Fuzzy Decision Model for Construction Contractors Selection in Egypt:

Tender Phase.
13

H. S.Hassaan1, M.N.Fors2 , M.S.Shehata3

, Structural EngineeringDepartment , University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt

Production Engineering Department, University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt
(hossam_hassaan@yahoo.com , nashaat.fors@alexu.edu.eg , Prof_dr_meshehata@yahoo.com)
2

Abstract- Selecting an appropriate contractor is essential

for the success of any construction project. A tender
procedure should facilitate selection of a reliable contractor
taking into consideration many criteria. This paper presents
a systematic prequalification and performance procedure,
based on multi criteria decision making (MCDM) that is
Analytical Hierarchy Process(AHP) with Fuzzy Set Theory.
This process uses an algorithm to handle the inconsistencies
in the fuzzy preference relation when pair-wise comparison
judgments are used with linguistic assessment or exact
assessment of performance of the contractors on qualitative
or quantitative criterion, respectively. A questionnaire
survey was conducted, containing 34 factors affecting cost
estimation for contractor selection during tender decision.
Finally, a real case study and an application example for a
contractor selection problem were provided to the
construction industry to demonstrate the implementation
process of the proposed method.
Key words - Cost estimation, construction project,
contractor selection, Egypt, Fuzzy analytical hierarchy
process,.

I. INTRODUCTION
Worldwide, the construction industry in most
countries is one of most extreme competitiveness with
high risks and low margins of profit. Offering customized,
high quality products at the lowest price possible is the
ultimate target. In order to set the price as competitive as
possible, the cost needs to be known. The accuracy of cost
estimating was increased by using computer programs,
system management and experts to evaluate the items of
any project [1].The construction industry sector has a direct
impact on the Egyptian economy. It is therefore considerable
to sustain successful construction projects in Egypt.
Spending on residential construction is expected to cause an
increase from US$443 million in 2005 to US$606 million in
2015 at a CAGR of 3.2%. This is owing to factors such as
increased disposable income, development of new residential
regions, such as villages, and formulation of government
policies to develop the housing finance system during 200515 [2].
Construction cost estimation, control and analysis
are the main tools in construction project management.
Construction cost estimating influences the final project
effectiveness [3]. Since construction processes are
especially prone to risks, which affect project performance,
selecting a capable contractor is one of the most important
tasks a construction client has to face to achieve a
satisfactory project outcome. An inappropriate contractor

increases the risk of delays, cost overruns, substandard work,

disputes, or even bankruptcy [4]. Inappropriate criteria
choice is the prime cause of inadequate contractor
selection [5].
A variety of methods are applied to solve the
problem of contractor selection. Researchers tackled this
problem repetitively over the past few years due to its
major impact. For instance, Hatush and Skitmore [6]
initiated the use of systematic multi-attribute decision
analysis techniques for contractor selection and bid
evaluation based on additive multiattribute utility function
model. Turkis [4] proposed a multi-attribute contractors
ranking method by applying rules of dealing with
qualitative and quantitative data as well as with data
expressed in words [verbal data]. Doloi [7] used multiple
regression analysis to study 43 influencing technical
attributes in contractor selection and their links to project
success objectives. This research revealed that technical
expertise, past success, time in business, work methods
and working capital significantly impact on contractor
performance across time, cost and quality success
objectives [8].
In 2012, Attar et al. [9] listed some of the effective
factors of the prequalification process. Each of the criteria
of the prequalification includes several sub-criteria; e.g.:
the experience includes total experience, number of
projects and similar experiences.
In 2013, Al-Zahrani et al. [10] investigated CSFs of
contractors that greatly have impact on project success.
He categorized nine underlying clusters including for
example: [i] safety and quality; [ii] past performance; [iii]
environment; and [iv] management and technical aspects.
Experience shows that failure in performing the
prequalification altogether or performing it inefficiently,
can lead to large losses, delays or severe loss of project
quality. Hence, today's contractors prequalification has
become one of the main parts of tenders and selection of
contractors [6].
The Analytic Hierarchy Process [AHP] method
worked out by Thomas Saaty [11] is an effective tool
supporting the Multi-Attribute Decision Making process
in many areas of construction project management [11]. It
is considered to be one of the most popular methods that
can be applied to contractor selection problems [12].
FAHP is an extension of AHP. The fuzzy theory is
used to deal with subjectivity and vagueness in the criteria
and alternatives of the selection process. The assessment
of different criteria requires the use of fuzzy numbers.
While AHP is based on the use of crisp numbers, FAHP

