Skip to content
2000
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2950-404X
  • E-ISSN: 2950-4058

Abstract

Introduction

In some instances, when tendering for supplying goods to a purchaser, the bidders know that bid evaluation is done in a multicriteria way but ignore the precise metric used. This is the case, for example, of acquisitions by small and medium-sized businesses carried out by inviting a handful of potential suppliers to advance a proposal for fulfilling some need and informing them of criteria hurdle levels and worded statements of criteria preferred directions.

Method

The uncertainty about bid assessment is compounded with that about competing bids, making bid design increasingly difficult. This work presents a Decision Analysis-based methodology for developing a model for bid preparation useful under said circumstances, aiming to take advantage of the available knowledge of competitors’ capabilities and client’s preferences through subjective probabilities.

Result

A key feature of the methodology is the idea that the model of the bidder’s knowledge of the client’s preferences for different criterion levels should separately consider the criterion type and the likely size of its variation among bids. This allows basing the model on the assumption that, to the client’s decision, a criterion becomes more important if the size of its variation among bids grows, while it is rendered unimportant if it does not vary a lot among bids. After outlining the general steps of the methodology, a simple, hypothetical case study is numerically worked out, illustrating how the methodology is operationalized for a problem with two criteria and two levels.

Conclusion

Finally, closing remarks on the potential practical usefulness of the presented framework are provided.

© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cteng/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
2024-05-27
2026-02-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/cteng/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. MateusR. FerreiraJ.A. CarreiraJ. Full disclosure of tender evaluation models: Background and application in Portuguese public procurement.J. Purchasing Supply Manage.201016320621510.1016/j.pursup.2010.04.001
     [Google Scholar]
  2. KorytárováJ. HanákT. KozikR. R. Kozik Radziszewska - Zielina, "Exploring the Contractors’ Qualification Process in Public Works Contracts",Procedia Eng.201512327628310.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.090
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ClemenR.T. Making Hard Decisions.2nd edUSADuxbury Press1996
     [Google Scholar]
  4. HowardR.A. Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise.Manage. Sci.198834667969510.1287/mnsc.34.6.679
     [Google Scholar]
  5. ResnikM.D. Choices.USAUniversity of Minnesota Press1987
     [Google Scholar]
  6. EnglmaierF. GuillénP. LlorenteL. OnderstalS. SausgruberR. The chopstick auction: A study of the exposure problem in multi-unit auctions.Int. J. Ind. Organ.200927228629110.1016/j.ijindorg.2008.09.001
     [Google Scholar]
  7. GüthW. Ivanova-StenzelR. WolfstetterE. Bidding behavior in asymmetric auctions: An experimental study.Eur. Econ. Rev.20054971891191310.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.09.003
     [Google Scholar]
  8. AmaralM. SaussierS. Yvrande-BillonA. Auction procedures and competition in public services: The case of urban public transport in France and London.Util. Policy200917216617510.1016/j.jup.2008.07.006
     [Google Scholar]
  9. WünscherT. WunderS. Conservation tenders in low-income countries: Opportunities and challenges.Land Use Policy20176367267810.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.026
     [Google Scholar]
  10. KrugerW. EberhardA. The impact of competition, trust and capital on renewable energy auction outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: Analysing auctions in South Africa, Zambia and Namibia.Energy Policy202317811357210.1016/j.enpol.2023.113572
     [Google Scholar]
  11. WangQ. ParlarM. Static game theory models and their applications in management science.Eur. J. Oper. Res.198942112110.1016/0377‑2217(89)90055‑6
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GüthW. Auctions, public tenders, and fair division games: An axiomatic approach.Math. Soc. Sci.198611328329410.1016/0165‑4896(86)90029‑6
     [Google Scholar]
  13. RabinovichZ. NaroditskiyV. GerdingE.H. JenningsN.R. Computing pure Bayesian-Nash equilibria in games with finite actions and continuous types.Artif. Intell.201319510613910.1016/j.artint.2012.09.007
     [Google Scholar]
  14. TrouttM.D. Spying on the cost structure of naive bidding competitors via linear programming models.Oper. Res. Lett.19854418118410.1016/0167‑6377(85)90026‑4
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Ballesteros-PérezP. González-CruzM.C. Cañavate-GrimalA. Mathematical relationships between scoring parameters in capped tendering.Int. J. Proj. Manag.201230785086210.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.008
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ballesteros-PérezP. González-CruzM.C. Pastor-FerrandoJ.P. Fernández-DiegoM. The iso-Score Curve Graph. A new tool for competitive bidding.Autom. Construct.20122248149010.1016/j.autcon.2011.11.007
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Ballesteros-PérezP. González-CruzM.C. Cañavate-GrimalA. On competitive bidding: Scoring and position probability graphs.Int. J. Proj. Manag.201331343444810.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.012
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Ballesteros-PérezP. SkitmoreM. PellicerE. Gutiérrez-BahamondesJ.H. Improving the estimation of probability of bidder participation in procurement auctions.Int. J. Proj. Manag.201634215817210.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.001
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LorentziadisP.L. Optimal bidding in auctions from a game theory perspective.Eur. J. Oper. Res.2016248234737110.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.012
     [Google Scholar]
  20. SongY. NiY. WenF. HouZ. WuF.F. Conjectural variation based bidding strategy in spot markets: fundamentals and comparison with classical game theoretical bidding strategies.Electr. Power Syst. Res.2003671455110.1016/S0378‑7796(03)00042‑7
     [Google Scholar]
  21. AzevedoE.M. CorreiaP.B. Bidding strategies in Brazilian electricity auctions.Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.200628530931410.1016/j.ijepes.2005.12.002
     [Google Scholar]
  22. KangD.J. KimB.H. HurD. Supplier bidding strategy based on non-cooperative game theory concepts in single auction power pools.Electr. Power Syst. Res.2007775-663063610.1016/j.epsr.2006.05.012
     [Google Scholar]
  23. ShengL. Competing or cooperating to host mega events: A simple model.Econ. Model.201027137537910.1016/j.econmod.2009.09.017
     [Google Scholar]
  24. ZhouR. LuZ. Two-Stage Procurement Auction with Bidders of Asymmetric Capacity Systems Engineering - Theory & Practice20072712364110.1016/S1874‑8651(08)60072‑1
     [Google Scholar]
  25. BallesteroE. BielzaC. Pla-SantamaríaD. A decision approach to competitive electronic sealed-bid auctions for land.J. Oper. Res. Soc.20065791126113310.1057/palgrave.jors.2602097
     [Google Scholar]
  26. AfsharA. AmiriH. A min-max regret approach to unbalanced bidding in construction.KSCE J. Civ. Eng.201014565366110.1007/s12205‑010‑0972‑0
     [Google Scholar]
  27. IsakssonT. StilleH. Model for estimation of time and cost for tunnel projects based on risk evaluation.Rock Mech. Rock Eng.200538537339810.1007/s00603‑005‑0048‑5
     [Google Scholar]
