Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02249-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Contractor selection by using multi‑criteria decision‑making

for Egyptian road maintenance
Mohamed Mahmoud Fawzy1 · Ahmed Shawky Elsharkawy1 · Yasser Aly Khalifa1 · Abbas Atef hassan1

Received: 6 July 2023 / Revised: 29 September 2023 / Accepted: 2 January 2024 / Published online: 30 January 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract Egypt has witnessed a revolution in all fields refurbishment project is examined to demonstrate the value
and the establishment of giant projects, which require the and highlight capabilities.
selection of the appropriate contractor for their implementa-
tion. The major factor for evaluating contractors is the tender Keywords Contractor selection · AHP · Multi-criteria
price of the project. The lowest price is not always a guar- decision making · VIKOR · TOPSIS
antee of the quality or time of a building project. Recently,
there has been a shift away from the “lowest-price-wins”
concept and a subjective judgment towards multi-criteria 1 Introduction
decision-making of selecting the project’s contractors aim-
ing to help owners in making decisions. The manuscript pre- Egypt entered a new era of mega-national projects, the eco-
sents a multi-criteria decision-making strategy to optimize nomic sector witnessed a qualitative leap in various sectors,
the selection of contractors for construction projects. The which formed the backbone of development in the Egyp-
calculation of this strategy is divided into two phases. The tian economy. The development process has begun in all
first phase is designed to identify contractor prequalification fields and many achievements have been made under his
criteria and utilize the AHP approach based on current Egyp- instructions including 14,762 projects in various sectors that
tian practice to calculate their weight. The second phase pro- have been completed at an estimated cost of 2207.3 billion
vides two techniques: (1) technique for order preference by (Efforts-Economic-Development-in-8-Years, n.d.). The con-
similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and (2) vlsekriterijum- tract plays an important role in building projects, Contract
ska optimization I kompromisno resenje (VIKOR) to opti- management, contractor selection, and optimization of con-
mize the selection of the available contractors for construc- tract management are all crucial to the successful comple-
tion projects. Contractor 2 has the highest prices and lower tion of any project (Russell et al. 1999). Any hiccups in the
values in technical capability, economic status, and man- bidding process throughout contract management might lead
agement capability, it emerges as the top-ranked contractor to complications in the final delivery of the project (Miller
in both methods due to its exceptional expertise and safety et al. 2002; Thompson Richard and Lucko 2012). Tendering
standards. These elevated levels of expertise and safety, cou- is a complicated and costly procedure for public entities,
pled with the higher weights assigned by decision-makers particularly in the construction sector. Therefore, choos-
to these criteria, contribute significantly to Contractor 2’s ing a construction contractor is one of the most important
superior ranking. A real-life case study improvement and decisions that may affect the progress and accomplishment
of any building project. The primary goals of the contrac-
tor selection process are decreasing project risk manage-
ment, maximizing quality, and maintaining good connec-
* Mohamed Mahmoud Fawzy tions among project stakeholders (Chapman 2001; Singh
m.fawzy.int@gmail.com
and Tiong 2005). Traditionally, the lowest tender price is
1
Civil Department, MTC, Military Technical College, Cairo, sometimes considered the most significant factor in the con-
Egypt tractor selection process (Alirezaie and Razavi Khosroshahi

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2352 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

2014; Russell and Skibniewski 1988; Wong et al. 2000). For and confidence in the project, potentially affecting future
example, contractors’ selection for public projects has been collaborations and business opportunities.
centered on the premise of accepting the lowest offer price. 7. Reputational Damage: The selection of underperforming
Therefore, the wrong selection of the contractor based on the contractors can harm the reputation of the project owner
lowest tender price concept could lead to delays and a lack of or organization. Negative project outcomes, financial
quality in these projects because contractors urgently offered losses, and project failures can impact the perception
the lowest tender price to stay in business (Singh and Tiong of stakeholders and the organization’s credibility within
2006; Holt et al. 1994). the industry, making it more challenging to secure future
The wrong selection of contractors for projects can have projects. A similar technique is used in the selection of
significant adverse effects on project outcomes. In many subcontractors (Demirkesen and Bayhan 2019).
construction projects, choosing contractors based on their
lowest bid price is a typical practice. The lowest bidder may The challenge of contractor selection depends on choosing
seem like the best option, but this strategy has its own set a contractor who can take on the client’s project and com-
of issues and difficulties. The following are some problems plete it well to satisfy the client’s schedule, cost, and qual-
with choosing contractors purely based on the lowest bid- ity requirements (Hatush and Skitmore 1998). On the other
ding price: hand, contractor prequalification considers and assesses sev-
eral criteria such as tender price, accomplishment time, tech-
1. Poor Quality Work: Choosing a contractor who lacks nical capability experience, management capability, safety,
the necessary expertise, experience, or resources can and economic status to select the optimum contractor from
result in subpar work quality. This can lead to rework, among the candidates (Aladağ and Işik 2018; Gurgun and
delays, and compromised project deliverables, nega- Koc 2020; Keshavarz-Ghorabaee et al. 2018; Whitney 2003;
tively impacting the overall project success. Zhang 2020). As a result, one essential issue in contrac-
2. Cost Overruns: Inadequate contractor selection can tor selection that affects project outcomes is the choice of
contribute to cost overruns. Contractors who are unable selected criteria (Ling 2004; Best and Langston 2006). The
to accurately estimate project costs, manage resources selection of a single contractor is an area where researchers
efficiently, or adhere to budget constraints can cause and specialists have made substantial contributions to the
financial strain on the project. Unanticipated expenses enhancement of contractor selection (Alirezaie and Razavi
and delays can accumulate, leading to budget overruns. Khosroshahi 2014; El-Abbasy et al. 2013; Kumaraswamy
3. Schedule Delays: Contractors who are not well-suited and Walker 2021; Safa et al. 2015).
for the project may face difficulties in meeting project Several frameworks were developed to select a suitable
timelines and milestones. Delays in project execution contractor for a construction project. These frameworks
can disrupt the entire project schedule, affecting sub- can be divided into two main categories: empirical and
sequent activities and potentially resulting in missed mathematical frameworks. First, the empirical framework
deadlines and contractual penalties. examines actual contractor selection processes in practice.
4. Safety Risks: Inappropriate contractor selection can pose For example, they conducted a study of contractor selec-
safety risks on the project site. Contractors with inad- tion practices in Saudi Arabia and found that cost was the
equate safety protocols, training, or compliance meas- most important factor considered when selecting contrac-
ures may increase the likelihood of accidents, injuries, tors. Similarly, they conducted a study of contractor selec-
and potential legal liabilities. This not only compromises tion practices in Qatar and found that past performance was
worker safety but also leads to project disruptions and the most important factor considered when selecting con-
reputational damage (Bahootoroody et al. 2021). tractors. Second, the mathematical framework focuses on
5. Disputes and Contractual Issues: Selecting contractors developing models or frameworks for selecting contractors
without conducting proper due diligence can result in based on criteria such as cost, quality, and risk. For example,
contractual disputes and conflicts. Contractors who fail they developed a multi-criteria decision-making model for
to meet their contractual obligations or deliver as per the selecting contractors based on cost, quality, and risk fac-
agreed terms can lead to legal disputes and prolonged tors. Similarly, they developed a framework for selecting
resolution processes, causing project delays and addi- contractors based on criteria such as technical capability,
tional costs. financial capability, and past performance. The multi-criteria
6. Damaged Stakeholder Relationships: Wrong contractor decision-making (MCDM) approach may solve a wide set
selection can strain relationships with project stakehold- of management issues that have several aspects linked to it
ers, including clients, investors, and subcontractors. Poor (Antoniou and Aretoulis 2019).
performance, delays, and quality issues can erode trust

