Evaluation of contractors of health - Medical projects
by AHP method in Iran’s southeast region
Hossein Ali Mohammadi*
1
and Mehdi Momeni Ragh Abadi
2
1
MSc. Civil Engineering, Construction Management Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad
University, Kerman Branch, Iran
2
PhD of Geotechnical, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic
Azad University, Kerman Branch, Iran
ABSTRACT
Performance of construction activities in the development process of countries is an indicator of sustainable devel-
opment. Given that the vast majority of projects will be assigned to the operation, implementation of any project
requires suitable contractor; Of course, contracting the abilities necessary to carry out the project in terms of time and
resources is anticipated and desired quality. The current method of selecting a contractor for construction projects
based on the lowest bid, but the qualitative and quantitative indicators and with different degrees of importance of
the ttest is a contractor. So this study was aimed to investigate evaluation of contractors of health -medical projects
by AHP method in Iran’s Southeast region and to determine the relationship between criteria and indicators and
quantitative analysis to evaluate and select the proper rating schematic end model optimized to be presented in such
projects. Therefore, after reviewing the literature and interviews with experts and managers to identify criteria, crite-
ria that are within competence of contractors are often effective projects were extracted. The criteria were categorized
in seven groups. The results of economic and nancial criteria rst place in the quali cation and selection criteria
for the contractor. Among the sub-indices as well as cost analysis, nancial strength, bid quali cation, respectively
ranked rst and fourth, respectively.
KEY WORDS: CONTRACTOR SELECTION, AHP, HEALTH PROJECTS, THE SOUTH EAST REGION
325
ARTICLE INFORMATION:
*Corresponding Author: h.alimohamadi61@gmail.com
Received 27
th
Dec, 2016
Accepted after revision 2
nd
March, 2017
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF : 4.006
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, 2017. All rights
reserved.
Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/
Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. Special Issue No 1:325-334 (2017)
326 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
INTRODUCTION
Construction activities and construction are considered
basic indices of development countries and large part
of investments in the public and private sectors will
be spent on construction and infrastructure. Therefore,
careful planning and ef cient is felt to avoid waste of
resources due to nancial constraints in addition to
increased ef ciency in use of available resources, invest-
ment will also be optimized and in meantime, imple-
mentation of projects under planning can be critical to
the success of projects.General criteria for success of
development projects in the implementation process are
based on three main elements. These three elements are:
timely implementation (time), implementation accord-
ing to budget approval (cost) and implementation in
accordance with the requirements (quality), that these
three are the most common factors in assessing the
success of development projects (Alzahrani & Emsley,
2013).
Since the vast majority of projects will be spent on
operating costs; so implementation of each project
needs to the contractor with capabilities to suit the
project to prevent the rise of operating costs and the
project would be accomplish in terms of anticipated
time and resources. In other words, the ultimate suc-
cess of the project has also raised the role of contractors
(Wu, 2016).
On the other hand, several studies have been done
on the subject indicates that multivariate process should
be used in the selection of contractors (Marzouk, 2013).
This process makes the cost element devoted to the
neglect of important factors, characteristics and com-
petence contractors and risk of project failure rises
(Sandquist, 2012).
In fact, as an integral part of contractors and project
implementation process are very important. In fact, a
bountiful supply of services and equipment needed for
the project (Zare et al., 2010).
Many companies and institutions use contractors to
transfer their projects and the contractor have a lot of
options to choose from them. So processes and tools
should be used for selection according to standards to
choose the best option. In conducted investigation, many
causes of failures of projects directly and indirectly are
concerned to the host contract. This issue shows neces-
sity of carefully evaluation of contractors (Saaty, 2000).
Nowadays an ef cient way and based on principles of
modern management is not used for contractor’s selec-
tion and in the choice of contractor according to the
methods and techniques is not the right decision. While
many researchers and experts de ned management and
decision-making equivalent that have same meaning
and management is considered decisions and believe
that decisions form the main focus of management and
perform tasks such as planning, organization or control,
in fact, nothing but the decision about how and how not
perform these activities (Saadati, 2002).
Hence majority of project construction problems have
some problems such as increased cost, run-time prolon-
gation or decrease in quality due to the lack of appro-
priate and quali ed contractor selected for the project.