  28. MissbauerH. HauberW. Bid calculation for construction projects: Regulations and incentive effects of unit price contracts.Eur. J. Oper. Res.200617131005101910.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.014
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MaZ. LiuZ. BIM-based intelligent acquisition of construction information for cost estimation of building projects.Procedia Eng.20148535836710.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.561
     [Google Scholar]
  30. BertoliniM. BragliaM. CarmignaniG. Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract.Int. J. Proj. Manag.200624542243010.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.005
     [Google Scholar]
  31. BirukS. JaśkowskiP. CzarnigowskaA. Modeling Contractor’s Bidding Decisions.Procedia Eng.2017182919810.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.125
     [Google Scholar]
  32. OckJ.H. HanS.H. Selecting a viable Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) project to propose.KSCE J. Civ. Eng.20026320321610.1007/BF02829145
     [Google Scholar]
  33. KiddJ.B. PrabhuS.P. A practical example of a multi-attribute decision aiding technique.Omega199018213914910.1016/0305‑0483(90)90061‑D
     [Google Scholar]
  34. LorentziadisP.L. Post-objective determination of weights of the evaluation factors in public procurement tenders.Eur. J. Oper. Res.2010200126126710.1016/j.ejor.2008.12.013
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ballesteros-PérezP. del Campo-HitschfeldM.L. Mora-MeliàD. DomínguezD. Modeling bidding competitiveness and position performance in multi-attribute construction auctions.Operations Research Perspectives201522243510.1016/j.orp.2015.02.001
     [Google Scholar]
  36. HoltG.D. Which contractor selection methodology?Int. J. Proj. Manag.199816315316410.1016/S0263‑7863(97)00035‑5
     [Google Scholar]
  37. HatushZ. SkitmoreM. Contractor selection using multicriteria utility theory: An additive model.Build. Environ.1998332-310511510.1016/S0360‑1323(97)00016‑4
     [Google Scholar]
  38. YaoR. MaG. Tendering Evaluation Method of Hydraulic Projects Based on Variable Weight.Procedia Eng.20123186887310.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1114
     [Google Scholar]
  39. FalagarioM. SciancaleporeF. CostantinoN. PietroforteR. Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders.Eur. J. Oper. Res.2012218252352910.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.031
     [Google Scholar]
  40. KułakowskiK. SzybowskiJ. TadeusiewiczR. Tender with Success – The Pairwise Comparisons Approach.Procedia Comput. Sci.2014351122113110.1016/j.procs.2014.08.203
     [Google Scholar]
  41. RodríguezA. OrtegaF. ConcepciónR. A method for the selection of customized equipment suppliers.Expert Syst. Appl.20134041170117610.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.021
     [Google Scholar]
  42. JaskowskiP. BirukS. BuconR. Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment.Autom. Construct.201019212012610.1016/j.autcon.2009.12.014
     [Google Scholar]
  43. HsiehT.Y. LuS.T. TzengG.H. Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings.Int. J. Proj. Manag.200422757358410.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002
     [Google Scholar]
  44. HasnainM. ThaheemM.J. UllahF. Best Value Contractor Selection in Road Construction Projects: ANP-Based Decision Support System.Int. J. Civ. Eng.201816669571410.1007/s40999‑017‑0199‑2
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Pastor-FerrandoJ.P. Aragonés-BeltránP. Hospitaler-PérezA. García-MelónM. An ANP- and AHP-based approach for weighting criteria in public works bidding.J. Oper. Res. Soc.201061690591610.1057/jors.2010.13
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nieto-MoroteA. Ruz-VilaF. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for construction contractor prequalification.Autom. Construct.20122581910.1016/j.autcon.2012.04.004
     [Google Scholar]
  47. BergmanM.A. LundbergS. Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public procurement.J. Purchasing Supply Manage.2013192738310.1016/j.pursup.2013.02.003
     [Google Scholar]
  48. AraujoJ.V.G.A. MoreiraM.Â.L. GomesC.F.S. dos SantosM. de OliveiraL.A. CapelaG.P.O. KojimaE.H. PereiraD.A.M. Multi-criteria Decision Support Method AHP-TOPSIS-2N applied in bids to improve the control of public expenses.Procedia Comput. Sci.202322136236910.1016/j.procs.2023.07.049
     [Google Scholar]
  49. TavaresL.V. ArrudaP. A multicriteria model to select candidates for public contracting using the OPTIONCARDS method.Autom. Construct.202213610416210.1016/j.autcon.2022.104162
     [Google Scholar]
  50. SkareM. GavurovaB. PolishchukV. Fuzzy multicriteria evaluation model of cross-border cooperation projects under resource curse conditions.Resour. Policy20238510387110.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103871
     [Google Scholar]
  51. MacielG.S. Angulo MezaL. Felix da SilveiraV.L. Data envelopment analysis in a bidding process: Hiring offshore support vessels by Petrobras (Brazil).Marit. Econ. Logist.201416212714010.1057/mel.2014.1
     [Google Scholar]
  52. BellostaM.J. KornmanS. VanderpootenD. Preference-based English reverse auctions.Artif. Intell.20111757-81449146710.1016/j.artint.2010.11.015
     [Google Scholar]
  53. BuerT. KopferH. A Pareto-metaheuristic for a bi-objective winner determination problem in a combinatorial reverse auction.Comput. Oper. Res.20144120822010.1016/j.cor.2013.04.004
     [Google Scholar]
  54. KineneA. GranbergT.A. BiroliniS. AdlerN. PolishchukV. SkoglundJ.M. An auction framework for assessing the tendering of subsidised routes in air transportation.Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.202215932033710.1016/j.tra.2022.03.002
     [Google Scholar]
  55. ArbolinoR. BoffardiR. De SimoneL. IoppoloG. Multi-objective optimization technique: A novel approach in tourism sustainability planning.J. Environ. Manage.202128511201610.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112016
