Comparing Three Methods in the Tendering Procedure to Select the Project Team

Annett Schöttle1, Paz Arroyo2 & Michael Bade3

11 PhD Candidate. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute for Technol. and Mgmt. in Construction (TMB), Am Fasanengarten, Geb. 50.31, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.Phone +49 721608-42168, [email protected]. Supervisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Fritz Gehbauer, M.S.
2Assistant Professor.Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile.Phone +5622354-4244, [email protected].
3Associate Vice Chancellor. Capital Programs & Campus Architect, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), 654 Minnesota Street, San Francisco CA 94143, USA. +1 415502-6460, [email protected].


Normally, the selection of a project team is based on Weighting Rating Calculating (WRC) and often relies on only one factor; the cost factor. WRC is a method that allows for assessing multiple factors easily but the bidders’ differences may not be highlighted, since factors are weighted independently of the attributes. A more recent concept, which is based on WRC, is Best Value Selection (BVS). BVS is a method where the best value score is calculated as the bid price divided by the qualification score. Choosing By Advantage (CBA) is a multiple-criteria decision-making method based on advantages of alternatives. Advantages are compared in order to decide the importance of them. We argue that CBA provides further benefits for helping public clients to differentiate between bidders. A case was constructed, based on the tendering procedure of the project Mission Hall, to exemplify the differences of the three methods for bidder selection in the context of public tendering requirements. This paper presents the analysis and discusses the results of the simulated case.


Best value selection, choosing by advantage, weighting rating calculating, selection, tendering procedure, project team



Schöttle, A. , Arroyo, P. & Bade, M. 2015. Comparing Three Methods in the Tendering Procedure to Select the Project Team, 23rd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction , 267-276.

Download: BibTeX | RIS Format