Improving Detection of Illegitimate Scores and Assessment in Most Advantageous Tenders

Authors: Hao-Hsi Tseng, Hsin-Yun Lee

Abstract:

Adopting Most Advantageous Tender (MAT) for the government procurement projects has become popular in Taiwan. As time pass by, the problems of MAT has appeared gradually. People condemn two points that are the result might be manipulated by a single committee member’s partiality and how to make a fair decision when the winner has two or more. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem proposed that the best scoring method should meet the four reasonable criteria. According to these four criteria this paper constructed an “Illegitimate Scores Checking Scheme” for a scoring method and used the scheme to find out the illegitimate of the current evaluation method of MAT. This paper also proposed a new scoring method that is called the “Standardizing Overall Evaluated Score Method”. This method makes each committee member’s influence tend to be identical. Thus, the committee members can scoring freely according to their partiality without losing the fairness. Finally, it was examined by a large-scale simulation, and the experiment revealed that the it improved the problem of dictatorship and perfectly avoided the situation of cyclical majorities, simultaneously. This result verified that the Standardizing Overall Evaluated Score Method is better than any current evaluation method of MAT.

Keywords: Arrow’s impossibility theorem, most advantageous tender, illegitimate scores checking scheme, standard score.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107453

References:

[1] Wen-Hung Yang, “A Research on Constructing the Fault Checking Scheme and Improving Way for Scoring Method of the Most Advantageous Tender”, Masters dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, National Ilan University, 2008.
[2] Wen-Lin Tzeng, John Chien-Chung Li, Tzu-Ying Chang. “A study on the effectiveness of the most advantageous tendering method in the public works of Taiwan,” International Journal of Project Management, vol.24, pp.431–437, 2006.
[3] Ting-Ya Hsieh, Shih-Tong Lu b, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, “Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings”, International Journal of Project Management, vol.22, pp.573–584, 2004.
[4] Lung-Chuang Wang, Nelson Chou, “The review of the vendor selection system”, Construction News Record, vol.279, pp.70-72, 2006.
[5] Sidhartha S. Padhi, Pratap K.J. Mohapatra, “Centralized bid evaluation for awarding of construction projects – A case of India government”, International Journal of Project Management, vol.28, pp.275–284, 2010.
[6] Arrow, Kenneth Joseph, Social Choice and Individual Value 2nd ed., Wiley, 1963.
[7] Mueller, Dennis C. Public Choice II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.