     [Google Scholar]
  56. TiongR.L.K. AlumJ. Evaluation of proposals for BOT projects.Int. J. Proj. Manag.1997152677210.1016/S0263‑7863(96)00003‑8
     [Google Scholar]
  57. BaoH. PengY. Ablanedo-RosasJ.H. GaoH. An alternative incomplete information bargaining model for identifying the reasonable concession period of a BOT project.Int. J. Proj. Manag.20153351151115910.1016/j.ijproman.2014.12.004
     [Google Scholar]
  58. YuH. LeeZ. ChangS. Using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate alternative licensing mechanisms.Inf. Manage.200542451753110.1016/S0378‑7206(04)00049‑7
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hong-yanY. The construction project bid evaluation based on gray relational model.Procedia Eng.2011154553455710.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.855
     [Google Scholar]
  60. AnagnostopoulosK.P. VavatsikosA.P. An AHP model for construction contractor prequalification.Oper. Res.20066333334610.1007/BF02941261
     [Google Scholar]
  61. WindleJ. RolfeJ. Exploring the efficiencies of using competitive tenders over fixed price grants to protect biodiversity in Australian rangelands.Land Use Policy200825338839810.1016/j.landusepol.2007.09.005
     [Google Scholar]
  62. ReesonA.F. RodriguezL.C. WhittenS.M. WilliamsK. NollesK. WindleJ. RolfeJ. Adapting auctions for the provision of ecosystem services at the landscape scale.Ecol. Econ.20117091621162710.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.022
     [Google Scholar]
  63. RolfeJ. WindleJ. Comparing a best management practice scorecard with an auction metric to select proposals in a water quality tender.Land Use Policy201128117518410.1016/j.landusepol.2010.05.011
     [Google Scholar]
  64. IftekharM.S. TisdellJ.G. ConnorJ.D. Effects of competition on environmental water buyback auctions.Agric. Water Manage.2013127597310.1016/j.agwat.2013.05.015
     [Google Scholar]
  65. WilliamsK.J. ReesonA.F. DrielsmaM.J. LoveJ. Optimised whole-landscape ecological metrics for effective delivery of connectivity-focused conservation incentive payments.Ecol. Econ.201281485910.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.005
     [Google Scholar]
  66. FrenchR.D. Governance and game theory: When do franchise auctions induce firms to overbid?Telecomm. Policy2009333-416417510.1016/j.telpol.2008.12.005
     [Google Scholar]
  67. FangS.C. NuttleH.W.L. WangD. Fuzzy formulation of auctions and optimal sequencing for multiple auctions.Fuzzy Sets Syst.2004142342144110.1016/S0165‑0114(03)00127‑1
     [Google Scholar]
  68. YokooM. SakuraiY. MatsubaraS. Robust combinatorial auction protocol against false-name bids.Artif. Intell.2001130216718110.1016/S0004‑3702(01)00077‑7
     [Google Scholar]
  69. ZhouP. Research on the accounting supervision management in bidding and tendering for enterprise materials supplies.Procedia Eng.201237586310.1016/j.proeng.2012.04.202
     [Google Scholar]
  70. ZhangY. LuoH. HeY. A system for tender price evaluation of construction project based on big data.Procedia Eng.201512360661410.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.114
     [Google Scholar]
  71. WangW.C. WangH.H. LaiY.T. LiJ.C.C. Unit-price-based model for evaluating competitive bids.Int. J. Proj. Manag.200624215616610.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.002
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Ballesteros-PérezP. González-CruzM.C. Cañavate-GrimalA. PellicerE. Detecting abnormal and collusive bids in capped tendering.Autom. Construct.20133121522910.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.036
     [Google Scholar]
  73. ContiP.L. De GiovanniL. NaldiM. A rank-and-compare algorithm to detect abnormally low bids in procurement auctions.Electron. Commerce Res. Appl.201211219220310.1016/j.elerap.2011.12.008
     [Google Scholar]
  74. ContiP.L. NaldiM. Detection of anomalous bids in procurement auctions.Decis. Support Syst.200846142042810.1016/j.dss.2008.08.002
     [Google Scholar]
  75. AlbanoG.L. CesiB. IozziA. Public procurement with unverifiable quality: The case for discriminatory competitive procedures.J. Public Econ.2017145142610.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.004
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Al-ReshaidK. KartamN. Design–build pre-qualification and tendering approach for public projects.Int. J. Proj. Manag.200523430932010.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.004
     [Google Scholar]
  77. KeeneyR.L. Value-Focused Thinking.USAHarvard University Press1992
     [Google Scholar]
  78. LindleyD.V. Understanding Uncertainty.USAJohn Wiley and Sons200610.1002/0470055480
     [Google Scholar]
  79. HowardR.A. AbbasA.E. Foundations of Decision Analysis.USAPearson Education Inc.2016
     [Google Scholar]
  80. MorganM.G. HenrionM. Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainly in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis.UKCambridge University Press199010.1017/CBO9780511840609
     [Google Scholar]
  81. RaiffaH. RichardsonJ. MetcalfeD. Negotiation Analysis.USAHarvard University Press2002
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cteng/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
Loading
Tendering for Procurement Contracts in Case of Uncertainty about a Bidimensional Bid Valuation Metric: A Decision Analytic Methodology
Current Topics in Engineering (Discontinued) 3, E270524230357 (2024); https://doi.org/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
/content/journals/cteng/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
/content/journals/cteng/10.2174/0126659980294742240506103600
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keyword(s): bid preparation; competing offers; Decision analysis; multi-criteria; tender; uncertainty
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test