Original Research Article

Contractor selection for renovation of culturalheritage buildings by PROMETHEE method

Zydrune Morkunaite a, Valentinas Podvezko b,Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas c,*, Romualdas Bausys d

aDepartment of Construction Management and Real Estate, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio av.11, LT-10223 Vilnius, LithuaniabDepartment of Mathematical Statistics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio av. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius,Lithuaniac Institute of Sustainable Construction, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio av. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius,LithuaniadDepartment of Graphical Systems, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio av. 11, LT-10223 Vilnius,Lithuania

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 15 October 2018

Accepted 19 May 2019

Available online 21 June 2019

Keywords:

Cultural heritage

Building renovation

Contractor selection

Multi-criteria decision making

(MCDM)

a b s t r a c t

Cultural heritage buildings have architectural, historical and cultural values creating one of

the most dominant features, which is related to the local identity. Its preservation requires

consideration, liability, know-how, know-why and experienced employee. Cultural heritage

buildings' performance is complicated work, therefore selecting a contractor for heritage

buildings' protection and restoration is a difficult assignment. The improper contractor's

choice could activate cost overruns, lag, conflicts, declines, imperfect performance or added

expenditure for project administration and accomplishment. This paper submits the quan-

titative and qualitative criteria setting for selecting heritage's contractor. The Analytic

Hierarchy Process technique is applied to decide important criteria and to get the weighting

for each criterion. The PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrich-

ment Evaluation) technique is applied for the selection of the most efficient cultural heritage

contractor's alternative.

© 2019 Politechnika Wroclawska. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/acme

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage buildings are essential since they combinethe past with the present. Its preservation has economic,

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt (E.K. Zavadskas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2019.05.0081644-9665/© 2019 Politechnika Wroclawska. Published by Elsevier B.V

social, cultural, historical and aesthetic value. Nowadays,historical significance, symbolism, social and business-relatedadvantage have turned the conservation and restoration ofheritage buildings into a crucial task [1]. Nevertheless, culturalheritage's performance such as protection, regeneration,

. All rights reserved.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1057

rehabilitation of the structure of heritage or adaptive reusedemands more accountability and knowledge, thoroughness,synergy and experienced employee. According to complicatedheritage buildings' performance, contractor selection forheritage conservation and restoration is not a simple task.Cultural heritage contractor survival in challenging heritageperformance market depends on the responsible, qualifiedcontractor and successful implementation of projects [2].However, the improper contractor could cause conflicts,declines, lawsuits, claims and increased costs for projectperformance, organisation and management.

Efficient preservation policy discusses public involvement,private or public actions, support, planning cultural andeconomic requirements, selecting the proper contractor forheritage buildings' preservation and restoration during thedecision making process [1]. However, nowadays the generalpurchase procedure of heritage's contractor selection is thelowest bidder procurement process, which cannot properly toselect the responsible and suitable contractor. The minimumbid is not continually the best financial alternative in thecultural heritage deal, because the customer takes the risk oflow quality and contractors' ability to appropriate performsthe preservation and restoration of cultural heritage buildings.

MCDM is broadly applied decision techniques in thedisciplines, professional and public fields, based on thepresumption of the complicated tasks; it can assist to improvethe decision's quality by creating decision making procedure,which may be better balanced, effective, and also specific [3].The fundamental aim of the paper is to expand the multi-criteria evaluation technique for cultural heritage buildings'contractor selection. The cultural heritage contractor selectionprocess includes a selection of criteria, arrangement of theestimation methods and assessment of the criteria forrecognition of the finest heritage contractor's option. Thecriteria's set was determined based on the expert's judgementand assessments. AHP is a technique of similar calculation,which is based on the paired comparison of the decision ofaware experts [4]. The Analytic Hierarchy Process technique isapplied to decide important criteria and to get the weightingfor each criterion. The PROMETHEE (Preference RankingOrganisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation) techniqueis applied for the selection of the most efficient culturalheritage contractor's alternative.

During the last decade a lot of the research efforts havebeen made to incorporate the vagueness of the initialinformation for the solution of the complex nature practicalproblems by multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods[5]. For the sake of comparison, neutrosophic extension of theoriginal PROMETHEE method, namely PROMETHEE-SVNS, wasapplied.

2. Literature review

2.1. Contractor selection approaches

Contractors carry out one of the most important functions inconstruction projects' development, therefore selecting thesuitable contractor for the construction development project isa crucial decision for customers [6]. Furthermore, according to

the realisation of financing development project, contractorselection has a significant level [7]. Nevertheless, nowadaysselecting the contractor is based on the minimum bid.However, when scientists have appreciated that minimumbid is not the hopeful technique to achieve the total minimumdevelopment project outlay at the time of project achieve-ment, multi-criteria selection turns into more popular method[8]. Contractors', subcontractor's or supplier's selection indiverse constructions' sectors was considered by variousscientists applying different criteria assessment and decisionmaking techniques. Many investigators of contractor's selec-tion have applied Analytic Hierarchy Process method. Fongand Choi [9] proposed AHP method to identify the approachesof public sector customers. These approaches show theimportance of public procurement price in final contractorselection. Hadidi and Khater [10] applied the AHP to find outcrucial protection aspects to be added in contractors' selectionat the tender stage. This technique may help to ensure damageprevention and improve protection introduction in themaintenance implementation. Estimating contractor's pre-qualification, Chiang et al. [11] used AHP approach. Theexample may be considered as an acceptable link forconstruction development project partners in contractorselection procedures. Martin et al. [12] applied traditionalAHP and weakly consistent AHP methods for contractorselection. Several kinds of research for contractor's selectionhave analysed others methods. Cheng and Li [13] suggestedapplying ANP to make better the prioritisation of contractorselection criteria. Further Hassim et al. [14] offered to applyANP method for the attractive valuation, selecting thecontractor for the road construction projects. This methodcould be applied during prequalification and final tenderevaluation stages of contractor selection. Kaklauskas et al. [15]used the COPRAS method. This approach evaluated contractorselection for the substitute of low-e windows. Zavadskas et al.[16] for contractors' selection recommended COPRAS andCOPRAS-G methods. Brauers et al. [17] applied MOORAtechnique proposed for selecting the maintenance contractorsof residences. Juan et al. [18] presented a hybrid fuzzy-QFDmethod. This model was used for housing refurbishmentcontractor's selection. Furthermore, in this study, theresearchers to compare the results also applied the PRO-METHEE method. Nento-Morote and Ruz-Vila [19] offered theFuzzy Set Theory for the systematic prequalification proce-dure. The example includes contractors' multi-criteria assess-ment and the setting of an arrangement of each achievablecontractor. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making technique isrecommended to expand to construction subcontractorselection model – CoSMo [20]. The authors offered to useCoSMo in international construction projects. Interval type-2Fuzzy sets model is proposed for a practical prequalificationprocedure [21]. It is addressing both linguistic imprecision anddifferences of opinion. Moreover, Polat [22] offered anintegrated decision method. This approach applies both AHPand PROMETHEE methods for selecting the subcontractor.Taylan et al. [23] for contractor selection offered ConsensusTools and Big Data. Also for this approach was employed fuzzyAHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method. Fuzzy AHP technique is used toset the criteria weights. At the same time, the fuzzy TOPSIStechnique is employed to determine the performance of

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11058

contractors. Vahdami et al. [24] presented a novel agreementsolution technique. The approach based on the fuzzy MCGDMproblems solution by a group of experts. This group of expertscan decide the perfect possible choice, considering differentquantitative and qualitative assessment criteria in real-lifeapplication. Moreover Keshavarz et al. [25] developed a Fuzzydynamic technique based on the EDAS method. Theresearches applied this approach for multi-criteria subcon-tractor estimation. Crueza Borger de Araujo et al. [26] appliedthe ELECTRE TRI method for classifying the contractors in theconstruction industry section. This classification is dependedon contractor level of accomplishment. Semaan and Salem [27]used the PROMETHEE model, which includes both organisa-tional and technical aspects. Furthermore, Alptekin et al. [28]used the TOPSIS method for finding out the criteria which canbe used for assessment in the contractor selection in publicprojects. The ANN model is suggested to expand forsubcontractor's selection [29]. Darvish et al. [30] analysedthe graph theory and matrix methods. The approach may beused as a decision analysis tool for selecting the contractor.Furthermore, Hassim et al. [14] proposed to use both Fuzzy andANN (Fuzzy neural network) approaches to find out the mostsignificant aspects of the divergence of contractor pre-tendercost assessment. Zavadskas et al. [31] submitted a multi-attribute evaluation model for contractor selection, where isused Hodges-Lehmann rules for the setting of optimalitycriterion values. Bayraktar and Hastak [32] applied a Bayesianbelief network for recognising the relationships betweendiverse aspects in the performance of highway work projects.Cheng and Kang [33] proposed a 'Multi-Criteria ProspectModel' which can hold a contractor selection process.

Multi-criteria analysis is insufficiently evolved, itsapproaches are inadequate, and till now the researchers arenot sure about the best technique for decision making [34]. Inthe concluding searches, whichever decision making tech-nique is used the excellent defence against poor decisionmaking is a good selection process [35].

2.2. Criteria discussed

The principal and important assignment for construction andheritage project partners is to find out and pick out suitableand potential contractors to attain satisfactory project out-comes [36]. Hatush and Skitmore [37] contended that allcustomers accept what is inevitably the same class of criteria,however, in the way differ their criteria are quantified. Thecriteria's submission resorts to a very personal assessment,which is based on information provided by the contractor.

Most clients for construction project accomplishmentincline to choose the contractors based on the lowest price.The lowest bidder is undoubtedly the leading criterion. Thisaspect is a personal agreement, which suits most of thepublic's necessities. In consideration of the lowest bidder asthe sole reward criterion can create the reason to chooseincapable, helpless, unsophisticated, and insufficiently fi-nanced contractor [38]. Polat et al. [39] affirmed that theimproper contractor might cause sizeable supplementaryoutlay such as allegations, arguments, abnormal workingconditions, punishments, default or low quality of work. In thestudies, different contractor selection criteria have been

suggested by various researches. Hatush and Skitmore [37]for contractor prequalification indicated five main criteriasuch as financial stability, technical capability, managementability, health and safety and reputation. El-Sawalhi et al. [40]specified that the fundamental criteria are financial sound-ness, technical and management capability, contractor'sknow-how and performance, reserves, quality control, healthand safety. The most generally cited contractor selectioncriteria are demonstrated in Table 1.

Jafari [6] presented a quality function deployment method.The approach was proposed in the contractor prequalificationcontext to consider both the project owner's necessitiesaccording to the nature of the project, and the contractor'sabilities and characteristics for ranking purposes. Contractor'sabilities consist of work experience, technology and equip-ment, management, financial stability, quality, creativity andinnovation, reputation and so on. Meanwhile, project owner'srequirements and expectations contain consideration ofschedule and in-time delivery, conformity with plannedexpenditures and technical specification, good faith andappropriate communication. Walraven and Vries [50] foralternative contractor selection applied the method withemotional (representation, relationship with the surrounding,convenience, social security), use (functionality, approach-ability, traffic control, agglomeration) and future (adaptability,exploitation, endurance) value. The proposed method used forcustomers to find out the bid that gives the best valuation forcurrency for the customer. Zavadskas et al. [34] for mainte-nance contractor selection proposed to combine qualitativeand quantitative criteria. Qualitative criteria are an outlay ofbuilding and common property management, total serviceoutlay, proceeds from general property maintenance peremployee and so on. Quantitative criteria are market sharefor each contractor, number of the project per administrator,duration of time in maintenance business. According to Afsharet al. [21] quantitative criteria for contractor selection arefinancial resource, machinery, know-how, current workload.Qualitative criteria consist of historical non-performance,employees quality, environmental factors, management andtechnical ability. Moreover Hasnain et al. [51] suggestedqualitative and quantitative criteria such as expense, perfor-mance, quality management, health and safety, projectmanagement.

This study proposes quantitative and qualitative criteria,and sub-criteria for selecting heritage contractor based on theauthors accomplished criteria's analysis.

3. Establishing the assessment criteria andsub-criteria of the contractor selection for heritagebuildings

The preserve heritage buildings cannot be demolished,permitted to decayed, lost or used for intentions that arenot appropriate due to the symbolic, historical, artistic orethnic character [52]. The experience of heritage buildingpreservation demands careful consideration from buildingowners, dwellers, tenants, landscape architects, building andamount of surveyors, specific designer and engineer, archae-ologist, art and history specialist [53]. Cultural heritage

Table 1 – Summary of previous studies on contractor selection or pre-qualification criteria.

Author Target population Criteria

Chinyio et al. [41] Construction clients classification andcontractors selection

Adaptability, capacity, economy, safety, know-how, time,maintenance

Fong and Choi [9] Final contractor selection Financial stability, price, previous performance andexperience, resources, present workload, previous client/contractor relationship, safety performance

Cheng and Li [13] Contractor selection Financial situation, tender price, previous performance,previous experience and relationship, safety management,reserves

Topcu [42] Construction contractor selection inTurkey

Capability at the right time to complete projects, technicalstaff experience, accessibility of machinery and equipment,organisational expertise

Banaitis and Banaitiene [43] Contractors' qualification evaluation Tender price, legal activity, adequacy of contractor, insurance,allegations and litigations, failed contracts, bankruptcyopportunities, competitiveness, clients' appreciation, qualitycontrol, technical and personnel, experience, type and size ofprevious projects, environmental protection, safety and health

Kaklauskas et al. [15] Contractor selection for the change ofwindows

Tender price, financial stability, technical and managementcapability, safety, reputation

Brauers et al. [17] Maintenance contractors of dwellingselection

Length of time in maintenance business, market share of eachcontractor, number of projects, outlay of building andcommon assets' administration, total service outlay, HVACsystem, maintenance outlay, assessment of administrationoutlay

Turskis [44] Contractor selection in the constructionindustry

Price, time, guaranty period, qualification, relations withclients, risk

Zavadskas et al. [16] Contractors selection Financial, technical, integrated, juridical and managerial,projects' time

Zavadskas et al. [31] Contractor selection in a competitiveenvironment

Tender assessment, construction period, guarantee period forscreen works and for finishing works, experience, totalamount of works, communication level with stakeholders,quality of performed projects

Bayraktar and Hastak [32] Optimal contracting strategy selectionin highway work zone projects

Contract characteristics, motorist, public, resource andtechnical issues

Darvish et al. [30] Contractor ranking Creativity and innovation, experience and ability of the team,equipment and technology, administration, financialsoundness, quality control, reputation, being familiar with thearea or being domestic

Juan et al. [18] Housing refurbishment contractorsselection

Quality, cost, information, schedule, integration, service

Holt [35] Classifying construction contractors Quality control, health and safety, dispute trend, analysis ofaccount/bank/credit references, size/age and image of thecontractor, qualification of owners and key persons, overrunsof cost and time, experience, workload, size and type ofprojects, resources

Cheng and Kang [33] Construction contractor selection Personnel position, track record for completion of budget/forcompletion to acceptable quality/for on-time completion,ability of plant and equipment, financial ability, technicalexpertise, claims and litigation in previous projects,management capabilities of employees

Niento-Morote and Ruz-Vila [19] Construction contractor prequalification Technical and management ability, know-how, financialsoundness, previous performance and relationship,reputation, health and safety

Enshassi et al. [45] Contractors' selection Bid price understanding, assessment and fullness of biddocuments, previous performance in analogous projects,personnel qualification, contractors' reputation and image,quality of works, contractors' site management and execution,plant and equipment reserves, health and safety

Marzouk et al. [46] Sub-contractors selection inconstruction projects

Cost, quality, staff's behaviour and experience, safety,guarantee, repair and assurance for the personnel andsupplies, disputes and risks, risk avoidance, time, experiencesof the company, tender, others (site proximity, physicalresources and so on)

Vahdami et al. [24] Contractor selection in the constructionindustry

Financial stability, technical capability, management ability,health and safety performance, reputation

Hadidi and Khater [10] Turnaround maintenance project byselecting contractors

Performance history, personnel and technical ability,contractor HSE management plan

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1059

Table 1 (Continued )

Author Target population Criteria

Abbasianjahromi et al. [47] Subcontractor selection in theconstruction industry

Price, time, experience, available resources, risk

Crueza Borger de Araujo et al. [26] Contractor performance evaluation Relations, management, quality, personnel, time, financialYang et al. [48] Value contractor selection Project comprehension, system planning, design and coding

ability, project administration ability, experience, previousaccomplishment

Ulubeyli and Kazaz [20] Subcontractor selection Experience and performance, formal and personalrelationship

Alptekin et al. [28] Contractor Selection Financial credibility and strength, materials and equipment,experience and number of technical staff, safety plan andrecord, termination of construction work, construction workquality reference, work experience, length of time

Chiang et al. [11] Construction contractor selection Financial situation, technical and management competence,health and safety, reputation

Semaan and Salem [27] Contractor selection for competitivebuilding

Time, cost, safety, quality, financial strength, workload, safetyrecords, reputation, reliability cost, technical, personnel,machinery, payments

Taylan et al. [23] Contractor selection for construction Financial situation, technical and management capacity,health and safety, reputation

Antoniou and Aretoulis [49] Highway construction contractorselection

Outlay, process instability, instability of scope, currency value,necessity of timetable, performance necessity, availability ofadditional reserves

Martin et al. [12] Contractor selection Final cost, organisations' physical and human resources, likelycompletion time, proposed method statements, qualityassurance system, health, safety and environmentalconsideration

Keshavarz Ghorabaee [25] Subcontractor evaluation Reliability, schedule-control ability, management ability,labour quality

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11060

buildings have cultural, symbolic, ethnic, religious, archaeo-logical, historical, social, economic, technological, and anothersignificance approach, therefore contractor assessment andchoice demand precise and appropriate consideration. Con-tractor's knowledge and performance take the part of the vitalfunction in the succeeded realisation of a project [54]. InLithuania, the customer, selecting contractor for heritagebuildings conservation and restoration, applies the heritageand construction legislation. Consequently, in this study, theauthors may employ the criteria which are combined withheritage and construction field.

The contractor selection is a crucial decision makingprocess because he plays an important role in the projectachievement. The broadly accepted the lowest tender priceprocedure has several difficulties as it permits for irrationalitylow tenders [27]. This procedure may allow a possibility tounqualified contractors to be rewarded an agreement [55]. Thisstudy discusses the difficulty of selecting a contractor forcultural heritage building based on applying quantitative andqualitative criteria (Fig. 1) and sub-criteria. The principalquantitative criterion is financial soundness (x1), contracts (x2)and sub-contractor (x3) [38]. Sub-contractor shows the procur-ement's number, in which have attended and rewarded withmain contractors. The main qualitative criterion is manage-ment ability (x4), personnel management (x5), risk (scores; from4 – ‘‘high risk’’, 3 – ‘‘higher than medium’’, 2 – ‘‘medium risk’’, 1 –

‘‘low risk’’) (x6) and reputation (x7) shows reviews andcomplaints (scores; from 5 to 0, where 5 - ‘‘positive’’, 4 – ‘‘biggerthan medium’’, 3 – ‘‘medium’’, 2 – ‘‘lower than medium’’, 1 – ‘‘none’’,0 – ‘‘negative’’).

Heritage contractor's assessment and selection can beaccomplished more accurate if the quantitative and qualita-tive criteria are subdivided into sub-criteria. The financialsoundness criterion describes sub-criteria such as the income(million Eur) (x11), value of rewarded contracts (million Eur) (x12),day's sales outstanding (days) (x13), day's payable outstanding(days) (x14), current ratio (x15), and profit before tax ( percentages)(x16). Financial soundness criterion is admitted to evaluateenterprise's income or profit, to measure capability to pay outshort-term and long-term responsibilities, days that enter-prise takes to evaluate and collect their incomes after aperformance has been made and days that enterprisemoderate payable period, which estimates how long takesan enterprise to pay its invoices from suppliers or sub-contractors. Contracts show total (million Eur) (x21) and culturalheritage (million Eur) (x22) valuation of contracts, and number oftotal contracts (x23). The management ability criterion char-acterises sub-criteria such as the duration of activity (years)(x41), certification for unique building ( percentages; certificationfor special building material/total of certification) (x42) andcertification ISO (scores; the number of certifications) (x43). Thesecertifications are essential for heritage building performance.The personnel management criterion describes sub-criteriasuch as the total employee (number) (x51) and qualifiedspecialist ( percentages; a qualified specialist/total of the employee)(x52). In Lithuania, the Minister of Culture has to certify theproper and qualified specialist, which could prepare theheritage project documentation, perform care procedures ofheritage preservation and restoration and so on. However,particular parts of heritage building's preservation and

Fig. 2 – Lithuanian Russian Drama Theatre Vilnius,Lithuania.

Fig. 1 – Quantitative and qualitative criteria and sub-criteria applied in describing heritage contractor selection.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1061

restoration could be accomplished by uncertified assistantsunder the supervision of a certified specialist in charge of theirperformance.

4. Current situation in Lithuania

Cultural heritage is a significant part of the cultural property ofevery nation, therefore this is essential to protect andmaintain heritage buildings such as historic houses, heritageresidential, palaces, temples, churches, theatres, museumsand galleries [56]. Cultural heritage buildings require protec-tion management, conservation and restoration work so thatthese buildings could be partly responsible for reestablishingcultural, traditional, social, and economic life of nationalidentity.

In Lithuania, culture heritage performance such as heritageprojects development, preservation, restoration, eliminationof the threat of an accident and adaptive reuse is implement-ing according to Law on Protection of Immovable CulturalHeritage, Protection regulations and Technical Constructionregulations. Therefore, preparing terms and conditions for theprocurement of heritage performance is necessary to considerto this legislation and regulations of Law on public procure-ment, contracting authority's public procurement rules andcivil code, and other public procurement legislation, tender'sterms, which depends on the type of tender. The contractorcould be selected using different methods like an open tender,selective/restricted tender, the lowest bid, negotiation, com-petitive dialogue and e-procurement (auctions). Nowadays, inLithuania, the customer, implementing the public procure-ment, could apply two methods: lowest tender or economi-cally advantageous tender.

