Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Ministry of Education
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University
Deanship of Graduate Studies
College of Engineering
Department of Construction Engineering

Name of your project

Program: Master of Engineering Management

Course: Construction Processes (CONEN 606)

Supervisor: Dr.Ahmad Salah

Authers:

Ahmed Alrashdi - 2210500111

Turki Alshammri - 2210500168

Date: December, 2020

Contents

1 Name of chapter 2

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Project description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2.1 Project components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3.1 Selection of the Supplier Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 Results analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.5 Determine the preference of criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.6 Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.6.1 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.6.2 Heat resistance (W/m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.6.3 Corrosion resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.6.4 The strength of the alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.6.5 Warranty length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.6.6 Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.7 Calculation & MUAT Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.8 Introducing the Group decision making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CONTENTS 2

1.9 Sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.10 Conclusion & discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

References 37

Appendix 38
List of Figures

1.1 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Cost uitility function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.4 Heat resistance Uitiltiy function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.5 Corrosion rate uitiliy function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.6 Strenth of the alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.7 warranty length uitiluy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.8 Product Delivery Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.9 ndfmmj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
List of Tables

1.1 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.3 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.5 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.6 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.7 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1.8 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.9 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.10 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.11 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.12 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.13 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.14 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.15 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.16 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.17 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 23
LIST OF TABLES 1

1.18 Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative. . . . . . . . 24

1.19 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.20 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.21 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.22 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 26

1.23 Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative. . . . . . . . 26

1.24 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.25 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.26 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 28

1.27 Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative. . . . . . . . 28

1.28 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.29 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.30 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 30

1.31 Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative. . . . . . . . 30

1.32 .Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.33 name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1.34 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 33

1.35 Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative. . . . . . . . 33

1.36 Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph. . . . . . . . 34

1.37 Name. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter 1

Name of chapter

1.1 Introduction

Supply chain management has a huge impact on the quality of products and services, it increases

the importance of the relationship between procurement, external suppliers, and quality. In

today’s modern supply chains adequate choice of suppliers is an issue of strategic importance

for the overall business the company and considered as a key strategic factor. The importance

of an adequate supplier selection has been recognized at the beginning of the last decade of

the last century. It has been emphasized that the failure of suppliers to fulfill the promises

and expectations regarding delivery is one of the three main sources of uncertainty plaguing

the supply chain. The supplier selection is critical procurement activity in the supply chain

management because of the crucial role of the characteristics of the suppliers on price, quality,

delivery, and service in achieving the objectives of the supply chain. The supplier’s selection

process is an initial step in the process of creating activities of products and representing a key

factor for companies that want to be successful in today’s stringent market conditions, while

the efficiency of suppliers is one of the most important competencies for supply chain. The
Project description 3

success of the entire supply chain is largely depending on supplier’s selection, while it has been

emphasized that the process of supplier’s selection is one of the most important factors that

have a direct impact on performance organizations.

1.2 Project description

Supplier selection is one of the most fundamental and important decisions that a project stake-

holder makes, it may also be one of the most difficult and critical. This is mainly due to the

increased levels of complexity involved in considering various supplier performance and rela-

tionship factors. AAT company is working on one of Saudi Aramco mega projects, the main

scope of work of AAT company is to construct the concrete structure of Hot Cracker in Jazan

refinery. The steel structure mainly consists of rebar steel and it needs 60,000 tons of rebar

steel to be purchased, thus in order to perform a comprehensive evaluation of suppliers, AAT

company has decided to assign a group of procurement engineers to work on a number of crite-

ria that can be utilized to select the best supplier. The team of procurement engineers decided

to evaluate and screen technically the shortlisted supplier based on several factors that include:

• Price:

The price will be determined by one ton of steel rebar.

• Heat resistance (W/m):

Heat resistance (W/m) will vary from supplier to another it depends on the type of alloy

that was used during manufacturing.

• Corrosion rate (mm/year):

Project description 4

Corrosion rate (mm/year) will mainly depend on the type of material coating and corro-

sion protection.

• Alloy strength:

Every supplier has his own alloy standards; thus, the alloy strength will be impacted by

the type of alloy that was used during manufacturing.

• Length of warranty:

The policy of the warranty will vary from supplier to another.

• Delivery:

Delivery Time (Days)will be subjected to lot of considerations, some suppliers are pro-

ductive simultaneously they are having high demand so the order will be subjected to

some sort of delay. On the other hand, sometime the delivery will be subjected to na-

ture disaster which will be out of the hand of supplier. The AAT company team have

shortlisted three suppliers as following:

Figure 1.1: name

Methodology 5

1.2.1 Project components

As mentioned in the project description the only/main components of the project is 60,000

tons of rebars steel below is the definition of the rebar:

Rebar definition: Rebar (short for reinforcing bar), known when massed as reinforcing

steel or reinforcement steel is a steel bar or mesh of steel wires used as a tension device in

reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures to strengthen and aid the concrete under

tension. Concrete is strong under compression but has weak tensile strength. Rebar significantly

increases the tensile strength of the structure. Rebar’s surface is often ”deformed” with ribs,

lugs, or indentations to promote a better bond with the concrete and reduce the risk of slippage.

Rebar specification:

Diameter Grade

8 mm 60

Table 1.1: name

1.3 Methodology

Supplier selection methods are the models or approaches used to conduct the selection process.

The methods chosen are extremely important to the overall selection process and can have a

significant influence on the selection results. There are several well-known selection methods

that have been developed and classified by numerous scholars over the years. Certain methods

have been popular selection choices for years, while other methods have only emerged recently.

Usually when a company sets out to develop or choose a supplier selection method, the result is

a combination of several different methods with different strengths suited to meet the company’s
Methodology 6

specific selection needs. moreover, it is important to explore a range of different selection meth-

ods and to discuss their different applications. Therefore, AAT company procurement engineers

has decided to send a questioner, it will include all the important factors and the supplier will

be rated against these factors. Then the Multiple Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) method

will be used since it has some advantage that it enables purchasing professionals to formulate

viable sourcing strategies and is capable of handling multiple conflicting attributes. After that,

the group decision making method will be used to sum of all the group decision and that will

help to have multiple participants point of views.

1.3.1 Selection of the Supplier Method

Various supplier selection methods could be sued however the procurement engineers has de-

cided to utilize the Multiple Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). Fig. 1 presents the step by

step on how the selection method of supplier will works.

Figure 1.2: name

Methodology 7

Developing the alternatives :

The procurement engineers are responsible to develop a crucial alternative that will be used in

the survey study to help them to determine the utility of each factor according to preference

of criteria.

Questionnaire Survey study (Data collection) :

The data collection method that will be used is online survey method since it will generate a

resultant data that is collected from a sample of respondents that took a survey. This data is

comprehensive information gathered from a target audience which are the project stakeholders

that they have an extensive experience in these types of projects. Moreover, online survey is

effective and therefore require computational logic and branching technologies for exponentially

more accurate survey data collection vs any other traditional means of surveying. They are

straightforward in their implementation and take a minimum time of the respondents. The in-

vestment required for survey data collection using online surveys is also negligible in comparison

to the other methods.

Analysis of survey results :

Upon the completion of the survey study, procurement group will begin analyzing the survey

study to help them to extract the function of the utility which will be used with preference

criteria to select the best supplier.

Determine preference criteria:

Each member of the group will have his own preference criteria, and this will heavily deponed on

the past experiences of each individual, this will help to capture as much as multiple/different

point of view.

MAUT Model Application &GDM

Determine the preference of criteria 8

viable sourcing strategies and is capable of handling multiple conflicting attributes especially

when it combined with Group Decision Making process

1.4 Results analysis

The result is based on a survey questionnaire that was sent to more than 30 experts, the survey

contains 5 question and the participants who will respond to these questions have to choose

from either subjected answer or a scale form 1-5 where the 1 is the lowest and 5 is the heights.

After receiving all the responses, each answer will help to know what is the utility of each

supplier beads on their submitted documentation e is.g warranty length, quotations.etc.

1.5 Determine the preference of criteria

After receiving all needed documentation form the supplier and responses form the survey,

then the Multiple Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) method will be utilized by three different

procumbent engineers with different Criteria preferences.

• Preference from Single Point of view

• Preference of criteria of Engineer A

• Preference of criteria of Engineer B

• Preference of criteria of Engineer C

Survey results 9

1.6 Survey results

1.6.1 Cost

First alternative is the cost of the rebar per ton, below table shows the results form survey the

first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage of the participants

and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative. The graph shows the

cost utility function, it will be sued to calculate the utility of each alternative.

Q1. what is the cost of ton of rebar steel including the

shipping cost, coating and VAT?

Answer percentage (%) Count(N)

less than 2499 SR 25% 6

2500-2700 SR 42% 10

2699-2999SR 8% 2

more than 3000 Sr 25% 6

Total 100% 24

Mean 2.33

Confidence Interval @ 95% [1.882 - 2.785]

Standard Deviation 1.129

Standard Error 0.231

Table 1.2: name

Utility 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.6

Price 2000 2499 2600 2850 3000 3500

Table 1.3: name

Survey results 10

Figure 1.3: Cost uitility function

1.6.2 Heat resistance (W/m)

Second alternative is the Heat resistance (W/m) of the rebar, below table shows the results

form survey the first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage of

the participants and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative. The

graph shows the Heat resistance (W/m) utility function, it will be sued to calculate the utility

of each alternative
Survey results 11

Q2. On scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high), what is the Heat

resistance (W/m) of the alloy ?

Answer percentage (%) Count(N) name

1 0% 0 0.00

2 4% 1 0.14

3 4% 1 0.14

4 17% 4 0.57

5 29% 7 1.00

6 21% 5 0.71

7 13% 3 0.43

8 0% 0 0.00

9 0% 0 0.00

10 13% 3 0.43

Total 100% 24

Mean 5.71

Confidence Interval @ 95% [4.887 - 6.530]

Standard Deviation 2.053

Standard Error 0.419

Table 1.4: name

Survey results 12

Figure 1.4: Heat resistance Uitiltiy function

Utility 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.57 1.00 0.71 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.43

1 out of 10 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Table 1.5: name

1.6.3 Corrosion resistance

Third alternative is the Corrosion rate (mm/year) of the rebar, below table shows the results

form survey the first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage

of the participants and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative.

The graph shows the Corrosion rate (mm/year) utility function, it will be sued to calculate the

utility of each alternative.

Survey results 13

Q3. On scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high) , what is the Corrosion

rate (mm/year) of the alloy ?

Answer percentage (%) Count(N) name

1 4% 1 0.2

2 4% 1 0.2

3 13% 3 0.6

4 4% 1 0.2

5 13% 3 0.6

6 22% 5 1

7 17% 4 0.8

8 13% 3 0.6

9 4% 1 0.2

10 4% 1 0.2

Total 100% 23

Mean 5.74

Confidence Interval @ 95% [4.807 - 6.671]

Standard Deviation 2.281

Standard Error 0.476

Table 1.6: name

Survey results 14

Figure 1.5: Corrosion rate uitiliy function

Utility 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2

1 out of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 1.7: name

1.6.4 The strength of the alloy

Fourth alternative is the strength of the alloy of the rebar, below table shows the results form

survey the first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage of the

participants and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative. The

graph shows the strength of the alloy utility function, it will be sued to calculate the utility of

each alternative.
Survey results 15

Q4. On scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high) , what is the strength

of the alloy

Answer percentage (%) Count(N) name

1 0% 0 0

2 0% 0 0

3 0% 0 0

4 4% 1 0.125

5 9% 2 0.25

6 35% 8 1

7 13% 3 0.375

8 13% 3 0.375

9 9% 2 0.25

10 17% 4 0.5

Total 100% 23

Mean 7.17

Confidence Interval @ 95% [6.438 - 7.910]

Standard Deviation 1.800

Standard Error 0.375

Table 1.8: name

Survey results 16

Figure 1.6: Strenth of the alloy

Utility 0 0 0 0.125 0.25 1 0.375 0.375 0.25 0.5

1 out of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 1.9: name

Survey results 17

1.6.5 Warranty length

fifth alternative is the Warranty of the rebar, below table shows the results form survey the

first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage of the participants

and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative. The graph shows the

warranty utility function, it will be sued to calculate the utility of each alternative.

Q5. what is your warranty length?

Answer percentage (%) Count(N) name

less than 6 months 13% 3 0.375

6 months - 12 months 33% 8 1

13 - 24 months 29% 7 0.875

more 25 months 25% 6 0.75

Total 100% 24

Mean 2.67

Confidence Interval @ 95% [2.264 - 3.070]]

Standard Deviation 1.007

Standard Error 0.206

Table 1.10: name

Survey results 18

Figure 1.7: warranty length uitiluy

Utility 0.375 0.375 1 0.875 0.75 0.75

Months 5 6 9 19 25 30

Table 1.11: name

Survey results 19

1.6.6 Delivery

Sixth alternative is the Delivery of the rebar, below table shows the results form survey the

first column is the scale of the alternative, second column is the percentage of the participants

and the third column is the count of people who choose each alternative. The graph shows the

Delivery utility function, it will be sued to calculate the utility of each alternative.

