IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijpoma/v14y2022i4p377-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical evaluation of contractor in public tendering – a comparative view-point of stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Raza Khoso
  • Aminah Md Yusof
  • Nur Izie Adiana Binti Abidin
  • Nafees Ahmed Memon

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the extensive evaluation criteria for technical evaluation of contractors in public tendering in Pakistan. The research aim is achieved by gathering an individual view-point of major stakeholders involved in a project, i.e., clients, consultants, and contractors (3C's). One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test is conducted to investigate the divergence of perception among stakeholders. The study investigated and identified 76 criteria that are prominent for evaluating contractors. The research concludes that extensive evaluation of contractors is immensely valuable for public sector projects. This study has multiple implications for public sector stakeholders. The clients and consultants could redesign their evaluation system based on extensive evaluation criteria, whereas the study offers to policymakers and government agencies to restructure the evaluation phase of public tendering. Identification of such extensive evaluation criteria can be a game-changer for the precise evaluation of contractors for medium-sized and mega projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Raza Khoso & Aminah Md Yusof & Nur Izie Adiana Binti Abidin & Nafees Ahmed Memon, 2022. "Technical evaluation of contractor in public tendering – a comparative view-point of stakeholders," International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(4), pages 377-406.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijpoma:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:377-406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=127145
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijpoma:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:377-406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=96 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.