The lowest tender is usually applicable for procurement ofcultural heritage performance. The tender procedure providesthe customer with an option in rewarding a contract to thecontractor that puts forward the lowest tender [27], becausetender, which contracting authority is not refused, is evaluat-ing considering to the lowest price. However, before valuating

the tender by lowest price, the participating organisation, inthis case, the contractor has to satisfy general and economic,financial, technical and professional requirements. Thegeneral requirements consist of a contractor's previousconviction, bankruptcy, suspended or limited activity, fulfil-ment of responsibilities, including fees and social insurance.The economic, financial, technical and professional require-ments include of critical current ratio, short-term responsibil-ity, net profit (loss) indicator, performance's incomes, qualifiedconstruction managers and employees, and certification ofquality management, environmental protection and healthand safety management. The heritage project tender's

Fig. 3 – The first floor.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11062

requirements also request to submit certification for specialbuildings, heritage performance's incomes and appropriatecontract implementation's assurance, specialised employees,having experience in the field of heritage buildings' preserva-tion and restoration.

Nevertheless, this method does not permit for accurateassessment of bid [57]. Contractor selection applying thelowest tender is one of the principal reasons for the low-quality accomplishment of construction [43] and heritageprojects. According to Ref. [45] the lowest tender approach hasdeveloped many difficulties. The lowest bidder procedureguarantees that contractor selection has to be based mainly onprice not on qualitative aspects as work quality, previousperformance or construction performance timetable. Further-more, the choice based on the lowest tender base may be oneof the causes for construction project accomplishmentdeferment, low quality, failure, unforeseen works and so on[31].

The economically advantageous bidder is determined bythe criteria, terms and conditions which are defined in thedocumentation of public procurement [58]. The participatingorganisation has to have a substantial economically advanta-geous. According to the Public procurement office's [58]guidance for assessment of the economically advantageousbidder is suggested to set the criteria which could enlarge theefficiency of purchasable performance, service or object:income, technical and economic benefits, technological,functional and environmental aspects, quality, process outlay,capability, assurance, accomplishment limit and also othercriteria which may be precisely combined with the imple-mented procurement.

Nevertheless, in Lithuania contracting authority, in thiscase, is a client, for contractor selection more guided by thelowest bidder procedure. The economically advantageoustender is not so popular because, first of all, the contractingauthority could not use the criterion such as ‘‘contractor'squalification’’, which is vital for heritage's contractor selec-tion. Also, the criteria have to be selected on purpose toincrease the use of purchasing object's efficiency andreflecting the potential economic benefit. The potentialeconomic benefit allows reaching the goal of purchasing.Furthermore, setting criteria in the public procurement of

construction performance has assessed many mistakes. Onthe other hand, nowadays for contractor selection, the client,who is using the economically advantageous tender, deter-mines the quantitative and qualitative criteria such as price,project risk management (risk identification, risk analysis,monitoring and controlling risk), environmental manage-ment (reduction of environmental impact's plan, its reason-ableness, efficiency), organisation and communication plan.However, these criteria could not be proper, estimating theimportance of contractor selection for cultural heritage'sbuildings.

5. Case study

5.1. Description of historical structure

The subject is the conservation and restoration of LithuanianRussian Drama Theatre (Fig. 2) in Vilnius, Lithuania. TheRussian Drama Theatre was built in 1913 by WaclawMichniewicz and Aleksander Parczewski. This theatre issituated in Vilnius and is belonged to UNESCO world heritagesite. In 1925, the first time theatre was reconstructed and, in1985, it was restored and partly reconstructed. The construc-tion combines several different architectural styles: Roman-esque, Renaissance, Baroque and other styles.

The theatre's planned construction work performance isrestoration, conservation and repairs. Restoration embracesfacades, the first (Fig. 3), second and third (Fig. 4) floors, attic(Fig. 5), the wooden railing of the main stairs. Repairs consist offacades, cellar, the first, second and third floors, attic,staircases and so on. Also, facades are conserving. Plannedimprovements of heritage building are architectural, construc-tive, technological, water supply, heating, ventilation, elec-tricity supply, fire alarm, process management andautomation.

In 1993, the Lithuanian Russian Drama Theatre wasinvolved in the Register of Cultural Heritage Building. Thenature of theatre's valuable properties is archaeological,architectural and historical.

The restoration and conservation aim is to preserve thenature of valuable properties.

Fig. 4 – The third floor.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1063

5.2. Developing the decision-making issue

The article's authors determined to analyse the culturalheritage contractor selection issue, choosing different enter-prises. These enterprises are connected with heritage build-ings performance such as developing heritage projects,protection, preservation and restoration. The issue is analys-ing by applying a multi-criteria decision making methods.

Four alternatives (companies) have been considered forselecting the cultural heritage contractor. The full names ofthese enterprises are not granted for the sake of confidentiali-ty.

The experts' group was built to resolve the issue of culturalheritage's contractor selection. In this research, the specialists'duty was to determine a group of criteria. This set of criteriashould be appropriate for the application. The authorscooperated with eleven qualified and knowledgeable specia-lists from Department of Culture Heritage, heritage buildings

Fig. 5 – The

proprietors, scientists, specific engineers, art and historyspecialist. The main requirements for experts were compe-tence and knowledge in the cultural heritage field. However,the principal criterion for contractor selection evaluationprocess was that the candidates had to have more than tenyears of experience in the cultural heritage field. The experts'characteristic is described in Table 2.

The proposed set of contractor selection criteria weresubmitted above and labelled as: Financial soundness criteria(x1), Contracts criteria (x2), Sub-contract criteria (x3) [37],Management ability criteria (x4) Personnel managementcriteria (x5), Risk criteria (x6) and Reputation criteria (x7).

6. Contractor selection for cultural heritagebuildings using MCDM methods

6.1. Data preparation

Four companies have been considered for selecting thecultural heritage contractor. The main aim for choosingcompanies was their performance in cultural heritage field,qualified and experienced employees and duration of theiractivity (more than 10 years).

Cultural heritage contractor selection alternative (A1–A4)with the defined set of criteria (x1–x7) and sub-criteria and theestimated values is presented in Table 3. These data wereachieved from different companies' documents.

The data presented in Table 3 shows companies' capacity,experience and qualification. It was valued by a set of criteriasuch as financial soundness, contracts, sub-contracts, man-agement ability, personnel management, risk and reputation.The analysis of the data of criteria shows that thesealternatives less or more are equivalents, i.e. none alternativedominate by all criteria.

attic.

Table 2 – Experts' characteristic.