Some contractors to win tenders are resorting to every
trick. Including discounts too high and unreasonable to
suggest that the employer assessment usually due to the
weakness of existing laws and regulations to determine
the winner of the tender and selection of the contractor,
the tender winner and multiple problems in the process
of implementing the project. On the other hand, num-
bers of contractors believe that the method of selecting
the contractor in many cases does not lead to the actual
selection of the ttest contractor.
This leads to reduce motivation of many quali ed
and competent contractors who among them is also sig-
ni cant number of contractors to participate in tenders
for construction projects. Based on foregoing and con-
sidering the fact that management evaluate and select
the contractor for transfer of development projects, an
essential part of construction process, it is also necessary
to carry out applied research to solve various problems
of development projects, including problems in project
management, dimensions and factors affecting contrac-
tor selection and use of scienti c methods of decision-
making in the eld of contractor selection of the ttest,
and ultimately avoid wasting national resources country
of particular importance.
Evaluation of contractors for the projects, both in
terms of time and cost of the project and the resulting
quality of the project, it is important decisions (Javani,
2002). Due to number of indices and that many of cri-
teria are qualitative selection of tools and appropriate
indicators to assess necessity contractors (Asgharizadeh,
2010).
The method is based on the lowest bid is selected as
the contractor for construction projects, it is clear that
qualitative and quantitative indicators with different
degrees of importance in determining the eligibility of a
proposed contract and should be considered in decision-
making.So far, several methods and models for evaluat-
ing, ranking and selection of contractors in construction
projects are presented. One of the most common and
widely used methods is AHP method. Analytic Hierar-
chy Process or AHP, which was developed in 1980 by
the hour how to determine the relative importance of
a multi-criteria decision, shows activity in the issues.
This method is based on three principles: structure of the
model - comparing of criteria and alternatives - synthe-
sis of priorities.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS 327
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
By using PROMETHEE method in evaluating and
ranking projects contractors six main criteria: good rep-
utation, power supplies, power management and skilled
manpower, economic and nancial capabilities, expe-
rience and technical capabilities (Asgharizadeh, 2010;
Nasrollahi, 2012).
Sahraei et al. (2013) used PROMETHEE method for
ranking contractors in fuzzy environment and showed
a strong theoretical basis of this method, accuracy and
ease of contractors is required in assessing and rank-
ing. (Manesh et al (2014). Assessment of the relationship
between technical ability and quality contractors car-
rying out research projects using fuzzy neural models
examined. In this study, by using fuzzy neural model,
the relationship between the qualities of the project
management contractor technical evaluation factors can
be analyzed and evaluated. According to local linear
neuro-fuzzy approach not only on average, but in each
of the iterations are able to more accurately estimate
the linear regression. Another result was that the col-
lected data indicated a signi cant association between
the quality of project implementation and three groups
of four groups of indicators used indicator to assess the
technical ability contractors.
Rohbakhsh and colleagues (2015) in ranking of sup-
plier selection criteria by Quality Function Development
Approach and AHP Fuzzy seven criteria and eighteen
sub criteria to collect, evaluate and rank.Naja et al
(2016) have identi ed and ranked by Analytic Hierarchy
Process(AHP) multi-attribute, implementation appropri-
ate system for freeway projects.
Researches showed that criteria for selecting contrac-
tors have varied and sometimes contradictory due to a
variety of qualitative and quantitative criteria decision
requires much more complex is the right choice. In fact,
the selection process, a multi-criteria problem which
includes both qualitative and quantitative criteria. Since
there are numerous methods and criteria so conducted
the research to determine the appropriate methods and
models in the evaluation and selection of contractors’
optimal health projects in the eld of research priorities
is the Civil Administration.
As research’s literature and according to studies on
concerning this issue shows that there is no exact study
about contractor selection criteria for projects in the
eld of health-medical projects. However there is few
studies in the eld of road projects and Municipality
which can be achieved partly guidance in this ways.So
this study was aimed to investigate evaluation of con-
tractors of health -medical projects by AHP method in
Iran’s Southeast region and to determine the relationship
between criteria and indicators and quantitative analysis
to evaluate and select the proper rating schematic end
model optimized to be presented in such projects.
METHODS
This research is an applied research in term of purpose
and survey in terms of descriptive data and analysis
methods.
