Evaluation Committee Weighting Process of Most Advantageous Tendering Approach in Government Procurement Law under “One Vote Multiple Values”

• Main Authors: Li, Sin-Tian, 李信田
• Other Authors: Tseng,Hsing-Chau
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2010
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/y9n3fj

碩士 === 長榮大學 === 高階管理碩士在職專班 === 98 === “One vote one value” and “all men are created equal” are commonly regarded as universal values in a democratic society. In practice, however, there often exist facts of “one vote multiple values” that is so-called “false equality”. In this thesis, from the aspect of “one vote multiple values”, we investigate the weighting process of the Most Advantageous Tendering (MAT) approach for procurement projects in the Government Procurement Law. The opening of government agency procurement projects has two kinds of decision criteria, opening price and MAT. Rather than the lowest bidding price, by the MAT approach, an evaluation committee can determine the bid winner according to all evaluation criteria. The Government Procurement Law has specified that besides price, procurement authorities are allowed to consider other evaluation criteria to fit actual demand, such as technology, function, and efficiency. In this way, the tenderers with good function, technology and service quality can be selected to obtain the biggest benefits. In the thesis, we apply the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method to both the procurement factors and evaluation committee in the MAT approach for government agency procurement projects. The proposed method provides procurement authorities with a feasible weighting process which more objectively fits actual demand. In the literature, no study has concerned whether the contribution values of members in an evaluation committee should be weighted unequally. Therefore, besides the original evaluation factors, we apply the AHP method to the contribution values of committee members, which is performed by member peer assessment. Two cases are verified. In one case, the order of the evaluated companies is not changed. In another case, the winner is the original one, but the second and the third alter because the contribution values of committee members significantly differ. Accordingly, government procurement officers and related personnel should pay attention to the possibility of the order change of evaluated companies.