Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480 – 488

www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Improving sub-contractor selection process in construction projects:

Web-based sub-contractor evaluation system (WEBSES)
Gokhan Arslan a,⁎, Serkan Kivrak a , M. Talat Birgonul b , Irem Dikmen b
a
Anadolu University, Civil Engineering Department, 26555 Eskisehir, Turkey
b
Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Accepted 14 August 2007

Abstract

One of the most important phases in the construction industry (CI) is the bidding process. During the bidding process, selecting the most
appropriate sub-contractors (SCs) for the relevant sub-works is highly critical for the overall project performance. In order to select the most
appropriate SCs for the project and prepare the most realistic and accurate bid proposal, general contractors (GCs) have to know all financial,
technical and general information about these SCs. Within this context, GCs should consider several factors in the selection process. These factors
may include the quality of production, efficiency, employment of qualified members, reputation of the company, accessibility to the company,
completion of the work on time etc. This paper proposes a web-based sub-contractor evaluation system called WEBSES by which the SCs can be
evaluated based on a combined criterion. It enables GCs to select the most appropriate SCs for their relevant sub-works, speed up the selection
process and gain time and cost savings during the bidding process.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sub-contractor; Construction industry; Information technology (IT); Evaluation

1. Introduction evaluating SC performance becomes more crucial. Although

Sub-contracting has extensively been used in the CI. It allows
GCs to employ a minimum workforce in construction projects
and promotes specialization [1,2]. Many GCs only act as
construction management agents in construction projects and
sub-contract a large volume of their work to SCs [3].
SCs play an important role in the success of construction
projects [4,5]. The success level of these projects may depend on
the philosophy of selecting “the right person for the right job” [6].
Clearly, the correct choice of SCs increases the overall success of
a construction project. However, the importance of SC selection is
mostly underestimated and neglected in construction [7,8].
SC evaluation is a vital part of the project management cycle.
As construction projects become more complex, the need for
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 222 321 35 50; fax: +90 222 323 95 01.
E-mail addresses: gokhana@anadolu.edu.tr (G. Arslan),
serkankivrak@anadolu.edu.tr (S. Kivrak), birgonul@metu.edu.tr
(M.T. Birgonul), idikmen@metu.edu.tr (I. Dikmen).
0926-5805/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2007.08.004
there are no generalized sets of rules in evaluating SCs, several
factors should be considered by the GC in the selection process.
These factors may include the quality of production, efficiency,
employment of qualified members, reputation of the company,
accessibility to the company, completion of the work on time, etc.
The use of information technology (IT) applications in the CI
has been recognized as highly essential for improving business
performance [9,10]. IT tools enable companies to speed up the
business activities. Especially, Internet-based technology has
been recognized as the most important tool to facilitate in-
formation transfer effectively and a collaborative working en-
vironment in construction projects [11]. A considerable amount
of time and cost saving can be achieved by the use of Internet
technologies. A construction company has generally several
projects that are located in different geographical areas. In-
formation exchange can be performed effectively between the
members of these projects through the use of web-based
applications. Thus, problems caused by geographic fragmenta-
tion can significantly be reduced [12]. When considered the
advantages, the use of web-based technology can be an effective
 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
way in the SC evaluation process. This paper presents a web-
based sub-contractor evaluation system called WEBSES by
which the SCs can be evaluated based on a combined criterion.
GCs can select the most appropriate SCs for their relevant sub-
works, speed up the selection process and gain the advantage of
saving time and cost during the bidding process through this
system.
2. Bidding process in the construction industry
Bidding for construction projects is a critical decision for
construction companies. It is especially crucial for international
construction projects by which the companies aim to position
themselves in the international construction market [13]. The
bidding process is also a critical task in the construction industry.
The amount of profit level is critically determined at this stage.
Since the major objective of the construction companies is to
expand business volume by successful bidding on various proj-
ects, preparing realistic and accurate bid proposals is the most
significant component for the expansion. The bidding process in
the CI is characterized by the involvement of many different
parties including the client, architectural and engineering firms,
GCs, specialized contractors, material suppliers, manufactur ers,
etc [14]. Preparing tender documents, evaluating bids, and
Fig. 1. Phases during a typical bidding process.
481
awarding the contract to the winner of the bid are among the major
duties of the client. The GCs also follow the same sequential
procedure for the selection of their SCs [15].
Construction company's bidding strategies change according
to bidding system, client, country and bid evaluation criteria
[16]. The methods of preparing bid proposals for construction
projects also vary according to the structure and characteristics
of the project. The bidding process requires a great deal of time
and effort especially for complex projects. Therefore, a sys-
tematic procedure should be followed to prepare bid proposals
for such projects. In Fig. 1, the necessary phases that should be
followed for bid proposal preparation are illustrated. It should be
noted that these phases are summarized according to the tra-
ditional approach of the bidding process, that is, without using
the latest technologies such as e-bidding. It should also be
considered that any omitted item in these phases would cause
delays or mistakes in the bidding process.
3. Sub-contractor selection in the bidding process
In the CI, biddings usually occur between GCs and SCs. GCs
rely mostly on the bid prices submitted by the SCs to estimate the
final bid sum for the projects. Thus, SCs play an important role in
the bidding process. During the bidding process, selecting the
482 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
most appropriate SCs for the sub-works is highly critical.
Therefore, GCs must be extremely careful while selecting the
most appropriate SC for a certain part of the work or the entire
project [15]. They have to be fair and objective in their relations
with the SCs. Poor selection of SCs may lead to the elimination
of qualified SCs from business or result in a lowering of their
standards, thus, producing cheap and poor quality work [3]. Also
the GCs may loose time and money by selecting unqualified SCs
for the relevant sub-works.
In the traditional way of SC selections, construction com-
panies generally choose familiar SCs that had already done
business with them. The benefits and problems of this kind of
selection practices have been highlighted by several researchers.
Tserng and Lin [17] pointed out the benefits of this kind of SC
selection practices as flexibility, stability, mutual trust, decrease
of transaction and search costs. On the other hand, difficulties in
cost control and adoption of new technologies, and inefficiencies
in SC selection and negotiation processes were some examples
of the problems stated in their study. Additionally, they stated
that lack of objective decision-making and reliable standards in
sub-contracting selection and planning processes result in
shortcomings during initial planning to predict overall perfor-
mance and risk levels in carrying out a project.
A simplified SC selection during the bidding process is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The lowest bid price is usually the key
determinant factor for selecting SCs in traditional approaches
[17–19]. However, depending on the lowest bid price alone
in the selection process, especially for complex construction
Fig. 2. Simplified sub-contractor selection during the bidding process.
projects in which a more detailed evaluation methodology is
usually needed may result in serious money losses for con-
struction companies in the long run. It is relatively easy for the
SCs to enter into the CI but many of them do not have the
necessary expertise to complete the work satisfactorily [7,20].
Thus, inappropriate SCs that do not have the required expertise
to carry out the work satisfactorily can be awarded the contract
through this kind of selection practices. Selecting SCs without a
systematic approach would generally cause problems in quality
of work, delay in project duration and create additional costs in
construction projects. Hence, this traditional approach to SC
selection may not usually meet the needs of construction proj-
ects. Within this process, construction companies should there-
fore consider not only the bid price of the SCs but also several
criteria such as past business experience, financial stability and
quality of products. This method of assessment can eliminate
insufficient financed, inexperienced and incompetent SCs,
reduce risks and contribute significantly to the overall success
of the project.
Insufficient time for execution, complicated procedures or
poor information channels may be the reasons of problems in the
selection of SCs [21]. SC evaluation has been recognized as a
particularly complex task due to its ambiguity and difficult
formalisation [17,21,22]. It is usually based on intuition and past
experience and carried out by the GC management [19,22].
There have been no generalized sets of rules for the evaluation
process. However, when considered the limited time period of
bids and the large number of SCs, it can be a difficult and
complex task for construction contractors. The important factor
in SC evaluation is that companies should reduce expert's sub-
jectivity and it should be based on a combined assessment of
various criteria. As a result, companies should implement a
systematic evaluation process in the selection of the right SCs for
the right job.
4. Previous studies
Many selection methods for contractors and SCs have been
proposed in the literature. In this part, contractor selection meth-
odologies proposed in the literature have also been given con-
sidering that these can be adapted to SC selection where possible.
Methods have been proposed using approaches such as multi-
criteria utility theory models [23], evidential reasoning [24], de-
cision criteria [25], fuzzy set theory [26] and linear programming
[27]. Rahman and Kumaraswamy [28] showed the importance of
relational, trust and joint-responsibility-related factors for select-
ing different parties. Edum-Fotwe et al. [29] proposed trans-
formed financial ratio models for improved contractor evaluation.
Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy [6] focused on developing a
model for contractor prequalification and bid evaluation in design
and build projects. Moreover, Jaselskis and Russel [30], Crowley
and Hancher [31], Russel [32], Kumaraswamy [33] and Alsugair
[34] have identified commonly used criteria for prequalification
and bid evaluation and have proposed methodologies for con-
tractor selection.
Alarcon and Mourgues [35] proposed a contractor selection
system that incorporates the contractor's performance prediction
 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
as one of the criteria for selection. They developed a conceptual
model that helps to identify information needed for a com-
prehensive evaluation and used it for the proposed contractor
selection system. Russell and Skibniewski [36] developed
QUALIFIER-1, a computer program to aid decision makers in
prequalification. Then, Russell et al. [37] developed QUALIFI-
ER-2 by adding some extra functions to QUALIFIER-1.
Holt et al. [38–43] provided example applications of multi-
attribute analysis for evaluating construction bidders. Further-
more, Holt [44] reviewed and analyzed the use of different
contractor selection methodologies and discussed the advan-
tages and disadvantages of these methods.
Kumaraswamy and Matthews [7] showed how partnering
principles can be profitably applied to the SC selection process.
Maturana et al. [1] developed an on-site evaluation method
based on lean principles and partnering practices. The method
supports SC selection based on their previous performance and
allows GCs to help SCs improve their performance by providing
them with periodic feedback.
Albino and Garavelli [22] proposed a neural network ap-
plication to support management in SC rating. They investigated
the neural network implementation and the related managerial
and technical innovations by an application case related to an
assembly operation in a construction site. Tserng and Lin [17]
developed an integrated XML (eXtensible Markup Language) of
Accelerated Sub-contracting and Procuring (ASAP) model.
They developed a web-based decision support system for GCs in
order to decide an appropriate trade-off between risk and profit
for different combinations of SCs.
Luu and Sher [19] developed a case-based reasoning pro-
curement advisory system for SC tender selection. In this system,
SC selection cases are represented by a set of attributes elicited
from experienced construction estimators. Shiau et al. [21]
developed an SC selection management aid system, including
basic database, budget management module and SC selection
module. They acquired the evaluation criteria and calculated their
weights by conducting surveys and using AHP (Analytical
Hierarchy Process) and integrated them into the system. Ko et al.
[45] developed a model called Sub-contractor Performance Eval-
uation Model (SPEM). In their study, an Evolutionary Fuzzy
Neural Inference Model (EFNIM) is adapted as a learning and
inference engine to execute the assessment process.
Previous researches listed above had significantly improved
the SC selection process in the CI. However, some of the pro-
posed methods and approaches could be complex and difficult to
apply in practice. The CI needs simple but effective methods in
SC selection process due to the limited time intervals of the
bidding periods. GCs have to prepare realistic and accurate bid
proposals generally in a limited time period for the construction
projects. Therefore, using complex, computational or mathe-
matical models might not be effective in this process. Complex
models and systems also require training of the personnel who
will use such systems. Thus, a simple and user-friendly system
that facilitates the SC selection process can be an effective
method during the bidding process. WEBSES, the proposed
system in this study, differs from the previous proposed meth-
odologies and systems by its user-friendliness and faster eval-
483
uation process. The main important issues of this system when
compared to others are its practical usage, easiness to learn and
simplicity.
5. Web-based sub-contractor evaluation system (WEBSES)
In this part, the proposed SC evaluation system called
WEBSES has been presented. The main objective of developing
WEBSES is to facilitate the SC selection process in construction
projects. In addition, it is aimed to minimize the problems that
may occur in traditional selection processes as described earlier.
The system is designed as a web-based system to perform the
evaluation process more effectively. As mentioned earlier, the
use of web-based technology provides great advantages in per-
forming business activities. Skibniewski and Abduh [46]
categorized the advantages of web technologies as; the support
of relevant information services, communication between project
participants, and engineering and management computing.
Moreover, web applications have many benefits over desktop
applications. They can reach a larger audience, and they are easier
to install and develop.
WEBSES can help the construction contractors to select the
most appropriate SC that is highly critical during the bidding
process. It allows GCs to evaluate the SCs in a systematic
manner. The evaluation process is based on a combined criterion
including cost, quality, time and adequacy as the main criteria. It
is developed as a general system for all GCs and constructed
under the Internet-based environment.
The primary aim in the development phase of this system was
to design it as a user-friendly system. Therefore, the system is
designed such that every user can use it without having any
training. One of the most important issues in the survey of
this study (presented in the succeeding section) was the time
limitation in preparing a bid proposal. In order to facilitate this
process and create a simple but effective selection method,
WEBSES is designed as a simple and user-friendly system.
ASP (Active Server Pages) is adopted as the programming
language for WEBSES. MySQL, one of the most popular Open
Source Databases, is used in this system. It is a database
management system that can handle large volume of data, and
provide fast search and short processing time. A relatively new
technique known as ‘AJAX’ (Asynchronous JavaScript And
XML) is used to create a faster and more interactive web
application. AJAX uses asynchronous data transfer between the
browser and the web server that allows web pages to request
small bits of information from the server instead of whole pages.
Thus, it makes the web application faster and more user-friendly.
AJAX is based on JavaScript, XML (eXtensible Markup Lan-
guage), HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) and CSS
(Cascading Style Sheets) open standards. HTML has been suc-
cessfully used since 1990 as a language used to create documents
on the World Wide Web. However, it has major limitations such
as extensibility, structure, and validation [12]. XML, designed
by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium), overcame these
limitations by providing a more flexible and adaptable in-
formation identification [47]. CSS is a language used to specify
the layout or formatting properties of HTML elements. For this
484 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
Fig. 3. An example of an SC search result.
system, XHTML (eXtensible Hyper Text Markup Language) 1.1
validation is done. Thus, all browsers would likely to display the
web pages in the same format. XHTML is a rewrite of the HTML
as an XML application. Additionally, the XML files used in
WEBSES are compatible with RSS (Really Simple Syndica-
tion), which is an XML-based format for content distribution. By
adopting XHTML 1.1 and RSS to this system, the users are
allowed to access information from WEBSES through different
browser technologies such as mobile phones and Personal Dig-
ital Assistants (PDA). Furthermore, users can transfer informa-
tion from this system to Microsoft Word in the same format.
Every company user can access to this system by opening the
web browser and using a password authorized by the GC. This
application provides speedy access to the relevant information
about the SCs. However, only the administrator has the per-
mission for making necessary updates and changes in the system.
The reason for giving the responsibility to the administrator is to
provide a systematic updating progress and prevent the misuse of
the users. There are three different authorization levels in this
system. Users in level 1 can only search SCs from the database
and take necessary information. Users in level 2 can add and
evaluate SCs additionally to user level 1. Level 3 is the admin-
istrator level. The sub-options of the administration option consist
of the following: user preferences, evaluation categories, sub-
contractors, sub-contractor information, evaluation criteria and
work areas. GCs can evaluate SCs according to the evaluation
criteria in the relevant options of the system. When adding new
criteria by the administrator into the system, they can be assigned
to one of the main criteria. Adding a criterion will cause a change
in the weighting of the other criteria. However, this change is
under the control of the administrator. In such conditions, the
evaluation of the previously rated SCs will not change.
The system consists of four options in the main menu in-
cluding SC search, SC evaluation, user option and administrator
option. The SC search option provides user's immediate access
to the relevant SCs. The users can search SCs by the specialized
areas of sub-works including site, concrete, materials, plastering,
reinforcement, etc.
Additionally, alternative search criteria in this system are the
evaluation score and author name list. SCs can be listed according
to their overall, cost, quality, time and adequacy scores through
the evaluation score option. Also the searching process can be
done through ‘added by’ option in which author names who
evaluated the relevant SCs in the past are listed. An example of an
SC search result according to the same sub-group is shown in
Fig. 3. Users can also rank SCs according to their evaluation
scores on this web page. In the relevant SCs page, all necessary
information including firm name, sub-work area, contacts and
completed projects of the company could be obtained.
5.1. Identifying the criteria
The main and sub-criteria for evaluating SCs in this system are
identified according to a study conducted by the authors of this
paper. The study is carried out in a mid-sized construction
company based in New York (USA) during the period from 2001
to 2003. The company is a GC having a yearly business volume of
approximately $200 million and focuses mainly on commercial
projects in Tri-state area. The main objectives of the study were to
investigate the problems encountered during SC selection and
identify the criteria for selecting SCs in the bidding process. The
study was carried out in the estimating and bidding department of
the company. A chief estimator and two estimators participated in
this study. During the period of the study, the SC selection
process, problems in SC selection and the criteria for SC selection
were investigated at each bid proposal preparation step of con-
struction projects. For this purpose, face-to-face interviews were
carried out with the participants regularly.
The company generally sub-contracts a large volume of its
work to the SCs. The estimating department of the company
used a database in SC selection for the relevant sub-works. The
database had a list of approximately 4000 SC firms however; it
included only general information such as name, contact in-
formation and business areas of the SC firms. Past business
records were not available in this database. A common problem
caused by this lack of information was the re-selection of in-
adequate SCs that performed relatively unsuccessful works in
the previous projects of the GC. It was observed that experienced
estimators leaving the company with their knowledge gained in
the past caused shortcomings in the selection of the right SCs.
 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488 485

Fig. 4. Evaluation criteria for sub-contractor selection.

Fig. 5. An example of a sub-contractor evaluation result in WEBSES.

486 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488

Fig. 6. Quality evaluation option.

Since inexperienced estimators or new employees hired in the The first step of the evaluation is the cost criteria option which
estimating department generally had not enough knowledge is divided into the following sub-criteria: financial capacity,
about all of the SCs listed in the database, proposals were timely payment to laborers and completion of job within the
submitted again for new projects to the inadequate SCs and budget. It should be noted that the GC can adjust the sub-criteria
awarded the contract. Furthermore, as there were not a sys- depending on the demand of each project. The critical point is
tematic evaluation process and thus inadequate SCs were not that the selected sub-criteria should have a direct effect on
eliminated, the GC dealt with many SCs in almost every bid performance. In addition, the selected evaluation criteria should
proposal preparation of the projects. Thus, the company spent a
great amount of time in almost every new project for the SC
selection process.
During the period of the study, several problems had arisen
between the GC and the SCs. At the end of the study, these
problems were categorized in four main headings as cost,
quality, time and adequacy which are decided to be chosen as
the main criteria in WEBSES. These four main headings had
their sub-headings which are identified as the sub-criteria in this
proposed system. The list of the sub-criteria under the main
criteria is illustrated in Fig. 4.

5.2. SC evaluation in WEBSES

In the SC evaluation option, SCs can be evaluated according

to the sets of evaluation criterion which are grouped under these
headings: cost, quality, time and adequacy. Each of these main
criteria is divided into sub-criteria. For instance, the cost cri-
terion is divided into sub-criteria as financial capacity, timely
payment to laborers and completion of job within the budget.
In Fig. 5, an example of an SC evaluation result is illustrated.