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2353

Parameters are sometimes known as "goals" or "deci- 8. Calculate an overall score by adding the weighted
sion criteria". Parameters are many aspects through which scores for each contractor. Taking into account all the
the options might be shown (Bona et al. 2020). Road main- examined factors, this score represents the contractor’s
tenance contractor selection is a critical decision-making suitability for the road repair project.
process that requires careful evaluation of several crite- 9. Sensitivity Analysis: Conduct sensitivity analysis to
ria. An efficient method that may be used to assess and evaluate how reliable the findings are. To do this, the
choose the best contractors for road maintenance projects weights given to each criteria must be slightly modified
is multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). MCDM ena- to reevaluate the contractors. It aids in comprehending
bles decision-makers to methodically evaluate and contrast how shifting priorities affect the choices made in the
several factors to reach well-informed conclusions (Agar- end.
wal et al. 2023). The following is a thorough description 10. Rank the contractors from top to lowest based on the
of how MCDM may be used to choose contractors for road combined ratings and the findings of the sensitivity
maintenance: analysis. The contractor chosen for the job of maintain-
ing the roads is the one that received the highest score.
1. Establish the Criteria: The first stage is to establish Before making a final selection, it is crucial to take
the standards by which the contractors will be judged. into account other considerations including financial
These standards should apply to road upkeep and may limitations, contract conditions, and legal obligations.
include elements like experience, skill, cost, quality,
punctuality, safety record, environmental practices, and Decision support systems are automated decision-making
resource accessibility. systems that can assist decision-makers in circumstances
2. Define the Weights: After the criteria have been deter- involving a large quantity of data (Agarwal et al. 2022). Evi-
mined, decision-makers must give each criterion a dential reasoning employs the idea of the degree of belief
weight to represent its relative significance. Expert in situations with ambiguous and/or partial information to
judgment, surveys, and analytical approaches like the ensure that a reasonable decision may be reached based on
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) or the Technique the decision maker’s true preferences. Deviation variables
for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution with specified priorities and weights are reduced to achieve
(TOPSIS) may all be used to calculate the weights. the highest priority goal according to two methods TOP-
3. Create an Evaluation Scale: A scale must be created SIS and VIKOR. Firstly, TOPSIS is an abbreviation of the
to rank the contractors’ accomplishments about each Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solu-
requirement. Depending on the criteria, this might be tion (TOPSIS) is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)
a quantitative or qualitative scale. One way to grade method that is used to evaluate the relative closeness of a
experience is on a scale of 1–5, where 1 is the lowest set of alternatives to an ideal solution (Gyani et al. 2022). It
and 5 is the greatest. was developed by Yoon and Hwang in 1981 with additional
4. Collect Information: Information gathering is required advancements by Yoon in 1987 and Hwang, Lai, and Liu
to assess how well the contractors performed against in 1993, Zavadskas presented a strategy for selecting con-
each criteria. This may be achieved using a variety of tractors for building projects using TOPSIS methodologies
techniques, including looking through the records of (Horton and Eaton 2017; Jabbarzadeh 2018; Di Bona et al.
their previous projects, conducting interviews, asking 2019).
for bids, and contacting references. That has since been widely used in many different fields,
5. Assess each contractor’s performance about each cri- including engineering, economics, finance, and operations
teria using the defined assessment scale. Using the research. The TOPSIS method is based on the concept of
information gathered, assign scores or ratings. “distance” between alternatives and an ideal solution. The
6. Normalize the Data: Since the criterion may utilize distance between two points is calculated using a distance
many scales or measurement units, it is crucial to measure such as Euclidean or Manhattan distance. The alter-
normalize the data to remove any bias brought on by native with the shortest distance from the ideal solution is
the various measurement scales. This may be accom- then selected as the best option Gul et al. (2016), Holt et al.
plished by converting the scores into a standard scale, (1994), Miller et al. (2002).
such as one with a 0–1 scale. Several studies utilized TOPSIS in various applications.
7. To get weighted scores, multiply the normalized scores For example, Yang et al. (2009) used TOPSIS to choose
by the weights that were applied to each criteria. In this an appropriate container transport mode to prevent deliv-
phase, the criteria with higher weights are given more ery delay (Yang et al. 2009). Kumar and Singh (2016) uti-
consideration, enabling a thorough assessment of the lized the TOPSIS Algorithm to optimize the cutting set-
contractors. tings to improve the surface finish of Titanium alloy during

13
2354 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

face milling (Kumar and Singh 2016; Bognár et al. 2022; and it can be used by both experts and non-experts alike.
Irfan et al. 2022). Also, TOPSIS has been used to evaluate Both TOPSIS and VIKOR methodologies have been exten-
supplier selection decisions in supply chain management sively applied in various industries and decision-making
(SCM), prioritize projects in project management (PM), and contexts, and they have proven to be effective in handling
select investments in financial portfolio management (FPM). complex decision problems with multiple criteria. By utiliz-
In addition, researchers have proposed various modi- ing these methodologies for contractor selection in Egyptian
fications to improve the performance of TOPSIS such as road maintenance, stakeholders can make informed deci-
incorporating fuzzy logic into the decision process and using sions based on a comprehensive evaluation of contractors’
different weighting schemes for criteria evaluation. For performance across various criteria, leading to more reliable
example, Yong (2006) used fuzzy TOPSIS to select a loca- and objective contractor selection processes (Agarwal et al.
tion to build a new plant (Yong 2006). TOPSIS is considered 2023; Darbari et al. 2019; Di Bona et al. 2019).
a popular choice among researchers looking for an effective This paper integrates both methods TOPSIS and VIKOR
way to compare multiple alternatives simultaneously due to magnify their capabilities and overcome their limitation.
to: (1) simple and straightforward method for multi-criteria Several models were developed to consider contractor
decision making; (2) it is easy to understand and implement; prequalification criteria based on two techniques of a multi-
(3) it takes into account both qualitative and quantitative criteria decision-making strategy to provide the optimum
criteria; (4) it allows for the inclusion of multiple criteria selection of the contractor/s for the construction projects.
in the decision-making process; (5) it can be used to rank The integration of TOPSIS, VIKOR, and AHP into a single
alternatives based on their relative closeness to an ideal solu- model can be beneficial for multi-criteria decision-making.
tion; (6) it can be used to compare alternatives with different It offers a more comprehensive evaluation and flexibility in
scales of measurement (e.g., nominal, ordinal, interval, or decision-making. However, decision-makers should be cau-
ratio); (7) the results are easy to interpret and explain to tious about the complexity, subjectivity, data requirements,
stakeholders involved in the decision-making process; (8)the and computational burden associated with this integrated
method is suitable for both small and large problems with model. Additionally, the model may require additional
multiple criteria and alternatives (Behzadian et al. 2012). techniques to explicitly address uncertainty in the decision-
Secondly, the VIKOR method has been applied to a vari- making process.
ety of decision-making problems, including resource allo-
cation, project selection, supplier selection, and portfolio
optimization. The VIKOR technique is based on a specific
measure of proximity to the positive ideal solution. As a 2 Methodology
result, the VIKOR technique is appropriate for scenarios in
which the decision maker seeks to maximize profit while This paper presents the multi-criteria decision-making algo-
minimizing risk is less significant (Javidi et al. 2022). rithms that integrate AHP with TOPSIS and VIKOR in the
The Vikor method is based on two main concepts: the selection of optimum contractors for construction projects
relative importance of each criterion and the relative perfor- as shown in Fig. 1.
mance of each alternative concerning each criterion. The TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Simi-
These scores are then used to calculate an overall score larity to Ideal Solution) and VIKOR (Vise Kriterijumska
for each alternative, which can be used to rank them accord- Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje) methodologies were
ing to their overall performance (Gul et al. 2016). For exam- chosen for contractor selection in Egyptian road mainte-
ple; Vučijak et al. (2013), used VIKOR for evaluating sus- nance due to their effectiveness in handling multiple criteria
tainable hydropower (Vučijak et al. 2013), and Quijano et al and providing comprehensive decision-making frameworks
(2012), used VIKOR for the development of renewable sus- as follows:
tainable energy plans (Quijano et al. 2012). Finally, it pro-
vides an objective way of ranking alternatives that takes into 1. TOPSIS: Is a widely used multi-criteria decision-mak-
account both individual preferences and collective objectives ing method that considers both positive and negative
as follows (Mardani et al. 2016); (1) The Vikor method is aspects of alternatives. It calculates the relative close-
a multi-criteria decision-making technique that allows for ness of each alternative to the ideal solution by evaluat-
the evaluation of multiple criteria simultaneously; (2) it is ing the distances between the positive ideal solution and
a simple and easy to use a method that can be applied to the negative ideal solution. In the context of contractor
a wide range of decision-making problems; (3) it provides selection, TOPSIS can effectively assess contractors
a systematic approach to decision making, which can help based on various criteria (e.g., experience, cost, quality,
reduce the risk of bias in the decision-making process; (4) time) and rank them according to their proximity to the
the method is relatively easy to understand and implement, ideal contractor.

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2355

Available of Contractors for the project selec on

Iden fy criteria for each contractor (See Figure 2)

Calculate criteria weight for each contractor by AHP

Topsis Vikor

Step I Step I
Compute normalized decision matrix Compute the f i * and f i values

Step II Step II
Compute The weight normalized Compute the S j and R j values
decision matrix

Step III
Step III
Compute the Q j values
Compute D*j , D j and C *j

Step IV
Step IV
Rank the alterna ve sor ng by S j , R j
Order the alterna ve by C *j priority the
and Q j values priority the best ranked
best ranked alterna ve as solu on
(maximum) alterna ve as solu on (minimum)

Accept one alterna ve as the op mum

Fig. 1  Show Topsis and Vikor analysis for contractor selection

2. VIKOR: Is another multi-criteria decision-making trade-offs between conflicting factors (e.g., cost vs. qual-
method that is suitable for contractor selection due to its ity), and identify contractors that offer the best overall
ability to handle conflicting criteria and provide compro- compromise (Fig. 2).
mise solutions. VIKOR provides a systematic approach
to identify the best compromise solution among various The computation of these decision-making algorithms
alternatives. It considers the maximum group utility and can be summarized in the following stages (Darbari et al.
the minimum individual regret to determine the optimal 2019; Di Bona et al. 2019):
compromise solution. In the case of contractor selection,
VIKOR can help weigh different criteria, consider the

13
2356 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

Fig. 2  The criteria influencing

contractor selection

1. Identify the contractor criteria that influence the con- significance," "strong importance," "extremely strong
struction project rate. In this paper seven criteria were importance," and "absolute importance," respectively,
selected which are: (a)Tender price (TP), (b) Accom- with 2, 4, 6, and 8 representing a compromise between
plishment time (AT), (c) Safety (S) that includes the the preceding values. With n features assumed, the pair-
reputation of an organization,(d) Technical capability wise comparison of feature I with feature j provides. a
(TC),(e) Management capability (MC) as project-spe- square matrix that indicates the relative significance of
cific criteria evaluating the contracting company’s level attribute I for j. aij = 1 when i = j and aji = 1∕aij The
of technical and management skills, (f) Experience in pairwise comparison matrix below shows how much
comparable jobs (E) to evaluate the level of experience each contractor performs for each qualitative criterion.
presented by the contractor and (g) Economic status There are five square matrices considering six contrac-
(ES) that represents the contracting company’s financial tors. A6∗6 where, as an example a52 Contractor 5 techni-
strength. cal capability indicates how well he performs in com-
2. Using the AHP method of MCDM in the computation parison to Contractor 2. In this instance a52 = 5 suggests
of the weight of each criteria after determination of the that in terms of technical capability for contractors 5 is
relative importance of criteria according to specialists. strong than 2.
AHP provides more flexibility in (a) dealing with quali- 3. Utilize two methods in parallel VIKOR and TOPSIS
tative criteria to determine how well each contractor to prioritize the available contractors for a construction
"satisfies" or "scores" for each criterion, and (b) assign- project. VIKOR and TOPSIS procedures will be dis-
ing weights of relative importance to each criterion to cussed in detail in the following sections.
assign these values based on the decision maker’s prefer-
ences. The AHP’s basic scale is used to input the judg- 2.1 TOPSIS Method
ments. A property is always allotted the value 1 when
compared to itself, the primary diagonal elements of the These computations of the TOPSIS method can be summa-
pairwise comparison matrix are all 1. The numerals 3, rized in the following steps (Vahdani et al. 2013; Bognár
5, 7, and 9 correlate to the verbal judgments "moderate et al. 2022; Irfan et al. 2022):