Experts Characteristic Percentage

Department ofcultureheritage

Male (age: 35–65) 60%Female (age: 35–60) 40%

Owners ofcultureheritagebuildings

Male (age: 45–75) 80%Female (age: 45–75) 20%

Clients Male (age: 40–70) 15%Female (age: 40–70) 10%Institutions(as a municipality,organisation and so on)

75%

People fromacademicinstitutions

Male (age: 35–75) 75%Female (age: 35–75) 25%

Table 3 – The cultural heritage contractor selection alternative

Criteria The evaluatiof criteriamin/max

Quantitative criteriaFinancial soundness x1 maxIncome (million Eur) x11 max

Value of rewarded contracts(million Eur)

x12 max

Days sales outstanding (days) x13 max

Days payable outstanding (days) x14 min

Current ratio x15 max

Profit before tax (%) x16 max

Contracts x2 maxValue of total contracts (million Eur) x21 max

Value of heritage contracts(previous 2 years) (million Eur)

x22 max

Number of total contracts (number) x23 max

Sub-contractors x3 min

Procurement's number (number)

Qualitative criteriaManagement ability x4 maxThe duration of activity (years) x41 max

Certification for special building(%)

x42 max

Certification ISO: managementsystem, quality, environmentalmanagement, health and safetymanagement (scores by number ofISO)

x43 max

Personnel management x5 maxTotal number of employee (number) x51 max

Qualified specialist (no lowercategory as the third category)(%)

x52 max

Risk x6 min

Risk group (scores)Reputation x7 min

Reviews/complaints (scores)

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11064

6.2. Importance of setting criteria

Different techniques of merging the specific criteria charac-terising the deliberated object into an individual generalisingcriterion have been presented and quite a lot different multi-criteria assessment approaches have been established [59].MCDM is one of the most dynamic fields of multidisciplinarystudy in a much scientific field such as mathematics,information systems, construction, management, economicand operation research [60]. This paper presents the expertestimates and agreement of their assessment and the AHP andPROMETHEE methods. Fig. 6 shows the implementation for thecultural heritage contractor selection process.

The consequence of criteria assessing permits finding outthe arrangement of expert assessment (concordance ordiscordance). The expert assessment of the criteria shouldbe employed calculating the concordance coefficient. Accord-ing to Ref. [61], the concordance coefficient identifies the levelof compatibility. The matrix (Table 4) E = ||eik|| presents theexpert assessment results. The concordance coefficient is

s, criteria and sub-criteria.

on,

Alternatives

A1 A2 A3 A4

58.93 38.67 5.47 4.3222.5 13.09 10.6 13.36

48.31 60.85 47.06 76.337.27 116.59 44.62 57.151.66 1.56 2.34 4.852.07 0.83 5.08 0.71

22.5 13.09 10.6 13.364.53 4.27 1.82 1.55

32 18 7 1530 9 0 0

10 20 14 2325 10 17 20

3 3 3 3

156 257 105 1373.23 1.60 4.40 2.50

2 3 4 2

1 0 0 2

Fig. 6 – The cultural heritage contractor selection process of the proposed model.

Table 4 – The evaluation of expert.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 Total Result

Quantitative criteriaFinancial soundness 3 5 4 3 4 6 1 2 2 6 2 38 2Contracts 4 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 20 1Sub-contractors 7 6 6 4 7 5 6 6 7 7 6 67 7

Qualitative criteriaManagement ability 6 3 7 5 5 7 4 1 5 3 5 51 6Personnel management 5 4 2 2 6 4 3 5 6 2 3 42 3Risk 2 7 5 6 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 46 5Reputation 1 2 3 7 1 1 7 7 3 5 7 44 4

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1065

Table 6 – The evaluation of expert.

v1 v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7

0.3993 0.1361 0.0714 0.2482 0.0369 0.0230 0.0851

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11066

involved to the total of ranks of an exact criterion elicited fromall experts:

ei ¼Xr

k¼1

eikði ¼ 1; 2; . . .; mÞ: (1)

Precisely, it is related to the sum S:

S ¼Xm

i¼1

ðei�eÞ2: (2)

The total average e is calculated:

e ¼Pm

i¼1eim

(3)

i = 1, 2, . . ., m; k = 1, 2, . . ., r; where m – the number of criteria, r –

the number of experts.

The biggest conceivable S value is achieved if the assess-ment of experts is agreed, which means that assessments ofexperts are identical. Contrariwise, the estimate of expertswould be the worst one, when the calculation is different, i.e. ifall ranks from one to m are used and the total of ranks of eachcriterion is the same, and matching the mean value of theranks. According to the value of S significance, which is peer tozero, this significance is greatly uncommon and could betreated as a simple theoretical or outer limit case. If the valueof S is the actual deviation of the sum of squares, calculated byformula (2), then the concordance coefficient could be definedby the relation between the calculated S and the largest Smax:

W ¼ 12Sr2mðm2�1Þ : (4)

The concordance coefficient could be applied for practicalaims. If it was determined the boundary value, and the expertassessments are still in agreement. The concordance coeffi-cient could be assessed applying x2. The random value:

x2 ¼ Wrðm�1Þ ¼ 12Srmðm þ 1Þ : (5)

A distance between the value of x2, calculated by formula(5), and the relative critical value of x2

kr indicates a degree ofdiscordance (or concordance) of expert assessment. Therefore,

Table 5 – Expert's paired comparison matrix level 1.

Financialsoundness

Contracts Sub-contrac

Financial soundness 1 0.333 7

Contracts 3 1 9

Sub-contractors 0.143 0.111 1

Management ability 0.167 0.143 3

Personnel management 0.333 0.25 6

Risk 0.2 0.167 5

Reputation 0.25 0.2 4

if the estimated value of x2 is bigger than the critical value ofx2kr, it means that the expert assessments are agreed.The assessment of experts could be deliberated to be in

absolute discordance. In this case, the calculated value of x2

entirely peers to zero, and the complete concordance ofassessment is achieved, when the concordance coefficient isalmost wholeness and the estimated value of x2 approachesthe highest possible value x2

max ¼ rðm�1Þ.The concordance coefficient is 0.354. The value of x2 is 23.34

and it is superior to the critical value x2kr ¼ 12:59. The degrees of

freedom n = 6, importance level a is 0.05. As a result, theassessment of experts is agreed.

Furthermore, the expert assessment and arrangement oftheir estimates determine that the most critical criterion(contracts), subsequently is financial soundness and person-nel management. The less critical criterion is managementability and sub-contractors.

Analytic Hierarchy Process [59,62] method was applied forthe determination of criteria weights. The weights in Satty'ssuggestion – the vector v, which are normalised componentsof eigenvector equivalent to the largest eigenvalue lmax

Pv ¼ lmaxv; (6)

P is experts' paired comparison matrix, suggested in Table 5.

AHP technique evaluates the constancy of every expert'sevaluation. The evaluation of the expert's assessing consis-tency index (C.I.) and concordance ratio (C.R.). Consistencyindex is determined [61] as a relation:

C:I: ¼ lmax�mm�1

; (7)

where m is the number of compared criteria.

The relation between the estimated consistency index C.I.of a particular matrix and the average random index value R.I.is directed to as consistency relationship. It assesses thedegree of matrix consistency.

tors Managementability

Personnelmanagement

Risk Reputation

6 3 5 47 4 6 50.333 0.167 0.2 0.251 0.2 0.25 0.3335 1 3 24 0.333 1 0.53 0.5 2 1

Table 7 – Financial soundness' partial criteria weights.

v11 v12 v13 v14 v15 v16

0.4522 0.2075 0.0715 0.0441 0.1262 0.0287

Table 8 – Contract's partial criteria weights.

v21 v22 v23

0.6491 0.2790 0.0719

Table 9 – Management ability's partial criteria weights.

v41 v42 v43

0.1094 0.5815 0.3091

Table 10 – Personal management's partial criteriaweights.

v51 v52

0.1250 0.8750

Table 11 – Parameters' values q and s of preference function of

Criterion

Quantitative criteriaFinancial soundnessIncome (million Eur)

Value of awarded contracts (million Eur)

Days sales outstanding (days)

Days payable outstanding (days)

Current ratio

Profit before tax (%)

ContractsValue of total contracts (million Eur)

Value of heritage contracts (million Eur)

Number of total contracts (number)

Sub-contractorsProcurement's number (number)

Qualitative criteriaManagement abilityThe duration of activity (years)

Certification for special building (%)

Certification ISO: management system, quality, environmentmanagement, health and safety management (scores bynumber of ISO)

Personnel managementTotal number of employee (number)

Qualified specialist (no lower category as the third category) (%)

RiskRisk group (scores) (‘‘high risk’’ – 4, ‘‘higher than medium’’ – 3,‘‘medium risk’’ – 2, ‘‘low risk’’ – 1)

ReputationReviews/complaints (scores)

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1067

C:R: ¼ C:I:R:I:

: (8)

The significance of concordance ratio C.R. is agreeablewhen C.R. is smaller or equal to 0.1. In this case, means that thematrix is constant.