Q6. how long does it take you to deliver your product?

Answer percentage (%) Count(N) name

less than 7 days 42% 10 1

8-14 days 25% 6 0.6

15- 30 days 25% 6 0.6

more than 31 days 8% 2 0.2

Total 100% 24

Mean 2.00

Confidence Interval @ 95% [1.591 - 2.409]

Standard Deviation 1.022

Standard Error 0.209

Table 1.12: name

Survey results 20

Figure 1.8: Product Delivery Time

Utility 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2

Months 6 7 11 23 31 32

Table 1.13: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 21

1.7 Calculation & MUAT Application

Below table show the criterion alternatives with its results that was extracted from the utility

function for each alternatives:

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.14: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 22

I. Preference from Single Point of view

Preference of criteria from one single point of view which is the firm point of view that has

been utilized for the last tent year. Cost is three times more important than the Delivery

Time (Days) and corrosion resistances is equals heat resistance, while Strength of alloy (MPa)

is half times important than Delivery Time (Days)and Delivery Time (Days)equals the Heat

resistance (W/m) while the warranty is two time important than delivery

C = 3 × D, CR = HR, S = 0.5 × D, D = HR, W = 2 × D

Criterion C CR S HR D W Total

Value 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.20 1

Table 1.15: name

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.16: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 23

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.3

HR 0.1

CR 0.2

S 0.05

W 0.1

D 0.25

Total 1

Table 1.17: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.
Calculation & MUAT Application 24

Supplier Score

Rezayat 1 × 0.3 + 0.6 × 0.1 + 0.6 × 0.2 + 0.3 × 0.05 + 0.7 × 0.1 + 0.6 × 0.25 = 0.715

BRC 0.57 × 0.3 + 0.19 × 0.1 + 0.6 × 0.2 + 1 × 0.05 + 1 × 0.1 + 0.25 × 0.25 = 0.5225

Al-faisal 0.59 × 0.3 + 0.19 × 0.1 + 0.2 × 0.2 + 0.18 × 0.05 + 0.9 × 0.1 + 0.6 × 0.25 = 0.485

Result Based on the preference of the firm Rezayat was the best supplier

Table 1.18: Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative.

Below table show the criterion alternatives with its results that was extracted from the

utility function for each alternatives:

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.19: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 25

II. Preference of criteria of Engineer A

Cost is three times more important than the Delivery Time (Days)and corrosion resistances is

two times important than heat resistance, while Strength of alloy (MPa) is two times important

than Delivery Time (Days)and Delivery Time (Days)equals the Heat resistance (W/m) while

the warranty is two and half time important than delivery

C = 3 × D, CR = 2 × HR, S = 2 × D, D = HR, W = 2.5 × D

C + CR + S + HR + D + W = 1

Criterion C CR S HR D W Total

Value 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.25 1

Table 1.20: name

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.21: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 26

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.3

HR 0.05

CR 0.1

S 0.2

W 0.25

D 0.1

Total 1

Table 1.22: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.

Supplier Score

Rezayat 1 × 0.3 + 0.6 × 0.05 + 0.6 × 0.1 + 0.3 × 0.2 + 0.7 × 0.25 + 0.6 × 0.1 = 0.625

BRC 0.57 × 0.3 + 0.19 × 0.05 + 0.6 × 0.1 + 1 × 0.2 + 1 × 0.25 + 0.25 × 0.1 = 0.7155

Al-faisal 0.59 × 0.3 + 0.19 × 0.05 + 0.2 × 0.1 + 0.18 × 0.2 + 0.9 × 0.25 + 0.6 × 0.1 = 0.5275

Result Based on the preference of the first engineer, BRC was the best supplier

Table 1.23: Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative.
Calculation & MUAT Application 27

III. Preference of criteria of Engineer B

Cost is half times more important than the Delivery Time (Days)and corrosion resistances

is three times important than heat resistance, while Strength of alloy (MPa) is three times

important than Delivery Time (Days)and delivery is two time more important than the Heat

resistance (W/m) while the warranty is half time important than delivery

C = 0.5 × D, CR = 3 × HR, S = 3 × D, D = 2 × HR, W = 0.5 × D

C + CR + S + HR + D + W = 1

Criterion C CR S HR D W Total

Value 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.04 0.36 0.24 1

Table 1.24: name

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.25: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 28

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.06

HR 0.12

CR 0.18

S 0.04

W 0.36

D 0.24

Total 1

Table 1.26: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.

