Week 5 blog/ Hamed AL Foori: Evaluation Methods of Supervisory Consultants ( Part 2)

By Anonymous -
Problem Statement:

The previous weekly blog discussed the criteria of hiring technical supervisory consultants to support the Implementation Team starting the execution of the project until commercial operation. Because it is extremely important to award the supervisory services contract to the highly qualified and competent engineering firm, the goal of this blog is to examine two sets of selecting the “ best bidder”.

Feasible Alternative:

For multi-attribute decision making, there are two models used in the evaluation:
- Non-compensatory approach 
- Compensatory approach 

Outcomes of the Alternatives:

- Non-compensatory approach. This method treats all attributes as being equally weighted and examples of non-compensatory tools include dominance, satisficing, disjunctive reasoning and lexicography.
- Compensatory approach. This method enables the user to weight the attributes differently to come up with quantitative measures.

Acceptance Criteria:

The acceptance criteria will be the selection criteria used in the evaluation of supervisory consultant services. These criteria will be compared between the alternatives mentioned earlier.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria of Supervisory Consultant Services
Evaluation Categories
Selection Criteria



Technical Proposal

Quality of submission 

Plan of Work
Methodology
Completeness

Personal Profile
Project Manager's Profile
Team's Profile
Qualification

Firm Profile
Relevant Projects
Omanisation
Reputation
Financial Proposal
Cost of services
                            $



We use disjunctive reasoning to rank the previous selection criteria to determine which is more important than the other:

Attributes
Quality
Method
Completeness
PM
Team
Qualification
Projects
Omanis
Reputation
Cost
Total
Quality

1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
5
Method
0

1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
Completeness
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
PM
1
1
1

1
1
0
1
1
1
8
Team
1
1
1
0

0
0
1
0
1
5
Qualification
1
1
1
0
1

1
1
1
1
8
Projects
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
8
Omanis
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
Reputation
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

0
2
Cost
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1

4

We can notice that the proposed project manager, qualifications and previous projects are the highest criteria, while completeness of the submission, Omanisation and reputation of the bidder are the lowest.
If we have three bidders; A , B and C with their following bids:

Attributes
A
B
C
Quality of submission
Good
Excellent
Good
Method of work
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Completeness
100 % completed
90 % completed
80 % completed
PM
20 years experience
16 years experience
15 years experience
Team
6 members
8 members
5 members
Qualification
Very high
High
Medium
Previous Projects
5 projects
6 projects
4 projects
Omanis
3
1
5
Reputation
High
Medium
Low
Cost
$ 3000/month
$ 5000/month
$ 1000/month


- Non-compensatory model: Lexicography Approach.

Using the Lexicography Approach in evaluating bidder A, B and C and based on the ordinal ranking of the attributes, the following conclusion can be achieved:

Attributes
Rank
Relative Ranking of bidders
Project Manager
8
A > B > C
Qualification
8
A > B > C  
Previous projects
8
B > A > C
Quality of submission
5
B > A =C
Team’s Profile
5
B > A > C
Cost
4
C > A > B
Methodology
3
A = B > C
Reputation
2
A > B > C
Omani Members
1
C > A > B
Completeness
1
A > B > C

From the above, it’s concluded that, based on Lexicography Approach, bidder A captured most of the attributes/ criteria of the evaluation. But this approach does not tell how much A is better than bidder B.

- Compensatory approach: Additive Weighting Technique. ( with ranks from 1 to 3 )
Attributes
Relative Rank
Normalized Weight (X)
      Bidder A
(A)         (X*A)      
      Bidder B               (B)              (X*B)
         Bidder C                    (C)                 (X*C)      
Project Manager
8
0.18
3
0.54
2
0.36
2
0.36
Qualification
8
0.18
3
0.54
2
0.36
1
0.18
Previous projects
8
0.18
2
0.36
3
0.54
1
0.18
Quality of submission
5
0.11
2
0.22
3
0.33
2
0.22
Team’s Profile
5
0.11
2
0.22
3
0.33
1
0.11
Cost
4
0.09
2
0.18
1
0.09
3
0.27
Methodology
3
0.07
3
0.21
3
0.21
2
0.14
Reputation
2
0.04
3
0.12
2
0.08
1
0.04
Omani Members
1
0.02
2
0.04
1
0.02
3
0.06
Completeness
1
0.02
3
0.06
2
0.04
1
0.02
Sum
45
1
Sum
2.49
Sum
2.36
Sum
1.58

