Selection of standard construction contracts model and contract purchase pricing
Abstract
The aim of the research is to determine for a contract’s “Design and construction works of Vilnius city wastewater treatment plant” the most suitable variant of the combination of the FIDIC standard construction contract model and the purchase pricing of contract works using the SAW. Based on expert assessments, a matrix of possible solutions is formed by interviewing 8 experts (4 public procurement specialists and 4 civil engineers). Calculations have shown that the most appropriate combination of the FIDIC standard construction contract model and contract purchase pricing is the FIDIC Yellow Book and fixed price pricing. The obtained research results mainly reflect the essence of the FIDIC Yellow Book, assessing the specifics of the contract and the complexity of the planned works.
Article in Lithuanian.
Standartinių statybos rangos sutarčių modelio ir rangos darbų pirkimo kainodaros parinkimas
Santrauka
Tyrimo tikslas – SAW metodu nustatyti rangos sutarties „Vilniaus miesto valyklos nuotekų įrenginių projektavimo ir statybos darbai“ FIDIC standartinių statybos rangos sutarčių modelio ir rangos darbų pirkimo kainodaros derinio tinkamiausią variantą. Remiantis ekspertų vertinimais, apklausus 8 ekspertus (4 viešųjų pirkimų specialistus ir 4 statybos inžinierius) sudaroma galimų sprendimų matrica. Atlikus skaičiavimus nustatyta, kad tinkamiausias FIDIC standartinių statybos rangos sutarčių modelio ir rangos darbų pirkimo kainodaros derinys yra FIDIC Geltonoji knyga ir fiksuotos kainos kainodara. Gauti tyrimo rezultatai iš esmės atspinti FIDIC Geltonosios knygos esmę, vertinant rangos sutarties specifiką ir planuojamų darbų sudėtingumą.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: rangos sutartis, FIDIC rangos sutarčių modelis, rangos sutarčių kainodaros parinkimas.
Keyword : contract, FIDIC contract model, contract pricing selection
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Kaliszewski, I., & Podkopaev, D. (2016). Simple additive weighting – a metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 54, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042
MacCrimmon, K. R. (1968). Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: A survey and consolidated approach. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Risawandi & Rahim, R. (2016). Study of the simple multi-attribute rating technique for decision support. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, 2(6), 491–494.
Salehi, A., & Izadikhah, M. (2014). A novel method to extend SAW for decision-making problems with interval data. Decision Science Letters, 3(2), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2013.11.001
Shakouri, H. G., Nabaee, M., & Aliakbarisani, S. (2014). A quantitative discussion on the assessment of power supply technologies: DEA (data envelopment analysis) and SAW (simple additive weighting) as complementary methods for the “Grammar”. Energy, 64, 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.022
Wang, P., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Information Sciences, 345, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.076
Wang, Y.-J. (2019). Interval-valued fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making based on simple additive weighting and relative preference relation. Information Sciences, 503, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.07.012