Int. J. Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2019
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of
construction contractors: a case study of US Army
Corps of Engineers
Bjorn Hale and Salman Azhar
McWhorter School of Building Science,
Auburn University,
118 M. Miller Gorrie Center, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA
Email: sza0001@auburn.edu
Email: salman@auburn.edu
Muhammad Ali Noor
Institute of Management Studies,
University of Peshawar, Pakistan
Email: m.ali.noor@hotmail.com
Malik M.A. Khalfan*
School of Property, Construction and Project Management,
RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia
Email: malik.khalfan@gmail.com
*Corresponding author
Abstract: The goal of this research was to provide recommendations and
highlight areas for improvements during the solicitation, evaluation and
selection process of prime contractors by US Army Corps of Engineers. To
achieve this goal, the research team conducted the literature review on
evaluation of construction contractors, both from a pre-award and post-award
stand point followed by interviews using structured questionnaires. This
research has concluded that the US Army Corps of Engineers should make
strides to better define the evaluation factors that are being utilised, while
providing a detailed description of the project being constructed, in order to
ensure that potential contractors submit project specific information. By
requesting the interested contractors for more project specific information via
their management plan, schedules, organisational chart, and other potential
evaluation factors, the Corps can gain better insight and understanding of each
potential contractor, resulting in the selection of the best contractor for project
completion.
Keywords: contractor selection; construction contractors evaluation; US Army
Corps of Engineers.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hale, B., Azhar, S.,
Noor, M.A. and Khalfan, M.M.A. (2019) ‘The solicitation, evaluation, and
selection of construction contractors: a case study of US Army Corps of
Engineers’, Int. J. Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.215–231.
Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
215
216
B. Hale et al.
Biographical notes: Bjorn Hale earned his Master’s degree in Building
Construction from the McWhorter School of Building Science, Auburn
University, Auburn, Alabama. His graduate research was focused on the
solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors.
Salman Azhar is a J.E. Wilborn Endowed Professor and Graduate Program
Chair in the McWhorter School of Building Science at Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama. He has more than 20 years of research, teaching and
construction industry experience by working in USA, Hong Kong, Thailand
and Pakistan. He has conducted research on high performance buildings,
sustainable construction, building information modelling, construction safety
and construction education. He has published more than 100 papers in refereed
journals and conferences. He also received the Outstanding Researcher Award
from the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) in 2015.
Muhammad Ali Noor is an Assistant Professor at University of Peshawar. He is
a national expert in public private partnership, construction procurement and
project management.
Malik M.A. Khalfan is an Associate Professor at RMIT University, Australia.
He has more than 20 years of research, teaching, consultancy and construction
industry experience by working in the UK, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Australia,
Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia and the UAE. He has published more than
150 papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings.
1
Introduction
The right choice of a prime contractor for a construction project is crucial to the project’s
success (Rahmani et al., 2018). However, the process for selecting prime contractors for
new construction and maintenance/repair work varies widely among the various US
Army Corps of Engineer districts this is all due to the fact that they all have interpreted
the prescribed process differently.
The goal of this research was to analyse the US Army Corps of Engineers practice of
evaluating and selecting prime contractors for construction and maintenance/repair work
and determining the effectiveness of their existing standard operating procedure (SOP).
Six US Army Corps of Engineer districts processes were compared with each other as
well as with the current best practices of the private sector with the aim to provide a
detailed analysis of the areas where the Corps of Engineers were utilising successful
evaluation and selection processes, as well as the areas the Corps of Engineers had room
for improvements.
The above was achieved through an in-depth review of the current US Army Corps of
Engineers process for the evaluation and selection of prime contractors for new
construction and maintenance/repair work. Reviews of the current Corps of Engineers
process at primarily the Louisville district in the US and European districts as well as
districts in Detroit, Buffalo, New York, and Savannah in the USA were conducted to see
what areas of the selection process were uniform and identify the areas that were not
uniform among the selected districts. The research also focused on a comparative
analysis of how the US Army Corps of Engineers evaluates and selects prime contractors.
The three objectives of this research were as follows:
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
217
1
Investigate the US Army Corps of Engineers approach of evaluating and selecting
prime contractors for construction and maintenance/repair work across the individual
Districts as directed by the federal guidelines; specifically the federal acquisition
regulation (FAR), the Department of Defence FAR supplement, the army source
selection plan, and the US Army Corps of Engineers acquisition instruction, utilising
information gathered from the Louisville District, Europe District, Buffalo District,
New York District, Savannah District and the Detroit District as the sample group.
2
Investigate the private sectors approaches of evaluating and selecting prime
contractors for construction and maintenance/repair work in the above mentioned
region.
3
Investigate and highlight the differences between the approaches of the various US
Army Corps of Engineers Districts from both the other sample group districts as well
as the private sector.
Figure 1
Phases of the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process (see online version
for colours)
Source: USACE (2014)
1.1 The current practice
The current approach in vogue used by the US Army Corps of Engineers for the selection
of construction contractors can be broken down into five phases; which include the
planning phase, solicitation phase, evaluation phase, award phase, and post award phase
(see Figure 1).
The planning phase is the first phase of the process when a US Army Corps of
Engineers District initially receives a request from a client for the construction of a
project. The clients on whose behalf the US Army Corps of Engineers completes projects
includes US Federal agencies, such as the US Air Force, US Army, Veterans Affairs, etc.
The US Army Corps of Engineers primary source of funding for these projects comes
from these agencies as they receive requests to solicit, award, and oversee their projects.
Once received, the project is assigned to an internal project manager who initiates the
acquisition process along with the assigned internal contract specialist and internal
project engineer. The process includes the defining of the project requirements,
conducting market research, overall acquisition planning and the completion of the
source selection plan that will outline the evaluation factors and identify the selection
criteria that will be utilised for the project (USACE, 2014).
The solicitation phase is the part of the process in which the solicitation is created and
posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website for review. The project manager,
218
B. Hale et al.
project engineer, contract specialist along with other stakeholders begins the process of
posting a synopsis of the project as the solicitation is being developed. Once the
solicitation is completed, it is issued on the Federal Business Opportunities website for
review by any interested contractors. The solicitation for most standard construction
projects usually has a proposal due date of thirty days from issue of the solicitation,
during this period the project manager, project engineer, and the contract specialist will
answer/address any requests for information that may be submitted. If the requests for
information require an amendment to the solicitation, it is addressed during this phase.
The solicitation phase ends upon the receipt of proposals from interested parties.
The Evaluation Phase consists of the preliminary review of the submitted proposals
by the Contract Specialist to ensure all the required documents and information were
correctly submitted prior to beginning the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB).
Once the preliminary review is completed, the SSEB is scheduled for the review of the
proposal submissions. During the SSEB, the members review each submitted proposal as
a standalone submission, without comparing them to the other submittals. Once the
proposal review is completed, the SSEB provides their source selection evaluation report
to the contracting officer for final review and the selection of the contractor who provides
the best value to the Government.
Once the selection has been made, the Award Phase begins with the formal award and
notification of a contract to the contractor that provides the overall best value to the
government. Simultaneously with the notification of award to the successful contractor,
the unsuccessful contractors are notified that they have not been selected for award and
are being afforded the opportunity for a de-briefing on how the Corps of Engineers
evaluated their proposal which is a grievance redressal mechanism. An awarded contract
is issued to the successful contract upon notification and begins the final phase of the
process.
The post-award phase is the portion of the process that consists of the implementation
and oversight of the contract award. The oversight generally falls to the administrative
contracting officer and the contracting officer representative that are predominately on
site; however, the project manager and contracting officer are both still involved with the
project up till the point of contract close out (USACE, 2014).
2
Literature review
Selecting a capable contractor is an underpinning of every successful construction project
and is instrumental for thwarting project issues and requires the individual or company or
in this case the US Army Corps of Engineers to put in the necessary effort to thoroughly
review all the potential contractors for the project. Construction project success or any
project for that matter has to view in terms of cost, time and quality which make it
imperative to select the best contractor for the project being proposed. In 1979, the
institute of building was among the first to point out the shortcomings that occurred in
both the public and private sectors which resulted into clients having difficulty achieving
best value for the money. Most of these shortcomings originated before the contractor
was appointed and many were made worse because the wrong contractor, or the wrong
method for employing the contractor, was chosen (Holt et al., 1995).
The method of selection should be based on three criteria; time, cost, and quality but
in a research conducted by Holt et al. (1995), it was documented that mostly, any
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
219
combination of the two (out of three) can be achieved, but rarely all three. There will
always be a trade-off between time, cost, and quality as the customer tries to balance
these variables. But it was also argued that contrary to popular belief, good quality can be
achieved at a reasonable cost and in good time (Holt et al., 1995). To maximise the
potential of selecting a capable contractor who in the end would provide a timely project
that falls within the allowable cost range and quality standards of the customer, the
customer needs to identify suitable and relevant selection criteria for their project.
Numerous criteria for selecting construction contractors have been utilised over the years,
including financial stability, past performance, experience, key personnel availability,
contractors current workload, contractors management resources, the size and complexity
of the project, etc. (Rahmani et al., 2017; Khalfan et al., 2014; Oyegoke et al., 2009;
Kumaraswamy, 1995).
According to Noor and Khalfan (2017) evolution of procurement in project
management in the construction industry has arisen from a number of factors which has
resulted in forcing the construction industry into a position where it has to change to
survive (Walker and Rowlinson, 2008). As Tookey et al. (2001) state that there are a
number of different types of procurement routes available to choose from. Noor and
Khalfan (2017) states that each different type of procurement [traditional approach,
design and build (D and B), build-operate-transfer (BOT), management contracting, PPP,
etc., has its own proponents and inherent strengths and weaknesses but the underlying
question that arises is which one is the best choice? The selection of optimal procurement
systems has been found to be difficult, because even experienced clients cannot know all
the potential benefits and risks for each system. Procurement is, therefore, a succession of
calculated risks (Tookey et al., 2001). Walker and Rowlinson (2008) suggest that the
project procurement choice can be guided by the project typology and the degree of
collaboration and integration between the supply chain parties and their relationships.
The current process of procurement selection tends to be carried out in a rather
unstructured and cursory manner, and this may give rise to the adoption of procurement
system beyond the deliberate choice (Masterman, 1992; Luu et al., 2003). The result of
employing an imprudently selected procurement method could be an impediment to the
realisation of certain anticipated benefits associated, and might eventually lead to project
failure (Naoum, 1994; Sharif and Morledge, 1994; Ambrose and Tucker, 1999; Luu et al.,
2003). Inappropriate procurement strategies may lead to cost and time overruns claims
and disputes on projects (Masterman, 1992; Abdel-Meguid and Davidson, 1996).
Conversely, appropriate procurement strategies are needed to help achieve optimal
solutions in terms of cost, time and quality (Oyegoke et al., 2009; Noor et al., 2011;
Khalfan et al., 2014; Rahmani et al., 2017; Noor and Khalfan, 2017).
2.1 Evaluation factors
The dependence on organisations to rely too heavily on cost is a high risk and extremely
short sighted in regards to the overall success of a project. As stated by Holt et al. (1995),
it is unwise to pay too much but it is worse to pay too little. The author also stated that
during poor economic climates, contractors will submit an extremely low price for the
project to keep their staff employed during the leaner times. This attempt to buy work
with proposals that have little to no profit included within the submitted proposal,
increases the risk of the project failing. This was evident in many of the proposals
220
B. Hale et al.
received by the US Army Corps of Engineers during the period between 2008 and 2012,
when the construction industry had a severe cooling off period after the sudden economic
downturn during those years. Most public sector and some private sector clients still find
it difficult to accept any evaluation factors other than the lowest price.
Noor and Khalfan (2017) observed that the need for efficiency and finances were the
main issues for choosing a certain procurement method in organisations. According to
them Project characteristics especially technical complexity and cost of project have been
found to be deciding factors. According to Luu et al. (2003) and Morledge et al. (2006),
project characteristics are important factors effecting procurement. Morledge et al. (2006)
suggests that the size, complexity and the location of the project should be carefully
considered. As Morledge et al. (2006) suggest they can have a bigger risk of cost or time
overruns. Nahapiet and Nahapiet (1985) found that it was useful to characterise projects
in terms of their relative complexity, believing that this was likely to be at least one
important determinant of the need for flexibility. Many researchers argue that ‘project
size’, ‘project type’ could in turn affect the ultimate performance of a project, and which
reflect the project’s physical characteristics should therefore be carefully selected and
used (Skitmore and Marsden, 1988; Turner, 1990; Love et al., 1998; Luu et al., 2003).
Noor and Khaldan (2017) states that Understanding a client’s implicit and explicit
objectives for construction is a complex issue (Tookey et al., 2001). They further suggest
that client role has been the source of much research over the years. Fundamentally,
client objectives focus on three factors i.e., quality, cost and time (Walker and
Rowlinson, 2008). Tookey et al. (2001) summarises core client objectives as highest
realistic quality with lowest realistic cost done in minimum realistic time and having
minimum conflict during the process. Noor and Khalfan (2017) found that clients’
objectives have also been found to be an important factor in procurement selection in
including the clarity of clients’ needs. They also state observed that transparency and
competition are important in public sector procurement. Principles of procurement as
defined by Raymond (2008) i.e., transparency, accountability, competition, value for
money (VFM) and ethics are important factors in public procurement competitive
tendering is the means by which most goods and services are procured. Noor and Khalfan
(2017) further states that competitive tendering involves processing of bids and a
technical evaluation committee evaluates whether bids are in accordance with
requirements as stipulated in tender conditions. They suggest in this process competition
occurs as the credibility of the bidder in carrying out previous contracts of similar nature,
the price are compared across the bidders and the most competitive bidder is awarded the
tender. Erridge et al. (1999) referring to the quality of the tender document and
advertisement states that provision of inaccurate data and information often result in
misunderstandings and increased costs the better the quality of information provided the
less likely that it results in an unsatisfactory purchase. Raymond (2008) and Erridge et al.
(1999) believe that competitive tendering avoids accusations of favouritism and fraud and
that the openness of the system encourage more suppliers to participate and that increased
competition help reduce prices, improve quality and lead to greater competitiveness
among bidders. However Noor and Khalfan (2017) observed that over competitiveness
had resulted in development of adversarial relationship between clients and contractors
and among contractors as well which seems to be universal across the construction
industry throughout the world.
The function of transparency is also important in procurement and it refers to
openness (Raymond, 2008). Transparency therefore is an essential aspect of ensuring
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
221
accountability and minimising corruption, and is particularly associated with the rise of
the governance agenda as transparency is a core governance value (Smith-Deighton,
2004). Transparency in construction procurement both public and private sector provides
an assurance for both domestic and foreign investors that contracts will be awarded in a
fair and equitable manner (Raymond, 2008). These rules also ensure that goods and
services are obtained at the most economic prices and thus lead to a reduction in costs
(Raymond, 2008). According to Rege (2001), the most important benefit of transparent
and open procedures is the impact which their adoption may have on the level of
corruption in countries where it is widespread. Therefore, transparency promotes trust by
allowing stakeholders to see and judge the quality of government actions and decisions
(Smith-Deighton, 2004). VFM is the most important principle of procurement (Raymond,
2008). VFM in the public sector entails consideration of the contribution to be made to
advancing government policies and priorities while achieving the best return and
performance for the money being spent (Bauld and McGuinness, 2006). VFM is not
taken to be least cost (Pitt et al., 2006).
2.2 Pre-qualification of contractors
The process of pre-selecting qualified contractors to submit proposals has been around
for many years. The process has evolved over the years and many organisations have set
out, to eliminate the burden of time, expense, and effort on the industry; to limit the
number of firms allowed to submit on a solicitation to a small number of pre-qualified
firms that can perform the work to standard. As the efforts and costs involved in proposal
preparation and proposal evaluation are enormous, the number of pre-qualified, short
listed contractors for projects is limited and the preferred range is between three to five
(Palaneeswaran and Kumaraswamy, 2000). Short listing in general has proven
advantages and can be completed by creating a register of contractors classified by
previously evaluated capabilities. Public sector clients are most often constrained to
select the lowest proposer, which makes short listing even more important
(Kumaraswamy, 1996). Short listing allows the organisation limit the firms submitting on
a project to the most qualified contractors in a specific area of expertise or location.
On the other hand, there are also disadvantages to the public sector clients. Once the
pre-selected contractors are on board, there might be situations when the clients end up
paying more than the market price or deal with the budget and time overrun. Rahmani
et al. (2017) have provided greater details on various procurement methods being used
for contractors pre-qualification.
2.3 Streamlining the evaluation factors
Past performance, experience, key personnel availability, and construction management
resources dominate most construction solicitation factors but they are not the only factors
that can be used by an organisation during the selection process. Evaluation factors
should be selected based on the requirements of the project and reflect the overall
expectations of the organisation soliciting the project. Streamlining the evaluation factors
to best reflect the proposed project is an opportunity for the selecting organisation to
tailor the factors to the areas that are most important to them when selecting a contractor
(Rahmani et al., 2017, 2018). Now the predominant factors previously listed would most
222
B. Hale et al.
likely still be a part of the solicitation but the addition of various alternate factors and
sub-factors could be added to the package based on the type of project being proposed.
Factors would be added or removed from a solicitation based on various elements of the
project, which include but are not limited to, overall cost of the project, size of the
project, complexity of the project, and the proposed timeline of the project. These listed
elements play a part in the predominant factors as well but lend themselves to including
other evaluation factors.
The two significant knowledge gaps that seemed to bubble up throughout the
literature review revolved around the ability to adequately streamline the evaluation
factors to a solicitation for construction work, as well as how to review a potential
contractor’s financial stability. As discussed previously, streamlining the evaluation
factors will help the organisation soliciting the project more adequately evaluate a
contractor for the specific project being solicited. The ability to gauge a construction
contractor’s financial stability and current workload will allow the selecting organisation
to better identify a contractor who will not default on their obligations as a prime
contractor or be stretched too thin to adequately perform the project.
3
Research methodology
This research study was based on the qualitative research method. The qualitative
research approach was selected based on the scope of the research and the reliance on
individual feedback via the interview/questionnaire process. The idea was to gain an
understanding of the underlying basis for certain evaluation factors/selection criteria that
go into the construction solicitation process by canvassing as many individuals involved
with the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process within the US Army Corps of
Engineers as well as an in-depth literature review on the subject. The initial data
collection was done by reviewing the case studies, journal articles and other forms of
research regarding the source selection process and procedures.
This initial literature reviews highlighted practices in both the public and private
sector regarding the source selection process when planning for a new construction
project. During the canvassing stage of the research, numerous individuals involved with
the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process as conducted by the US Army Corps of
Engineers were sent a questionnaire. The questionnaire document requested standard
information regarding their current position and experience with the overall process in
selecting a prime contractor for a construction project. Individuals were selected for the
interview questionnaire based on their level of experience with the solicitation,
evaluation, and selection process currently being utilised by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. This includes contract specialist, contracting officer and administrative
contract officer, project engineer and project manager, and contracting officer
representative.
