Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5345/JKIBC.2012.12.6.682

Whole Life Performance Bid Evaluation in the Korean Public Sector  

Park, Kenneth Sungho (School of Engineering & Applied Science, Aston University)
Lim, Hyoung-Chul (School of Architecture, Changwon National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction / v.12, no.6, 2012 , pp. 682-700 More about this Journal
Abstract
Over the last several years, Korea has increasingly adopted design-build for public construction projects. There is a much greater awareness of the need to change to a system based on 'Value for Money', which is high on the government's agenda. A whole life performance bid evaluation model is proposed to aid decision makers in the selection of a design-builder. This is based on the integration of a framework using an analytic hierarchy process, as the bid awarding system is being changed from one based on the lowest price to one based on best value over the life-cycle. Key criteria such as whole life cost, service life planning and design quality are important through the key stages of the evaluation process. The model uses a systematic and holistic approach, which enables the public sector client to make better decisions in design-builder selection, which will deliver whole life benefits based on long-term cost-effectiveness.
Keywords
analytic hierarchy process (AHP); bid evaluation; design-build (D-B); whole life performance;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics. Global construction 2020 - a global forecast for the construction industry over the next decade to 2020. Final report 3 Mar 2011, London: 2011. 200 p.
2 You T, Zi H. The economic crisis and efficiency change: evidence from the Korean construction industry. Applied Economics. 2007 Apr;39(14):1833-42.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Holt G, Olomolaiye P, Harris F. A conceptual alternative to current tendering practice. Building Research & Information. 1993;21(3):167-72.   DOI
4 Russell J, Skibniewski M, Cozier D. Qualifier-2: knowledge-based system for contractor prequalification. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1990 Mar;116(1):157-71.   DOI
5 Crowley L, Hancher D. Risk assessment of competitive procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1995 June;121(2):230-37.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Mahdi I, Riley M, Fereig S, Alex A. A multi-criteria approach to contractor selection. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management. 2002 Feb;9(1):29-37.
7 Hatush Z, Skitmore M. Criteria for contractor selection. Construction Management & Economics. 1997;15(1): 19-38.   DOI
8 Bouachera T, Kishk M, Power, L. Towards a generic framework for whole life costing in the oil industry. In: Boyd D, editors. Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference;2007 Sept 3-5; Belfast, UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management; 2007. p. 863-71.
9 Lee S, Lee S. A study on the introduction of best value selection. Seoul (Korea): Construction & Economy Research Institute of Korea; 2006. 126 p.
10 Ahmad I. Decision-support system for modeling bid/No-bid decision problem. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1990 Dec;116(4):595-608.   DOI
11 Office of Government Commerce. Achieving excellence in construction procurement Guide number 09: Design quality. London: OGC; 2007. 26 p.
12 Park S. Whole life performance assessment: critical success factors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2009 Nov;135(11):1146-61.   DOI
13 International Standardization Organization. ISO 15686-5: Building and Constructed Assets - Service Life Planning: Part 5 - Life Cycle Costing, ISO, 1st ed. Geneva: British Standards; 2008. 42 p.
14 Gann D, Salter A, Whyte J. Design quality indicator as a tool for thinking. Building Research and Information. 2003 Sep;31(5):318-33.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Yu I, Kim K. Project delivery systems and project performance: an evaluation model for public construction projects. Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management. 2007 Apr;07(2):41-7.   과학기술학회마을
16 Mosey D. Design and build in action, 1st ed. Oxford: Chandos Publishing; 1998. 172 p.
17 Korman T, Opfer N, Son J. Public sector design-build selection criteria. AACE International Transactions, 2002;6(PM04):1-7.
18 Park S, Flanagan R. Integrating whole life cost into the evaluation of design-build in Korea. In: Dainty A, editors. Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference;2009 Sept 7-9; Nottingham. UK: Association of Researchers in Construction Management; 2009. p. 227-37.
19 Wardani M, Messner J, Horman M. Comparing procurement methods for Design-Build projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2006 Mar;132(3):230-39.   DOI
20 Ndekugri I, Turner A. Building procurement by design and build approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 1994;120(2):243-56.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Chan A, Scott D, Lam E. Framework of success criteria for Design/Build projects. Journal of Management in Engineering. 2002 July;18(3):120-28.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Songer A, Molenaar K. Selecting design-build: Public and private sector owner attitudes. Journal of Management in Engineering, 1996 Nov;12(6): 47-53.   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Turnkey and alternatives procurement system. Technique and Safety Division. 2003. 26 p.
24 Singh D, Tiong R. A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2005 Jan;131(1):62-70.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Diekmann E. Cost-plus contractor selection: an analytical method. Engineering Costs and Production Economics. 1983 Mar;7(2):147-58.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Hatush Z, Skitmore M. Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: An additive model. Building and Environment. 1998 Mar;33(2): 105-15.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Nguyen V. Tender evaluation by fuzzy sets. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 1985 Sep;111(3): 231-43.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Belton V. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function. European Journal of Operational Research. 1986 July;26(1):7-21.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Mustafa M, Ryan T. Decision support for bid evaluation. International Journal of Project Management. 1990 Nov;8(4):230-35.   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Fong P, Choi S. Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process. Construction Management and Economics. 2000 Oct;18(5):547-57.   DOI
31 Dyer J. Remarks on the Analytical Hierarchy Process. Management Science. 1990 Mar;36(3):249-58   DOI   ScienceOn
32 Al-Harbi K. Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management. 2001 Jan;19(1):19-27.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Topcu Y. A decision model proposal for construction contractor selection in Turkey. Building and Environment. 2004 Apr;39(4):469-81.   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Waara F, Brochner J. Price and nonprice criteria for contractor selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2006 Aug;132(8):797-804.   DOI   ScienceOn
35 Belton V, Goodwin P. Remarks on the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to judgmental forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting. 1996 Mar;12(1):155-61.   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Saaty T, Vargas L. The Logic of Priorities, 1st ed. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications; 1991. 509 p.
37 Vargas L. Reply to Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science. 1990 Mar;36(3):269-73   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Design evaluation manual for Design-build and Alternatives procurement system. Technique and Safety Division. 2007.149 p.
39 Saaty, T. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008 Mar;1(1):83-98.   DOI