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2357

1. Compute the normalized decision matrix. The normal- 2.2 VIKOR method

ized value (rij ) is computed as
VIKOR Step-by-Step Procedure as follows(Mardani et al.
fij
rij = � 2016):
∑
j (1)
fij2 1. 1. Determine the best and the worst values of all crite-
j=1
rion functions from each alternative. If the ith function
where j = number of alternatives; i = a number of crite- represents a benefit, then fi∗ = maxj fij and fi− = minj fij
ria; and fij = value of the j alternative for the I criteria. whereas if the i-th function represents a cost,
2. Compute the weighted decision matrix. The normalized
weighted value ( vij ) is computed as fi∗ = minj fij and fi− = maxj fij.
vi = wi rij (2) 2. Step 2: Compute the values Sj and Rj , j = 1, 2; …j by the
relations
where wi = weight of the ith criterion or attribute
∑n
inhich i=1 wi = 1. ∑
n

3. Determine the ideal ( A∗) and negative ideals ( A−) solu- Sj = wi (fi∗ − fij )∕(fi∗ − fi− )
tions: i=1

A∗ = {v∗1 , … , v∗n } = {(max vij i ∈ I ′ ), (minvij |i ∈ I ′′ )} Positive ideal solution [ ]

j Rj = max wi (fi∗ − fij )∕(fi∗ − fi− )
(3) i

−
A = {v−1 , … , v−n } ′ ′′
= {(min vij i ∈ I ), (max vij |i ∈ I )} negative ideal solution where Sj represents the maximum group of the utility of
j

(4) the majority (concordance) of alternative j; Rj represents

a minimum of individual regret of the opponent (dis-
where I is associated with benefit criteria, and I is asso-
′ ε
cordance) of alternative j; and wi = weights of criteria,
ciated with cost criteria.
expressing the decision maker’s preference as the rela-
4. Calculate the separation measures, using the n-dimen-
tive importance of the criteria.
sional Euclidean distance, the separation of each alterna-
3. Compute the values Qj , j = 1, 2; …j by the relations.
tive from the ideal solution is computed as
√ Qj = v(Sj − S∗ )∕(S− − S∗ ) + (1 − v)(Rj − R∗ )∕(R− − R∗ )
√ n
√∑
Dj = √ (vij − v∗i )2 j = 1, … ., J
∗
(5) where, where Qj represents the solution of alterna-
i=1 tive j; S∗ = minj Sj ; R− = maxj Rj and v is introduced
as a weight for the strategy of maximum group utility,
Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal solution
whereas (1 − v) = weight of the individual regret. The
is given as
solution obtained by minj Sj is with a maximum group
√ utility (majority rule), and the solution obtained by
√ n
√∑
D−j = √ (vij − v−i )2 j = 1, … ., J (6) minj Rj is with a minimum individual regret of the oppo-
i=1 nent. Normally, the value of v is taken as 0.5. However,
v can take any value from 0 to 1.
5. Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution. 4. Rank the alternatives, sorted by the values S, R, and Q,
D−j in decreasing order. The results are three ranking lists.
P∗j = 0 ≤≤ 1, j = 1, … ., J (7) 5. Propose as a compromise solution the alternative ( A′)
(D∗j + D−j ) which is ranked the best by the measure Q (minimum)
if the following two conditions are satisfied:
6. Rank the preference order by ranking the alternative
contractors based on their relative closeness values from a. condition (1); Acceptable advantage: where
the best contractor that has maximum relative closeness DQ = 1∕(J − 1), and A(2) = alternative with the sec-
value ( P∗j ) to worst one. ond position on the ranking list by Q: J = the number
of alternatives.
b. condition (2); Acceptable stability in decision mak-
ing: Alternative A1 must also be the best ranked by S
or/and R. This compromise solution is stable within
a decision-making process, which could be: ‘‘voting
by majority rule’’(when v > 0:5 is needed), or ‘‘by

13
2358 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

Fig. 3  Mostafa El Nahass

bridge

consensus’’ v ≈ 0.5 or ‘‘with veto’’ (v < 0:5). Here, 3.1 Data collection

v is the weight of the decision-making strategy ‘‘the
majority of criteria’’ (or ‘‘the maximum group util- The required data for these contractors were summarized
ity). If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then based on the available data that were provided by the Egyp-
a set of compromise solutions is proposed, which tian Roads and Bridges Authority. The data for selecting
consists of: the contractor was collected from different experts, levels,
c. Alternative A1 and A2 if only condition (2) is not and sources, and consultants in construction and mainte-
satisfied. nance projects. The opinions were compiled and compared
d. Alternative, A2 AM if condition (1) is not satisfied; between them independently. The priority of selecting
and is determined by the relation: the appropriate contractor for the project was determined
through several criteria arranged after matching the opinions
Q(AM ) − Q(A� ) < DQ for maximum M (the positions of of field experts after getting high consistency between all
these alternatives are ‘‘in closeness’’). data that were collected.

(1) Tender price (TP) and accomplishment time (AT) for

3 Case study the eligible contactors as shown in Table 1.
(2) Relative importance for criteria; Safety (S), Technical
A real-life example of contractor selection to construct a capability (TC), Management capability (MC), Experi-
bridge in the region of east Cairo in Egypt is analyzed to ence in comparable jobs (E), and Economic status (ES)
illustrate the use of the current MCDM algorithms and for six contractors as shown in matrices 1 to 5.
demonstrate its capabilities. The project of the intersection
of Mustafa Bridge with Abbas Al-Akkad in Nasr City is a
continuation of the bridge projects in the region to solve the (1) T e c h n i c a l capability (TC):
problem of traffic congestion and facilitate the citizens. The ⎡ 1 5 4 5 3 2 ⎤
bridge includes 3 lanes in each direction with a total length ⎢ 1∕5 1 1∕7 1∕3 1∕6 1∕3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
of 570 and 21.5 m width, as shown in Fig. 3. Only six con- TC = ⎢
1∕4 7 1 2 3 2 ⎥
tractors were eligible for this project. ⎢ 1∕5 3 1∕2 1 1∕4 1∕3 ⎥
⎢ 1∕3 6 1∕3 4 1 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1∕2 3 1∕2 3 1∕2 1 ⎦