Also the last evaluation score and last three author evaluations
regarding the SC can be seen on this web page. Additionally, the
users can print or send these information as e-mail through the
relevant options on this page. General information about the
SCs are also posted on this web page. Fig. 7. Evaluating and selecting sub-contractors using WEBSES.
 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
also based on the measurement culture of the GC. Each sub-
criterion will be scored on a 1 to 10 scale, 1 being unsatisfactory
and 10 being satisfactory. Then, the SC's score will be calculated
as a weighted sum of ratings over all sub-criteria, i.e., multi-
plication of each sub-criterion by their weights. In this study, the
weights of main and sub-criteria are considered as equal.
However, the GC can set different weights for them depending
on the demand of each project. The sub-criteria of the cost option
can be evaluated by the estimating department of the GC since
these criteria are more relevant to this department. The es-
timating department can also evaluate the criteria in time and
adequacy options whereas the construction department can
evaluate those of quality, time and adequacy.
The second step of the evaluation is the quality criteria option.
An example of this option is shown in Fig. 6. Further steps include
time and adequacy options. Similar to other options, adequacy
scores are related with the past records of the SCs on the relevant
criteria. For example the scores of adequacy of labor resources,
one of the sub-criteria of adequacy, shows that whether the SC had
enough labor resources in the previous projects or not. After
completing the further steps the system will calculate the overall
score of the SC. Then the GC can compare the result with other
SC evaluations. Finally, the most appropriate SC can be selected
based on the results of the evaluation scores. The answer of ‘who
is the most appropriate one for the job?’ will be a critical
judgement for the GC management. Depending only to overall
score for the selection may not be the right way to choose the best
SC. The GC may also consider the importance or weights of the
main criteria. At this stage, the combination of the main criteria
can be thought of as a chain, and as in any chain, it is the ‘weakest
link’ that will cause the downfall. Therefore, the GC can consider
the weakest link of the SCs that correspond to their lowest
evaluation score of main criteria and make the selection according
to it. For example, an SC may get a higher overall score from other
SCs. However, if one of the evaluation scores of main criteria is
far lower than the other SCs, the GC may eliminate this SC. The
flowchart of evaluating and selecting SCs by using WEBSES is
illustrated in Fig. 7.
The system was implemented in the GC organization surveyed
in this study. It was tested in the bid proposal preparation step of a
construction project. The chief estimator and the two estimators
used this system and evaluated the potential SCs for the project.
After the evaluation process they determined and selected the SCs
for the relevant sub-works. Benefits of the system were realised in
the selection process.
These benefits could be summarized as follows:
• faster selection process
• user-friendliness of the system
• selection of the most appropriate SC with a systematic
approach
• reduction of subjectivity in evaluation
• reduction in costs compared to traditional selection methods
• competitive bid proposal
The system can give the advantage of speed up the SC
evaluation task during the bidding process. Although it is dif-
487
ficult to calculate the exact time saving by using such a system, it
is believed that it can significantly reduce the overall amount of
time required for SC selection when compared to the traditional
approaches. Having past business records and immediate ac-
cess to relevant information of SCs, it can improve the selection
process.
6. Conclusions
SC selection in construction projects is crucial. Choosing the
right SC for the right job influences the quality of work as well as
the construction progress. Especially during the bidding process
optimum selection of SCs is vital for an accurate and realistic bid
proposal. As construction projects and sub-contract works be-
come more complex, a combined assessment of various criteria
should be considered by the GCs in order to select the most
suitable one.
Traditional selection of SCs such as choosing those with
whom the GC had already done business can lead to ineffi-
ciencies in projects and poor project performance. The proposed
system in this paper, WEBSES, can help to improve the selection
process and obtain the best decision of selecting an SC. It can
reduce the overall amount of time required for the selection
process. Objective evaluation with various criteria can lead to
the elimination of unqualified SCs during the bidding process.
WEBSES is developed for the use by GCs. A fair and ob-
jective assessment is provided by this system. It eliminates the
dependence on lowest bid price by considering a combined
criterion. WEBSES can speed up the sub-contracting process
and improve the decision quality. It can also reduce costs of the
selection process. Therefore, problems that arise from traditional
practices can be avoided.