Since responses to questions on questionnaire is
important in relation with effective competence of con-
tractors and the importance of each of them so their
choice is important, because the lack of experts and
technicians would reduce ef ciency. The study popu-
lation included all experts and authorities tender and
assignment of development health - medical projects in
Sistan and Baluchestan that number is 10 people and all
of them have been selected as the sample using census
method.
The AHP questionnaire was used for data collection.
Questionnaire to determine the weight (importance) the
main criteria the selection of contractors health - medi-
cal projects with AHP method in the South East of the
country on the basis of paired comparisons between cri-
teria based on fuzzy AHP method was used. The ques-
tionnaire consists of six main criteria that were mutually
compared and ranked.
To ensure the validity, qualitative methods were
used namely different experts’ ideas and modi cations
to them after the discussion on the questionnaire has
been applied. Since each question is based on research
literature,it can be said that the questionnaire has valid-
ity. Cronbach’s alpha coef cient was used to assess relia-
bility. Cronbach’s alpha coef cient for the questionnaire
39 items (0.85) was obtained that show high validity.
As explained earlier AHP method is used in the pre-
sent study to analyze the data. In this case, in order to
increase the accuracy and speed calculation software,
Expert choice for weighting and ranking factors were
used.
AHP is one of the most popular multi-criteria decision
making techniques by Thomas L. clock was invented in
the 1970s. This action decisions when faced with few
options and decision criteria can be useful. Indicators
can be quantitative or qualitative. The method relies on
paired comparisons lies. The process of ranking and pri-
oritizing options in AHP method includes the steps are
as follows; Criteria,Sub-criteria,Making hierarchy
At this point the problem is de ned. The aim of the
decision is drawn in form of hierarchy of factors and
components of decision-. Analytic Hierarchy Process
needs to break the decision by several indicators to a
hierarchy of levels. For this purpose, a decision tree that
used to consist of four levels:
The rst level includes general purpose of decision-
making.
On the second level are the general criteria that take
decisions based on them. They include: 1. technical,
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
328 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
2.experimental, 3. The economic and nancial, 4. The
management and staff, 5. Machinery, 6. good reputation
and 7. The past performance.
In the third level sub-criteria placed
And in the last level of decision options here are con-
tractors and health projects, are discussed.
Figure 1 shows the hierarchical structure prioritizes
contractor is selected criteria.
PAIRED COMPARISON
At this stage of Experts comparisons between crite-
ria and sub-criteria decision-making and points those
towards each other set. This comparison is done based
on the quantity table (Table 3).
A preferred option compared to operating his or
equal to one, therefore, reverse the principle of an agent
to others and preference for agent or option than his
two main properties of Pair wise comparison matrix in
standard or option, the AHP process.These two charac-
Table 1. Binary comparison quantitative indicators
ExplanationDe nitionScore
In achieving this objective, two indexes are of equal importance.Equal importance1
Experience shows that to achieve this goal, the importance i has little more than j.Slightly more important3
Experience shows that to achieve this goal, the importance of i has greater than j.more important5
Experience shows that to achieve this goal, the importance i has much more than j.Much more important7
Much more important i to j conclusively proven.The absolute importance9
Intermediate preferences when there are intermediate.2, 4, 6 and 8
FIGURE 1. Build a hierarchical prioritization contractor
selection criteria
teristics make to compare the n decision-maker only to
n(n-1)
2
answer the questions
In this section, contractor selection criteria and sub-
criteria according to literature and theoretical frame-
works in the eld of paper were identi ed by experts
and then nal contractor selection criteria were selected
by using experts’ opinion.
RESULTS
MEASURES OF CONTRACTOR SELECTION
CRITERIA
To determine measures, internal and external papers
in this area were reviewed and after consultation with
experts, the criteria and sub-criteria were selected for
choosing of contractor. To prioritize the main criteria
affecting the quali cation and selection of contractors
after each weight calculated paired comparisons of cri-
teria and have been assessed based on the nal weight.
The main criteria affecting the pairwise comparison
chart above shows the quali cation and selection of
contractors. It can be seen that the biggest difference
is the economic criterion compared with experimen-
tal measure and the least difference empirical criterion
compared with standard management.
The above graph shows the relative importance of the
main criteria affecting the quali cation and selection of
the contractor in experts’ opinion. It can be seen that
economic and nancial criteria has the greatest weight
to the nal weight (0.218), so the rst rank in the criteria
for eligibility and selection of the contractor is economic
and nancial criteria. After it, good reputation with the
ultimate weight standard (0.176) is ranked second. Cri-
teria and standards for management and staff with nal
weight (0.142) are ranked in third and fourth. Then past
performance with nal weight (0.117) is ranked in the
fth and technical criterion with nal weight (0.115) is
ranked in sixth place. The nal ranking is empirically
with nal weight (0.092). Comparison of rates paired
incompatibility was 0.012 that indicates acceptable
accuracy of these criteria is this comparison test.
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS 329
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
based on methods that are based on scienti c princi-
ples as well as the stated factors of subjective judgment
functionality to best meet the decision makers in small
amounts. The calculated weights for contractor selection
criteria in this study have been calculated by using fuzzy
AHP therefore are acceptable accuracy and precision.
After sub-indices are calculated paired comparisons
of nal weight and nal weight, based on these indica-
tors have been assessed. To prioritize all factors affect-
ing quali cation and selection of contractors, rst of all
sub-indices were paired comparison then nal weight of
the sub-indices obtained in relation to the target.
Table 2. Relative preferences matrix of main criteria
Table 3. Final weight and Prioritization of sub-indices of target
PriorityFinal weightIndexPriorityFinal weightIndex
210.023ability to use machinery10.066Cost Analysis
220.021Observance of the standards20.063Affordability
230.021Equipment and personnel
insurance
30.062Proposed price
240.019Increased costs40.053Quali cation
250.018Staff training50.043Management system
260.018Reputation60.043Having Machines
270.017Safety & Protection70.039Good reputation
280.017Equipping the ingot workshop80.036lack of previous success
290.017Awards and honors90.035Implementation of previous
projects
300.016Communication and
coordination with the employer
100.034Education and experience staff
310.013Board Stability110.031Time delays
320.011Indigenous120.27Comprehensive system
330.011Claim of damages130.027Experience in implementing
similar projects
340.010Methods and executive agencies140.026relationship with previous
employer
350.009creativity and innovation150.025Record executive
360.007Environmental laws and social
security
16
0.025Banking and nancial records
370.006Documentation170.025Competent managers
380.005presented papers in conferences
and journals
180.025Previous safety performance
390.005Publications and scienti c
research
190.024proportion machines
200.023Payment of wages
FIGURE 2. Final weight and Prioritization
of main criteria for incompatibility rate
Calculation of relative weights of sub-indices of the
target
Weighting and determine the importance of the project
contractor selection criteria and indicators, should be
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
330 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
The above table shows nal weight and priorities of
sub-indices affecting on quali cation and selection of
contractors. It can be observed that Cost Analysis has
the most weight- nal (0.066), so this index has the rst
rank in the sub-indices. After that, nal weight of index
affordability (0.063) is ranked in the second place and
nal weight of proposed price index (0.062) is ranked
the third. Indices of Quali cation with nal weight
(0.053), management system with nal weight (0.043),
Having Machines with nal weight 0.043), Good Repu-
tation with the nal weight (0.039), Lack of Previous
Success with the nal weight (0.036), Implementation
of Previous Projects with total weight (0.035), education
and experience staff with nal weight (0.034) are ranked
as third to tenth. As well as indicators of Time delays
with nal weight (0.031), Comprehensive system with
nal weight (0.27), experience of similar projects with a
total weight (0.027), relationship with previous employer
with nal weight (0.026), Record executive with a nal
weight (0.025) , Banking and nancial records with a
nal weight (0.025), competent managers with a nal
weight (0.025), Previous safety performance with nal
weight (0.025), the proportion of machinery with nal
weight (0.024) and Payment of wages with nal weight
(0.023) are ranked in eleventh to twentieth.
As well as Stability Board with nal weight (0.013),
Indigenous with nal weight (0.011), Claim of damages
with nal weight (0.011), Methods and executive agen-
cies with nal weight (0.010), creativity and innovation
with the nal weight (0.009) , Environmental laws and
social security with nal weight (0.007), Documentation
with nal weight (0.006) and presented papers in con-
ferences and journals with the nal weight (0.005) are
ranked thirty- rst to thirty-eighth and at the end pub-
lications and scienti c research with the nal weight
(0.005) is ranked in the last place.
Technical criteria
To prioritize contractors based on technical criteria, after
paired comparisons, the nal weight calculated contrac-
tors were ranked based on the total weight.
FIGURE 3. Final weight and Prioritization of sub-
indices of the target
Table 4. Final weight and Prioritization of
contractors based on technical criteria
PriorityFinal WeightContractors
10.415Contractor 1
20.222Contactor 2
40.112Contractor 3
50.104Contactor 4
30.147Contractor 5
Above table shows contractors based on the nal
weight and priority technical benchmark indices.
It is observed that contractor 1 has the most weight of
with nal weight (0.415) and based on the technical stand-
ard indicators contractor 1 is the rst rank. After that,
contractor 2 with nal weight (0.222) is ranked the sec-
ond. Contractor 5 with nal weight (0.147) and contractor
3 with nal weight (0.112) are ranked in third and fourth.
Contactor 4 with nal weight (0.104) is in last place.
FIGURE 4. Final weight and Prioritization of
contractors based on technical criteria
Experimental Standard
To prioritize contractors based on empirical benchmark
indices, after paired comparisons, the nal weight calcu-
lated contractors were ranked based on the total weight.
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on empirical criteria.It is observed that con-
tractor 1 has the most weight nal weight (0.360) there-
fore based on empirical criterion contractor 1 is ranked
as the rst. After that contractor 5 with nal weight
(0.188) is ranked second. Contactor 2 with nal weight
(0.181) and contractor 4 with nal weight (0.155) are
ranked in the third and fourth. Contactor 3 with nal
weight (0.116) is in last place.
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS 331
STANDARD INDEX OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS
Contractors on basis of economic criteria for prioritiz-
ing nancial indices, after paired comparisons, the nal
weight calculated contractors were ranked based on the
total weight.
MACHINERY STANDARD INDEX
To prioritize criteria based on indicators of machinery
contractors, so do paired comparisons, the nal weight
calculated contractors were ranked based on the total
weight.
Table 5. nal weight and Prioritization of
contractors based on empirical criteria
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.360Contractor 1
30.181Contactor 2
50.116Contractor 3
40.155Contactor 4
20.188Contractor 5
FIGURE 5. Final weight and Prioritization of contractors
based on empirical criteria
Table 6. nal weight and Prioritization of contractors
on the basis of nancial economic criteria
PriorityFinal weightContractors
40.138Contractor 1
20.164Contactor 2
10.165Contractor 3
30.140Contactor 4
50.093Contractor 5
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on nancial economic criteria. It is observed
that Contactor 3 has the most weight with nal weight
(0.165). Therefore, on the basis of nancial economic
criteria contractor 3 is ranked as the rst. After that
contractor 2 with nal weight (0.164) is ranked the sec-
ond. Contactor 4 with nal weight (0.140) and contrac-
tor 1 with nal weight (0.138) are ranked in third and
fourth. Contractor 5 with nal weight (0.093) is in last
place.
FIGURE 7. Final weight and Prioritization of based
on standard machinery contractors
Table 7. nal weight and Prioritization of the
contractors based on standard machines
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.387Contractor 1
40.112Contactor 2
20.306Contractor 3
30.116Contactor 4
50.078Contractor 5
FIGURE 6. Final weight and Prioritization of contrac-
tors on basis of nancial economic criteria
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on machinery standard criteria. It is observed
that contractor 1 has the most weight with nal weight
(0.387) therefore based on machinery standard are ranked
as the rst. Then contractor 3 with nal weight (0.306)
is ranked second. Contactor 4 with nal weight (0.116)
and contractor 2 with nal weight (0.112) are ranked in
third and fourth. contractor 5 with nal weight (0.078)
is ranked in the last place.
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF BENCHMARK
INDICES
Contractors according to standard criteria for prioritiz-
ing management and staff, after paired comparisons, the
nal weight calculated contractors were ranked based
on the total weight.
Table 8. nal weight and contractors on basis of
criteria Prioritization of management and staff
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.385Contractor 1
20.205Contactor 2
30.187Contractor 3
50.088Contactor 4
40.134Contractor 5
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on management and staff criteria. It can be
seen that contractor 1 has the most weight with nal
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
332 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on past performance criteria. It can be seen
that contractor 1 has the most weight with nal weight
(0.465) therefore, contractor 1 ranked is the rst based
on past performance benchmark. After that contractor
2 with nal weight (0.228) is ranked second. Contactor
3 with nal weight (0.149) and contractor 4 with nal
weight (0.095) are ranked in third and fourth. Contractor
5 with nal weight (0.072) is in last place.
FIGURE 8. Final weight and contractors on basis of
criteria Prioritization of management and staff
weight (0.385) therefore based on criterion of manage-
ment and staff is ranked as the rst. Then contractor
2 with nal weight (0,205,216) is ranked the second.
Contactor 3 with nal weight (0.187) and contractor 5
with nal weight (0.134) are ranked in third and fourth
respectively. Contactor 4 with nal weight (0.088) is in
the last place.
GOOD REPUTATION BENCHMARK INDICES
For prioritizing of Contractors according to standard cri-
teria good reputation, after paired comparisons, the nal
weight calculated contractors were ranked based on the
total weight.
Table 9. nal weight and Prioritization of based on
criteria of contractors’ good reputation
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.359Contractor 1
20.261Contactor 2
40.088Contractor 3
30.230Contactor 4
50.062Contractor 5
Above table shows nalweight and contractors’ pri-
ority based on good reputation criteria. It can be seen
that contractor 1 has the most weight with nal weight
(0.359) therefore based on criteria of good reputation is
the rst rank. After that contractor 2 with nal weight
of 2 (0.261) is ranked the second. Contactor 4 with nal
weight (0.230) and contractor3 with nal weight (0.088)
are ranked in third and fourth respectively. Contractor 5
with nal weight (0.062) is in last place.
FIGURE 9. Final weight and Prioritization of con-
tractors on the basis of past performance benchmark
indices
Based on past performance benchmark indices to pri-
oritize contractors, after paired comparisons, the nal
weight calculated contractors were ranked based on the
total weight.
FIGURE 10. Final weight and Prioritization of
contractors based on past performance benchmark
FINAL WEIGHT AND PRIORITIZATION OF
CONTRACTORS
In this space to nalize the priorities of paired compari-
sons contractors after nal weight calculated contrac-
tors were ranked based on the total weight. Final rank-
ing is as follows. (Coding companies have been random).
Table 10. nal weight and Prioritization of
contractors based on past performance benchmark
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.465Contractor 1
20.228Contactor 2
30.149Contractor 3
40.095Contactor 4
50.072Contractor 5
Table 11. Final ranking of contractors
PriorityFinal weightContractors
10.339Contractor 1
20.198Contactor 2
30.159Contractor 3
40.140Contactor 4
50.104Contractor 5
Above table shows nal weight and contractors’ pri-
ority. It can be seen that contractor 1 has the most weight
with nal weight (0.339), so the rst rank is contractor
1. After that contractor 2 with nal weight (0.198) is
ranked the second. Contactor 3 with nal weight (0.159)
and contractor 4 with nal weight (0.140)are ranked in
third and fourth. Contractor 5 with nal weight (0.104)
is in the last place.
Investigation about evaluation of contractors of health
-medical projects by AHP method in Iran’s Southeast
region and to determine the relationship between crite-
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS 333
ria and indicators and quantitative analysis to evaluate
and select proper rating schematic end model optimized
to be presented in such projects did not show accurate
and reliable results are not achieved so in evaluation of
suggestions,the nal selection will be based solely on
the lowest bid, in fact, many crucial differences between
options are ignored decision and the differences between
competencies and capabilities of the contractors partici-
pating in the tender would not affect the ranking and
nal selection. In other words, the selection was based
on a comprehensive assessment of the options will not
be decided. In the proposed model in this study, all the
issues and problems of the intended bid is considered as
one of the measures decided on the model, therefore, pri-
oritization and nal selection decision will be based on
a comprehensive evaluation options based on the best
choice, not necessarily the lowest price offered is not a
contractor. The results of such prioritization and selec-
tion of long-term pro tability and competitive ability
for organization will follow.
According to extensive conducted studies, in this
research in order to identify criteria and indicators cho-
sen contractor as well as the use of scienti cally based
decision-making model, it is recommended for future ten-
ders in health-medical projects in Iran’s Southeast region;
selected contractor will be utilizing the model proposed in
this study. Applying this pattern results from the failure of
such contracts as well as improving quality problems will
be reduced and ultimately lead to lower costs.
Since the identi cation of fundamental studies and
applied research criteria and no extreme measures can-
not be made known; expanding the scope of the iden-
ti ed criteria adds richness to select the better. When
evaluating and selecting contractors, should always
consider the fact that real-world decisions are made
based on criteria related to one another, therefore, the
use of statistical technique to determine the dependence
of measures to achieve more accurate results and more
realistic is required.
In this study, the fuzzy AHP technique was used for
ranking contractors. It is suggested that similar research
methods and decision-making models such as data
envelopment analysis (DEA), VIKOR, LINMAP, etc. are
used for this work. These techniques there can be logical
or used in a fuzzy environment.
Modeling, selection criteria, process logic, calcula-
tion of individual utility functions criteria to determine
FIGURE 11. Final weight and Prioritization of
contractors
weights, processes and procedures and decision-making
models students in eld of knowledge management and
computer programming and visual design and create
favorable environment in software is specialized eld of
engineering students.
The major limitation of this study is large number
of the large number of references that should be taken
to obtain expert opinion. Another limitation is limited
basic criteria in the selection of the contractor in the
research literature.
The third limitation of this study is that after identify-
ing the criteria of fuzzy hierarchical analysis presented
in this study is not just about the selection of contractors
is true and probably many more results to be achieved
in the population.
At the end of this research we hope to be able to sci-
enti cally explain some of the problems of development
projects and presents the appropriate solution further
testing is also helpful.
REFRENCES
Alzahrani, J., Emsley, M. Impact of contractors’ attributes on
construction project success: A post construction evaluation,
International Journal of Project Management, 2013; 31 (2):
313–322.
Asgharizadeh, E. Identify and determine criteria of selection of
contractors involved in construction projects. Journal of Man-
agement preceding studies.2010,(2)5;105-122.
Iranmanesh, Sh, Shakhsi Niaei, M., Sobhani, F, Abdullah
Zadeh, M. The analysis of the relationship between technical
capability evaluation of contractors and quality management
projects using fuzzy neural model case study: the Institute for
International Energy Studies Journal Engineering: UNIVER-
SITY COLLEGE of Engineering,2014,48 (2):166-151.
Javani, K. management, planning and control of the project,
Monthly Plan,2002,13(21);75-66
Marzouk. M. Factors in uencing sub-contractors selection in
construction projects. HBRC Journal. 2013,9; 150–158.
Naja , A., Noorzai, E., Movahedi, F., Frahang Moghaddam,
B. Quantitative evaluation and selection of optimal system
performance freeway projects with AHP approach in Minis-
try of Roads and Urban Development, Transportation Jour-
nal,2016;13 (1): 80-71.
Nasrollahi, M., Application PROMETHEE-F for the evaluation
and ranking contractors construction projects, Tehran Univer-
sity School of Management, 2012,7 (1):171-111.
Rohbakhs,A., Farahani, M., Kazemi, M. evaluation and rank-
ing criteria for selecting the most suitable logistics service
provider with development approach and AHP fuzzy quality
function, operations research in its applications, 2015;12(45):
78-61.
Saadati, E. The process of decision-making in organization,
Tehran: Tehran University.1994.
Mohammadi and Ragh Abadi
334 EVALUATION OF CONTRACTORS OF HEALTH - MEDICAL PROJECTS BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Saaty, L., The decision for directors, translated by Ali Asghar
To gh, Tehran Industrial Management Institute.2000.
Sahraei, F, Roughanian, E.,Nouri, I. Ranking contractors
using Promethee in fuzzy environment, Congress trans recent
advances in science, engineering, Branch, Institute of Higher
Education posterity. 2013.
Sandquist, R. Quali cations-Based vs. Low-Bid Contrac-
tor Selection. Journal of Construction projects management,
2012,27(21).111-123.
Wu. Chunlin. How safety leadership works among owners,
contractors andsubcontractors in construction projects. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 2016: 34 (21): 789–
805.
Zare Mehrjardi, Y., Momeni, H., Barghi, S., Evaluation and
Selection of Contractors in Petrochemical Projects, Approach
Decision Making Techniques,Exploration Business,2010,2(3);
59-32.