Supplier Score

Rezayat 1 × 0.0.6 + 0.6 × 0.12 + 0.6 × 0.18 + 0.3 × 0.04 + 0.7 × 0.36 + 0.6 × 0.24 = 0.648

BRC 0.57 × 0.06 + 0.19 × 012 + 0..6 × 0.18 + 1 × 0.04 + 1 × 0.36 + 0.2 × 0.24 = 0.613

Al-faisal 0.59 × 0.06 + 0.19 × 0.12 + 0.2 × 0.18 + 0.18 × 0.4 + 0.9 × 0.36 + 0.6 × 0.24 = 0.5694

Result Based on the preference of the second engineer, Rezayat was the best supplier

Table 1.27: Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative.
Calculation & MUAT Application 29

IV. Preference of criteria of Engineer C

Cost is two times more important than the Delivery Time (Days)and corrosion resistances is

equles the heat resistance, while Strength of alloy (MPa) is three times important than Delivery

Time (Days)and delivery is three time more important than the Heat resistance (W/m) while

the warranty is half time important than delivery.

C = 2 × D, CR = ×HR, S = 3 × D, D = 3 × HR, W = 0.5 × D

C + CR + S + HR + D + W = 1

Criterion C CR S HR D W Total

Value 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.3 0.05 1

Table 1.28: name

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.29: name

Calculation & MUAT Application 30

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.1

HR 0.2

CR 0.2

S 0.1

W 0.3

D 0.05

Total 1

Table 1.30: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.

Supplier Score

Rezayat 1 × 0.1 + 0.6 × 0.2 + 0.6 × 0.2 + 0.3 × 0.1 + 0.7 × 0.3 + 0.6 × 0.05 = 0.61

BRC 0.57 × 0.1 + 0.19 × 0.2 + 0..6 × 0.2 + 1 × 0.1 + 1 × 0.3 + 0.2 × 0.05 = 0.625

Al-faisal 0.59 × 0.1 + 0.19 × 0.2 + 0.2 × 0.2 + 0.18 × 0.3 + 0.9 × 0.3 + 0.6 × 0.05 = 0.455

Result Based on the preference of the second engineer, BRC was the best supplier

Table 1.31: Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative.
Introducing the Group decision making 31

1.8 Introducing the Group decision making

Group decision making is a type of participatory process in which multiple individuals acting

collectively, analyze problems or situations, consider, and evaluate alternative courses of ac-

tion, and select from among the alternatives a solution or solutions. In the below table three

engineer’s decision will be combined to produce one decision using GDM.

Criterion Preference Preference Preference Average

of criteria of of criteria of of criteria of

Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 0.3 0.06 0.1 0.15

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.1 0.12 0.2 0.14

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.2 0.18 0.2 0.19

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.08

Warranty length (Months) (W) 0.1 0.36 0.3 0.25

Delivery Time (Days)( D) 0.25 0.24 0.05 0.18

Table 1.32: .Name

Introducing the Group decision making 32

The average of Preference of three Engineers

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 2600 2300 2000

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 4 3 3

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 5 3 4

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 5 6 4

Warranty length (Months)(W) 24 10 17

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 12 33 21

Table 1.33: name

Introducing the Group decision making 33

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.15

HR 0.14

CR 0.19

S 0.08

W 0.25

D 0.18

Total 1

Table 1.34: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.

Supplier Score

Rezayat 1 × 15 + 0.6 × 0.14 + 0.6 × 0.19 + 0.3 × 0.08 + 0.7 × 0.25 + 0.6 × 0.18 = 0.665

BRC 0.57 × 0.15 + 0.19 × 0.14 + 0..6 × 0.19 + 1 × 0.08 + 1 × 0.25 + 0.2 × 0.18 = 0.5921

Al-faisal 0.59 × 0.15 + 0.19 × 0.14 + 0.2 × 0.19 + 0.18 × 0.08 + 0.9 × 0.25 + 0.6 × 0.18 = 0.5005

Result Based on the GDM technique Rezayat was the best supplier

Table 1.35: Calculate the score of each supplier and select the best Alternative.
Sensitivity analysis 34

1.9 Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis is one of the tools that help decision makers with more than a solution to a

problem. It provides an appropriate insight into the problems associated with the model. The

decision maker gets a decent idea about how sensitive is the optimum solution chosen by him

to any changes in the input values of one or more parameters.