overcomes that defect. Fuzzy set theory is a mathematical

theory designed to model the fuzziness of real world
situations [13].
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
(1) To define the main factors affecting
construction cost estimation in Pre-Tender phase in the
Egyptian construction sector in order to aid in contractor
selection in tender decision.
(2) To rank these factors using MCDM (FAHP)
depending on experts opinions from the most important
to the least important ones.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim is to identify and rank the most important
factors affecting cost estimation in order to help in
decision- making of tenders, as well as contractor
selection criteria in an attempt to improve construction
cost estimation in Egypt.This is done by providing an
application to the Egyptian construction market, which
presents a new framework for selecting contractors. The
model is tested using data from Egypt and is applicable to
the construction industry in general.
In order to achieve the objectives of the research, a
questionnaire survey was conducted on a selected sample
of 31 quantity surveyors, 12 cost controllers, 5 commercial
managers and 4 bid and contracts managers in contractors,
supervision consultants, cost consultants, project manager,
and owner firms with different years of experience in the
field of construction. The selected groups of firms work
mainly in skeleton and finishing activities. The contractor
companies are from Egypt and are classified as first
category companies (according to the Egyptian federation
for contractors and building contractors (EFCBC), capital
10,000,000 L.E., minimum of 20 engineers and 20 years
of experience). The other contractor ccompany is from the
United Arab Emirates and is classified as a first level
contractor company.
The owner organizations (developer) capital exceeds
1,000,000,000 L.E. The organization is originally located
in Dubai and is investing in Egypt. Engineers are
classified into first category engineers with experience
ranging from 10-25 years, and second category engineers
with 20-30 years of experience.
Consultant firms have the same criteria as the owners
group, except for capital criteria.
One of the leading project management organizations
was selected, with more than 1,000 employees. It
manages projects totalling more than 36 million square
meters in building area with a value of approximately $39
billion. Employing proven skills, systems and technology,
projects are completed on time and within budget [14].
The number of questionnaires received to
questionnaires sent is 52/84 which is 61.9%. The quantity
surveyors show the highest percentage of participants
(59.61%).

The factors elected shall be considered when selecting

the contractor. Identifying these evaluation criteria,
defining the effects of them on each other, assessing their
importance, and
choosing a particular contractor
necessitate a well-designed multiple criteria decision
making (MCDM) based evaluation.
AHP derives ratio scales from paired comparisons
based on priority theory[15]. AHP decomposes a complex
MCDM problem into a system of hierarchies. The final
step in AHP deals with the structure of an m*n matrix
(Where m is the number of alternatives and n is the
number of criteria). Assigning numerical values from 1 to
9 to subjective judgements on the relative importance of
each criterion based on the characteristics Synthesizing
the judgements to determine the overall priorities of
criteria/sub-criteria/ alternatives [16].
Eigenvector approach is used to compute the
priorities/weights of the criteria/ sub criteria/ alternatives for
the given pair wise comparison matrix. In order to fully
specify reciprocal and square pair wise comparison matrix, N
(N-1)/2 pairs of criteria/sub criteria/ alternatives are to be
evaluated. The Eigen vector corresponding to the maximum
Eigen value (MAX) is required to be computed to
determine the weight vectors of the criteria/subcriteria/alternatives [17].
The combination between AHP and fuzzy set leads to
more flexibility in judgment and decision making. Fuzzy
AHP (FAHP) reflects human thinking as it uses approximate
information and uncertainty to generate decision in addition
to inheritance of the advantages of AHP, ease of handling
qualitative and quantitative data, use of hierarchical structure,
pairwise comparison, reduce inconsistency, and generates
priority vectors [18].
A fuzzy number is a special fuzzy set F = {(x, f(x),
x R}, where x takes its values on the real line, R:
x 1 and f (x) is a continuous mapping from R to the
closed interval [0, 1]. A triangular fuzzy number (TFN)
expresses the relative strength of each pair of elements in
the same hierarchy and can be denoted as M = (l, m, u),
where l m u. The parameters l; m; u; indicate the
smallest possible value, the most promising value, and the
largest possible value respectively in a fuzzy event.
Triangular type membership function of M fuzzy number
can be described as

Fig. 1. Fuzzy triangular number

(1)

When l = m = u, it is a non fuzzy number by convention [19].