In our case the largest eigenvalue lmax = 7.53, C.I. = 0.089and C.R. = 0.067 < 0.1, therefore the assessment of experts isagreed.

The weights of criteria are demonstrated in Table 6.In the same way was determined all the weights of partial

criteria. Tables 7–10 presented the values of partial criteriaweights.

For Sub-contractors' (x3), Risk groups (x6), Reputation's (x7)criteria and their partial criteria was determined weight 1:v3 = v6 = v7 = 1.

6.3. Contractors comparison using PROMETHEE method

The integrated technique contained AHP and PROMETHEE[63,64] methods, is proposed for contractors' comparison.These two MCDM methods determine the pairwise compari-son of every pair of alternative (an aspect of every criterion)and compare the weights and the values of criteria intoassessment characteristic. However, PROMETHEE approachapplies values of so-called preference functions p(d) instead ofnormalised values of criteria rij. The difference of criteria

partial criteria.

min d max d q s

1.15 54.61 1 300.27 11.9 0.3 101.25 29.24 1 257.35 79.32 5 600.1 3.29 0.5 20.12 4.37 0.5 4

0.27 11.9 1 100.26 2.98 0.2 2.43 25 2 18

0 30 0 10

3 13 4 105 15 4 100 0 0 1

19 152 10 1000.73 2.8 1 2

0 2 0 2

0 2 0 1

Table 12 – Contractors' comparison aspect of the criteriaof each group.

A1 A2 A3 A4

Financial soundnessF+ 1.868 1.024 0.169 0.661F� 0.268 0.855 1.450 1.150F 1.600 0.169 �1.281 �0.489Ranks 1 2 4 3

ContractsF+ 2.602 0.710 0.009 0.154F� 0.000 0.668 1.581 1.226F 2.602 0.042 �1.572 �1.072Ranks 1 2 4 3

Sub-contractorsF+ 0 1 1.9 1.9F� 3 1.8 0 0F �3.0 �0.80 1.90 1.90Ranks 4 3 1–2 1–2

Management abilityF+ 1.066 0.146 0.291 0.782F� 0.219 1.454 0.515 0.097F 0.847 �1.308 �0.225 0.685Ranks 1 4 3 2

Personnel managementF+ 0.621 0.375 1.811 0.031F� 0.274 1.426 0.213 0.975F 0.347 �1.051 1.599 �0.894Ranks 2 4 1 3

RiskF+ 1.5 0.5 0 1.5F� 0 1 2.5 0F 1.500 �0.500 �2.500 1.500Ranks 1–2 3 4 1–2

ReputationF+ 1 2 2 0F� 2 0 0 3F �1 2 2 �3Ranks 3 1–2 1–2 4

Fig. 7 – V-shape with indifference preference graph.

Table 13 – Parameters' values q and s of preferencefunction of the main criteria.

q s

Financial soundness 0.6 1.4Contracts 0.4 2.5Sub-contractors 0 1.8Management ability 0.1 1.2Personnel management 0.1 2Risk 0 2Reputation 0 1.8

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11068

values is the argument d of preference function p(d). Further-more, the configuration of functions belongs to boundaryparameters: indifference q and preference s, which areselected by a decision-maker or qualified experts.

PROMETHEE method compares all the Aj and Ak alter-natives, calculating the aggregated preference (Outranking)index p(Aj, Ak) of the alternative Aj in respect of the alternativeAk (usually pðAj; AkÞ 6¼ pðAk; AjÞ).

PROMETHEE method suggests the formula, which calcu-lates the aggregated preference index:

pðAj; AkÞ ¼Xm

i¼1

viptðdiðAj; AkÞÞ (9)

where vi is the weight of the Ri criterion ðPmi¼1vi ¼ 1Þ;

diðAj; AkÞ ¼ rij�rik; rij and rik is the difference between valuesrij and rik of the criterion Ri for the alternatives Aj and Ak; ptðdÞ ¼ptðdiðAj; AkÞÞ is the tth preference function selected by a deci-sion-maker for the ith criterion from the set of availablepreference functions.

PROMETHEE technique includes all definite (positive)preference indication. The positive outranking flow isachieved:

Fþj ¼Xn

k¼1

pðAj; AkÞ (10)

and all negative preference indication to have the negativeoutranking flow is achieved:

F�j ¼Xn

k¼1

pðAk; AjÞ ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; nÞ: (11)

In PROMETHEE II rank of the alternative is calculated by thevalue of the difference Fj ¼ Fþj �F�j . Furthermore, it is rangingalternatives in decreasing position, according to values of Fj.

In this study was applied the V-shape with indifferencepreference function (Fig. 7) (12), which sensitively reacts to thecriteria value of the difference.

pðdÞ ¼0; when d�qd�qs�q

; when q < d�s

1; when d > s

8>><>>:

(12)

Firstly, contractors were estimated, considering by thepartial criteria of each group. The experts determined theparameters' values q and s of preference function of eachcriterion (Table 11).

Table 14 – Final PROMETHEE and neutrosophic PROMETHEE methods ranking of the alternatives.

A1 A2 A3 A4

F+ 2.266 0.818 0.631 0.723F� 0.407 1.506 1.587 0.939PROMETHEE F value 1.859 �0.688 �0.956 �0.216Neutrosophic F+ (1.0, 0.0, 0.0) (0.9941, 0.0059, 0.0059) (0.9325, 0.0672, 0.0672) (0.9772, 0.0227, 0.0227)Neutrosophic F� (0.7066, 0.2932, 0.2932) (0.8105, 0.1894, 0.1894) (0.5901, 0.4096, 0.4096) (0.0, 0.999, 0.999)Neutrosophic PROMETHEEF value

(1.0, 0.0, 0.0) (0.9688, 0.0311, 0.0311) (0.8354, 0.1642, 0.1642) (0.9772, 0.0227, 0.0227)

Score value of neutrosophicPROMETHEE F

1.0000 0.9689 0.8357 0.9772

Ranks 1 3 4 2

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1069

Evaluation result using the PROMETHEE method is submit-ted in Table 12.

Secondly, contractors were estimated, considering by theprincipal first level hierarchy's criteria and applying differentgroups' PROMETHEE evaluation (Table 12) and criteria weights(Table 6). The experts determine the parameters' values q ands of preference function of the main criteria (Table 13).

Table 14 presents the ranking results by the crispPROMETHEE and neutrosophic PROMETHEE methods. It isnot difficult to observe that the results obtained by bothapproaches are the same since the standard neutrosophica-tion procedure was applied. The neutrosophic PROMETHEEposses additional possibilities to take into account vaguenessand indeterminacy of the initial information.