Criterion Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

Cost Per Ton (SR) (C) 1 0.57 0.59

Heat resistance (W/m) (HR) 0.6 0.19 0.19

Corrosion rate (mm/year) (CR) 0.6 0.6 0.2

Strength of alloy (MPa) (S) 0.3 1 0.18

Warranty length (Months)(W) 0.7 1 0.9

Delivery Time (Days)(D) 0.6 0.2 0.6

Criterion Value

C 0.95

HR 0.01

CR 0.01

S 0.01

W 0.01

D 0.01

Total 1

Table 1.36: Calculation of the utility of each criterion using the function graph.
Sensitivity analysis 35

Cost wight Heat re- Corrosion Strength Warranty Delivery Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

sistance rate of the weight

weight weight alloy

0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.978 0.5714 0.5812

0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.602 0.2142 0.2052

0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.602 0.5996 0.2146

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.9756 0.1958

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.696 0.9756 0.8726

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.602 0.2236 0.5906

Table 1.37: Name.

Figure 1.9: ndfmmj

As it appears in the above chart when the sensitivity analysis was introduced to each

criterion, it showed the value change with respect to each supplier and thus will provide decision

makers with deep insight, also it will allow him to have more than a see the effective of each

preference against each criterion. First the cost was giving 95% of criterion and all other
Conclusion & discussion 36

creations was give 1%, then the second criterion will be given 95% and other will be given

1%, and same way will be applied for all other criterions. In this way the decision maker can

have deep insight and it will have him to see the effect of each criterion with respect to other

criterions.

1.10 Conclusion & discussion

First, the suppliers were shortlisted to three suppliers depending on the firm past experience,

then six factors were created, and the questioner was sent to more than thirty project stake-

holders to acquire the scale of the these factors. Upon the completion of the suey, the utility

function of these factors was developed. Then the Multiple Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)

method used in different techniques. First, it was used with form firm point of view (prefer-

ences), then it was used with individual point of view, each one of the engineers has calculated

the score of each supplier using his own preference. After that, group making decision making

system was introduced combining the three-individual point of views and producing one score.

Finally, sensitivity analysis was introduced to examine the effect of each criterion.
References

[1] Araújo, M., Alencar, L. H., and Mota, C. M. Contractor selection in construction

industry: A multicriteria model. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial

Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (2015), IEEE, pp. 519–523.

[2] de Araújo, M. C. B., Alencar, L. H., and Mota, C. M. M. Model for contractor

performance evaluation in construction industry. In 2016 IEEE International Conference

on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (2016), IEEE, pp. 002631–002635.

[3] Gomarn, P., and Pongpeng, J. Causes of construction delay from contractors and

suppliers in thailand’s oil and gas platform projects. In MATEC Web of Conferences (2018),

vol. 192, EDP Sciences, p. 02008.

[4] Ling, F. Y. Y., and Hoi, L. Risks faced by singapore firms when undertaking construc-

tion projects in india. International journal of project management 24, 3 (2006), 261–270.

[5] Osiro, L., Lima-Junior, F. R., and Carpinetti, L. C. R. A fuzzy logic approach to

supplier evaluation for development. International Journal of Production Economics 153

(2014), 95–112.

[6] Sambasivan, M., and Soon, Y. W. Causes and effects of delays in malaysian construc-

tion industry. International Journal of project management 25, 5 (2007), 517–526.

Appendix

• First quotation, page(40)

• Second quotationm, page(41)

• Third quotation, page(42)

• Rebar supplier selection PPT, (page43)

 VAT No. 300518336910003
ARAMCO VENDORS NO-10030742
ARAMCO 9COM - 6000000684
QUOTATION SABIC VENDOR NO 504731
SECO VENDOR CODE: 2007012
DOC. NO SMF.07 ISSUE NO .2
Date: April 09, 2021
M/s. Ahmed Alrashidi
P.O. Box: 0

TEL: T-+966/0)-13-869-7303 /Direct: +966 (13) 869 6744 /Direct: +966 (0A25012020
FAX: F- +966/0)-13-869-7200MIX
Project: Attn: SAUDI ARAMCO Project BI-10-01956: UPGRADE CONDENSATE STABILIZATION AND SOUR WATER STRIPPER AT
UTHMANIYAH
Delivery Place: UTHMANIYAH
Sub: Quotation (COATED REBAR)

Dear Sir,
Thank you for your valued inquiry regarding the said subject. We have gone through the details and pleased to quote you our
Best Delivered Price as follows: -.
Item / Specs: Deformed Straight Re-bars according to
1 ASTM 615 - Grade 60