The US Army Corps of Engineers currently has nine divisions and 43 district offices
spread out through the United States, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Middle East, and
Afghanistan. The interview questionnaires were sent to the Louisville, Detroit, Buffalo,
New York, Savannah, and Europe Districts. These districts fall under the Great Lakes and
Ohio River Division (Louisville, Detroit, and Buffalo), North Atlantic Division (New
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
223
York and Europe), and the South Atlantic Division (Savannah District). The decision to
utilise the following Districts versus one of the other 37 districts was based on specific
district missions; which can vary significantly (Nashville District primarily handles civil
works and very little construction or the Afghanistan/Middle East District missions
operate outside the SOP for construction projects, so they were not contacted). Time
constraints also limited the number of districts contacted to complete the questionnaires
that contains interview style questions; which made it necessary to contact the districts
with the most significant construction workload to get enough quality responses to the
interview questionnaire.
4
Data analysis
The data collection phase was conducted over a two-week period, providing for the
individuals who were requested to complete a written questionnaire that was design using
interview questions to gather qualitative written data. They were given ample time to
review the document and submit a detailed response. The time constraints restricted the
number of divisions and districts within the US Army Corps of Engineers who were
contacted to complete the interview questionnaire. In future research, it would be
beneficial to receive at least one response from each of the nine divisions for a total of at
least 50 responses. The time constraints limited the research to the distribution of thirty
questionnaires to individuals representing three divisions and six districts and nominated
by their commanders. 18 questionnaire responses were received out of the 30 interview
questionnaires that were distributed.
The submitted responses to the questionnaires provided insight on how the selected
US Army Corps of Engineers Districts of Louisville, Detroit, Savannah, New York,
Europe, and Buffalo were going about the process of soliciting, evaluating and eventually
selecting prime contractors. The first three questions on the questionnaire were utilised to
provide a small census of the individuals that had submitted responses. This information
from the initial three questions was utilised to gauge the experience, job position, and to
provide insight to the stances and responses everyone submitted on questions four
through nine. To clarify, members of the post-award construction contract administration
staff, i.e., the contracting officer’s representative and the administrative contracting
officer could bring a different point of view to what they consider the most or least
important evaluation factors in comparison to the pre-award staff, i.e., the contract
specialist, project engineer, or the project manager. The responses provided to questions
four through nine were reviewed to find out the current evaluation factors being used by
the US Army Corps of Engineers and which were the most useful and least useful. The
responses also provided a basis for everyone’s selections and in which direction they
would like to see the evaluation criteria selected and applied on future projects. This
information was compiled and analysed to see which evaluation factors were mentioned
on a consistent basis for either category and if that individual factor should be included or
removed from future solicitations.
A total of 30 interview questionnaires were sent out to members of the US Army
Corps of Engineers representing the Louisville, Europe, Detroit, New York, Buffalo, and
Savannah Districts. 18 responses were received in total to the questionnaire representing
224
B. Hale et al.
all six Districts. The responses as indicated by the chart above included four contracting
officers, two contract specialists, six project managers, two project engineers, three
administrative contracting officers, and one contracting officer representative for a total
of 18 interview questionnaire responses.
Figure 2
Questionnaire responses by position (see online version for colours)
The first three questions of the questionnaire were utilised to identify the individual’s
current position, level of experience with the solicitation, evaluation, and selection of
construction contractors, and the types of construction projects that they have been
involved in as a member of the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Questions four through nine were an opportunity for everyone to relay their personal
experiences while working through the process of issuing a solicitation, evaluating
proposals, and eventually selecting a construction contractor. The idea behind the
questionnaire was to find out what evaluation factors were used on previous construction
project awards, what factors were considered the most useful in regards to selecting a
contractor, and which evaluation factors were the least useful during the selection
process. The questionnaire was also used to see what evaluation factors that each
individual thought would be beneficial on future projects that the US Army Corps of
Engineers will be hoping to complete in the future.
Question number four, “What are some of the primary evaluation factors that were
utilised in the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process that you were involved in?”
resulted in a list of seven different evaluation factors. Those factors included past
performance and experience, key personnel, management plan (the following responses
of technical approach, organisational chart, design capability were all rolled into the
management plan factor based on similarity in application), schedule, sub-contractor
experience, safety, and price.
Question number five, “Which evaluation factors did you feel were the most useful in
determining the best contractor for the particular project and why?” resulted in a list of
four evaluation factors. Those factors as depicted in the below chart included past
performance and experience (83%), management plan (22%), key personnel (11%), and
schedule (6%).
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
Figure 3
225
Questionnaire responses – most useful evaluation factors (see online version
for colours)
Question number six, “Which evaluation factors do you feel were the least useful in
determining the best contractor for a particular project and why?” resulted in a list of five
evaluation factors. These factors as depicted in the below chart included key personnel
(33%), management plan (28%), past performance and experience (17%), schedule
(17%), and price (17%).
Question number seven, “What evaluation factors would you like to see added for
future solicitations, evaluations, and selections that have not previously been utilised on
projects that you have been involved in and why?” resulted in a few responses which
included bar chart schedules, project specific scheduling, sub-contractor management
plans, and innovative approaches. The evaluation of innovative approaches was the most
frequently suggested. Some interviewees added that the elimination of some evaluation
factors would be most beneficial to the process.
Figure 4
Questionnaire responses – least useful evaluation factors (see online version
for colours)
Question number eight, “Are there any evaluation factors that are dependent on project
type or project delivery system?” resulted in responses that were mostly affirmative to the
fact that there are some evaluation factors that could be utilised based on project specific
226
B. Hale et al.
requirements. However, there were minimal suggestions of actual evaluation factors that
could be utilised in certain scenarios.
Question number nine, “Do you think the right positions/individuals were involved in
the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process? If not, what positions/individuals do
you believe should be involved but were not represented in previous solicitation,
evaluation, and selection processes?” resulted in responses that were mostly affirmative
in the fact that the right individuals were involved in the solicitation, evaluation, and
selection process.
18 of the interview questionnaires were returned for assessment out of the thirty
interview questionnaires that were distributed to various US Army Corps of Engineers
personnel. The individuals that responded overwhelmingly stated that past performance
and experience was the most useful evaluation factor currently being utilised by the US
Army Corps of Engineers. Past performance and experience was mentioned in 15 of the
18 (83%) responses. The past performance and experience evaluation factor was the
predominately selected evaluation factor because of the powerful insight it provides to a
given contractors technical capabilities and previous performance on construction
projects. If the solicitation along with the enclosed evaluation and selection criteria
include significant project details and expectations for the project, then the likelihood of
receiving proposals from contractors that are qualified for the project will increase
drastically. It will also allow for potentially unqualified contractors to make an educated
decision on if they would like to expend the time and resources to submit for a project
that they have a low probability of being awarded.
The significant benefit of the past performance and experience evaluation factor is the
insight it provides to a contractors previously completed construction projects and if there
are any significant similarities to that of the proposed project. If a contractor has done his
or her due diligence and submitted projects that are like the proposed project, it will
increase the likelihood of being selected for award and the potential for pairing a
successful contractor with the firm advertising the project.
Figure 5
Most useful evaluation factors (see online version for colours)
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
Figure 6
227
Least useful evaluation factors (see online version for colours)
There were five factors listed in the questionnaire responses that were the least useful
factors, those factors were key personnel, management plan, past performance and
experience, schedule, and price. Price as a factor along with small business participation
is required for all construction acquisitions, so both factors will not be discussed any
further. Both were mentioned as not being helpful to the overall evaluation and selection
process within numerous questionnaires, specifically the small business participation
requirement.
The factors that were mentioned, key personnel, management plan, past performance
and experience, and schedule; all had a common core of comments associated with their
selection as one of the least useful evaluation factors. All the questionnaire responses
continually stated that the lack of project specific details associated with each of the
evaluation factors were the contributing basis for their selection as a least useful
evaluation factor. The management plan, schedule, and the past performance and
experience factors could be improved drastically if the information requested and criteria
for selection were geared toward the actual project being constructed. The predominant
issue listed for key personnel was relatively simple in that the individuals that were
submitted as the contractor’s key personnel for evaluation were not always the
individuals that would end up filling these positions once the work on the project began.
The submitted questionnaires included varying responses that the individuals
involved in the evaluation process would like to see included in future solicitations. Some
of the evaluation factors that were mentioned for potential use moving forward were bar
chart and project specific schedules, sub-contractor management plans, and innovative
approaches. With project specific scheduling and sub-contractor management plans being
information that could be compiled in more project specific management plans, it will be
better to concentrate on the evaluation factor that was mentioned the most in the
submitted questionnaires. Innovative approaches were mentioned quiet frequently but it
is one of the more difficult factors to implement for a federal agency like the US Army
Corp of Engineers. The reason being that when evaluating submitted proposals is pricing
228
B. Hale et al.
is withheld until after all the evaluations have been completed. Not knowing if the
innovation is going to save money or cost more money can make it difficult to decide if
the innovation adds value to a project. This comes into play even more when the
proposed projects are already on a tight budget.
5
Conclusions and recommendations
The literature revealed that there has been extensive research on the solicitation,
evaluation, and selection of construction contractors, much of it focused on the
importance of shifting away from relying heavily on cost alone to an evaluation of
multiple factors to determine the contractor that provides the best value to the soliciting
organisation. A large amount of the research completed focused on the pre-qualification
of contractors to limit the overall burden on both the contractors in the form of proposal
costs and the soliciting organisation in the form of evaluation of submittal costs. The
literature harped on the creation of evaluation factors that would help gauge the ability of
a contractor to complete the project. Despite the extensive research that has been
conducted, there is still room for further improvement. Specifically, the area of
streamlining the evaluation criteria to a certain project. This research sought, through the
consultation with US Army Corps of Engineers personnel directly involved in the
solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors; determine the best
practice for streaming the evaluation criteria to ensure that the contractor that provides
the best value is selected for the project.
The research has confirmed that the sample US Army Corps of Engineer Districts are
in lock step with much of the construction industry as it moves away from basing the
selection process on lowest price to a best value approach. Despite, some minor
differences in the overall method, the districts surveyed approached the solicitation,
evaluation, and selection process with almost identical tactics. This is primarily a direct
result of district adhering to the federal guidelines that are outlined in the FAR, the
Department of Defence FAR Supplement, the army source selection plan, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers acquisition instruction; however, there is a level of flexibility
afforded to each district during the acquisition process that could result in significant
differences in one districts approach over another. Outside of a few outlier projects, the
US Army Corps of Engineers utilises a best value approach when selecting a prime
contractor for any of their numerous construction projects.
The private sector along with the public sector is making the shift away from a
selection process based solely on price for a best value approach, based on a variety of
evaluation factors; which includes price. The private sector has a distinct advantage over
the public sector by not being bound by the various federal and state regulations like the
US Army Corps of Engineers. That gives a private sector organisation a significant
amount of leeway during the solicitation, evaluation, and selection process. However,
outside of limiting the number of proposals they are willing to accept (federal agencies
must maximise competition at all times) the private and public sector generally follow the
same overarching approach during the process. An area the private sector has begun to
pursue is the pre-qualification or pre-selection of capable contractors to submit pricing
proposals for their projects. The process involves the creation of a list of capable and
qualified contractors, then when a need arises, selecting three to five of the most highly
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
229
qualified construction contractors based on the requirements of the project to submit a
pricing proposal.
6
Recommendations
The US Army Corps of Engineers should continue to pursue the best value approach;
however, the agency should continue to modify and evolve the methodology for the
solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors to continually adapt to
the changing construction landscape. The current approach involves a standard set of
evaluation factors and minimum threshold requirements for satisfactory compliance to be
considered for selection. The Corps of Engineers should begin to adapt their procedures
to be more project specific and begin utilising evaluation and selection criteria that might
not always be necessary for every project although could provide valuable insight into a
contractor’s capabilities for projects that require more unique proficiencies.
The US Army Corps of Engineers should also be willing to eliminate or revise
evaluation factors that are either problematic or add no clear value to the solicitation,
evaluation, and selection process. A few clear examples, as mentioned in several of the
interview questionnaires, are the Schedule, Key Personnel, and Management Plan. The
Schedule as an evaluation factor could easily be eliminated since the projects are solicited
with a set number of days allowed to complete the project. However, the schedule factor
is also unique in that it could be modified to help provide insight into a contractors
overall sequencing approach which would highlight their grasp of the project
requirements. Based on the interview questionnaire responses, it might be more efficient
to set some minimum personnel experience requirements for certain positions and
eliminate the need for the key personnel evaluation factor. The contractor if selected for
the award would then have to submit the personnel that will hold key positions for
approval based on the minimum requirements of the solicitation/awarded contract, prior
to beginning work. The management plan is also an excellent candidate for significant
revision as an evaluation factor. Though some responders to the interview questionnaire
would prefer its elimination from future selection criteria, there is enough evidence to
conclude that if the Management Plan evaluation factor was based on project specific
requirements, it could be a significant factor in determining a contractor’s competency to
complete a project.
7
Research significance
The in-depth research conducted in this paper has revealed that cost alone is a high-risk
approach and that organisations should base their selections on a value of money basis
with proper weighting of selection criteria for skill, experience and previous
performance, rather than excepting the lowest price (Kumaraswamy, 1995). The US
Army Corps of Engineers slow transition from cost being the most important evaluation
factor to more of a best value approach that factors in multiple criteria for the selection of
prime contractors is a dramatic improvement over the once prominent sealed
bidding/lowest price solicitation process. The initial cost increases of a longer and more
time intensive solicitation, evaluation, and selection process greatly outweighs the
230
B. Hale et al.
potential cost overruns that have historically plagued projects that were awarded based on
the lowest priced proposal. Another significant revelation of this research is that the US
Army Corps of Engineers SOP for the solicitation, evaluation, and selection of prime
contractors for new construction and maintenance/repair work will benefit significantly
by streamlining their evaluation and selection criteria to be more project specific. The
added project specific detail inserted into a given solicitation with corresponding project
specific evaluation and selection criteria will improve the chances of receiving proposals
from qualified contractors with a history of successful performance on similar projects;
which will result in an increase of projects successfully completed within budget, time,
and an increase in overall quality of the product.
A significant knowledge gap that this research uncovered was the inability for
organisations to evaluate a construction contractor’s financial stability. A leading cause
of project failure is the inability of a contractor to appropriately manage its cash flow
throughout the life cycle of the project. Research in construction contractor’s financial
stability might highlight possible evaluation factors and selection criteria that could
minimise the risk of failure for a given construction project.
