MODEL VALIDATION SURVEY

DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR CONTRACTOR’S SELECTION IN PUBLIC

PROJECTS IN PAKISTAN

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a full-time research student at University Technology Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia. This research
developed a decision support model that will help the key stakeholders in justified assessments of contractors
while awarding the contracts in public projects in Pakistan. The successful completion of this research is based
on your sincere opinion regarding the validation of the developed model.
I believe this validation process would not take more than 30 minutes. I have taken the necessary measures to
keep the data confidential. Your participation in this research is a volunteer, and you may decline to answer
any question.
Your contribution to this research is highly appreciated and would be regarded and acknowledged. Thank you
very much for your sincere efforts in making this research possible.

Sincerely,
Ali Raza (PKA183025)
Full-Time Research Student,
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
University Technology Malaysia (UTM)
Email: raza.ali@graduate.utm.my; +92 3342558073; +60 11 11885957

1
PART A. Respondents’ Demographic Information
1. Please specify the ownership of your organization.

Government Private Semi-Government Non-Profit Organization (INGO/NGO)

2. Please mention the type of your organization.

Client Consultant Contractors Other please specify

3. How long have you been working in the construction industry?

10-15 years 16-20 years above 20 years

4. How long have you been working in public tendering and related works?

10-15 years 16-20 years above 20 years

5. Please state your position in the organization.

Project Manager Assistant Executive Engineer Executive Engineer

Chief Executive Officer Procurement/Contract Engineer Project Director
Other (please specify)

6. Please specify your education level.

Bachelors Masters/MPhil Ph.D.

Name (optional): ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

E-mail address: Signature: ________________________

2
Part B: Identification and Weightages of Criteria and Sub-criteria for Contractor’s Selection in
Public Tendering
This section aims to highlight the identified criteria and sub-criteria initially from the literature review and
later by taking responses from survey participants throughout Pakistan. Later, the weightages of identified
criteria and sub-criteria along with the initial weightage (as per judgements of experts) and current weightages
after modification are calculated as shown in Figure 1-3.
The criteria are divided into four (4) different types.
1. Essential criteria: These criteria indicate prime eligibility requirements without which the eligibility of
competition would not be possible. These criteria are shown in Table 1.
2. Critical Criteria: These criteria indicate a requirement that has a high level of consideration and essential
for the achievement of the performance. These criteria are shown in Figure 1.
3. Value-Added Criteria: These criteria indicate a modernized level of consideration that enhances the
chances of the contractor’s performance and would add further value in performance if these are possessed
by the contractor. These criteria are shown in Figure 2.
4. Desirable Criteria: Such criteria indicate a lesser consideration level that is supplementary required in
achieving the performance and beneficial but not a key factor in the competition. These criteria are shown
in Figure 3.
Q1. Essential criteria presented in Table 1 are finalized after analysis of gathered data from the previous round
of experts’ survey. Do you consider that identified criteria are important for extensive contractor selection in
public projects in Pakistan? Please mention your opinion in Table 1 in the form of Agree or Disagree

Table 1: Validation of essential criteria for contractor selection

Code Criteria Previous Validation
round Agree Disagree
EC1 No pending litigation Agree
EC2 No conflict of interest with consultants or other parties Agree
in the past
EC3 No fraud and corruption involvements Agree
EC4 NTN (National Tax Number) certificate Agree
EC5 Valid Professional tax proof Agree
EC6 A valid license for work Agree
EC7 Registration with Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) Agree
EC8 Non blacklisting from any government agency Agree
EC9 Submission of Audited financial report Agree
EC10 No corruption & bribery history Agree
EC11 Insolvency (must not be insolvent) Agree

3
 Technical Phase Category

50
Critical Criteria (CC)
Management Potential Capability (MPC)
6 Quantity of technical staff (MPC2)

weightage
Category
5 Experience of technical personnel
(MPC1)
4
20 Qualification of technical staff (MPC3)
3 Major criteria
Quantity of skilled and non-skilled
2 labors (MPC5)
Availability of HSE supervisor (MPC4)

Quality Assurance/Control System (QAS)

6
Quality management system (QAS2)
5
Monitoring & controlling policy (QAS4)
18 4 Compliance with quality and
3 standard (QAS1)
Quality control policy (QAS3)

Firm s Past Achievement (FPA)

7 Firm s reputation (FPA5)
Sub-criteria
5 weightage
15 Quality achieved in past projects (FPA2)
3 Completed projects in stipulated time/
cost (FPA3)

Firm s Experience (FE)

5 Experience in similar nature work or
similar contract size (FE2)
4 Amount of similar nature works in the
14 past (5yrs.) (FE1) Sub-criteria
3
Experience as the main contractor (FE3)
2
Major criteria

Similar nature and complexity projects

weightage

in hand (FE5)

Current Financial Strength (CFS)

4
Current liabilities (CFS4)
3.5
Current assets (CFS3)
12 3
Net worth (CFS1)
1.5
Financial references (CFS2)

Financial Track Record (FTR)

6 Proof of credit line from a reputable
3 bank (FTR3)
Average annual income in the last 5
10
1 yrs. (FTR2)
Submission of Financial Statement
(FTR1)

Plant & Equipment (PE)

6 Sufficient no. of required equipment as
6 desired in the project and their sources
(PE1)

Management Potential (MP)

1.5
Quality of managerial staff (MP2)
1.5
HSE policy (MP5)
5 1
Project management system (MP3)
0.5 Firms planning for completing the
0.5 work (MP4)
Project Manager qualification &
experience (MP1)

Figure 1: Weightages of critical criteria category

4
 Technical Phase

30 Value-Added Criteria (VAC)

Risk Management for Project (RM)
10
Approaches to dealing risk (RM2)
7
Risk control plan (RM3)
25 5
HSE Records (RM4)
3
Identification of risks/List of
expected risk (RM1)
Sub-contracting (SC)
9
Itemized detail of sub-contracting work (SC3)
5
Expected list of sub-contractors on current
4 projects (SC2)
22 Experience of sub-contractors in similar
3 works in last 5 years (SC4)
Reputation of sub-contractors worked in
1 the past (SC5)
List of sub-contractors in last 5 years (SC1)

Software Command (SWC)

8 Past achievements on relevant software works/
portfolio of past projects (SWC4)
6
20 Cost & material estimation software commands
4 (SWC3)
Primavera P6/MS project expertise (SWC1)
2
AutoCAD or other drafting tools expertise (SWC2)

Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP)

6 Availability of computer-based software s/program
5 for value-engineering proposal (VECP2)
Working on contract changes due to VECP (VECP5)
18 4 Experience of designing VECP during last 5 years
2 (VECP1)
Submission of a design change proposal (VECP3)
1 Detail plan of time cost differences with the
previous design (VECP4)
Technical Proposal (TP)
3
Estimated financial plan for each task (TP2)
2.5 List of major project tasks along with the
schedule, i.e. Work plan of the project (TP1)
2 Team Management structure along with their
10
1.5 experiences and qualification (TP3)
Methodology of achieving major tasks (TP5)
1
Equipment plan for each major task (TP4)

Use of Advanced Technology (AT)

2 Experience in off-site construction (AT3)
1
Progress monitoring and controlling tools (AT2)
5 1
Remote monitoring facilities such as camera,
1 CCTV, etc. (AT1)
Modern equipment (AT5)
0.5
GPS controlled equipment (AT4)

Figure 2: Weightages of value-added criteria category

5
 Technical Phase

20 Desirable Criteria (DC)

Relationships (RS)
15
Relationship with past consultants (RS2)
10
30 Relationship with past clients (RS1)
5
Relationship with past suppliers (RS3)
3
Organizational Structure (OS)
13
Size of firm (OS1)
9
25 Hierarchy of firm (OS3)
3
Senior management (OS2)

Client s Satisfaction (CS)

8
Availability of regular staff (CS3)
6
Availability of well-trained staff (CS4)
20 4 Contractor s familiarity with local labors
and suppliers (CS2)
2
Quality certification such as ISO (CS1)

Equipment s Characteristics (EQ)

8
Ownership of equipment (EQ1)
15 5
Condition of equipment (EQ3)
2
Insurance of equipment (EQ2)

Information Technology Capacity (ITC)

5 Onsite internet and communication access
capacity (ITC3)
10 3 Online record-keeping and updating systems
2 (ITC2)
IT support team s strength and capability
(ITC1)

Figure 3: Weightages of desirable criteria category

6
 Q2. The criteria and sub-criteria are ranked according to decreasing order of their importance, and
later weightages are determined from experts’ opinion in the previous round, as shown from Figure
1-3. Please rate the level of satisfaction on the validation aspects shown in Table 2 at a scale from
1-5 (1=Poor, 2=Satisfactory, 3=Good, 4=Very good, 5=Excellent).
Table 2: Validation of contractor selection criteria
Sr. Validation aspect Level of satisfaction
No. Poor Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
1. Selection of evaluation criteria
2. Formulation of categories of criteria
3. Classification of criteria
4. Understandability of criteria and
sub-criteria
5. Easiness in data collection from
contractors on criteria and sub-
criteria
6. Importance of criteria categories
(i.e. in decreasing order; critical
criteria, value-added criteria,
desirable criteria)
7. Ranking of criteria
8. Ranking of sub-criteria
9. Computed weightages of categories
(i.e. critical, value-added, and
desirable)
10. Computed weightages of major
criteria
11. Computed weightages of sub-
criteria

Q3. In case, you do not fully agree with mentioned validation aspects; please identify any changes
you feel that can improve the criteria and sub-criteria.

7
PART C: Contractor’s Assessment System
This part aims to demonstrate the comprehensive assessment system of contractor evaluation.
Table 3 illuminates the various grading levels developed for each sub-criterion.
Table 3: Grading Assessment Levels of Attributes

Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes

Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
Critical Criteria
4=if "N" number of technical staff available
Quantity of 3=if "N-1" number of technical staff available
technical staff 2= if "N-2" number of technical staff available
1= if "N-3 or below" number of technical staff available
4= if "N" engineers/DAE engineers have experience 15 years
or above
3= if "N-1" engineers/DAE engineers have experience 15
Experience of years or above
technical personnel 2= if "N-2" engineers/DAE engineers have experience 15
years or above
1= if "N-3 or below" engineers/DAE engineers have
Man Power
experience 15 years or above
Capabilities
4= if "N" engineers/DAE engineers are sufficiently qualified
(MPC)
3= if "N-1" engineers/DAE engineers are sufficiently
qualified
Qualification of
2= if "N-2" engineers/DAE engineers are sufficiently
technical staff
qualified
1= if "N-3 or below" engineers/DAE engineers are sufficiently
qualified
Quantity of skilled 1= if quantity is sufficient for project
and non-skilled
0= if quantity is not sufficient for project
labours
Availability of 1= if sufficient number of HSE supervisor is available
HSE supervisor 0= if sufficient number of HSE supervisor is not available
Quality 2= if quality management system is satisfactory
management 1= if quality management system is moderate
system 0= if quality management system is unsatisfactory
2= if monitoring & controlling policy is satisfactory
Monitoring &
1= if monitoring & controlling policy is moderate
Quality controlling policy
0= if monitoring & controlling policy is unsatisfactory
Assurance/Control
Compliance with 2= if satisfactory compliances are made
System (QAS)
quality and 1= if moderate level of compliances are made
standard 0= if no proof of quality compliances is available
2= if quality control policy is satisfactory
Quality control
1= if quality control policy is moderately satisfied
policy
0= if quality control policy is unsatisfactory
2= if a well reputed firm
Firm’s reputation 1= if a moderately reputed firm
0= if less reputed firm
2= if sufficient number of past projects are completed with
satisfactory quality
Firm’s Past Quality achieved in
1= if moderate number of past projects are completed with
Achievements past projects
satisfactory quality
(FPA)
0= if no satisfactory quality is achieved in past projects
2= if sufficient number of past projects are completed within
Completed projects
stipulated time/cost
in stipulated
1= if moderate number of past projects are completed within
time/cost
stipulated time/cost
8
 Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes
Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
0= if past projects are not completed within stipulated
time/cost
2=if sufficient experience of similar nature or similar contract
Experience in size project completed within last 5 yrs.
similar nature work 1=if moderate experience of similar nature or similar contract
or similar contract size project completed within last 5 yrs.
size 0=if no project of similar nature or similar contract size is
completed within last 5 yrs.
4=if "N" number of projects of similar nature is completed
within last 5 yrs.
3=if "N-1" number of projects of similar nature is completed
Amount of similar within last 5 yrs.
nature works in the 2=if "N-2" number of projects of similar nature is completed
past (5yrs.) within last 5 yrs.
Firm’s Experience 1=if "N-3 or below" number of projects of similar nature is
(FE) completed within last 5 yrs.
0=if no project of similar nature is completed within last 5 yrs.
2=if sufficient experience as main contractor (prime
contractor)
Experience as the
1=if moderate experience as main contractor (prime
main contractor
contractor)
0=if no experience as main contractor (prime contractor)
3=if three projects are in hand with similar nature and
complexity
Similar nature and
2=if two projects are in hand with similar nature and
complexity
complexity
projects in hand
1=if one project is in hand of similar nature and complexity
0=if no similar nature and complexity project in hand
1=if the current liabilities are within the contractor's bid
capacity ratio
Current liabilities
0=if the current liabilities are more than the contractor's bid
capacity ratio
2= if sufficient for the project
Current Financial Current assets 1= if moderately sufficient for the project
Strength (CFS) 0=if not sufficient for the project
1=if the net worth ratio is above 1
Net worth
0=if the net worth ratio is below 1
2= if satisfactory number of references are provided
Financial
1= if moderate number of references are provided
references
0= if no reference is provided
Proof of credit line 1=if the credit line ratio is above 1
from a reputable
0=if the credit line ratio is below 1
bank
Average annual 1=if the ratio is above 1
Financial Track
income in the last 5
Records (FTR) 0=if the ratio is below 1
yrs.
Submission of 1= if properly endorsed Financial Statement is provided
Financial
0= if properly endorsed Financial Statement is not provided
Statement
Sufficient no. of
2= if satisfactory number of equipment is available
required equipment
Plant &
as desired in the
Equipment (PE) 1= if moderate number of equipment is available
project and their
sources 0=if less than required number of equipment is available

9
 Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes
Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
2=if satisfactory qualification and experience is available for
majority of staff
Quality of 1=if moderate qualification and experience is available for
managerial staff majority of staff
0=if unsatisfactory qualification and experience is available
for majority of staff
2= if a strong HSE policy is available
HSE policy 1= if a moderate HSE policy is available
0= No HSE policy available
Management Project 2= if project management system is satisfactory
Potential (MP) management 1= if project management system is moderate
system 0= if project management system is unsatisfactory
Firms’ planning 2= if the project planning is satisfactory
for completing the 1= if the project planning is moderate
work 0= if the project planning is unsatisfactory
2=if satisfactory qualification and above 10 years of
Project Manager experience is available
qualification & 1=if moderate qualification and experience is available (5 to
experience 10 years)
0=if qualification and experience is unsatisfactory
Value-Added Criteria
2=if satisfactory measures are designed to deal risk
Approaches to
1=if moderate measures are designed to deal risk
dealing risk
0=if unsatisfactory/no measures are designed to deal risk
2=if satisfactory measures are designed to control risk
Risk control plan 1=if moderate measures are designed to control risk
Risk Management
0=if unsatisfactory/no measures are designed to control risk
for the project
2= if sufficient HSE records are available
(RM)
HSE Records 1= if a few HSE records are available
0= if no HSE record is available
Identification of 2=if appropriate list is identified
risks/List of 1=if moderately appropriate list is identified
expected risk 0=if no list is identified
Itemized detail of 2=if satisfactory information of all major works is provided
sub-contracting 1=if satisfactory information of a few works is provided
work 0= if no satisfactory information of works is provided
Expected list of 1= if the proper expected list of sub-contractors is provided
sub-contractors on 0= if the proper expected list of sub-contractors is not
current projects provided
Experience of sub- 2=if sufficient experience is available within last 5 to 10 yrs.
Sub-contracting contractors in 1=if moderate experience is available within last 5 to 10 yrs.
(SC) similar works in
0=if no experience in last 5 to 10 years
last 5 years
Reputation of sub- 2= if a well reputed firm
contractors worked 1= if a moderately reputed firm
in the past 0= if less reputed firm
List of sub- 1= if the satisfactory list is provided
contractors in last
0= if satisfactory list is not provided
5 years
2= if portfolio of past projects is satisfactory
Past achievements 1= if portfolio of past projects is moderate
on relevant
Software
software
Command (SWC)
works/portfolio of 0= if portfolio of past projects is unsatisfactory
past projects