REMARKS Price per ton ‫البيـان‬

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

2480 Dia. 8MM Grade 60

WIRE, BINDIN

Payment 100 % cash in advance, Bank Guarantee or LC @ SIGHT

Validity
Delivery Period (days)
Heat resistance(W/m^2)
Corrosion rate (mm/year)
Strength of alloy (MPa)
Warranty length (Months)
Subject to any change in price by the steel Industry.
21 working days
840 (W/m^2) (3 out of 10)
0.10234 (mm/year) (4 out of 10)
1030 (MPa) (4 out of 10)
21 months

G WIRE 2MM Ø PVC COATED

Once again, we are assuring you our utmost cooperation in the times to come. Please don’t hesitate to contact us for further inquiries.

Sales & Marketing Department

Sales & Marketing Department

Mohammad N. Ansari

Contact:+ 966502669325 Tel : 013-8122212 Ext 307 Fax : 013-8122128 Email : naseem.mubarak@altuwairqi.com
Date : April 10, 2021 Quotation Ref : RP-Q/ 0103/ 18

QUOTATION FOR FUSION BONDED EPOXY COATED REBARS.

SAUDI ARAMCO APPROVED SUPPLIER VENDOR I.D.NO.10013576

To : Ahmed Alrashdi
Attn : Ahmed Alrashdi Subject : Quotation
 : 0564816568
E-mail : Ahmad.rashidi@aramco.com
Number of pages (including this page): 01
With reference to your inquiry dated May 24, 2018 regarding the supply of Epoxy Coated Rebars. Fusion Bonded Epoxy Coating
to ASTM A775M-/09-SAMSS 106 standard to deformed rebars to ASTM A615 Grade 60 in straight 12 meter lengths (SABIC
STEEL). We are pleased to quote our best prices as follows:
PRICES IN SAUDI RIYALS PER TON EX-OUR FACTORY IN DAMMAM
DIA. 8mm – 16mm 20mm mm

STRAIGHT BAR 2600.00 2700.00 2800.00

1 No. 2.5 Ltr. Epoxy repair Kit / full load F.O.C., SR. 150/- per Kit thereafter.
20 Kg. 1.5 mm PVC Tie Wire / full load F.O.C., SR. 10/- per kg. minimum of 10 kg. per order (1 roll) thereafter.

PAYMENT: Cash in advance of each delivery of consignment.

HEAT RESISTANCE (W/M^2): 870 (W/M^2) (4 out of 10)

CORROSION RATE (MM/YEAR): 0.1001 (mm/year) (5 out of 10)

STRENGTH OF ALLOY (MPa): 1070 (MPa) ( 5 out of 10)

WARRANTY LENGTH (MONTHS): 24 months

DELIVERY TIME (DAYS): 12 working days

DELIVERY: Subject to availability of rebars with us and our supplier’s Production Plan.

TRANSPORTATION: Charge from our factory to Tanajib is SR. 1000/- per trip for a trailer load of maximum 26 tons. Partial
load will be charged the same. Off loading at the site will be arranged by you.
VALIDITY:Our prices are based on our supplier’s or any other raw material prices. Any changes in above prices at the time
of delivery will affect our prices.

Sadek Helal Eng. Riyadh Al Homoud Sales Coordinator Tel: 8121215 Ext. 2000
BLUE MEANS QUALITY Mobile: 0504 830 074
 Our Ref. SA/5705/B/R/18
April 11, 2021
TO : Ahmed Alrashdi

Attention : Mr. Ahmed Alrashdi

Subject : QUOTATION FOR EPOXY COATED REBAR

Dear Sir,
Further to your inquiry we have great pleasure in submitting our quotation as follows:

Type : High Yield Deformed Rebar conforming to ASTM A615 Grade-60. Fusion Bonded Epoxy
coating in accordance to ASTM A-775. REBAR WILL BE SAUDI ORIGIN

Price : SIZE (12 M/L) PRICE PER TON

08MM EPOXY SAR 2300/-

12MM EPOXY SAR 2525/-
14MM EPOXY SAR 2425/-
16-32MM EPOXY SAR 2325/-

ABOVE PRICES ARE DELIVERED TO SITE FOR FULL TRAILER LOAD (26–30
TON).
ABOVE PRICES ARE SUBJECT TO 5% VAT.

Payment : To be agreed on.

