Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Multi-criteria approach for public tenders. ELECTRE III and Parsimonious AHP: a comparative study

  • Soft computing in decision making and in modeling in economics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the evaluation of the best tender in a public procurement process. According to the Most Economic Advantageous Tender criterion, in order to analyze a number of tenders, a group of experts has to consider different criteria, both of qualitative and quantitative nature. Selecting the best tender involves the solution of a multi-criteria choice problem. Indeed, in Italy, the National Anti-Corruption Authority suggested the use of traditional multiple criteria methods to evaluate the qualitative component and provided details on how aggregate the evaluations related to single criteria to derive the ranking of tenders. However, they are rarely used in practice and may have some application drawbacks. This paper aims at proposing the use of ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant the Realité) III and P-AHP (parsimonious analytic hierarchy process) as the more effective methods for analyzing public tenders when a great number of alternatives and/or the heterogeneity of scales are involved. The use of the proposed methodologies is completely innovative in the practice, in the Italian context. Furthermore, we carry out a comparative study among these multi-criteria methods and analyze the strengths and the weaknesses of each method in order to help the DMs to identify the more appropriate method. Moreover, we aim to develop easier and user-friendly models that sound practical in the public tender context. The potential advantages of the proposed approach are validated by a real-life contractor-selection case. The results show that the rankings obtained by ELECTRE III and P-AHP are almost the same.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  • Abastante F, Corrente S, Greco S, Ishizaka A, Lami IM (2019) A new parsimonious AHP methodology: assigning priorities to many objects by comparing pairwise few reference objects. Exp Syst Appl 127:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos KP, Vavatsikos AP (2006) An AHP model for construction contractor prequalification. Oper Res 6(3):333–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, Venkatesan VP (2013) A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. Am J Inf Syst 1(1):31–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C.A., Correa E.C., De Corte J.M., and Vansnick J.C. (2002) Facilitating Bid Evaluation in Public Call for Tenders: A Socio-Technical Approach. Omega 30:227–242

  • Chen ZS, Zhang X, Rodriguez RM, Pedrycz W, Martinez L (2021) Expertise-based bid evaluation for construction-contractor selection with generalized comparative linguistic ELECTRE III, Automation in Construction 125

  • Chen ZS, Martinez L, Chang JP, Wang XJ, Xionge SH, Chin KS (2019) Sustainable building material selection: a QFD- and ELECTRE III-embedded hybrid MCGDM approach with consensus building. Eng Appl Artif Intell 85:783–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrente S, Greco S, Slowinski R (2016) Multiple criteria hierarchy process for ELECTRE tri methods. Eur J Oper Res 252:191–203

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Corrente S, Greco S, Ishizaka A (2016) Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non additive robust ordinal regression. Omega 61:2–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diabagate A, Azmani A, El Harzli M (2015) The choice of the best proposal in tendering with AHP method: case of procurement of IT master plan‘s realization. Int J Inf Technol Comput Sci 7(12):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Dotoli M, Epicoco N, Falagario M (2020) Multi-criteria decision making techniques for the management of public procurement tenders: a case study. Appl Soft Comput, 88

  • Directive (February 2014) 2014/24/EU on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, 26. European Parliament and Council

  • Falagario M, Sciancalepore F, Costantino N, Pietroforte R (2012) Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders. Eur J Oper Res 218:523–529

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fattoruso G, Barbati M (2021) The usefulness of Multi-criteria sorting methods: a case study in the automotive sector. Electronic J Appl Stat Anal 14(2):277–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos‘ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Int Ser Oper Res Manage Sci. Springer

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Slowinski R (2009) Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method. Eur J Oper Res 195(2):460–486

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira JR, Greco S, Roy B, Slowinski R (2013) An overview of ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions. J Multi Criteria Decision Anal 20:61–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong PS-W, Choi SK-Y (2000) Final contractor selection using the analytical hierarchy process. Constr Manag Econ 18:547–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidelines no.2 of National Anti-Corruption Authority Council (2016) Implementation Act of Legislative Decree 18 April 2016, no. 50 bearing the Most Economically Advantageous Tender, Resolution no. 1005 of 21 September 2016

  • Husin AE, Soehari TD, Prabowo YS (2019) Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) implementation in determining document evaluation criteria of post qualification E-tendering knockout phase. Int J Eng Adv Technol 8(6):160–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Siraj S (2018) Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur J Oper Res 264:462–471

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Nemery P (2013) Multi-criteria decision analysis methods and software. Wiley, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Legislative Decree no. 50 of April, 18 2016, Implementation of Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU on the award of concession contracts, public contracts and procurement procedures by water, energy, transport and postal services, as well as for the reorganization of the current law on public contracts relating to works, services and supplies

  • Legislative Decree no. 56 of April, 19 2017, Supplementary and corrective provisions of legislative decree no. 50 of April, 18 (2016)

  • Marcarelli G, Nappi A (2019) Multicriteria approach to select the most economically advantageous tender: the application of AHP in Italian public procurement. J Public Procure 19(3)

  • Marcarelli G, Squillante M (2020) A group-AHP based approach for selecting the best public tender. Soft Comput 24:13717–13724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri D, Tiwari S (2015) Efficient contractor selection and bid evaluation methods for construction industry in India. Int J Sci Res 4:1027–1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and thinks of ELECTRE methods. Theory Decision 31:49–73

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1990) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 155–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B, Bouyssou, D (1993) Aide Multicritere a la Decision: methodes et Cas. Economica

  • Roy B, Mousseau V (1996) A theoretical framework for analysing the notion of relative importance of criteria. J Multi Criteria Decision Anal 5(2):145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 32:841–855

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty L (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Salvatore FP, Fanelli S, Lanza G, Milone M (2021) Public food procurement for Italian schools: results from analytical and content analyzes. Br Food J

  • Sciancalepore F, Falagario M, Cosentino N, Pietroforte R (2011) Multi-criteria bid evaluation of public projects. In: Proceedings of management and innovation for a sustainable built environment, 20–23 June 2011, Delft University of Technology, Amsterdam

  • Vincke P (1981) Preference modelling: a survey and an experiment. In: Operational research’81: proceedings of the ninth IFORS international conference on operational research. North Holland

  • Wang WC, Yu W, Yang I, Lin CC, Lee MT, Cheng YY (2013) Applying the AHP to support the best-value contractor selection-lessons learned from two case studies in Taiwan. J Civil Eng Manage 19(1):24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Economics, Management and quantitative Methods, University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

    Gerarda Fattoruso & Gabriella Marcarelli

  2. Supply chain management and Decision-making Department, NEOMA Business School - Information Systems, Rouen, France

    Gerarda Fattoruso

Authors
  1. Gerarda Fattoruso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella Marcarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriella Marcarelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fattoruso, G., Marcarelli, G. A Multi-criteria approach for public tenders. ELECTRE III and Parsimonious AHP: a comparative study. Soft Comput 26, 11771–11781 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07426-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-07426-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation