Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 68 No 2

Volume 68 Number 2 June 2026  Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering 8 The goal, main criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives are arranged in a hierar- chical structure. The AHP hierarchical structure used for this study is depicted in Figure 5 (AHP for grading evaluation of contractors) and Figure 6 (AHP for perfor- mance evaluation of contractors). The goal is to grade and assess contrac- tors’ performance. The main criteria and sub-criteria were established from the literature as depicted in Table 3. The feed- back from the questionnaire has further affirmed that the main criteria and sub- criteria may assist in grading and assessing contractors’ performance. The grading and evaluation of the contractor’s project performance by the cidb can be key and can assist in improving the performance of the sector. The grading and performance evaluation systems both have the same criteria and sub-criteria. However, the cal- culations for the grading and performance evaluation system needed to be done sepa- rately because the alternatives for the grad- ing and performance evaluation system are not the same. The alternatives for contrac- tor grading and performance evaluation are depicted in Figures 5 and 6. A common sequence for assessing a proposed technological development is to consider its technological feasibility, eco- nomic consequences, and other impacts, i.e. environmental/ecological, political, and social/cultural impacts, etc. (Kalbar et al 2012). After an intensive literature review, as depicted in Table 3, the summary of key criteria for consideration by various authors when grading and evaluating the perfor- mance of contractors in the construction sector was found to be technical capability, experience, plant and equipment, financial status, past performance, management capability, as well as occupational health and safety. This was further affirmed by the state of practice survey in the present study to be the main criteria for selecting an appropriate grade for contractors and evaluating contractors’ performance. The summary of key criteria for con- sideration by various authors when grading and evaluating the performance of contrac- tors in the construction sector is tabulated in Table 3. The importance of these criteria in terms of project performance cannot be emphasised enough. Construction Industry Development Board (2016) notes that having such requirements would improve the success rate of Grade 1 contractors. Consideration was therefore given to the currently registered contractors to ensure alignment with the enhanced contractor entry and grading requirements, and to not disadvantage the historically disadvantaged individuals in South Africa. Two proposals are made in this report. The top level of Figures 5 and 6 indicates that the overall goal is to grade and evaluate the performance of contractors. A contrac- tor grade needs to provide a true reflection of the contractor’s capabilities. The second level shows the seven main criteria. The third level shows sub-criteria against which each option is evaluated. Technical capacity criteria consider the contractor’s ability to perform the activities of the specific project for which it is seeking grading. Experience criteria consider contractors’ participation in previous projects, especially if they are similar to the project that will be executed. Financial status and plant and equipment criteria consider the overall financial posi- tion and capacity of the contractor. Considering the past performance of each contractor, the cidb will have a higher or lower degree of confidence in the possible contractor regarding the quality, time, and cost control requirements. The cidb may collect and analyse information about the contractor’s past relationship with other entities with which the con- tractor has executed construction works. After considering the contractor’s past performance, the cidb must have an overall estimation or opinion about how good the contractor is for the purpose of grading. Table 3 Summary of key criteria in the construction sector Critical criteria in contractor performance Authors Technical capacity Burger et al (2015), Hanson et al (2003), Orando (2013), Faridi & El-Sayegh (2006), Sweis et al (2014), World Bank (2018), Edum-Fotwe & McCaffer (2000), Adams (1995), Kazaz et al (2008), Hanafi et al (2010), Erasmus et al (2016), Schenk (2016), Praise & Steedman (1986), Clark & Wall (1996), Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Mohlala (2015), Orando & Isabirye (2018), Construction Industry Development Board (2016), Gann & Senker (1998), Longman & Mullings (2005), Kerzner (2013), Richter (1998), Crosswell & McCutcheon (2001), Assaf et al (1995) Experience Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Sweis et al (2014), Mohlala (2015), Orando & Isabirye (2018), Assaf et al (1995), Adams (1995), Edum-Fotwe & McCaffer (2000), Orando (2013), Faridi & El-Sayegh (2006), Gann & Senker (1998), Richter (1998), Crosswell & McCutcheon (2001), Burger & Zulch (2018), Muhwezi et al (2014), Sambasivan & Yau (2007) Financial stability Sweis et al (2014), Construction Industry Development Board (2013), Burger et al (2015), Assaf et al (1995), Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Burger and Zulch (2018), Pearson (2018), El-Sokhn & Othman (2014), Bertelsen (2003), Camilleri (2011), Ling et al (2011), Akali & Sakaja (2018), Harris & McCaffer (2013), Nwude (2010) Past performance Cheung et al (2004), Gharakhani et al (2013), Mohlala (2015), Construction Industry Development Board (2013), Xiao & Proverbs (2003), Burger & Zulch (2018), Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Gann & Senker (1998), Sueliman & Alfaraidy (2019), Mansfield et al (1994), El-Sokhn & Othman (2014), Bertelsen (2003), Camilleri (2011) Occupational health and safety Cheung et al (2004), Construction Industry Development Board (2013), Burger et al (2015), Morote & Ruz- Vila (2012), Adinyira et al (2020), Sueliman & Alfaraidy (2019), Schmidt & Osebold (2017), Bureau of Labour Statistics (2020), Asah-Kissiedu et al (2021), Sze et al (2019), Enslin (2013), Shresta (2021), Health and Safety Executive (2021), Kanchana et al (2015), Gupta & Deshmukh (2016), Global Construction Perspectives and Oxford Economics (2015), UN Environment and International Energy (2017) Management capability Thwala & Mvubu (2008), Construction Industry Development Board (2013), Burger et al (2015), Chordas (2008), Kerzner (2013), Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006), Assaf et al (1995), Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Mofokeng (2012), Suelima & Alfaraidy (2019), Fredland & Morris (1976), Jo & Lee (1996) Plant and equipment World Bank (2018), Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006), Alkas et al (1995), Morote & Ruz-Vila (2012), Haslam et al (2005), Pearson (2018), Alkass et al (1996), Zakeri et al (1996), Gibb (2005), Yeo & Lee (2006)