By using TFNs via pair wise comparison, the fuzzy
judgment matrix (aij) can be expressed mathematically
as:

Finally, the calculated weights of each criterion were

normalized as follows:[20]
WI

NWI =

wj

Where
(2)

, j = 1,..........,n

(7)

= 1 , i = 1..........n

In order to perform a pairwise comparison among

fuzzy parameters, linguistic variables have been defined
for several levels of preference.
TABLE 1.
TRIANGLE FUZZY NUMBEROF LINGUISTIC VARIABLES

Where i j = (li j, mi j, ui j) and ij-1 = ( 1/ ui j ,1/ mi j , 1/li j

) for i,j=1,......,n and i j (19) .
The steps of Changs fuzzy extent analysis are as
follows:
Sum each row of the fuzzy comparison matrix . Then
normalize the row sums (obtaining their fuzzy synthetic
extent) by the fuzzy arithmetic operation [14, 20]

Linguistic variables

Triangular
fuzzy numbers

Extreme Favors
Very strongly Favors
Strongly Favors
Slightly Favors
Equal

(9, 9 , 9)
(6, 7, 8 )
(4, 5, 6 )
(2, 3, 4 )
(1, 1, 1 )

Reciprocal
triangular
fuzzy Numbers
(1/9, 1/9, 1/9)
(1/8, 1/7, 1/6)
(1/6, 1/5, 1/4)
(1/4, 1/3, 1/2)
(1, 1, 1 )

(3)
where denotes the extended multiplication of two fuzzy
numbers. These fuzzy triangular numbers are known as
the relative weights for each alternative under a given
criterion, and are also used to represent the weight of each
criterion with respect to the total objective. A weighted
summation is then used to obtain the overall performance
of each alternative.
(4)
1.

Compute the degree of possibility for i j by

the following equation:[21]
V (i j) = sup y>x [min (j(x), i(y))]
This formula can be equivalently expressed as:

Fig. 3. Triangular fuzzy numbers corresponding to linguistic variables

representing levels of preference

To determine if the comparisons are consistent or not

a Consistency Ratio (CR) is calculated by the formula [20]:
CR = CI/RI
(8)
Where CI = Consistency Index.
CI = ( max- n)/(n-1)
(9)
Where = average value of consistency vector and n =
number of criteria.
TABLE 2.
RANDOM CONSISTENCY INDEX (RI) FOR DIFFERENT SIZES N
OF FUZZY PAIRWISE JUDGEMENT
N
RI

Fig. 2. The degree of possibility V (i

j)

(5)

Where i= ( li, mi, ui) and j = ( lj, mj, uj) [22, 23]
2. Estimate the priority vector W = (w1,.....,wn)T of the
fuzzy comparison matrix as follows: (24)
li + ui+ mi
(6)
,i= 1..........n
3
In order to rank the criteria the TFN should be
defuzzified, so we used a simple centroid method.
W1 =

1
0

2
0

3
2.62

4
4.74

5
6.18

6
7.2

7
7.9

8
9.62

9
11.28

RI= random index, the consistency index of a

randomly generated pairwise fuzzy comparison matrix,
simply obtained from the table of Random Inconsistency
Indices table .
The CR is designed in such a way that if CR < 0.10,
the ratio indicates a reasonable level of consistency.
However, if CR > 0.10 the value of the ratio is indicate
inconsistent judgments.
The results of the criteria scoring to assess the relative
importance between two criteria are used in a visual basic
net application that applies a pair-wise comparison
technique and FAHP to calculate the weights and
consistency ratio [25].
The proposed FAHP path consists of 4 stages:

Stage 1. Data gathering

This stage contains 4 steps. The first 2 are;
determining the objective and choosing alternatives, and
determining criteria to be used in the ranking process. The
factors were decided upon by choosing the most
frequently shared factors affecting cost estimation
amongst experts, in addition to factors presented in
previous researches in this domain by El Sawalhi et al
(2007) [26], A. Nieto, F. Ruz-villa (2012) [27], A.
Movahedian Attar et al (2012) [9]. Six criteria are
identified as first hierarchy criteria. These are: Financial
stability, past performance, management and technical
ability, resources, experience and health and safety, 28
second hierarchy criteria and 8 third hierarchy criteria
The final 2 steps of this stage are; structuring a decision
hierarchy, approved decision hierarchy as presented in fig
(5).

IV. RESULTS
This arrangement describes the most important factors
affecting cost estimation according to the response
received from the questionnaires. It was found that the
most important factors were the first two which present
(61.13%) of all the total weight factors and they are:
financial stability (33.14%) and past performance
(27.99%).On the other hand, the other four factors which
present (38.87%) are as follow: management and
technical ability (18.4%), resources (13.08 %), experience
(5.25%), and health and safety (2.13%). The value of
lambda max was (7.75), and consistency ratio was less
than 1 (0.048), this denotes credibility of the results which
is presented in table (3) and figure (6)
TABLE 3
RANKING OF MAIN FACTORS AFFECTING COST ESTIMATION
Management
Financial
Past
and
Resources
Stability Performance Technical
Ability

Stage 2. Questionnaire design

The questionnaire is based on fuzzy Ahp technique,
five linguistic variables terms are used, Extreme favors,
very strongly favors, Strongly favors, slightly
favors and Equal ranging 1-9 are used to develop
fuzzy comparison matrices. These five linguistic variables
are described by fuzzy numbers as denoted in Table (1).
The respondents have to mark only one value from the
scale presented in figure (4) toward the factor which in
their opinions is more effective than the other.
9|----7|----5|-----3|----1|----|3----|5-----|7------|9
Figure 4. Fuzzy AHP scale for pair wise comparison

Stage 3. Fuzzy-AHP calculation

The results are the outcome of chang extent analysis
formulae
Stage 4. Decision making
Choosing the highest ranking from the set of
alternatives

Experience

Health and FAHP Fuzzy extent

Normalized
DeFuzzy
Safety
analysis
weight

Financial Stability

1.00

3.00

5.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

0.25, 0.33, 0.44

0.34

0.33

Past Performance

0.33

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

0.21, 0.28 0.37

0.29

0.28

Management and Technical Ability

0.20

0.33

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

0.13, 0.18, 0.26

0.19

0.18

Resources

0.20

0.20

0.33

1.00

5.00

5.00

0.09, 0.13, 0.18

0.13

0.13

Experience

0.14

0.14

0.20

0.20

1.00

3.00

0.03, 0.05, 0.07

0.05

0.05

Health and Safety

0.11

0.11

0.14

0.20

0.33

1.00

0.02, 0.02, 0.03

0.02

0.02

Sum

1.99

4.79

9.68

14.40

25.33

34.00

Lambda Ma
7.750

Rank

CI

RI
0.350

CR
7.200

Cost Estimation Factors

0.048

%GE of relative importance

%GE
0.00%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Quality level of projects performance

Liquidity
Credit Rating
Project Management capability
Cost Overrun
Experience of Staff
Number of experts
Bank arrangement
Claims and litigations
Number of labours
Profitability
Certifications
Number of Equipment
Contractor`s Category in EFCBC
Type of project
Quality Policy
Accountability
Financial Soundness
Previous projects accomplished
Number of subcontractors
Innovational methods
Quality Control
Safety Performance
Number of projects
Number of Suppliers
Relationships with clients
Number of tenders
Relationships with Banks
Number of accidents, Injurries and Illnesses
Quality Assurance
Relationships with Supervision and cost consultants
Size of the project
Relationships with Subcontractors
Relationships with Suppliers

12.11%
11.77%
11.25%
8.77%
7.94%
6.22%
5.98%
5.94%
4.65%
3.76%
3.07%
2.42%
1.98%
1.66%
1.61%
1.49%
1.28%
1.11%
0.99%
0.98%
0.89%
0.86%
0.63%
0.58%
0.37%
0.34%
0.29%
0.29%
0.22%
0.18%
0.14%
0.11%
0.07%
0.03%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

11.25%

8.77%

7.94%

6.22%

5.98%

5.94%

4.65%

10

3.76%

11

3.07%

12

2.42%

13

1.98%

14

1.66%

15

1.61%

16

1.49%

17
19

1.28%
1.11%
0.99%

20

0.98%

21

0.89%

22

0.86%

23

0.63%

24

0.58%

25

0.37%

26

0.34%

27

0.29%

28

0.29%

29

0.22%

30

0.18%

31

0.14%

32

0.11%

33

0.07%

34

0.03%

Fig 6.The final rank for the 34 factors affecting cost estimation

4. Case Study
The system developed works for tender decision and
selecting the best prequalified contractors through a list of
factors affecting cost estimation during tender decision,
the project selected started in January 2008 until this date.
It is 6.25 million Square, the Project value :
23,720,000,000 EGP
Fig 5. Hierarchy of factors affecting cost estimation and contractors
selection in Egypt