Table 1  Tender price and accomplishment time for each contractor

Contractor Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Contractor 5 Contractor 6

Tender price (L.E) 600 million 605 million 595 million 598 million 610 million 590 million
Accomplishment time (week) 14 16 20 18 22 25

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2359

(2) E x p e r i e n c e in the same works (E): Wi is calculated as the average of the elements in row i
⎡ 1 3 4 5 6 3 ⎤ of the normalized matrix.
⎢ 1∕3 1 2 3 5 4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
E=⎢
1∕4 1∕2 1 2 3 4 ⎥ Table 2 shows the computed weights for each criteria.
⎢ 1∕5 1∕3 1∕2 1 4 3 ⎥ After obtaining the pairwise comparison matrices, it must
⎢ 1∕6 1∕5 1∕2 ⎥
⎢
1∕3 1∕4 1
⎥ be checked for consistency. Minor discrepancies are typi-
⎣ 1∕3 1∕4 1∕4 1∕3 2 1 ⎦ cal and do not pose major problems. To ensure consistency
⎡ 1 1∕2 1∕3 1∕5 1∕4 1∕2 ⎤ in the decision maker’s comparisons, apply the four-step
⎢2 1 2 3 3 4 ⎥ approach shown below. W will now represent the decision-
⎢ ⎥ weight maker’s estimate:
3 1∕2 1 1∕3 1∕2 1 ⎥
(3) Safety(S): S = ⎢
⎢ 5 1∕3 3 1 2 5 ⎥
⎢ 4 1∕3 2 1∕2 1 2 ⎥ 2. Calculate AW T , in which A is the pairwise comparison
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 2 1∕4 1 1∕5 1∕2 1 ⎦ matrix and T indicates transpose.
∑n
(4) M a n a g e m e n t capability(MC): MC 3. Determine the maximal eigenvalue 𝜆max = 1n i=1 ith
⎡ 1 1∕2 1∕5 1∕4 1∕5 1∕3 ⎤ entry in AW T /ith in W T .
⎢ 2 1 1∕2 1∕3 1∕4 1∕5 ⎥ 4. Calculate the consistency index (CI) as a process
⎢ ⎥ (𝜆 )−1
5 2 1 1∕3 1∕4 1∕2 ⎥ , The lower the CI, the lower the deviation
=⎢ . CI = max
⎢ 4 3 3 1 1∕5 1∕3 ⎥ n−1
from consistency. If CI is small enough, the decision-
⎢5 4 4 5 1 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ comparison makers are likely to be consistent enough to
⎣ 3 5 2 3 1∕2 1 ⎦ provide reliable estimates of the weights for their target.
⎡1 1∕2 1∕7 1 1∕2 1∕3 ⎤ for a completely consistent decision maker, ith entry in
⎢2 1 1∕5 1∕3 1∕4 1∕2 ⎥ AW T = n (ith entry of W T ). This indicates that a com-
⎢ ⎥
(5) Economic status: ES = ⎢
7 5 1 5 2 3 ⎥ pletely consistent decision-maker has CI = 0.
⎢1 3 1∕5 1 1∕3 1∕4 ⎥ 5. Contrast the consistency index with the random
⎢2 4 1∕2 3 1 1∕2 ⎥ index. For the proper value of n in decision making
⎢ ⎥
⎣3 2 1∕3 4 2 1 ⎦ (CI∕RI) < 0.10, Although the degree of consistency is
4 Computations and results favorable, if (CI∕RI) > 0:10, There may be severe incon-
[ ] sistencies, and the AHP may not produce useful signifi-
1. The vector W = W1 , W2 , .., Wn , Which provides the
weight assigned to each criteria in pairwise compari- cant outcomes.
son matrix A, must be known. A two-step process is
described to derive the vector W from A: Divide every Table 3 displays the random index for various n values
entry in A’s column i by the total of the entries in col- and Table 4 displays the eigenvalue (max) and consistency
umn i. This results in a new matrix called a normalized ratio (CI/RI) for each qualitative criterion. All of the consist-
matrix, the total of the elements in each column is (1) ency ratios are smaller than the maximum of 0.1. As a result,
the decisions made are quite consistent.

Table 2  Calculated criteria Contractor Technical capability Experience Economic status Safety Management
weight among contractors capability

Contractor 1 WC1 = 0.36 WC1 = 0.40 WC1 = 0.06 WC1 = 0.06 WC1 = 0.05
Contractor 2 WC2 = 0.04 WC2 = 0.22 WC2 = 0.07 WC2 = 0.33 WC2 = 0.07
Contractor 3 WC3 = 0.22 WC3 = 0.15 WC3 = 0.40 WC3 = 0.11 WC3 = 0.12
Contractor 4 WC4 = 0.08 WC4 = 0.11 WC4 = 0.09 WC4 = 0.26 WC4 = 0.16
Contractor 5 WC5 = 0.17 WC5 = 0.05 WC5 = 0.18 WC5 = 0.16 WC5 = 0.37
Contractor 6 WC6 = 0.13 WC6 = 0.07 WC6 = 0.20 WC6 = 0.08 WC6 = 0.23

Table 3  Values of random n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

index
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

13
2360 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

Table 4  Eigenvalue (λmax) and consistency ratio (CI/RI) for each ⎡ 0.408 0.293 0.756 0.799 0.122 0.133 0.097 ⎤
qualitative criteria: ⎢ 0.412 0.335 0.079 0.443 0.143 0.692 0.134 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Criteria Technical Experi- Economic Safety Manage- ⎢ 0.405 0.418 0.451 0.298 0.799 0.234 0.246 ⎥
capability ence status ment ⎢ 0.407 0.377 0.144 0.226 0.169 0.554 0.317 ⎥
capability ⎢ 0.415 0.460 0.354 0084 0.353 0.334 0.766 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
λmax 6.59 6.45 6.46 6.56 6.56 ⎣ 0.402 0.523 0.272 0.137 0.415 0.174 0.474 ⎦
CR = (CI/ 0.096 0.073 0.07 0.09 0.09
RI) – Weighted normalized matrix

⎡ 0.158 0.033 0.031 0.071 0.017 0.028 0.002 ⎤

⎢ 0.159 0.038 0.003 0.039 0.019 0.145 0.003 ⎥
The next step is to give relative relevance weights to each ⎢ ⎥
criterion. Following the same methods as before, the deci- ⎢ 0.157 0.047 0.018 0.027 0.108 0.049 0.006 ⎥
sion makers create the pairwise comparison matrix below ⎢ 0.158 0.043 0.006 0.020 0.023 0.116 0.008 ⎥
⎢ 0.161 0.052 0.014 0.007 0.048 0.070 0.018 ⎥
based on their preferences. ⎢ ⎥
The item in this pairwise comparison matrix’s row I and ⎣ 0.155 0.059 0.011 0.012 0.056 0.036 0.011 ⎦
column j reflects how much more significant criteria i is than
j in terms of the project’s aim.
Table 6 shows the ideal (A) and negative-ideal (A) solu-
⎡ 1 5 9 3 5 7 4 ⎤ tions using Eqs. (3) and (4) for the regarded aspects.
⎢ 1∕5 1 5 1∕3 1∕2 5 1∕3 ⎥ Table 7 shows the values of the separation measures ( D∗j
⎢ 1∕9 1∕5 1 1∕5 1∕7 1∕3 1∕5 ⎥ and D−j ) and the relative closeness to the ideal solution (C)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1∕3 3 5 1 1∕2 3 1∕4 ⎥ belonging to the six contractors obtained using Eqs. (5–7),
⎢ 1∕5 2 7 2 1 5 1∕3 ⎥ respectively. Table 8 displays the best and worst ( fij).val-
⎢ 1∕7 1∕5 ⎥
⎢
1∕5 3 1∕3 1∕5 1
⎥ ues of all criteria functions for the VIKOR approach.
⎣ 1∕4 3 5 4 3 5 1 ⎦ Table 9 shows the values of Sj , and Qj.
Table 10 displays the findings acquired by the TOPSIS
The weight of each criteria was computed as fol-
and VIKOR techniques. Figures 5 and 6 show the similar-
lows: WTP = 0.39, WAT = 0.11,WS = 0.21,WES = 0.14,
ity of the solution between the two methods and the rank-
WE = 0.09,WTC = 0.04, and WMC = 0.02 as shown in Fig. 4.
ing of the contractors.
Eigenvalue (λmax) computed equal 7.7685 and the consist-
ency ratio (CI/RI) is 0.098, which is less than the maximum
4.3 According to the TOPSIS and VIKOR algorithm
allowable value of < 0.1 As a result, the decisions made are
consistent.
Contractor 2 is the best aspect of the ranking index. Addi-
tionally, being the top-ranked alternative by the VIKOR
4.1 The TOPSIS and VIKOR algorithms
algorithm shows that it is the closest to the optimal answer.
The elevated levels that Contractor 2 offers in expertise
Table 5 displays the statistics for the six contractors and
and safety, combined with the higher weights that deci-
seven selection criteria. The tender price and accomplish-
sion-makers have allotted to these criteria, make Contrac-
ment time parameters are based on the data supplied by the
tor 2 the highest-ranked contractor by both methods, even
contractors when submitting the bids for the bridge. Tech-
though Contractor 2 offers the highest prices and low val-
nical capability, experience, economic status, managerial
ues in technical capability, economic status, and manage-
capability, and safety are all good traits, hence higher val-
ment capability.
ues are preferred. Tender price and accomplishment time
are unfavorable characteristics, lower values are preferred.
4.4 Applicability and limitation of model
4.2 The normalized decision matrix and the weight
The integration of TOPSIS, VIKOR with AHP into the
normalized matrix corresponding to steps 1 and 2
model can provide a more comprehensive and robust
are produced using The TOPSIS technique
approach to multi-criteria decision-making. This integrated
model combines the strengths of each method to enhance
– Matrix normalization
the decision-making process. However, it is important to
consider both the applicability and limitations of this inte-
grated model:

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2361

Fig. 4  Classification and weight of criteria

Table 5  Statistics for the six contractors and seven selection criteria
contractor Tender price (L.E) Accomplishment Technical Experience Economic status Safety Management
time (week) capability capability

Contractor 1 600 million 14 0.36 0.40 0.06 0.06 0.05

Contractor 2 605 million 16 0.04 0.22 0.07 0.33 0.07
Contractor 3 595 million 20 0.22 0.15 0.40 0.11 0.12
Contractor 4 598 million 18 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.26 0.16
Contractor 5 610 million 22 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.16 0.37
Contractor 6 590 million 25 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.23

Table 6  Ideal ( A∗) and Negative-Ideal ( A−) Solution

criteria Tender price (L.E) Accomplishment Technical capability Experience Economic status Safety Manage-
time (week) ment
capability

Min/Max Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

Vi∗ 0.155 0.033 0.031 0.071 0.108 0.145 0.018
Vi− 0.161 0.059 0.003 0.007 0.017 0.028 0.002

13
2362 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

Table 7  Separation Measures (, Contractor Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Contractor 5 Contractor 6
D−j ) and performance score ( P∗j )
D∗j 0.1501 0.1000 0.1084 0.1077 0.1185 0.1384
D−j 0.074 0.1236 0.0984 0.0913 0.0566 0.0430
P∗j 0.330 0.553 0.476 0.459 0.323 0.237

Table 8  Best ( fi∗) and worst ( fi−) values of criteria functions

Criteria Tender price Accomplishment Technical capability Experience Economic status Safety Manage-
(L.E) time (week) ment
capability

fi∗ 590 14 0.36440 0.4019 0.3993 0.3264 0.3768

fi− 610 25 0.0381 0.04230 0.0611 0.0626 0.0476

Table 9  Values of Sj , and Qj Contractor Contractor 1 Contractor 2 Contractor 3 Contractor 4 Contractor 5 Contractor 6

Sj 0.5635 0.4299 0.4984 0.5503 0.8067 0.5070

Rj 0.2099 0.1719 0.1548 0.2903 0.3871 0.1945
Qj 0.2959 0.0368 0.0910 0.4515 1 0.1876

Table 10  Results obtained by Contractor Topsis method Ranking Vikor method Ranking Consistency
Topsis and Vikor method
P∗j Sj Rj Qj

Contractor 1 0.330 4 0.5635 0.2099 0.2959 4 consistent

Contractor 2 0.553 1 0.4299 0.1719 0.0368 1 consistent
Contractor 3 0.476 2 0.4984 0.1548 0.0910 2 consistent
Contractor 4 0.459 3 0.5503 0.2903 0.4515 5 Not consistent
Contractor 5 0.323 5 0.8067 0.3871 1 6 Not consistent
Contractor 6 0.237 6 0.5070 0.1945 0.1876 3 Not consistent

The idency between Topsis and Vikor

1
parameter value

0.8
Method Type

0.6
0.4
Vikor Method
0.2
Topsis Method
0

Contractor

Topsis Method Vikor Method

Fig. 5  The similarity between Topsis and Vikor method

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2363

Ranking of contractor
according to Topsis and Vikor method
6
5
6 4

Method Type
3 5
6 4 2
3 1
Ranking

4 2
1 Vikor Method
2
Topsis Method
0
Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor
1 2 3 4 5 6
Contractor

