 3mp =p C 4m1 þ C 4m2 þ … þ C 4mp =p

Introducing denotations:


C 111 þ C 112 þ … þ C 11p =p ¼ C 11


C 211 þ C 212 þ … þ C 21p =p ¼ C 12


C 311 þ C 312 þ … þ C 31p =p ¼ C 13


4 4 4
C 11 þ C 12 þ … þ C 1p =p ¼ C 14


C 121 þ C 122 þ … þ C 12p =p ¼ C 21


C 221 þ C 222 þ … þ C 22p =p ¼ C 22
…


C 3m1 þ C 3m2 þ … þ C 3mp =p ¼ C m3


C 4m1 þ C 4m2 þ … þ C 4mp =p ¼ C m4

Objective evaluation matrix is obtained as follows:

2 3
C 11 C 12 C 13 C 14
6 C 21 C 22 C 23 C 24 7
C aj ¼ 6
4:
7
5 ð2Þ
C m1 C m2 C m3 C m4

3.4) The crisp score (defuzzified value), i.e. the average degree to which a construction owner is striving in order to reach a given objective, is
obtained as follows [36]:

C a ¼ ðC a1 þ C a2 þ C a3 þ C a4 Þ=4 ð3Þ

µ(x)
VP P BA A AA G VG
1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x

Fig. 2. Graphic representation of fuzzy numbers for linguistic variables.

 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443 437

Table 1
Fuzzy numbers for linguistic variables.

Linguistic variables Fuzzy numbers

VG/VI Very good/important (0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000)

G/I Good/important (0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900)
AA Above average (0.500, 0.600, 0.700, 0.800)
A Average (0.400, 0.500, 0.500, 0.600)
BA Below average (0.200, 0.300, 0.400, 0.500)
P/LI Poor/low important (0.100, 0.200, 0.300, 0.400)
VP/VLI Very poor/very low important (0.000, 0.000, 0.100, 0.200)

For details about different types of fuzzy numbers, membership function, aggregation, and defuzzification methods, the readers interested
are referred to Klir and Folger [37], Kaufmann and Gupta [36], Kacprzyk [38].
Next, similarly as in case of the degree to which a construction owner is striving in order to reach a given objective, the degree of criterion
importance and the degree of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors are established.
3.5) For each of the criteria one determines a fuzzy value of the degree of criteria importance for the construction owner

k
Kbj —b (b = 1,2,…,n) criterion evaluation by j (j = 1,2,…,p) decision maker, for e (e = 1,2,3,4) variant
n—number of criteria
Criteria evaluation matrix: Kbj

3.6) The crisp score (defuzzified value), i.e. the average degree of criteria importance for the construction owner is: Kb
3.7) For each of contractor one determines a fuzzy value of satisfying criteria by particular contractors.

e
Wcjb —c (c = 1,2,…,t) contractor evaluation, by j decision maker, for e variant, according to b criterion
t—number of contractors
Contractor evaluation matrix: Wcjb

3.8) The crisp score (defuzzified value), i.e. the average degree of satisfying criteria by particular contractors is: Wcb
4) The elements of the R(c,k) relation are calculated, where R(c,k) is a fuzzy binary relation which approximates the relationship between
the objective set and criteria set;

Rðca ; kb Þ ¼ C a  K b  Iab ð4Þ

5) The elements of the R(k,w) relation are calculated, where R(k,w) is a fuzzy binary relation. Each element of R(k,w) represents the degree of
satisfying the criteria by particular contractors.
6) The elements of the Q(c,w) relation are calculated, where Q(c,w) is a fuzzy composition operation, performed on the two fuzzy binary rela-
tions R(c,k) and R(k,w). The elements of the Q(c,w) relation determine the relationship between objective c and contractor w through their
respective relationships to criterion k.
One uses a maximum–minimum (max–min) and cumulative–minimum (cum–min) composition operation.
The max–min operation is defined, for a given ca and wc, by Klir and Folger [37]:

Q ðc; wÞ ¼ S∘Rðca ; wc Þ ¼ max min½Rðca ; kb Þ; Rðkb ; wc Þ for all kb ð5Þ

Contractor evaluations are obtained as follows:

Oi ¼ ½∑Q ðca ; wc Þ=∑ca for a ¼ 1 to m ð6Þ

The cum–min operation is defined, for a given ca and wc, by Russel and Fayek [39]:

Q ðc; wÞ ¼ S∘Rðca ; wc Þ ¼ sum min½Rðca ; kb Þ; Rðkb ; wc Þ for all kb ð7Þ

Contractor evaluations are obtained using Eq. (6).

4. Example illustrating the model operation
A construction owner wants to make a list of contractors who are
able to realize a given project. To do this he/she has to evaluate three
contractors (w1, w2, w3). A group of two decision makers decide about
qualification (d1, d2). The objectives the construction owner wants to
achieve in a given project are: time (c1), cost (c2) and quality (c3). The
criteria taken into consideration include: technical possibilities (k1),
financial standing (k2) and organizational abilities (k3).
Decision makers evaluate the degree to which the construction
owner aims at when achieving a given objective in the form of lin-
guistic variables (Table 2).
Linguistic variables are converted into a fuzzy numbers according
to Table 1 (Table 3).
438 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443

Table 2 Table 6
Decision makers evaluation of objectives. Decision makers evaluation of satisfying criterion k1 by contractors.

Objective d1 evaluation d2 evaluation Contractor d1 evaluation d2 evaluation

Time (c1) Important Very important w1 Good Good

Cost (c2) Important Average w2 Very good Good
Quality (c3) Very important Important w3 Good Above average

Table 7
Decision makers evaluation of satisfying criterion k1 by contractors (fuzzy numbers).
Table 3
Decision makers evaluation of objectives (fuzzy numbers). Contractor d1 evaluation d2 evaluation

Objective d1 evaluation d2 evaluation w1 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900
w2 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900
Time (c1) 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 w3 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900 0.500, 0.600, 0.700, 0.800
Cost (c2) 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900 0.400, 0.500, 0.500, 0.600
Quality (c3) 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900

4.1. For criterion technical possibilities (k1)

Objective evaluation matrix is obtained using Eq. (2):
The fuzzy value of satisfying criterion k1 by contractors is pre-
2 3 sented by Table 6.
0:700 0:800 0:900 0:950
C aj ¼ 4 0:500 0:600 0:650 0:750 5 Linguistic variables are converted into a fuzzy form according to
0:700 0:800 0:900 0:950 Table 1 (Table 7).
Contractor evaluation matrix:

The crisp score is obtained using Eq. (3): 2 3

0:600 0:700 0:800 0:900
W cj1 ¼ 4 0:700 0:800 0:900 0:950 5
C 1 ¼ ð0:700 þ 0:800 þ 0:900 þ 0:950Þ=4 ¼ 0:838 0:550 0:650 0:750 0:850
C 2 ¼ 0:625
C 3 ¼ 0:838
The crisp score:

For each of the criteria decision makers evaluate the fuzzy value of
W 11 ¼ 0:750
the degree of criteria importance (Table 4). W 21 ¼ 0:838
Linguistic variables are converted into a fuzzy numbers according W 31 ¼ 0:700
to Table 1 (Table 5).
Criteria evaluation matrix:

2 3 4.2. For criterion financial standing (k2)

0:800 0:900 1:000 1:000
K bj ¼ 4 0:700 0:800 0:900 0:950 5
The fuzzy value of satisfying criterion k2 by contractors is illustrat-
0:250 0:350 0:400 0:500
ed by Table 8.
The crisp score:
The crisp score:
W 12 ¼ 0:575
K 1 ¼ 0:925 W22 ¼ 0:700
K 2 ¼ 0:838 W 32 ¼ 0:925
K 3 ¼ 0:375

4.3. For criterion organizational abilities (k3)

For each constructor, the decision makers evaluate the fuzzy value
of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors. The fuzzy value of satisfying criterion k3 by contractors is shown in
Table 9.
Table 4
Decision makers evaluation of the degree of criteria importance. Table 8
Decision makers evaluation of satisfying criterion k2 by contractors.
Criterion d1 evaluation d2 evaluation

Technical possibilities (k1) Very important Very important Contractor d1 evaluation d2 evaluation
Financial standing (k2) Important Very important w1 Average Above average
Organizational abilities (k3) Low important Average w2 Above average Good
w3 Very good Very good

Table 5 Table 9
Decision makers evaluation of the degree of criteria importance (fuzzy numbers). Decision makers evaluation of satisfying criterion k3 by contractors.

Criterion d1 evaluation d2 evaluation Contractor d1 d2

Technical possibilities (k1) 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 w1 Good Good
Financial standing ( k2) 0.600, 0.700, 0.800, 0.900 0.800, 0.900, 1.000, 1.000 w2 Above average Good
Organizational abilities (k3) 0.100, 0.200, 0.300, 0.400 0.400, 0.500, 0.500, 0.600 w3 Average Average
 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443 439

Table 10 Table 12
Iab—influence of criterion on objective. Calculation of elements of R(k.w) relation.

Time—1 R(k,w) relation w1 w2 w3

Time—1; Technical possibilities—1 I11 = 0.8 k1 0.750 0.838 0.700

Time—1; Financial standing—2 I12 = 1.0 k2 0.575 0.700 0.925
Time—1; Organizational abilities—3 I13 = 0.8 k3 0.750 0.700 0.500

Cost—2

Cost—2; Technical possibilities—1 I21 = 1.0

Cost – 2; Financial standing—2 I22 = 1.0
5. Analyses of the sensitivity model
Cost – 2; Organizational abilities—3 I23 = 0.8
In order to examine the influence of particular input data on the
Quality—3
results of the operations performed on the model, a sensitivity analy-
Quality—3; Technical possibilities—1 I31 = 0.8
sis was carried out. One item of the input data was changed, assuming
Quality—3; Financial standing—2 I32 = 1.0
Quality—3; Organizational abilities—3 I33 = 1.0 that the remaining data were stable. The influence of these changes
on the final result was observed. The sensitivity model measure is a
variation of the final results in the answer to the changes in particular
parameters of the input data. In the analysis carried out, the influence
The crisp score: of the following parameter variations on the evaluation of the con-
tractor was examined, namely:
W 13 ¼ 0:750
W 23 ¼ 0:700 – the degree to which the construction owner aims at when achiev-
W 33 ¼ 0:500 ing a given objective,
– the number of objectives,
The elements of the R(c,k) relation are calculated as in Table 11. – the degree of criteria importance for the construction owner,
The coefficient Iab (influence of criterion on objective) proposed by – the degree of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors,
the author is shown in Table 10. – the number of criteria,
The elements of the R(k.w) relation are calculated as in Table 12. – the degree to which a criterion influences an objective.
The elements of the Q(c,w) relation are calculated by using the
The analyses carried out were designed to establish some general
max–min composition operation (according to Eq. (5)).
tendencies of the model behavior. On this basis some general conclu-
For example, for w1 contractor:
sions can be made about the influence of the input data on the final
Q ðc1 ; w1 Þ ¼ maxmin½ð0:620; 0:750Þ; ð0:701; 0:575Þ; ð0:251; 0:750Þ results. The conclusions are as follows.
¼ max½0:620; 0:575; 0:251 ¼ 0:620 1) The degree of criterion importance has the greatest influence on
Q ðc2 ; w1 Þ ¼ 0:578 the final results for the owner. Slightly less important is the degree
Q ðc3 ; w1 Þ ¼ 0:620 of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors. The degree to
which the construction owner aims at when achieving a given ob-
jective, and the value of the coefficient Iab only slightly influences
Contractor evaluations are obtained using Eq. (6):
the final results.
O1 ¼ ð0:620 þ 0:578 þ 0:620Þ=2:3 ¼ 0:790 2) The greater influence of the input data on the final results can be
seen in the sum–min method rather than in the max–min one.
All result are presented in Table 13. 3) The introduction of additional objectives or additional criteria
The elements of the Q(c,w) relation are calculated using the cum– only slightly influences the final results (a little more when intro-
min composition operation (according to Eq. (7)). ducing additional criteria).
For example for w1 contractor:
6. “Prequalification” program
Q ðc1 ; w1 Þ ¼ summin½ð0:620; 0:750Þ; ð0:701; 0:575Þ; ð0:251; 0:750Þ
¼ sum½0:620; 0:575; 0:251 ¼ 1:446 As an aid in the prequalification procedure and in the application
Q ðc2 ; w1 Þ ¼ 1:289 of the model, the author devised a software with a working name


Q c3; w1 ¼ 1:509
Table 13
Calculation of elements of Q(c,w) relation using the max–min composition operation.
Contractor evaluations are obtained using Eq. (6):
Q(c,w) w1 w2 w3
O1 ¼ ð1:446 þ 1:289 þ 1:509Þ=2:3 ¼ 1:845 c1 0.620 0.700 0.701
c2 0.578 0.578 0.578
c3 0.620 0.700 0.701
All results are presented in Table 14. Oi 0.790 0.860 0.861
Contractors w3 proved to be the best. The next places were taken
by contractors w2, w1 successively.
Table 14
Table 11 Calculation of elements of Q(c,w) relation using the cum–min composition operation.
Calculation of elements of R(c,k) relation.
Q(c,w) w1 w2 w3
R(c,k) relation k1 k2 k3
c1 1.446 1.571 1.572
c1 0.620 0.701 0.251 c2 1.289 1.289 1.289
c2 0.578 0.523 0.188 c3 1.509 1.634 1.635
c3 0.620 0.701 0.314 Oi 1.845 1.954 1.955
440 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443

CONTRACTOR MODULE Short list

Standing list Editing contractor’s data, Completing data „per
possible supplementing of project” evaluation
Registration of the contractor. data.
Assignment to a category,
group and level
Answering questions, filling
Export of Import of evaluation Export of
in a questionnaire
contractor’s results and contractor’s
data file comments data file

OWNER MODULE
Import of Import of
Export of the contractor’s Export of evaluation contractor’s
questionnaire data file results and data file
comments

Starting a new Export of the

venture questionnaire
Comment on contractor’s Evaluation
data after finished
cooperation
Adding contractors EVALUA-
from “standing list” TION “PER
EVALUA- PROJECT”
TION FOR Evaluation for
“STAND- “standing list”
ING LIST” Evaluation of the “per
project” contractor

Fig. 3. A schema of the “prequalification” program.

“Prequalification”. It can be used in the most popular systems in Po-
land, such as Microsoft Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. The pro-
gram is in Polish and English, and is meant for a particular owner,
but after some modifications, especially those referring to prequalifi-
cation onto a “standing list”, it can be used by any owner. The aim of
the software is to make it easier for the owner to evaluate the con-
tractors onto the “standing list”, and then to choose one for a concrete
project from among them. In the prequalification “per project”, a
mathematical model presented in this paper was used.
The software is divided into two fundamental parts—the module
of the contractor and the module of the owner. In the contractor mod-
ule, a candidate for the “standing” and then “short list” has to provide
the data demanded by the owner. The data are determined by the
owner as the needs arise, and passed on to the contractor in the
form to be filled up. The module of the owner is much more
elaborated. It consists of three fundamental parts: the first part allows
to evaluate a contractor onto the “standing list”, while the next one
enables the owner to prepare data concerning the realized project,
finally the third part allows to evaluate “per project” contractors. Ad-
ditionally, the software ensures an indispensable contact between the
owner and contractors by transmitting data, inquiries, and supple-
menting information. A general schema of the program is presented
in Fig. 3.
Further, only a part of the software that allows the owner to eval-
uate “per project” contractor will be discussed. The selection of con-
tractors for a specific project is possible thanks to a form for “per
project evaluation” available in the owner module. This function
makes it possible for a decision maker to add evaluation, remove it,
and recalculate it, and thus receive contractors ranking (Fig. 4).
To evaluate contractors for a particular pre–determined project, a
decision maker has to click “add decision maker's evaluation” button.
The objectives considered in the project appear first, then the degree
to which the owner wants them to achieve is evaluated. Setting the
evaluation takes place when a particular objective is marked in the
table, an evaluation value is chosen from the lower panel, and the
evaluation is set by pressing the “set evaluation” button (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4. Form for “per project evaluation”.

 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443 441

Fig. 5. Evaluation of the degree to which the objective is desired by the owner.

In the next step, having pressed the button “accept”, the evalua-
tion of the degree of criteria importance follows. The evaluation is
done identically as in the previous step (Fig. 6).
The last step of evaluation by the decision maker is to evaluate the
degree of satisfying the criteria by particular contractors. The only dif-
ference, in comparison to the previous steps of the evaluation, is an
additional criterion from the list developed in relation to the choice
of a contractor from the list (Fig. 7). At each stage of contractor eval-
uation, the decision maker has access to the candidate's data.
Evaluation of the project is calculated after pressing the button
“calculate evaluation by per project method”. In the first bookmark
on the form for “per project evaluation” there is a list of decision
makers’ evaluations. In the subsequent bookmark there is the deci-
sion makers’ summary of the evaluation (Fig. 8).
The next bookmark contains ranking of the contractors (Fig. 9).
More information about the program can be found in Refs. [40,41].
7. Conclusions
Choosing a construction contractor is one of the most important
decisions made by an owner. In this paper, the author offers a con-
tractor prequalification schema involving two stages of contractor
evaluation: “on a standing list” and “per project”. For the evaluation
of the “per project” contractors, the author proposes her own model
in which the fuzzy sets theory is applied. The model employs various
objectives of the owner, as well as different criteria for the evaluation
of contractors. Moreover, additional evaluations of decision makers
are possible. The advantage of the model is that all evaluations can
be presented in the form of linguistic variables. Making use of the the-
ory of fuzzy sets, linguistic variables can be transformed into fuzzy
numbers. On the basis of the sensitivity analysis of the model, some
general conclusions can be formed in reference to the influence of
the input data in the final results. It appears that for the owner, the

Fig. 6. Evaluation of the degree of the importance of criteria.

442 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443

Fig. 7. Evaluation of fulfilling the criteria by contractors.

Fig. 8. Bookmark “summarising the evaluation of decision makers”.

 E. Plebankiewicz / Automation in Construction 22 (2012) 433–443 443

Fig. 9. Bookmark “contractors ranking”.

