Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 68 No 2

Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering Volume 68 Number 2 June 2026 7 subjective and objective judgments in an integrated framework based on ratio scales from simple pairwise comparisons. In this study, the AHP was crucial and relevant given that contractor grading and performance evaluation is a multi-criteria decision-making process, and the key criteria to be considered in the decision making are both qualitative and quantita- tive (Ávila 2000). Moreover, the AHP seems to be a useful tool for discovering the core of decision problems, including differences and simi- larities between the stakeholders’ different points of view (Nielsen & Mathiesen 2006). This advantage is applicable to this study given that the framework which is devel- oped is intended to be utilised by the cidb, which operates with various stakeholders. This made the AHP more applicable com- pared to other multi-criteria decision-mak- ing processes for the study, as the AHP also makes it possible to assess the consensus rate among different stakeholders around a specific issue (Masozera 2002). These advantages were considered very important to this research in the sense that the framework may assist the cidb to better explain the context of their contrac- tor grading and performance evaluation decisions to their clients. Furthermore, the application of the AHP may assist the cidb to easily clarify and open the decision process to their clients. As indicated, the AHP process includes defining the project objective and structuring elements in criteria, sub-crite- ria, and alternatives. Then, it involves mak- ing a pairwise comparison of the elements in each group, calculating the weighing and consistency ratios, evaluating alternatives according to weighing, and lastly, getting the ranking. The goal, main criteria, sub- criteria, and alternatives are arranged in a hierarchical structure. In this study, the goal is to grade construction contractors and evaluate the performance of contractors tendering for public sector projects. The framework may, however, also be utilised by the private sec- tor or any client. The aim is to grade and evaluate contractors based on their level of experience, qualifications, skills, and other relevant criteria. Goal Main criteria Sub-criteria Technical capacity Experience Plant and equipment Financial status Past performance Management capability Health and safety 1. Academic qualification 2. Key staff experience 3. Number of key staff 1. Projects completed by company 2. Projects completed by key staff 1. Type of equipment 2. Minimum quantity 1. Bank account 2. Available capital 3. Office space 1. Time 2. Quality 3.Cost 4. Referrals 1. Business management specialist 1. OHSAS 18001 / ISO 45001 certificate 2. Health and safety records Grading evaluation Alternatives (grades) 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Figure 5 AHP for grading evaluation of contractors Goal Main criteria Sub-criteria Technical capacity Experience Plant and equipment Financial status Past performance Management capability Health and safety 1. Academic qualification 2. Key staff experience 3. Number of key staff 1. Projects completed by company 2. Projects completed by key staff 1. Type of equipment 2. Minimum quantity 1. Bank account 2. Available capital 3. Office space 1. Time 2. Quality 3.Cost 4. Referrals 1. Business management specialist 1. OHSAS 18001 / ISO 45001 certificate 2. Health and safety records Performance evaluation Alternatives (grades) 3. Experienced contractor Figure 6 AHP for performance evaluation of contractors 1. Emerging contractor 2. Established contractor