Topsis Method Vikor Method

Fig. 6  Ranking of contractor

4.4.1 Applicability real world, it may be difficult to collect data that is both

complete and of good quality.
1. By taking into account several criteria and their weights 4. The computational cost may grow due to the integration
within the AHP framework, the integrated model ena- of various approaches, particularly when a significant
bles a more complete examination. It helps people number of criteria and alternatives must be considered.
make decisions by providing a methodical way to weigh Complexity may be managed with sufficient computing
options and record values. power and well-designed algorithms.
2. The addition of VIKOR to the integrated model aids in
finding a happy medium between benefit and cost con-
siderations. This is especially helpful when decision- 5 Conclusion and future scope
makers are trying to find a happy medium that mini-
mizes undesirable consequences. Recently, there has been a shift away from the lowest-tender
3. Handling It is possible to use both quantitative and price-wins concept in the selection of contractors for con-
qualitative criteria in the integrated model. Subjective struction projects not only at the regional level but also at
opinions and linguistic evaluations may be included in the worldwide level. The execution of a project may suffer
AHP, while quantitative criteria can be given numerical if a suitable and precise approach for picking the best-suited
weight in TOPSIS and VIKOR. contractor is not used. Using a multi-criteria selection strat-
4. The integration enables decision-making flexibility by egy to aid owners in the selection of contractors for building
capitalizing on the benefits of both approaches. It ena- projects. Increased project complexity, greater performance,
bles decision-makers to modify the model to better fit and financial and safety constraints have necessitated the
the nature and parameters of the choice issue at hand. employment of multi-criteria decision-making methodolo-
gies in construction projects in Egypt. Sometimes contradic-
4.4.2 Limitations tory aims and alternatives such as tender price, completion
date, and expertise must be examined in these multi-criteria
1. Increased complexity in decision-making may result settings. The Topsis and Vikor algorithms were utilized in
from combining several approaches into a single model. the selection of a contractor for a road construction project.
It might need more time and skill to apply and under- The availability of data, and the absence of doubt, hence
stand the findings. the possibility to give precise numbers to the criterion or
2. AHP depends significantly on the judgments and prefer- qualities that have played a vital part in determining a tech-
ences of decision-makers, hence there is room for sub- nique to select a contractor. Both strategies, which have not
jectivity and inconsistency in the integrated model. It’s previously been employed in contractor selection, can be
important to pay close attention so that the results are generalized and applied elsewhere, increasing the number of
consistent and trustworthy. methods accessible to decision-makers to satisfy greater per-
3. The criteria weights, scores, and rankings used in the formance standards. According to the results, one of the con-
integrated model can only be as accurate as the data used tractors is the top-ranked by both approaches. The TOPSIS
to create them. In the context of making decisions in the method’s highest-rated alternative means that this contractor

13
2364 Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365

is the best in terms of the ranking index. Furthermore, hav- outbreak: an Indian handicraft industry outlook. Socio-Econ Plan
ing the highest rated option by the VIKOR technique shows Sci 85(September 2022):101443. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seps.​
2022.​101443
that it is the closest to the perfect solution, and is as near Aladağ H, Işik Z (2018) The effect of stakeholder-associated risks in
to the ideal answer as possible The justification for human mega-engineering projects: a case study of a PPP airport project.
choice is to be as close to the ideal as feasible. The TOP- IEEE Trans Eng Manage 67(1):174–186
SIS and the VIKOR methodologies are examples of multi- Alirezaie A, Razavi Khosroshahi SJ (2014) Which contractor selection
methodology? Uncertain Supply Chain Manage 2(4):257–260.
criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches that may be https://​doi.​org/​10.​5267/j.​uscm.​2014.7.​003
used to rank potential options according to many different Antoniou F, Aretoulis G (2019) A multi-criteria decision-making
criteria. Both approaches rank solutions by how far they are support system for choice of method of compensation for high-
from the optimal one. The primary distinction between TOP- way construction contractors in Greece. Int J Constr Manag
19(6):492–508
SIS and VIKOR is that TOPSIS uses a weighted sum of the Bahootoroody F, Khalaj S, Leoni L, De Carlo F, Di Bona G, Forcina
distances from the ideal answer, whereas VIKOR employs A (2021) Reliability estimation of reinforced slopes to prioritize
a compromise ranking approach. Furthermore, in TOPSIS, maintenance actions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(2):1–
all criteria must be measured using the same units, but in 12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h1802​0373
Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J
VIKOR, this is not the requirement. some of the limita- (2012) A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert
tions of the integrated model may not take into account the Syst Appl 39(17):13051–13069. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​
inherent uncertainty or fluctuation in the criterion weights 2012.​05.​056
or scores. This restriction may need the use of uncertainty Best R, Langston C (2006) Evaluation of construction contractor
performance: a critical analysis of some recent research. Constr
analysis methods or sensitivity analysis. In the future chal- Manag Econ 24(4):439–445
lenges and more criteria which can be tested using different Bognár F, Szentes B, Benedek P (2022) Development of the PRISM
MCDM techniques and considered uncertainty in the model. risk assessment method based on a multiple AHP-TOPSIS
approach. Risks 10(11):213
Bona GD, Falcone D, Forcina A, Silvestri A, Silvestri L (2020) A
new model for maintenance strategy based on failure analysis
Funding Open access funding provided by The Science, Technol- and multicriteria approach. Int J Inform Syst Service Sector
ogy & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The 12(4):60–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4018/​IJISSS.​20201​00104
Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). No funds, grants, or other support Chapman RJ (2001) The controlling influences on effective risk iden-
was received. tification and assessment for construction design management.
Int J Project Manage 19(3):147–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
Declaration S0263-​7863(99)​00070-8
Darbari JD, Kannan D, Agarwal V, Jha PC (2019) Fuzzy crite-
Conflict of interest All authors certify that they have no affiliations ria programming approach for optimising the TBL perfor-
with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial mance of closed loop supply chain network design problem.
interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials dis- Ann Oper Res 273(1–2):693–738. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
cussed in this manuscript. s10479-​017-​2701-2
Demirkesen S, Bayhan HG (2019) Subcontractor Selection with
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Choosing-By-Advantages (CBA) Method. In: IOP Conference
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 471(2). https://​doi.​
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​471/2/​022020
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, Di Bona G, Falcone D, Forcina A (2019) AHP-TOPSIS model to evalu-
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes ate maintenance strategy using RAMS and production parameters.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are Int J Operat Quan Manage 25(3):175–201
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Efforts-economic-development-in-8-years. (n.d.). Retrieved Novem-
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in ber 1, 2022, from https://​www.​sis.​gov.​eg/​Effor​ts-​econo​mic-​devel​
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not opment-​in-8-​years?​lang=​ar
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will El-Abbasy MS, Zayed T, Ahmed M, Alzraiee H, Abouhamad M (2013)
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Contractor selection model for highway projects using integrated
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. simulation and analytic network process. J Constr Eng Manag
139(7):755–767. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​co.​1943-​7862.​
00006​47
Gul M, Celik E, Aydin N, Gumus AT, Guneri AF (2016) A state of
the art literature review of VIKOR and its fuzzy extensions on
References applications. Appl Soft Comput J, pp 1–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​asoc.​2016.​04.​040
Gurgun AP, Koc K (2020) Contractor prequalification for green build-
Agarwal V, Hameed AZ, Malhotra S, Mathiyazhagan K, Alathur S, ings—evidence from Turkey. Engineering, Construction and
Appolloni A (2022) Role of Industry 4.0 in agile manufacturing Architectural Management.
to achieve sustainable development. Bus Strategy Environ. https://​ Gyani J, Ahmed A, Haq MA (2022) MCDM and various prioritization
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bse.​3321 methods in AHP for CSS: a comprehensive review. IEEE Access
Agarwal V, Mathiyazhagan K, Malhotra S, Pimpunchat B (2023) Build- 10:33492–33511
ing resilience for the sustainability of MSMEs post COVID-19