References
Abdel-Meguid, T.A. and Davidson, C.H. (1996) ‘Managed claims procurement strategy (MCPS): a
preventive approach’, in Taylor, R.G. (Ed.): CIB W92 ‘North meets South’ Procurement
Systems Symposium Proceedings, Durban, South Africa, p.1120.
Ambrose, M.D. and Tucker, S.N. (1999) ‘Matching a procurement system to client and project
needs: a procurement system evaluator’, in Bowen, P.A. and Hindle, R.D. (Eds.): CIB W92
Proceedings: Customer satisfaction: A Focus for Research and Practice in Construction,
Procurement Systems Symposium, University of Cape Town, pp.280–288.
Bauld, S. and McGuinness, K. (2006) ‘Value for money’, Summit, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.20–21, cited in
Raymond, J. (2008) ‘Benchmarking in public procurement’, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.782–793.
Erridge, A., Fee, R. and Mcllroy, J. (1999) ‘An assessment of competitive tendering using
transaction cost analysis’, Public Money and Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.37–42.
Holt, G., Olomolaiye, P. and Harris, F. (1995) ‘A review of contractor selection practice in the
U.K. construction industry’, Building and Environment, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.553–561.
Khalfan, M.M.A., Maqsood, T. and Noor, M.A. (2014) ‘Relationships among supply chain
participants: the case of Australia and Malaysia’, International Journal of Procurement
Management (IJPM), Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.376–390, Inderscience Publishers, UK.
Kumaraswamy, M. (1995) ‘Contractor evaluation and selection: a Hong Kong perspective’,
Building and Environment, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.273–282.
Love, P.E.D., Skitmore, M. and Earl, G. (1998) ‘Selecting a suitable procurement method for a
building project’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.221–233.
Luu, D.T., Ng, S.T. and Chen, S.E. (2003) ‘Parameters governing the selection of procurement
system – an empirical survey’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.209–218.
Masterman, J.W.E. (1992) An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems, E & FN Spon,
London.
Morledge, R., Smith, A. and Kashiwagi, D.T. (2006) Building Procurement, RICS Research,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Nahapiet, H. and Nahapiet, J. (1985) ‘A comparison of contractual arrangements for building
projects’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.217–231.
The solicitation, evaluation, and selection of construction contractors
231
Naoum, S.G. (1994) ‘Critical analysis of time and cost of management and traditional contracts’,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp.687–705.
Noor, M.A. and Khalfan, M.M.A (2017) ‘Public private partnership in transport sector projects in
Pakistan’, Int. J. Critical Infrastructures, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.70–92.
Noor, M.A., Maqsood, T. and Khalfan, M. (2011) ‘Infrastructure procurement in Pakistan’,
Proceeding of Sixth International Conference on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI),
‘Construction Challenges in the New Decade’, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–7 July.
Oyegoke, A.S., Dickinson, M., Khalfan M.M.A., McDermott, P. and Rowlinson, S. (2009)
‘Construction project procurement routes: an in-depth critique’, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.338–354.
Palaneeswaran, E. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2000) ‘Contractor selection for design/build projects’,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, September/October, pp.331–339.
Pitt, M., Collins, N. and Walls, A. (2006) ‘Practice briefing: the private finance initiative and value
for money’, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.363–373.
Rahmani, F., Khalfan, M. and Maqsood, T. (2018) ‘A comparative study of early contractor
involvement (ECI) and project alliancing’, International Journal of Project Organization and
Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.93–108.
Rahmani, F., Maqsood, T. and Khalfan, M. (2017) ‘An overview of construction procurement
methods in Australia’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24,
No. 4, pp.593–609.
Raymond, J. (2008) ‘Benchmarking in public procurement’, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp.782–793.
Rege, V. (2001) ‘Transparency in government procurement: issues of concern and interest to
developing countries’, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp.485–515.
Sharif, A. and Morledge, R. (1994) ‘A functional approach to modelling procurement systems
internationally and the identification of necessary support frameworks’, ‘East Meets West’
CIB W92 Conference, Hong Kong, CIB Publication 175, p.295305.
Skitmore, R.M. and Marsden, D.E. (1988) ‘Which procurement system? Towards a universal
procurement selection technique’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp.71–89.
Smith-Deighton, R. (2004) ‘Regulatory transparency in OECD countries: overview, trends and
challenges’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp.66–73.
Tookey, J.E., Murray, M., Hardcastle, C. and Langford, D. (2001) ‘Construction procurement
routes: re-defining the contours of construction procurement’, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp.20–30.
Turner, A. (1990) Building Procurement, MacMillan, London.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (2014) USACE Acquisition Instruction (UAI).
Walker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (2008) ‘Project types and their procurement needs’, in Walker,
D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (Eds.): Procurement Systems: A Cross-industry Project
Management Perspective, Taylor and Francis, New York.