14.00%

11.77%

18

12.00%

12.11%

The project By December 2012, 24 packages are

completed and 34 Packages are in progress. It is 6.25
million Square meter gated, master-planned year-round
destination resort development on the north coast
Alexandria Egypt. Project value : 23,720,000,000 EGP

%GE of
relative
importance

(twenty three billion, seven hundred twenty million

Egyptian pounds). The project manager for the resort
construction wanted to make a list of contractors able to
realize this project and to evaluate between three
contractors for tender decision. The first bidder is from
Egypt, the second and the third bidder are from United
Arab Emirates

Fig.7. System Application

The 3 Contractors (A, B, and C) are pair-wise

compared against the 34 factors listed in figure (6) to
rank the 3 contractors during tender decision to
access the best contractor for project execution. This
rank results are presented in table (4)
TABLE 4. RANKING OF CONTRACTORS DURING TENDER
DECISION
Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Cost Estimation Factors

Quality level of projects performance

Liquidity
Credit Rating
Cost Overrun
Project Management capability
Number of experts
Bank arrangement
Claims and litigations
Experience of Staff
Number of labours
Quality Policy
Profitability
Certifications
Number of Equipment
Contractor`s Category in EFCBC
T ype of project
Accountability
Financial Soundness
Innovational methods
Previous projects accomplished
Number of subcontractors
Safety Performance
Number of projects
Number of Suppliers
Quality Control
Relationships with clients
Number of tenders
Relationships with Banks
Number of accidents, Injurries and Illnesses
Relationships with Supervision and cost
consultants
Size of project
Relationships with Subcontractors
Relationships with Suppliers
Quality Assurance

8.76%
3.46%
8.14%
6.58%
4.56%
4.28%
1.76%
1.22%
0.86%
2.27%
2.30%
1.52%
1.20%
0.12%
0.60%
1.03%
0.89%
0.38%
0.37%
0.34%
0.54%
0.25%
0.18%
0.04%
0.04%
0.20%
0.20%
0.10%
0.04%

2.49%
7.10%
2.31%
1.62%
2.94%
1.46%
0.62%
4.30%
0.30%
1.10%
0.57%
0.75%
0.58%
0.56%
0.93%
0.34%
0.29%
0.66%
0.51%
0.58%
0.26%
0.52%
0.06%
0.20%
0.11%
0.03%
0.07%
0.17%
0.04%

0.86%
1.22%
0.80%
0.57%
0.44%
0.48%
3.61%
0.42%
3.49%
0.39%
0.20%
0.15%
0.20%
0.98%
0.09%
0.12%
0.10%
0.08%
0.11%
0.07%
0.09%
0.09%
0.38%
0.34%
0.22%
0.10%
0.02%
0.02%
0.15%

0.02%

0.05%

0.11%

0.10%
0.01%
0.01%
0.02%

0.03%
0.04%
0.04%
0.01%

0.01%
0.06%
0.02%
0.00%

V. DISCUSSION
The most important factor according to the
respondents was financial stability. The financing of a
project involves the arrangement of adequate funds to pay
for the development and operation of a clearly defined
project.
This is not surprising, as the contractors have to be
careful when they apply for new tenders if they have
financial difficulties. Likewise, they try to increase their
estimate by taking into consideration the interest
percentage of loans to overcome their financial weakness.
Taking into consideration, that in the tense aftermath of
the January 25 Revolution and amid the ongoing violence
of the Arab Spring, the economic situation in Egypt is in
unrest. These results were in accordance with a study
performed in Gaza which shows the important role played
by the reliability in client financial status in cost
estimating practice in Gaza Strip [28, 29].
Any shortage of cash for the contractors will cause
many problems such as slow progress and decline in
productivity. Also, the contractors will not be able to
purchase the needed equipment for work. Moreover, cashflow problems also expanded to traders and suppliers,
which in turn slows work further. This result coincides
with the results of other researchers [30-32]. The suitable
description for this agreement is that cash is very
necessary for contractors regardless of the location of
research, economic level, or the culture of organization
[33]
.
But the contractors in a study performed in Thailand,
did not consider cash as an important factor causing
delays. The ability and experience of contractor in
Thailand may perhaps explain this result [33].
The difficult economic situation in Egypt, and
fluctuation of the local currency rates and the high rates of
inflation are also considered major factors that affect
construction process.
Contingencies concerned with inflation and
fluctuation in currency exchange rates should be based on
actual degree of uncertainty at the time of estimating the
project from item to item. On the other hand, escalation or
inflation affects all items, more or less uniformly, if the
project proceeds during the time period foreseen in the
budget. Contingency funds must not be used to cover
extra costs due to escalation or inflation. However, if
items are purchased due to works completed earlier than
they were planned and at lower costs, the amount saved
[due to potential inflation] should be treated as indicated
budget overrun rather than increase in contingency
fund [34].
VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
As stated in the introductory section of this paper, the
problem of contractor selection for construction projects
in Egypt exists. Improper application of cost management
in the form of cost estimation causes a number of
subsequent problems that could be avoided if better