10
 Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes
Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
Cost & material 2= if satisfactory command on the cost & material software
estimation 1= if moderate command on the cost & material software
software 0=if unsatisfactory/no command on the cost & material
commands software
2= if satisfactory command on planning software such as
Primavera P6/MS Project
Primavera P6/MS 1= if moderate command on planning software such as
project expertise Primavera P6/MS Project
0=if unsatisfactory/no command on planning software such as
Primavera P6/MS Project
2= if satisfactory command on AutoCAD or other drafting
AutoCAD or other tools
drafting tools 1= if moderate command on AutoCAD or other drafting tools
expertise 0=if unsatisfactory/no command on AutoCAD or other
drafting tools
Availability of 2=if satisfactory computer-based software for VECP available
computer-based 1=if moderate level computer-based software for VECP
software’s/program available
for value-
0=if unsatisfactory/no computer-based software for VECP
engineering
available
proposal
2=if suggested contractual changes are satisfactory
Working on
1=if suggested contractual changes are moderately
contract changes
Value satisfactory
due to VECP
Engineering 0=if unsatisfactory/no changes are suggested
Change Proposal Experience of 2=if satisfactory experience of VECP possesses in last 5 years
(VECP) designing VECP 1=if moderate experience possesses of VECP in last 5 years
during last 5 years 0=if unsatisfactory/no experience of VECP in last 5 years
Submission of a 2=if satisfactory proposal is submitted
design change 1=if less satisfactory proposal is submitted
proposal 0=if no proposal is submitted
Detail plan of time 2=if satisfactory plan is submitted
cost differences 1=if less satisfactory plan is submitted
with the previous
0=if no plan is submitted
design
2=if satisfactory financial plan is submitted
Estimated financial
1=if less satisfactory financial plan is submitted
plan for each task
0=if no plan financial plan is submitted
List of major 2=if satisfactory work plan is submitted
project tasks along 1=if moderately satisfactory work plan is submitted
with the schedule,
i.e. Work plan of 0=if no work plan is submitted
the project
2= if a satisfactory technical team structure with experiences
Team Management
Technical and qualification is available.
structure along
Proposal (TP) 1= if a moderate level of technical team structure with
with their
experiences and qualification is available
experiences and
0=if unsatisfactory /no technical team structure with
qualification
experiences and qualification is available
Methodology of 2= if satisfactory methodology is provided
achieving major 1= if a moderate level of methodology is provided
tasks 0=if unsatisfactory /no methodology is provided
2=if satisfactory equipment plan is submitted
Equipment plan for 1=if less satisfactory equipment plan is submitted
each major task
0=if no equipment plan is submitted

11
 Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes
Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
2=if satisfactory experience in last 3-5 years
Experience in off-
1=if moderate experience in last 3-5 years
site construction
0=if unsatisfactory/no experience in last 3-5 years
Progress 2=if sufficient number of proper tools are available
monitoring and 1=if moderate number of proper tools are available
controlling tools 0=if no proper tools are available
2=if sufficient facilities are available for the project
Remote monitoring monitoring
facilities such as 1=if moderate level of facilities are available for the project
Use of Advanced camera, CCTV, monitoring
Technology (AT) etc. 0=if no proper facilities are available for the project
monitoring
2=if sufficient modern equipment are available for the project
Modern equipment 1=if lesser modern equipment are available for the project
0=if no modern equipment is available for the project
2=if sufficient number of required equipment are available for
the project
GPS controlled
1=if moderate number of required equipment are available for
equipment
the project
0=if no required equipment is available for the project
Desirable Criteria
2=if larger number of strong relationships with past
consultants
Relationship with
1=if moderate number of strong relationships with past
past consultants
consultants
0=if very less or no strong relationships with past consultants
Relationships 2=if larger number of strong relationships with past clients
Relationship with
(RS) 1=if moderate number of strong relationships with past clients
past clients
0=if very less or no strong relationship with past clients
2=if larger number of strong relationships with past suppliers
Relationship with 1=if moderate number of strong relationships with past
past suppliers suppliers
0=if very less or no strong relationship with past suppliers
3=if a large firm
Size of firm 2=if a medium level firm
1= if a small level firm
3=if a larger hierarchy
Organizational Hierarchy of firm 2=if moderate level of hierarchy
Structure (OS) 1=if smaller level of hierarchy
3=if large number of senior staff
Senior 2=if moderate number of senior staff
management 1=if a smaller number of senior staff
0=if no senior staff
2=if most of the staff are regular
Availability of
1=if a few staff are regular
regular staff
0=if no staff is regular
2=if most of the staff is well-trained
Availability of
Client’s 1=if a few staff is well-trained
well-trained staff
Satisfaction (CS) 0=if no staff is well-trained
Contractor’s 1=if contractor has already worked in the region with local
familiarity with labours and suppliers
local labours and 0=if contractor has no experience with local labours and
suppliers suppliers

12
 Grading Assessments Levels of Attributes
Major Criteria Sub-criteria Grading Assessment Levels
Quality
1=if ISO 9000 quality certification is available
certification such
as ISO 0=if no certification is available
2=if majority of equipment are owned by firm
Ownership of
1=if a few equipment is owned by firm
equipment
0=if no equipment is owned by firm
Equipment’s 2=if majority of equipment are in operational condition
Condition of
Characteristics 1=if a few equipment is in operational condition
equipment
(EQ) 0=if no equipment is in operational condition
2=if majority of equipment are insured
Insurance of
1=if a few of equipment are insured
equipment
0=if no equipment is insured
Onsite internet and 2=if satisfactory arrangements are available
communication 1=if moderate arrangements are available
access capacity 0=if no arrangement is available
Information Online record- 1=if a firm has online record keeping and updating system
Technology keeping and
0=if a firm has no online record keeping and updating system
Capacity (ITC) updating systems
IT support team’s 2=if satisfactory team is available to deal IT matters
strength and 1=if a moderate level of team is available to deal IT matters
capability 0= if no team is available to deal IT matters

Q1. The comprehensive assessment system of contractor evaluation is shown in Table 3 that
illuminates the various grading assessment levels developed for each sub-criterion. Please rate the
satisfaction level on the validation aspects shown in Table 4 at a scale from 1-5 (1=Poor,
2=Satisfactory, 3=Good, 4=Very good, 5=Excellent).
Table 4: Validation of assessment system of contractor evaluation
Sr. Validation aspect Level of satisfaction
No. Poor Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
1. Sense of actual evaluation system
2. Understanding of grading assessment
levels
3. Depth of grading assessment levels
4. Degree of uniformity in each sub-
criteria
5. Easiness of evaluation system
6. The practicability of the evaluation
system

Q2. Please brief alteration in the assessment system of contractor evaluation (Table 3), if any.