According to criteria determination and evaluation, appliedexpert evaluation, AHP and PROMETHEE methods and theirresults the priority was given to the A1 heritages' contractor.The last priority was given to the A3 heritages' contractor.Although A1 heritages' contractor has a big risk, the lack ofqualified employee, which results to participating and reward-ing procurement together with sub-contractors, but thiscontractor has the biggest income, value of total and heritagecontracts comparing it with others contractors. On thecontrary to A3 heritages' contractor, who has low risk, nonereviews and complaints, more experience in the heritageperformance, however the lack of employee and number ofcontracts results to the low value of income, value of total andheritage contracts.

7. Conclusion

Cultural heritage buildings' preservation and restorationrequires specific skills in the cultural heritage and construc-tion performance field, ability and responsibility, knowledgeand know-how, and experienced employee. Therefore, select-ing a proper, qualified contractor for a cultural heritage projectis not an insignificant task because it has an important impacton the project achievement. An unsuitable contractor coulddetermine not only project success but also strongly damagecultural heritage. In this study, we have defined a set of criteriaallowing to evaluating an appropriate heritages' contractor.These criteria include financial, contracts, subcontractor,management, personnel, and risk, reputation issues.

The technique for problem solution based on using multi-criteria evaluation AHP and PROMETHEE methods. The

authors using only the PROMETHEE method could apply thecriteria's ‘‘zero’’ value in the algorithms. According to appliedtechniques, calculated results and the evaluation criteria usedin the research, the first place (the priority) was given to the A1

heritages' contractor, who even has participated and rewardedprocurement with sub-contractors, however value of totalcontracts and heritage contracts is one of the biggest accordingto the other contractor (alternative). Furthermore, A1 her-itages' contractor has big percentages of a qualified specialist,and the duration of activity is only 10 years. The fourth place(the priority) was given to the A3 heritages' contractor.Although this contractor has low risk, the lack of employeeand number of total contracts results to the low value of totalcontracts and heritage contracts.

To assess the numerical stability two approaches, the crispPROMETHEE and neutrosophic PROMETHEE methods havebeen studied. The both approaches provide the same resultssince the standard neutrosophication procedure was applied.The neutrosophic PROMETHEE posses additional possibilitiesto take into account vagueness and indeterminacy of theinitial information.

r e f e r e n c e s

[1] V. Kutut, E.K. Zavadskas, M. Lazauskas, Assessment ofpriority alternatives for preservation of historic buildingsusing model base on ARAS and AHP methods, Arch. CivilMech. Eng. 14 (2) (2014) 287–294. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.10.007.

[2] E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, J. Šaparauskas, Multi-criteria analysis of projects' performance in construction,Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 14 (1) (2014) 114–121. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.07.006.

[3] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, T. Vilutiene, Multiple criteriaanalysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applyingAdditive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method, Arch. Civil Mech.Eng. 10 (3) (2010) 123–141. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1.

[4] J. Curiel-Esparza, J. Canto-Perello, Selecting utilitiesplacement techniques in urban underground engineering,Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 13 (2) (2013) 276–285. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acme.2013.02.001.

[5] F.A. Smarandache, Unifying Field in Logics. Neutrosophy:Neutrosophic Probability, Set and Logic, American ResearchPress, Rehoboth, 1999.

[6] A. Jafari, A contractor pre-qualification model based on thequality function deployment method, Constr. Manage.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 11070

Econ. 31 (7) (2013) 746–760. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.825045.

[7] S. Mitkus, E. Trinkuniene, Reasoned decisions in constructioncontracts evaluation, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 14 (3) (2008)402–416.

[8] C.H. Wong, G.D. Holt, P.A. Cooper, Lowest price or value?Investigation of UK construction clients' tender selectionprocess, Constr. Manage. Econ. 18 (7) (2000) 767–774. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900433050.

[9] S.P. Fong, S.K. Choi, Final contractor selection using theanalytic hierarchy process, Constr. Manage. Econ. 18 (5) (2000)547–557. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461900407356.

[10] L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater, Loss prevention in turnaroundmaintenance project by selecting contractors based on safetycriteria using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), J. LossPrev. Process Ind. 34 (2015) 115–126. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.01.028.

[11] F. Chiang, V. Yu, P. Luarn, Construction contractor selectionin Taiwan using AHP, Int. J. Eng. Technol. 9 (3) (2017) 211–215.

[12] H. Martin, J. Koyloss, F. Welch, An exploration of theconsistency limits of the analytical hierarchy process and itsimpacts on contractor selection, Int. J. Constr. Manage. 18 (1)(2018) 14–25. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1230954.

[13] E.W.L. Cheng, H. Li, Contractor selection using the analyticnetwork process, Constr. Manage. Econ. 22 (10) (2004) 1021–1032. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144619042000202852.

[14] S. Hassim, R. Muniandy, A.H. Alias, P. Abdullah, Contructiontender price estimation standardization (TPES) in Malaysia:modeling using fuzzy neural network, Eng. Constr. Archit.Manage. 25 (3) (2018) 443–457. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-09-2016-0215.

[15] A. Kaklauskas, E.K. Zavadskas, S. Raslanas, R. Ginevicius, A.Komka, P. Malinauskas, Selection of low-e windows in retrofitof public buildings by applying multiple criteria methodCOPRAS: a Lithuania case, Energy Build. 38 (5) (2006) 454–462., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.08.005.

[16] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamošaitiene,Contractors selection multi-attribute model applying COPRASmethod with grey interval numbers, in: ‘‘ContinuousOptimization and Knowledge's-Based Technologies’’, EUROPT– 2008 Conf., 2008.

[17] W.K.M. Brauers, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, T. Vilutiene,Multi-objective contractor's ranking by applying the MOORAmethod, J. Bus. Econ. Manage. 9 (4) (2008) 245–255.

[18] Y. Juan, Y. Perng, D. Castro-Lacouture, K. Lu, Housingrefurbishment contractors selection based on a hybridfuzzy-QFD approach, Autom. Constr. 18 (2) (2009) 139–144. ,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2008.06.001.

[19] A. Niento-orote, F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for construction contractor prequalification,Autom. Constr. 25 (2012) 8–19. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.04.004.

[20] S. Ulubeyli, A. Kazaz, Fuzzy multi-criteria decision makingmodel for subcontractor selection in internationalconstruction projects, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 22 (2) (2016)201–234. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.984363.

[21] M.R. Afshar, Y. Alipouri, M.H. Sebt, W.T. Chan, A type-2 fuzzyset model for contractor prequalification, Autom. Constr. 84(2017) 356–366. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.003.

[22] G. Polat, Subcontractor selection using the integration of AHPand PROMETHEE methods, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 22 (8) (2016)1042–1054. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.948910.

[23] O. Taylan, M.R. Kabli, C. Porcel, E. Herrera-Viedma, Contractorselection for construction projects using consensus tolls andbig data, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 20 (4) (2018) 1267–1281.

[24] B. Vahdami, S. Meysam Mousavi, H. Hashemi, M.Mousakhami, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, A new compromisesolution method for fuzzy group decision-making problemswith an application to the contractor selection, Eng. Appl.

Artif. Intell. 26 (2) (2013) 779–788. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2012.11.005.

[25] M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E.K. Zavadskas, Z.Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, A dynamic Fuzzy approachbased on the EDAS method for multi criteria subcontractorevaluation, Information 9 (68) (2018) 1–15. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info9030068.