decisions were made regarding best contractor. A

decision making system relate factors affecting cost
estimation for better contractor selection to correct this
shortcoming in the construction industry.
The most important factors were the financial stability
and past performance of the contractor, which present
61.13 % of all the total weight factors affecting cost
estimation [financial stability (33.14%) and past
performance (27.99%)].
On the other hand, the other four factors which present
(38.87%) are as follow: management and technical ability
(18.4%), resources (13.08%), experience (5.25%), and
health and safety (2.13%).
The assessment of financial stability as most important
in selecting contractors is consistent with the general
attitude within Egypt, as the contractors have to be careful
when they apply for new tenders if they have financial
difficulties. Likewise, they try to increase their estimate
by taking into consideration the interest percentage of
loans to overcome their financial weakness. Any shortage
of cash for the contractors will cause many problems such
as slow progress and decline in productivity. Also, the
contractors will not be able to purchase the needed
equipment for work. Moreover, cash-flow problems also
expanded to traders and suppliers, which in turn slow
work further.
Recommendations
The criteria and their weights were identified by
experts involved in the construction industry in Egypt.
Their assessment is specific and applied to residential
luxury villas and town homes resorts in mega-projects. It
is specific as well to lump sum contracts. For other
specific types of projects that require different set of
attributes, evaluators would have to identify their own
focus as well as their own set of attributes and levels of
details.Since Changs extent analysis was utilized in this
research to evaluate the focusing problem, it is suggested
that ranking could be performed by one of the other
several procedures to attain the priorities in FAHP, such
as Mikhailovs fuzzy preference programming.
Future Research
The 21st century was dominated by the progress made
in computer science and information technology,
accordingly, more research is needed regarding the area of
lump sum contracts.
Concerning choosing the best contractor during tender
decision using pairwise comparison by fuzzy genetic
prioritization in multi criteria decision proposed by
Abdulmoneim et al. 2008 [35], and also by the new
approach for deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise
comparison judgements by Mikhailov et al. 2003 [36],
which transforms the interval prioritisation task into a
fuzzy linear programming problem which is applied to
derive optimal crisp priorities.
Risk management, related to the owner, is to choose a
high cost proposal with superior technical features or a
lower cost proposal offering less technical features. This

measure can be entered into the system which may alter

the final decision.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.

11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.
20.

21.