13
 Assessment 1st Stage 2nd Stage
Pakistan

Screening Final Selection

Criteria Technical Assessment Financial Assessment

Eligibility Yes Critical TBS=96-100

Criteria- Go/No- Criteria 50% 80/20

criteria
calculation mechanism.

L4 Bid submission

Screening
Go Criteria weightage 75/25
Outstanding
Contractor s 70/30
CC1,CC2,..CC8
Evaluation TBS=90-95 Bid Assessment 65/35
Critical Criteria-
Total Marks: 60/40
Essential Criteria 100
Eligible L3 Highly weightage ratio=Technical
Acceptable Type A bid-Feasible Assessment/Financial
Total Technical Bid Assessment
Value-Added Value-Added score (TBS)=100
Criteria TBS=81-90
Criteria-Bonuses
Type B bid Highest Final
L2 (Abnormally lowest Sum Scorer
VA1,VA2,..VA6 Acceptable

14
Desirable criteria- Bid)

Technical Assessment Criteria

No 30%
Additional Total Marks: weightage
100 TBS=70-80 Contract
Type C bid
Award
L1 Hardly (Above ceiling price)
Acceptable
Desirable
Criteria TBS<70
20%
L0 Not
weightage
DC1,DC2,..DC5 Acceptable

Figure 4: Contractor selection model for public tendering

Total Marks:
100

Out of
competition
PART D: Decision Support Model For Selection of Contractor’s In Public Projects In

the form of a flow diagram shown in Figure 4 below. Moreover, Table 5 describes the weightage
This section aims to demonstrate the proposed contractor selection process of public tendering in
 Table 5: Contractor’s final selection score mechanism
Performance Technical Bid Financial Bid
Levels of Weightage (TBW) Weightage (FBW)
contractors (%) (%)
L4 80 20
L3 75 25
L2 70 30
L1 65 35

𝐴𝑝∗100
𝐹𝐵𝑆 = ……………………….(1)
As
Where;
Ap=Amount of the lowest submitted bid
As=Amount of a bid under consideration

FSS = 𝑇𝐵𝑆 ∗ 𝑇𝐵𝑊 + 𝐹𝐵𝑆 ∗ 𝐹𝐵𝑊 ……….(2)

Where;
FSS= Final sum score
TBS= Technical bid score
FBS= Financial bid score
TBW= Technical bid weightage
FBW=Financial bid weightage

Q1. The entire flow of contractor selection model is shown in Figure 4. Further, different weightage
mechanisms are proposed for different performance levels of contractors in Table 5. Eq. 1 and 2
help in computing the final score of each contractor. Please rate the satisfaction level on the
validation aspects shown in Table 6 at a scale from 1-5 (1=Poor, 2=Satisfactory, 3=Good, 4=Very
good, 5=Excellent).
Table 6: Validation of contractor selection model
Sr. Validation aspect Level of satisfaction
No. Poor Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
1. Justification of score mechanisms
(Table 5)
2. Suitability of Eq. 1 & Eq. 2 as per
Pakistan Public Procurement
Authority (PPRA)
3. Satisfaction on 70% passing marks
(threshold marks)
4. Applied 2nd-stage of the financial
assessment system in the model
(Figure 4) as per the public tendering
concept
5. The essence of value for money
contractor selection via model

15
Sr. Validation aspect Level of satisfaction
No. Poor Satisfactory Good Very good Excellent
6. A practical approach for public
tendering in Pakistan
7. Easy adaptability of the model for
public projects in Pakistan
8. Extend of the simplicity of the model
9. Degree of the feasibility of the model
10. Degree of user-friendly

Q2. Please give your opinion on any stage of the model that can be further modified, keeping in
view the public tendering process in Pakistan.

Q3. Please suggest your opinion (in Table 5) in case of any modifications in the scoring mechanism
(Note: Technical bid weightage + Financial bid weightage =100).

Q4. Please suggest further improvements in the developed model.

16