13
Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag (June 2024) 15(6):2351–2365 2365

Hatush Z, Skitmore M (1998) Contractor selection using multicriteria Safa M, Shahi A, Haas CT, Fiander-McCann D, Safa M, Hipel K,
utility theory: an additive model. Build Environ 33(2–3):105–115 MacGillivray S (2015) Competitive intelligence (CI) for evalu-
Holt GD, Olomolaiye PO, Harris FC (1994) Factors influencing ation of construction contractors. Autom Constr 59:149–157.
UK construction clients’ choice of contractor. Build Environ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​autcon.​2015.​02.​009
29(2):241–248 Singh D, Tiong RLK (2005) A fuzzy decision framework for contractor
Horton P, Eaton D (2017). Analysis of Criteria Influencing Contractor selection. J Constr Eng Manag 131(1):62–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Selection Using TOPSIS Method Analysis of Criteria Influencing 1061/​(asce)​0733-​9364(2005)​131:​1(62)
Contractor Selection Using TOPSIS Method. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Singh D, Tiong RLK (2006) Contractor selection criteria: investigation
1088/​1757-​899X/​245/6/​062003 of opinions of Singapore construction practitioners. J Constr Eng
Irfan M, Elavarasan RM, Ahmad M, Mohsin M, Dagar V, Hao Y (2022) Manag 132(9):998–1008
Prioritizing and overcoming biomass energy barriers: application Thompson Richard CJ, Lucko G (2012) Modeling measures of float
of AHP and G-TOPSIS approaches. Technol Forecast Soc Chang monetization for quantitative risk management of construction
177:121524 projects. In: Construction Research Congress 2012: Construction
Jabbarzadeh A (2018) Application of the AHP and TOPSIS in project Challenges in a Flat World, pp 485–494.
management. J Project Manage 3:125–130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Vahdani B, Mousavi SM, Hashemi H, Mousakhani M, Tavakkoli-
5267/j.​jpm.​2018.1.​001 Moghaddam R (2013) A new compromise solution method for
Javidi SR, Shamsi GM, Saghi H (2022) Developing multiple criteria fuzzy group decision-making problems with an application to the
decision-making model based on the Best-Worst-VIKOR Method contractor selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(2):779–788. https://​
for Evaluation of Civil Projects Contractors, Case Study of Civil doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engap​pai.​2012.​11.​005
Projects in Southern Khorasan Province. Vučijak B, Kupusović T, MidŽić-Kurtagić S, Ćerić A (2013) Appli-
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee M, Amiri M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antuche- cability of multicriteria decision aid to sustainable hydropower.
viciene J (2018) A dynamic fuzzy approach based on the EDAS Appl Energy 101:261–267. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​
method for multi-criteria subcontractor evaluation. Information 2012.​05.​024
9(3):68 Whitney SN (2003) A new model of medical decisions: explor-
Kumar J, Singh GS (2016) Optimization of machining param- ing the limits of shared decision making. Med Decis Making
eters of titanium alloy steel using: TOPSIS method. Ijsrset 23(4):275–280
2(2):1019–1022 Wong CH, Holt GD, Cooper PA (2000) Lowest price or value? Investi-
Kumaraswamy MM, Walker DHT (2021) Multiple performance crite- gation of UK construction clients’ tender selection process. Constr
ria for evaluating construction contractors. Procurement Syst, pp Manag Econ 18(7):767–774
231–251. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​97802​03982​785-​22 Yang ZL, Bonsall S, Wang J (2009) Use of hybrid multiple uncer-
Ling FYY (2004) Key determinants of performance of design-bid-build tain attribute decision making techniques in safety management.
projects in Singapore. Build Res Inform 32(2):128–139 Expert Syst Appl 36(2 PART 1): 1569–1586. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Govindan K, Senin AA, Jusoh A (2016) 1016/j.​eswa.​2007.​11.​054
VIKOR technique: A systematic review of the state of the art Yong D (2006) Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J
literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability (Swit- Adv Manuf Technol 28(7–8):839–844. https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1007/​
zerland) 8(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su801​0037 s00170-​004-​2436-5
Miller CJM, Packham GA, Thomas BC (2002) Harmonization between Zhang Y (2020) Construction of bid evaluation index system in gov-
main contractors and subcontractors: a prerequisite for lean con- ernment public project green procurement in China based on DS
struction? J Constr Res 3(01):67–82 evidence theory. Sustainability 12(2):651
Quijano HR, Botero BS, Domínguez BJ (2012) MODERGIS appli-
cation: Integrated simulation platform to promote and develop Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
renewable sustainable energy plans, Colombian case study. Renew jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sustain Energy Rev 16(7):5176–5187. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
rser.​2012.​05.​006
Russell JS, Hanna AS, Anderson SD, Wiseley PW, Smith RJ (1999)
The warranty alternative. Civ Eng 69(5):60
Russell JS, Skibniewski MJ (1988) Decision criteria in contractor pre-
qualification. J Manag Eng 4(2):148–164. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 061/​
(asce)​9742-​597x(1988)4:​2(148)

13