degree of criteria importance has the greatest influence on the final [19] L.K. Chow, S.T. Ng, A fuzzy gap analysis model for evaluating the performance of
engineering consultants, Automation in Construction 16 (2007) 425–435.
results. As an aid in the application of the procedure, the author has [20] S.T. Ng, EQUAL: a case-based contractor prequalifier, Automation in Construction
worked out a program with the working name “Prequalification”. 10 (2001) 443–457.
The aim of the program is to make it easier for the owner to evaluate [21] K.Ch. Lam, E. Palaneeswaran, C. Yu, A support vector machine model for contrac-
tor prequalification, Automation in Construction 18 (2009) 321–329.
contractors onto a “standing list”, and then to choose from among [22] E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, A multiple criteria evaluation of multi-family apart-
them contractors for a specific project. In the “per project” prequalifi- ment block's maintenance contractors: I—model for maintenance contractor
cation procedure, a mathematical model presented in the paper was evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria, Building and Environ-
ment 41 (5) (2006) 621–632.
used, which focuses on this part of the program that allows the
[23] E.K. Zavadskas, R. Liias, Z. Turskis, Multi-attribute decision-making methods for
owner to evaluate the “per project” contractor. assessment of quality in bridges and road construction: state-of-the-art surveys,
The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering 3 (3) (2008) 152–160.
[24] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, F. Peldschus, Z. Turskis, Multi-attribute assessment
References
of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method, The Baltic Journal of Road
and Bridge Engineering 2 (4) (2007) 195–203.
[1] J.S. Russell, D.E. Hancher, M.J. Skibniewski, Contractor prequalification data for
[25] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, T. Vilutiene, Multi-objective contrac-
construction owners, Construction Management and Economics 10 (1992)
tor's ranking by applying the MOORA method, Journal of Business Economics
117–135.
and Management 9 (4) (2008) 245–255.
[2] P. Jennings, G.D. Holt, Prequalification and multi-criteria selection: a measure of
[26] R. Ginevicius, V. Podvezko, Multicriteria graphical–analytical evaluation of the fi-
contractors’ opinions, Construction Management and Economics 16 (1998)
nancial state of construction enterprises, Technological and Economic Develop-
651–660.
ment of Economy 14 (4) (2008) 452–461.
[3] D. Singh, R.L.K. Tiong, Contractor selection criteria: investigation of opinions of
[27] S. Mitkus, E. Trinkuniene, Reasoned decisions in construction contracts evalua-
Singapore construction practitioners, Journal of Construction Engineering and
tion, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 14 (3) (2008)
Management 132 (9) (2006) 998–1008.
402–416.
[4] F. Waara, J. Brochner, Price and nonprice criteria for contractor selection, Journal
[28] Z. Turskis, Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by applying ordering of
of Construction Engineering and Management 132 (8) (2006) 797–804.
feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of preferability technique, Technologi-
[5] S. Mitkus, E. Trinkūnienė, Analysis of criteria system model for construction con-
cal and Economic Development of Economy 14 (2) (2008) 224–239.
tract evaluation, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 13 (3)
[29] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Contractor selection of construction in
(2007) 244–252.
a competitive environment, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9
[6] E. Plebankiewicz, Construction contractor prequalification from Polish clients’
(3) (2008) 181–187.
perspective, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 16 (1) (2010) 57–64.
[30] E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Contractor selection for
[7] E.J. Jaselskis, J.S. Russell, An efficiently structured approach for selection of most
construction works by applying saw-g and topsis grey techniques, Journal of
promising construction contractors, Project Management Journal 12 (4) (1991)
Business Economics and Management 11 (1) (2010) 34–55.
31–39.
[31] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, T. Vilutiene, Multicriteria evaluation of apartment
[8] P. Fong Sik-Wah, S. Choi Kit-Young, Final contractor selection using the analytical
blocks maintenance contractors: Lithuanian case study, International Journal of
hierarchy process, Construction Management and Economics 18 (2000) 547–557.
Strategic Property Management 13 (4) (2009) 319–338.
[9] K.M. Al-Harbi, Application of the AHP in project management, International Jour-
[32] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in
nal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19–27.
multicriteria decision-making, Technological and Economic Development of
[10] I.M. Mahdi, M.J. Riley, S.M. Fereig, A.P. Alex, A multi-criteria approach to contrac-
Economy 16 (2) (2010) 159–172.
tor selection, Engineering, Construction and Architectual Management 9 (1)
[33] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, T. Vilutiene, Multiple criteria analysis of foundation in-
(2002) 29–37.
stallment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method, Ar-
[11] J.S. Russell, M.J. Skibniewski, D.R. Cozier, QUALIFIER-2: knowledge-based system
chives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering 10 (3) (2010) 123–141.
for contractor prequalification, Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
[34] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in
ment 116 (1) (1990) 157–171.
economics: an overview, Technological and Economic Development of Economy
[12] K.C. Lam, T. Hu, S.T. Ng, M. Skitmore, S.O. Cheung, A fuzzy neural network ap-
17 (2) (2011) 397–427.
proach for contractor prequalification, Construction Management and Economics
[35] O. Kaplinski, J. Tamošaitiene, Game theory applications in construction engineer-
19 (2001) 175–180.
ing and management, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16
[13] F. Khosrowshahi, Neural network model for contractors’ prequalification for local
(2) (2010) 348–363.
authority projects, Engineering, Construction and Architectual Management 6 (3)
[36] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic theory and applica-
(1999) 315–328.
tion, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
[14] A.M. Elazouni, Classifying construction contractors using unsupervised-learning
[37] G.J. Klir, T.A. Folger, Fuzzy sets, uncertainty and information, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
neural networks, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132
wood Cliffs, N. J., 1988
(12) (2006) 1242–1253.
[38] J. Kacprzyk, Fuzzy Sets in Systems Analysis, PWN, Warszawa, 1986.
[15] V.U. Nguyen, Tender evaluation by fuzzy sets, Journal of Construction Engineering
[39] J.S. Russel, A. Fayek, Automated corrective action selection assistant, Journal of
and Management 111 (1985) 231–243.
Construction Engineering and Management 120 (1) (1994) 11–33.
[16] D. Singh, R.L.K. Tiong, A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection, Journal
[40] E. Plebankiewicz, Software system for construction contractor prequalification
of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (1) (2005) 62–70.
procedure, Czasopismo Techniczne 1-B (2) (2010) 313–324.
[17] Y. Li, X. Nie, S. Chen, Fuzzy approach to prequalifying construction contractors,
[41] E. Plebankiewicz, Simple prequalification models, Archives of Civil Engineering
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 133 (1) (2007) 40–49.
LVI (4) (2010) 235–351.
[18] E. Plebankiewicz, Contractor prequalification model using fuzzy sets, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management 15 (4) (2009) 377–385.

View publication stats