Hassaan HS and Abdel-Razek RH. Factors for construction

quality improvement in Egypt. Master of sciences in construction
and project management. 2004.
Clough RH, Sears GA and Sears SK. Construction Contracting.
A Practical Guide to Company Management, (7th edition), John
Wiley & Sons. New York, 2005.
Juodis A and Stalioraitis, P.
The Analysis of Statistical
Characterestics of construction costs. Foundations of Civil and
environmental engineering 2006. no.8.
Turkis Z. Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by applying
ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of
preferability
technique,
Technological
and
Economic
Development of Economy 2008; 14 (2): 22439.
Banaitien N, and Banaitis A, Analysis of criteria for contractors'
qualification
evaluation,
Technological
and
Economic
Development of Economy 2006; 12(4): 27682.
Hatush Z, and Skitmore M, Evaluating contractor prequalification
data: selection criteria and project success factors, Construction
Management and Economics 1997; 15:12947.
Doloi H. Analysis of pre-qualification criteria in contractor
selection and their impacts on project success. Construction
Management and Economics 2009; 27: 1245-63.
Doloi HK. Understanding stakeholders' perspective of cost
estimation in project management. International Journal of Project
Management 2011; 29: 62236.
Attar AM, Khanzadi M, Dabirian S and Kalhor E. Forecasting
contractor's deviation from the client objectives in prequalification
model using support vector regression. International Journal of
Project Management 2012. Article in Press.
Alzahrani JI, and Emsley MW. The impact of contractors
attributes on construction project success: A post construction
evaluation. International Journal of Project Management 2013; 31:
31322.
Saaty TL, and Tran LT. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical
judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and
Computer Modelling 2007; 46: 96275.
Anagnostopoulos KP, and Vavatsikos AP. An AHP model for
construction contractor Prequalification, operational research.
International Journal 2006; 6(3): 33346.
Jaskowski P, Biruk S, and Bucon R. Assessing contractor
selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in
group decision environment. Automation in construction 2010; 19:
120-26.
Dey PK and Ramcharan EK. Analytic hierarchy process helps
select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of
Environmental Management 2008; 88: 138495.
Ernest FH, Gass SI. The analytical hierarchy processan
exposition. Operations Research 2001; 49(4): 46987.
Saaty TL. (2008). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World". Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: RWS Publications.
Kumar DP. Analytic Hierarchy Process Analyzes Risk of
Operating Cross-Country Petroleum Pipelines in India". Natural
Hazards Review 2003; 4(4): 21321.
Onut S, Efendigil T and Soner KS. A combined fuzzy MCDM
approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from
Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications 2010; 37(3):
1973-80.
Chang DY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy
AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 1996; 95 (3):
649-55.
Vivien YCC, Hui-Pang L, Chui-Hua L, James JHL, GwoHshiungT
and Lung-Shih Y. Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best
environment-watershed plan. Applied Soft Computing 2011;
11(1): 265-75.
Chan FTS, Chan MH and Tang NKH. Evaluation methodologies
for technology selection. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 2000; 107: 330-37.

22. Chang N, Parvathinathan G and Jeff BB. Combining GIS with

fuzzy multicriteria decision-making for landfill siting in a
fastgrowing urban region. Journal of environmental management
2007; 87(1): 139-53.
23. Bottero M, Comino E, Riggio CV. Application of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process and the Analytic Network Process for the
Assessment of Different Wastewater Treatment Systems.
Environmental Modellingand Software 2011; 26(10): 1211-24.
24. Levary RR and Wan K. A Simulation Approach for Handling
Uncertainty in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal
of Operational Research 1998; 106(1): 11622.
25. Shariff AM and Wan MD. Land suitability study using GIS and
MCDA in agriculture Activities: a land suitability study for
harumanis mango in perlis using GIS and MCDA. GIS bulletin
2008; 2: 33-43.
26. El-Sawalhi N, Eaton D and Rustom R. Contractor PreQualification Model: State-Of-The-Art.International journal on
project management 2007; 25: 465-74.
27. Nieto-Morote A, and Ruz-Vila F. A fuzzy multi-criteria decisionmaking model for construction contractor prequalification.
Automation in Construction 2012; 25: 8-19.
28. Gann DM and Salter AJ. Innovation in project-based, serviceenhanced firms: theconstruction of complex products and systems.
Research Policy 2000;29(78): 955-72.
29. Larson EW and Gray CF. Project management. The managerial
process, (5th edition), McGraw- Hill, New York, 2011.
30. Understanding and Monitoring the Cost-Determining Factors of
Infrastructure Projects, A User's Guide, pp. 2
31. Enshassi A, Al-Najjar J and Kumaraswamy M. Delays and cost
overruns in the construction projects in the Gaza Strip. JFMPC
14, 2.
32. Arditi D, Akan G and Gurdamar S. Reasons for delays in public
projects in Turkey. Journal of Construction Management and
Economics 1985; 3(12): 171-81.
33. Ogunlana S, Promkuntong K and Jearkjirm V. Construction delays
in a fast-growing economy: comparing Thailand with other
economics. International Journal of Project Management 1996;
14(1): 37-45.
34. Enshassi A, Lisk R, Sawalhi I and Radwan I. Contributors to
construction delays in Palestine. The Journal of American Institute
of Constructors 2003; 27(2): 45-53.
35. Abdel moneim AF. Fuzzy genetic prioritization in multi- criteria
decision problems. Jordan. Journal of mechanical and industrial
Engineering 2008; 2(4): 175-82.
36. Mikhailov L. Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison
judgements. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2003; 134(3): 365-85.