Delivery (Days) : 10 working days

Heat resistance (K/W)
Corrosion rate (µm/year)
Strength of alloy (MPa)
Warranty length (Months)
Validity
Note
: 720 (W/m^2) (3 out of 10).
: 0.0112 (mm/year) (3 out of 10)
: 1100 (MPa) (6 out of 10)
: 33 months
: 02 Days, Prices are subject to Market’s price fluctuation.
: Undelivered material is subject to price increase.

We trust the above meets with your approval and look forward to receiving your order in due course.

Best Regards,
KHALED JALAL MUHIEDDINE CHATILA
Sales Supervisor Commercial Director
0562598227 0507500644
Rebar supplier selection
Course: Decision Support system

Instructor: Dr. Ahmad Salah

Student Names & ID’S

1. Ahmed Alrashdi #2210500111
2. Turki Alshammari #2210500168
3. Abdulaziz Alqahtani #0000000000
01 Introduction
02 Project description
03 Project methodology
04 Discussion & conclusion
INTRODUCTION

• Important of supply chain management

• Supplier selection is critical procurement
activity
• Efficiency of supplier
 DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT

• What is the project?

• Supplier selection team
• Supplier selection measures
 DESCRIPTION OF
THE PROJECT

• Project components

Diameter Grade

8 mm 60
METHODOLOGY

• Shortlist Suppliers
• Method of supplier selection
• Developing the alternatives
• Questionnaire survey study (Data collection)
• Determine the preference of criteria
• MAUT model application
• Introducing GDM & sensitivity analysis
 SHORTLIST SUPPLIERS

• Shortlist Suppliers

Rezayat BRC Al-faisal

 METHOD OF SUPPLIER SELECTION

Method of supplier selection

Developing MAUT, GMD &

1 3 Analysis of
Alternatives survey results
5 sensitivity
analysis

2 Determine
Questionnaire 4 preference 6 Supplier
criteria selection
 ALTERNATIVES

Developing the alternatives

1 Price 4 Alloy Strength

Length of
2 Heat resistance 5
Warranty

3 Corrosion rate 6 Delivery

 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY STUDY

• Sending the questions • Study the results

1.2
• Waiting for the responses 1
• Get utility function 0.8
0.6
0.4

• Collecting date • Utility function VS 0.2

0
shortlist supplier 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
 DETERMINE THE PREFERENCE OF CRITERIA

PREFERENCE OF
CRITERIA

Firm/team point of view (single)

VS

Contribution of team members

 MAUT MODEL APPLICATION

Firm point of view (single)

Criterion Value
Supplier Score
C 0.3 Rezayat 𝟎. 𝟕𝟏𝟓
CR 0.1 BRC 0.5225
S 0.2
HR 0.05 Al-faisal 0.485
D 0.1 Result Based on the preference of the
W 0.25 firm Rezayat was the best supplier
Total 1
 MAUT MODEL APPLICATION

Contribution of team members

Engineer A Engineer B Engineer C

Criterion Value Criterion Value Criterion Value

C 0.3 C 0.06 C 0.1
CR 0.1 CR 0.12 CR 0.2
S 0.2 S 0.18 S 0.2
HR 0.05 HR 0.04 HR 0.15
D 0.1 D 0.36 D 0.3
W 0.25 W 0.24 W 0.05
Total 1 Total 1 Total 1

Supplier Score Supplier Score Supplier Score

Rezayat 0.625 Rezayat 𝟎. 𝟔𝟒𝟖 Rezayat 0.610

BRC 0.715 BRC 0.613 BRC 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟓

Al-faisal 0.527 Al-faisal 0.5694 Al-faisal 0.455

Result BRC Result Rezayat Result BRC

 INTRODUCING GDM &
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Group Making Decision

Criteri Average Value

on
C 0.15
HR 0.14
CR 0.19
S 0.08
W 0.25
D 0.18
Total 1
Supplier Score
Rezayat 0.665

BRC 0.5921

Al-faisal 0.5005

Result Based on the GDM technique Rezayat was the best supplier
 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Cost Heat Corrosi Strengt Warran Deli Rezay BRC Al-faisal
wight resistan on rate h of the ty very
at
ce weight alloy weight
weight
0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.978 0.5714 0.5812

0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.602 0.2142 0.2052

0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.602 0.5996 0.2146

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.9756 0.1958

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.01 0.696 0.9756 0.8726

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.95 0.602 0.2236 0.5906

 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sensitivity analysis

1.2

0.8
Rezayat
0.6
BRC
0.4 Alfaisal

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 Discussion & conclusion

Supplier shortlisting Introduction of GDM

Survey study Selectivity analysis

Application of MAUT Supplier selected

THE END