[26] M. Crueza Borger de Araujo, L. Hazin Alencar, M. MirandaMota, Model for contractor performance evaluation inconstruction industry, Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern. (2016),http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2016.7844636.

[27] N. Semaan, M. Salem, A deterministic contractor selectiondecision support system for competitive building, Eng.Constr. Architect. Manage. 24 (1) (2017) 61–77. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-06-2015-0094.

[28] O. Alptekin, N. Alptekin, Analysis of criteria influencingcontractor selection using TOPSIS method, IOC Conf. Ser.Mater. Sci. Eng. 245 (2017).

[29] S.H. Fachrurrazi, S. Husin, Muniwansyah, Husaini, Thesubcontractor selection practice using ANN-multilayer, Int.J. Technol. 4 (2017) 761–772. , http://dx.doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v8i4.9490.

[30] M. Darvish, M. Yasaei, A. Saeedi, Application of the graphtheory and matrix methods to contractor ranking, Int. J.Project Manage. 27 (6) (2009) 610–619. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.004.

[31] E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Tamošaitiene, Contractorselection of construction in a competitive environment, J.Bus. Econ. Manage. 9 (3) (2008) 181–187.

[32] M.E. Bayraktar, M. Hastak, A decision support system forselecting the optimal contracting strategy in highway workzone projects, Autom. Constr. 18 (6) (2009) 834–843. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.007.

[33] M. Cheng, S. Kang, Integrated fuzzy preference relations withdecision utilities for construction contractor selection, J.Chin. Inst. Eng. 35 (8) (2012) 1051–1063. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02533839.2012.708510.

[34] E.K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, T. Vilutiene, Multicriteriaevaluation of apartment blocks maintenance contractors:Lithuanian case study, Int. J. Strat. Prop. Manage. 13 (4) (2009)319–338.

[35] G.D. Holt, Which contractor selection methodology, Int. J.Project Manage. 16 (3) (1998) 153–164. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00035-5.

[36] O. Kaplinki, L. Januzsz, Three phases of multifactor modellingof construction process, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 12 (2) (2006) 127–134.

[37] Z. Hatush, M. Skitmore, Criteria for contractor selection,Constr. Manage. Econ. 15 (1) (1997) 19–38. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461997373088.

[38] Ž. Morkunaite, V. Podvezko, V. Kutut, Selection criteria forevaluating contractors of cultural heritage objects, ProcediaEng. 208 (2017) 90–97. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.11.025.

[39] G. Polat, E. Eray, B.N. Bingol, An integrated fuzzy MCGDMapproach for supplier selection problem, J. Civil Eng. Manage.23 (7) (2017) 926–942. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1343201.

[40] N. El-Sawalhi, D. Eaton, R. Rustom, Contractorprequalification model: state-of-the-art, Int. J. ProjectManage. 25 (5) (2007) 465–474. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.011.

[41] E.A. Chinyio, P.O. Olomolaiye, S.T. Kometa, F.C. Harris, Aneeds-based methodology for classifying construction clientsand selecting contractors, Constr. Manage. Econ. 16 (1998) 91–98. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461998372628.

[42] Y. Topcu, A decision model proposal for constructioncontractor selection in Turkey, Build. Environ. 39 (4) (2004)469–481. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.09.009.

a r c h i v e s o f c i v i l a n d m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g 1 9 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 0 5 6 – 1 0 7 1 1071

[43] A. Banaitis, N. Banaitiene, Analysis of criteria for contractors'qualification evaluation, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 12 (4)(2006) 276–282.

[44] Z. Turskis, Multi-attribute contractors ranking method byapplying ordering of feasible alternatives of solution in termsof prefer ability technique, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 14 (2)(2008) 224–239.

[45] A. Enshassi, S. Mohamed, Z. Modough, Contractors' selectioncriteria: opinions of Palestinian construction professionals,Int. J. Constr. Manage. 13 (1) (2013) 19–37. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2013.10773203.

[46] M.M. Marzouk, A.A. El Kherbawy, M. Khalifa, Factorsinfluencing subcontractors selection in construction project,HBRC J. 9 (2) (2013) 150–158. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.05.001.

[47] H. Abbasianjahromi, H. Rajaie, E. Shakeri, O. Kazemi, A newapproach for subcontractor selection in the constructionindustry based on portfolio theory, J. Civil Eng. Manage. 22 (3)(2016) 346–356. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.897983.

[48] J. Yang, H. Wang, W. Wang, S. Ma, Using data envelopmentanalysis to support best-value contractor selection, J. CivilEng. Manage. 22 (2) (2016) 199–209. , http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.897984.

[49] F. Antoniou, G. Aretoulis, A multi criteria decision makingsupport system for choice of method of compensation forhighway construction contractors in Greece, Int. J. Constr.Manage. (2018) 1–18. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1452103.

[50] A. Walraven, B. De Vries, From demand driven contractorselection towards value driven contractor selection, Constr.Manage. Econ. 27 (6) (2009) 597–604. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190902933356.

[51] M. Hasnain, M.J. Thaheem, F. Ullah, Best value Contractorselection I road construction projects: ANP-based decisionsupport system, Int. J. Civil Eng. 16 (6) (2018) 695–714.

[52] M. Filippi, Remarks on the green retrofitting of historicbuildings in Italy, Energy Build. 95 (2015) 15–22. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.001.

[53] S.N. Harun, Heritage building conservation in Malaysia:experience and challenges, Procedia Eng. 20 (2011) 41–53. ,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.137.

[54] H. Doloi, K.C. Iyer, A. Sawhney, Structural equation model forassessing impacts of contractor's performance on projectsuccess, Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (6) (2011) 687–695. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.05.007.

[55] X. Huang, An analysis of the selection of project contractor inthe construction management process, Int. J. Bus. Manage. 6(3) (2011) 184–189.

[56] S. Hendriatiningsih, D. Suwardhi, J. Januragadi, 3D Model onterrestrial laser scanning (TLS) case study: the CankuangTemple, Garut District, West Java, Indonesia, J. Eng. Technol.Sci. 47 (1) (2015) 1–19.

[57] D. Puri, S. Tiwari, Evaluating the criteria for contractors'selection and bid evaluation, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 3 (7) (2014)44–48.

[58] Viešuju pirkimu tarnyba, Viešuju pirkimu tarnybos prie LietuvosRespublikos Vyriausybes direktoriaus 2006 m. spalio 12 d.isakymas Nr. 1S-53 ‘‘Del viešuju pirkimu pasiulymo vertinimoekonomiškai naudingiausio pasiulymo arba mažiausios kainosvertinimo kriteriju rekomenfaciju’’, 2006, 1–27.

[59] V. Podvezko, Application of AHP technique, J. Bus. Econ.Manage. 10 (2) (2009) 181–189.

[60] M. Keshavarz Ghorabaee, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J.Antucheviciene, A new combinative distance-based assessment(CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making, Econ.Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 50 (3) (2016) 25–44.

[61] M. Kendall, Rank Correlation Methods, Griffin, London, 1970.[62] T. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy

process, Int. J. Service Sci. 1 (1) (2008) 83–98. , http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSci.2008.01759.

[63] J.P. Brans, B. Mareschal, PROMETHEE methods, in: J. Figueira,S. Greco, M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis:State of the Art Surveys, Springer, 2005 163–195 (Chapter 5).

[64] V. Podvezko, A. Podviezko, Dependence of multi-criteriaevaluation result on choice of preference functions and theirparameters, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16 (1) (2010) 143–158.