Comparing the Outcomes and Selection of the Best Alternatives
The additive weighting technique from the compensatory approach tells us how much each bidder is differing from the other by providing quantitative comparison. We can see that there is no a big difference between bidder A and B ( 2.49 vs. 2.36 ), while bidder C is not recommended.
How to utilize the best approach in the procurement process

Depending on the assigned project and budget and to ensure that the best bidder is being selected, the procurement department may have to adopt the compensatory approach when evaluating the bids from the consultants and also to get quantitative measures of how each bidder is differing from another.   

Reference:

Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference (CaR). (2015). Retrieved fromhttp://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective

Evaluation Criteria Use of evaluation criteria for procurement of Goods, Works, and Non-consulting Services using RFB and RFP. (2016). Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/201591478724669006/Guidance-Evaluation-Criteria-FINAL.pdf
Project Administration Instructions. (N.D). Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33431/pai-2-02.pdf


Comments

  1. Dr. PDGDecember 7, 2017 at 10:30 AM

    Interesting case study Hamed. Let me throw this idea out as a challenge to you......

    How about if instead of COMBINING the Cost and the Technical, you looked only at the technical and you took the SUM and divided it by the costs to generate a "Benefit to Cost" ratio? As an example Bidder A had a score of 2.49 and a cost of 3000/month. 2.49/3 = 0.83 Benefit to Cost Ratio. On the other hand Bidder C had a score of 1.58 and a cost of 1000, 1.58/1 = 1.58 Benefit to Cost Ratio. This should give you a "value for money" analysis?

    Certainly an interesting experiment BUT you need to back costs out of the initial set of calculations....

    Worth thinking about....

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

    ReplyDelete
  2. ed pillsNovember 26, 2020 at 8:45 AM

    Today, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a forty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

    ReplyDelete
  3. impotenceNovember 26, 2020 at 8:55 AM

    Your method of telling all in this piece of writing is truly nice, every one can effortlessly be aware of it, Thanks a lot.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W1_Thuraiya_Leadership Styles analysis Using Tuckman model

By -
Image
1-       Problem Recognition:          OPWP PMP team are currently at the stage of distance learning in the PMP course. The     team consist of 13 members and has started course from 29 th Oct and we’re aiming to be certified no later than 25 th Mar . During the current stage, every individual must submit a weekly blog related to a real work issue faced in the organization to determine the causes and the solutions. In  first blog Dr. Paul has requested  to measure the team development and behavior using   Tuckman’s Model. To insure the success of every project the  members must  understand the goals and the roles of each one to collaborate to achieve their goals. Further the team leader must understand his team behavior to know the most optimum leadership style must be adopted while managing the project.  2-      Identify the Feasible Alternative Tuckman m...
Read more
By -
Image
W1__Hamda__Tuckman Analysis Assignment__ 1-        Problem Definition After completion the first stage in PMP course which was conducted in Muscat from 29 th of October 2017 to 2 nd of November 2017 which was Face to Face stage, and following the formation of the OPWP-PMP team during this stage, the team is starting the second stage in this program which is the Distance Learning. Weekly Blog is one of the tasks in this stage. The first topic of the first weekly blog is suggested by Dr.Paul which is using Tuckman’s Model to know in which phase of this model the team is operated in and which style of leadership should be adopted in order to develop the team to achieve its goals. 2-        Identify the Feasible Alternative The Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 who maintained that these phases are all necessary in order to develop...
Read more

W1_MA_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

By -
Image
Problem Definition Bruce Tuckman model used to identify the team status and the development phase of the project team. As the team go through these phases, different strategies should be implemented by the team leader and managers. This assessment will provide enough information for the team leader and even for the team members that would give a good understand the team performance.   Identify the Feasible Alternative There were 4 stages model of "forming, storming, norming, and performing" introduced by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. However, a fifth stage was added “adjourning” which describe the phase that the team go through after the achievement of project tasks and completion of the project. Figure 1 , development stages [2] In each phase, the leadership style should be in alignment with that specific phase which enhance the development of the team and improve the performance of the team as well. There are different styles that could be used by the team le...
Read more