The overall benefit of selecting the most suitable SC can be
the improvement of the GC's overall performance. If properly
done, SC evaluation through WEBSES could be an effective
way in the selection of the right SCs for the sub-contract works
of the construction projects.
References
[1] S. Maturana, L. Alarcon, P. Gazmuri, M. Vrsalovi, Achieving collaboration
in the construction supply chain: an on-site subcontractor evaluation
method, Documento de Trabajo, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile,
2005 No.177.
[2] S.T. Ng, M. Skitmore, W.F. Chung, Ten basic factors to identify suitable
subcontractors for construction projects, CIB TG 23 International
Conference, Hong Kong, 2003.
[3] A.A. Shash, Bidding practices of subcontractors in Colorado, ASCE Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 124 (3) (1998) 219–225.
[4] D. Arditi, R. Chotibhongs, Issues in subcontracting practice, ASCE Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (8) (2005) 866–876.
[5] R.F. Cox, R.R.A. Issa, A. Frey, Proposed subcontractor-based employee
motivational model, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 132 (2) (2006) 152–163.
[6] E. Palaneeswaran, M.M. Kumaraswamy, Contractor selection for design/
build projects, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment 126 (5) (2000) 331–339.
[7] M.M. Kumaraswamy, J. Matthews, Improved subcontractor selection
employing partnering principles, ASCE Journal of Management in
Engineering 16 (3) (2000) 47–57.
488 G. Arslan et al. / Automation in Construction 17 (2008) 480–488
[8] S.T. Ng, W.Y. Wan, Appraisal of subcontractor performance — criteria and
their importance, in: A.S. Kazi (Ed.), Proceedings of CIB2005—
Advancing Facilities Management and Construction through Innovation,
Finlandia Hall, Helsinki, Finland, 2005, pp. 305–314, Finland, III.
[9] P. Nitithamyong, M.J. Skibniewski, Web-based construction project man-
agement systems: how to make them successful? Automation in
Construction 13 (4) (2004) 491–506.
[10] V. Peansupap, D.H.T. Walker, Factors enabling information and commu-
nication technology diffusion and actual implementation in construction
organisations, Journal of Information Technology in Construction 10
(2005) 193–218.
[11] P. Nitithamyong, M.J. Skibniewski, Success/failure factors and perfor-
mance measures of web-based construction project management systems:
professionals' viewpoint, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 132 (1) (2006) 80–87.
[12] Y. Zhu, R.R.A. Issa, R.F. Cox, Web-based construction document
processing via malleable frame, ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering 15 (3) (2001) 157–169.
[13] I. Dikmen, M.T. Birgonul, Neural network model to support international
market entry decisions, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 130 (1) (2004) 59–66.
[14] C. Halaris, G. Bafoutsou, G. Papavassiliou, G. Mentzas, A system for
virtual tendering and bidding, 8th Panhellinic Conference in Informatics,
Cyprus, 2001.
[15] G. Arslan, M. Tuncan, M.T. Birgonul, I. Dikmen, E-bidding proposal
preparation system for construction projects, Building and Environment 41
(10) (2006) 1406–1413.
[16] I. Dikmen, M.T. Birgonul, Strategic perspective of Turkish construction
companies, ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering 19 (1) (2003)
33–40.
[17] H.P. Tserng, P.H. Lin, An accelerated subcontracting and procuring model for
construction projects, Automation in Construction 11 (1) (2002) 105–125.
[18] E. Tam, STAT-USA market research reports, U.S. & Foreign Commercial
Service and U.S. Department of State, 2003.
[19] D.T. Luu, W. Sher, Construction tender subcontract selection using case-
based reasoning, The Australian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building, Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors 6 (2) (2006) 31–43.
[20] T. Hegazy, T. Ersahin, Simplified spreadsheet solutions I: subcontractor
information system, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 127 (6) (2001) 461–468.
[21] Y.C. Shiau, T.P. Tsai, W.C. Wang, M.L. Huang, Use questionnaire and
AHP techniques to develop subcontractor selection system, International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, 19th (ISARC)
Proceedings, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithers-
burg, Maryland, 2002, pp. 35–40.
[22] V. Albino, A.C. Garavelli, A neural network application to subcontractor
rating in construction firms, International Journal of Project Management
16 (1) (1998) 9–14.
[23] Z. Hatush, M. Skitmore, Contractor selection using multicriteria utility
theory: an additive model, Building and Environment 33 (2–3) (1998)
105–115.
[24] M. Sonmez, G. Holt, J.B. Yang, G. Graham, Applying evidential reasoning
to prequalifying construction contractors, ASCE Journal of Management
in Engineering 18 (3) (2002) 111–119.
[25] J.S. Russell, M.J. Skibniewski, Decision criteria in contractor prequalifica-
tion, ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering 4 (2) (1988) 148–164.
[26] D. Singh, R. Tiong, A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection,
ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131 (1)
(2005) 62–70.
[27] A. Elazouni, F. Metwally, D-SUB: decision support system for subcon-
tracting construction works, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 126 (3) (2000) 191–200.
[28] M. Rahman, M.M. Kumaraswamy, Potential for implementing relational
contracting and joint risk management, ASCE Journal of Management in
Engineering 20 (4) (2004) 178–189.
[29] F.E. Edum-Fotwe, A.D.F. Price, A. Thorpe, Transformed financial ratio
models for improved contractor evaluation, Proc., 1st International
Conference on Construction Project Management, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, 1995, pp. 559–567.
[30] E.J. Jaselskis, J.S. Russell, Risk analysis approach to selection of
contractor evaluation method, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management 118 (4) (1992) 814–821.
[31] L.G. Crowley, D.E. Hancher, Evaluation of competitive bids, ASCE
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 121 (2) (1995)
238–245.
[32] J.S. Russell, Constructor prequalification-choosing the best contractor and
avoiding constructor failure, ASCE Press, New York, 1996.
[33] M.M. Kumaraswamy, Contractor evaluation and selection — a Hong
Kong perspective, Building and Environment 31 (3) (1996) 273–282.
[34] A.M. Alsugair, Framework for evaluating bids of construction contractors,
ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering 15 (2) (1999) 72–78.
[35] L.F. Alarcon, C. Mourgues, Performance modelling for contractor
selection, ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering 18 (2) (2002)
52–60.
[36] J.S. Russell, M.J. Skibniewski, QUALIFIER-1: contractor prequalification
model, ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 4 (1) (1990)
77–90.
[37] J.S. Russell, M.J. Skibniewski, D.R. Cozier, QUALIFIER-2: knowledge-
based system for contractor prequalification, ASCE Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management 116 (1) (1990) 157–171.
[38] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, A conceptual alternative to current
tendering practice, Building Research and Information 21 (3) (1993)
167–172.
[39] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, Factors influencing U.K. con-
struction clients' choice of contractor, Building and Environment 29 (2)
(1994) 241–248.
[40] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, Applying multi-attribute analysis
to contractor selection decisions, European Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 1 (3) (1994) 139–148.
[41] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, Incorporating project specific
criteria and client utility into the evaluation of construction tenderers,
Building Research and Information 22 (4) (1994) 214–221.
[42] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, Evaluating pre-qualification
criteria in contractor selection, Building and Environment 29 (4) (1994)
437–448.
[43] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, Application of an alternative
contractor selection model, Building Research and Information 23 (5)
(1995) 255–264.
[44] G.D. Holt, Which contractor selection methodology? International Journal
of Project Management 16 (3) (1998) 153–164.
[45] C.H. Ko, M.Y. Cheng, T.K. Wu, Evaluating sub-contractors performance
using EFNIM, Automation in Construction 16 (4) (2007) 525–530.
[46] M.J. Skibniewski, M. Abduh, Web-based project management for
construction: search for utility assessment tools, Proceedings of INCITE
2000, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 2000, pp. 56–77.
[47] Y. Zhu, R.R.A. Issa, Viewer controllable visualization for construction
document processing, Automation in Construction 12 (3) (2003) 255–269.