W6_MA_site surveys under Adhoc servies

Problem Definition

In each project, the site selection process take place in early stage of the project. After the site selection and in order to reduce the risk involved with the site, site surveys are conducted. These site surveys are normally tendered out site specific. The process is time and resources consuming and there is also a risk delays. (Taking topographic survey as an example for this blog).

Identify the Feasible Alternative

As a change in procurement strategy of the site surveys, new methodology is introduced. This includes contracting with site surveyors under long term contract (Ad-Hoc). in this case common scope of work would be required and develop for such service.

Development of the Outcome for Alternative

For this investigation Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) will be used. “Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) involves making preference decisions (such as evaluation, prioritization, selection) over the available alternatives that are characterized by multiple, usually conflicting, attributes” [1]. The evaluation of the alternative will be based upon time and cost.

Selection Criteria

During the three years period, it is estimated that 6 topographic surveys will be conducted at least. The tender process would have a minimum of 40 days under the tender law. After receiving the bids there will be a period of evaluation and award and finalizing the contract which last for at least two weeks. It is estimated that the cost of both methods is similar.

Attribute	Ad-hoc	site specific
Document preparation (RFP)	2 weeks	12 weeks
tender evaluation	2 weeks	12 weeks
availability	5 days	54 days
resources cost	2000 OMR	12000 OMR
learning curve of surveyor	high	low
cost per hectare	Slightly higher	variable
Market Competition & support	Low	high
flexibility	less	higher

Table 1

Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

For the analysis two models are used which are the Non-Dimensional Scaling and the Additive Weighting Technique.

1.       Non-Dimensional Scaling

In the none dimensional scaling normally a range from 0 to 1. However due to the number of the alternatives, the scoring will be either 1 (as preference decision) or 0 (for the avoided decision).

Attribute	Ad-hoc	site specific
Document preparation (RFP)	1	0
tender evaluation	1	0
availability	1	0
resources cost	1	0
learning curve of surveyor	1	0
cost per hectare	0	1
Market Competition & support	0	1
flexibility	0	1
total	5	3

Table 2

2.        Additive Weighting Technique

Attribute	Relative rank	Normalized weighted (A)	Ad-hoc			Site specific
			B		A*B	B	A*B
Market Competition & support	1	0.0278	0	0		1	0.0278
Tender evaluation	2	0.0556	1	0.056		0	0
Document preparation (RFP)	3	0.0833	1	0.0833		0	0
Learning curve of surveyor	4	0.111	1	0.111		0	0
Flexibility	5	0.1389	0	0		1	0.1389
Cost per hectare	6	0.1667	0	0		1	0.1667
Availability	7	0.1944	1	0.1944		0	0
Resources cost	8	0.222	1	0.222		0	0
Total	36	1	5	0.6667		3	0.3333

Table 3

The relative ranking changes the value of each attribute and this gives higher weightage to the preferred attribute. This is some cases change the evaluation and the recommended options.

Selection of the Preferred Alternative

As shown in the tables above, the preferred option is the Ad-hoc site survey services and that is due mostly to the time spent and cost of the resources that are required for the site specific tendering process. the main issue with the Ad-hoc service is the scope of work flexibility where the scope of work in this kind of service should be general and might be slightly different from site to another. This might cause change order, therefore, the scope of work should be very clear and well defined.

Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

As mentioned above, the scope of work might be the only update that might cause some variations from site to other. For some specific surveys that are not done in a regular basis it would be preferred to be tendered as site specific.

[1] Durability of Building Materials and Components 8. (1999) Edited by M.A. Lacasse and D.J. Vanier. Institute for Research in Construction, Ottawa ON, K1A 0R6, Canada, pp. 1787-1797. National Research Council Canada 1999

[2]F. S. Azar, 2000, Retrieved from { http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=cis_reports }

[2] K. Anupama, S. Gowri, B. Rao, and P. Rajesh, “Application of madm algorithms to network selection”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Electrical, Electronics, Instrumentation and Control Engineering, Vol.3, Issue 6, pp. 64-67, 2015.

[3] GUILD OF PROJECT CONTROLS COMPENDIUM and REFERENCE (CaR) | Project Controls - planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet). Retrieved from { http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective }