Bid evaluation decision for major project based on analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis cross-efficiency model

  • Liang Zhao
  • Weiguo Liu
  • Yong WuEmail author
Original Research


As is known that there are some drawbacks bid evaluation decision for some major projects, which would easily induce some problems, such as fault decision, low efficiency, poor benefit, etc., or even some social corruptions, which would seriously affect the cooperation and sustainable development of society, economy and environment. Therefore, considering these drawbacks, in this paper, a new model based on analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis (AHP/DEA) cross-efficiency is proposed for bid evaluation decision problems of major project. To deal with the complexity of bid evaluation decision for major project, a set of indices with multiple inputs and outputs is firstly proposed. Then, the DEA cross efficiency is adopted to develop a pairwise comparison matrix, after that, the AHP is applied for bid evaluation decision for major project using the pairwise comparison matrix. Finally, case studies are presented to demonstrate the reasonability and feasibility of the proposed evaluation decision model, it follows from these results that, the proposed new bid evaluation decision model can shed some new light on contractor selection for major projects.


Bid evaluation decision Major project AHP/DEA model Evaluation index Cross-efficiency 



  1. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 12(6):429–444MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen M (2017) Quality influencing factors and project quality control in municipal engineering construction. East China Sci Technol 4:394–407Google Scholar
  3. Cook WD, Seiford LM (2009) Data envelopment analysis (DEA)-thirty years. Eur J Oper Res 192(1):1–17MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Du T et al (2017) Organization multi-attribute decision making based on efficiency and its empirical research: DEA-TOPSIS combination method. Chin Manag Sci 7:153–162Google Scholar
  5. Fu J (2015) Research and application of DEA model based on AHP. Metall Autom:530–531Google Scholar
  6. Guo J, Liu J, Qiu L (2006) Research on supply chain performance evaluation based on DEA/AHP model. In: IEEE Asia-Pacific conference on services computing, pp 609–612Google Scholar
  7. Hatush Z, Skitmore M (1998) Contractor selection using multi-criteria utility theory: an additive model. Build Environ 33(2–3):105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. He M et al (2000) Application research of DEA in engineering bidding. J Shandong Univ Sci Technol 19(1):115–119Google Scholar
  9. Hiyassat AS (2001) Construction bid price evaluation. Can J Civ Eng 8(2):264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li C (2014) The study on the evaluation model of DEA cross-efficiency and fuzzy comprehensive assessment in decision making for bidding of construction projects. Adv Mater Res 4:986–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li C, Su H, Tong Y, Sun Y (2015) DEA cross-efficiency evaluation model by the solution strategy refering to the ideal DMU. Chin J Manag Sci 23(2):117–120Google Scholar
  12. Lin Y, Wang Y, Chen L (2018) DEA evaluation method based on cross ranking of decision making unit. J Zhejiang Univ 45(2):162–168MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu E, Wang J, Luo G (2003) Project bidding decision-making method based on fuzzy logic. J Civ Eng 36(3):57–63Google Scholar
  14. Liu C, Hsu H, Wang S, Lee H (2005) A performance evaluation model based on AHP and DEA. J Chin Inst Ind Eng 22(3):243–244Google Scholar
  15. Liu M et al (2013) Research on bidding decision of engineering project based on DEA model. Proj Manag Tech 12(1):63–66Google Scholar
  16. Peng K, Qiang M (2004) Research on the application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in risk assessment and bidding decision of Duber Khwar project. J Hydroelectr 23(3):44–50Google Scholar
  17. Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. Turkis Z (2008) Multi-attribute contractors ranking method by applying ordering of feasible alternatives of solutions in terms of prefer ability technique. Technol Econ Dev Econ 14(2):224–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang L, Xing W (2006) Research on supplier selection based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Mall Mod 16:111–112Google Scholar
  20. Wu L et al (2004) A new method of government procurement evaluation-comprehensive weighted average price difference method. J Shenyang Univ Technol 26(5):173–180Google Scholar
  21. Yang F (2011) DEA cross Efficiency evaluation method for competitive and cooperative decision making units. Syst Eng Theory Pract 33(1):92–95Google Scholar
  22. Yang X, Liu C (2010) It is urgent to strengthen social stability risk assessment of major projects. Curr Obs 10:32–36Google Scholar
  23. Yuan J (2000) Research on the model and method of construction bidding. China Highw J 13(1):27–30Google Scholar
  24. Zhang Y, Wang X (2014) Research on tender evaluation method for engineering projects based on two -stage model of DEA/AHP. Math Pract Theory 44(18):53–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business SchoolHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Business Management SchoolNanjing Audit UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.College of BusinessNanjing Xiaozhuang UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations