Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 68 No 2

Volume 68 Number 2 June 2026  Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering 16 To grade Company A, the total weight will be divided by the number of sub- criteria, which is 17. 0.40676 17 = 0.02392 Thus, Company A, in terms of the weight- ing, is supposed to be a Grade 1 contractor because the Grade 1 contractor’s overall project priority vector is 0.040, as shown in Table 6. This is the case because cur- rently, the cidb does not request the other criteria information since it is not a requirement (only track record, which is in the form of completion certificates and financial records). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This paper provides results, analysis, and discussion from the questionnaire, which was conducted with the members of SAICE, cidb, and SACPCMP. Data was analysed using the structural equation modelling approach and SPSS software. The results indicated that improved construction sector entry require- ments, an efficient grading system, and a broader range of criteria may result in enhanced contractor capabilities and project performance. Moreover, the study has developed a decision support framework for registering, grading, and performance assessment of contractors using AHP. The registration, grading, and performance assessment pro- cess of contractors with the cidb has been investigated to assess the way contractor registration, grading, and performance is conducted in South Africa. This study has introduced criteria and a framework for the registering, grading, and performance assessment of contractors which may be considered by the cidb or any person or private sector utilising construction civil engineering contractors. As depicted in Figure 4, the priority vector indicates that the technical capacity criterion is the most important, followed by the experience and past performance criteria, then occupation- al health and safety, financial status, plant, and equipment, and lastly, the management capability criterion. The framework was developed with the aim of applying it to register, grade, and assess the project performance of contrac- tors. In developing the framework, the results of the comparison matrix for level 2, which involved pairwise comparisons between the sub-criteria in relation to each main criterion, were utilised to dissect the sub-criteria in order to provide weighting using a standardised formula. Thereafter, various scenarios were created to apply the developed framework for registering, grad- ing, and assessing the project performance of contractors. The study recommends the following: Q Q Construction sector entry requirements must be introduced and take into con- sideration various criteria. The impor- tance of introducing entry requirements into the construction sector cannot be emphasised enough. Q Q Contractor grading progression requirements should consider various criteria. Given the status quo of the performance of the construction sector in South Africa, the current grading system for qualifying contractors, based only on completed projects and availability of capital, seems to be inadequate. Various other criteria need to be considered such as contractors’ technical capacity, experience, plant Occupational health and safety OHS certificate Select one option Health and safety record Select one option No employee with OHS certificate - No health and safety record - 1 employee with OHS certificate - Incomplete health and safety record - 2 employees with OHS certificate - Complete health and safety record with major injuries - 3 employees with OHS certificate - Complete health and safety record with minor injuries - More than 3 employees with OHS certificate - Complete health and safety record without injuries - Past performance Time (select one option) Quality (select one option) Cost (select one option) Referrals Select one option All projects completed timeously, within the agreed time, quality, and cost - - - 0 referrals 80% to 90% of projects completed timeously within the agreed time, quality, and cost - - - 1 referral letter 50% to 79.99% of projects completed timeously within the agreed time, quality, and cost - - - 2 referral letters 20% to 49.99% projects completed timeously within the agreed time, quality, and cost - - - 3 referral letters x 0% to 19.99% projects completed timeously within the agreed time, quality, and cost - - - More than 3 referral letters Table 18 Company A weighting allocation Company A weight allocation Description 0.05186 Positive bank account 0.1448 10% available capital 0.193 Office space 0.0171 Referrals 0.40676 Total