Um algoritmo para selecionar o melhor gerenciamento de reclamações de licitação e construção por abordagem de comportamento de licitação oportunista
Palavras-chave:
Gestão de sinistros, comportamento de licitação oportunista, AHP Fuzzy, TOPSIS Fuzzy, Teoria dos JogosResumo
Devido à intensa concorrência nas licitações e ao aumento da complexidade dos documentos, os participantes procuram ganhar a licitação e aumentar os lucros devido a limitações existentes. É comum a solução entre os licitantes considerar o preço baixo na licitação e recuperar os lucros durante a implementação de projetos, a fim de fraqueza do empregador, ambigüidades nos documentos e ambiente administrativo. Portanto, neste estudo devido à falta de uma solução completa, é fornecido um novo algoritmo com relação à maximização do lucro do contratado com três etapas principais que consistem em pré-concurso, licitação e pós-oferta, fornecendo um método baseado em Multi Critérios Fuzzy. Tomada de Decisão e teoria dos jogos. Para avaliar os resultados, é utilizado um estudo de caso em um projeto de construção. Os resultados da avaliação mostraram que no primeiro estágio os resultados do algoritmo e estudo de caso foram os mesmos, mas no segundo e terceiro estágios o algoritmo obteve melhores resultados.
Downloads
Referências
Biruk, S., Ja?kowski, P., & Czarnigowska, A. (2017). Modelling contractor’s bidding decision. Ekonomia i Zarzadzanie, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 64-73.
Buckley, J. J., Feuring, T., & Hayashi, Y. (2001). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 129, no. 1, p. 48-64.
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, p. 649-655.
Chou, J.-S., Pham, A.-D., & Wang, H. (2013). Bidding strategy to support decision-making by integrating fuzzy AHP and regression-based simulation. Automation in Construction, vol. 35, p. 517-527.
Cid-López, A., Hornos, M. J., Carrasco, R. A., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2016). Applying a linguistic multi-criteria decision-making model to the analysis of ICT suppliers’ offers. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 57, p.127-138.
Da?deviren, M., Yavuz, S., & K?l?nç, N. (2009). Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 4, p. 8143-8151.
Esfahani, M., Emami, M & Tajnesaei, H. (2013). The investigation of the relation between jobinvolvement and organizational commitment. Management Science Letters, 3(2), 511-518.
Fazli, s., & madani, s. (2010). Choosing the optimal allocation of resources based on a hybrid approach to network analysis and planning process. Paper presented at the Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management of Sharif.
Gogus, O., & Boucher, T. O. (1998). Strong transitivity, rationality and weak monotonicity in fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 94, no. 1, p. 133-144.
Ho, S. P., & Liu, L. Y. (2004). Analytical model for analyzing construction claims and opportunistic bidding. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 130, no. 1, p. 94-104.
Huang, Z.-x. (2016). Modeling bidding decision in engineering field with incomplete information: A static game–based approach. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, 1687814015624830.
Keshtkar M. M. (2016). Effect of subcooling and superheating on performance of a cascade refrigeration system with considering thermo-economic analysis and multi-objective optimization, Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Technology, 5(2), pp. 42-47.
Keshtkar; M. M. (2011). Numerical Investigation on Thermal Performance of a Composite Porous Radiant Burner under the Influence of a 2-D Radiation Field, International Journal of Advanced Design and Manufacturing Technology, 5(1), pp. 33-42.
Li, X.-B., & Reeves, G. R. (1999). A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 115, no. 3, p. 507-517.
Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Maksimov, V., & Hou, J. (2015). Improving performance and reducing cost in buyer–supplier relationships: The role of justice in curtailing opportunism. Journal of Business Research, vol. 68, no. 3, p. 607-615.
Mohamed, K. A., Khoury, S. S., & Hafez, S. M. (2011). Contractor’s decision for bid profit reduction within opportunistic bidding behavior of claims recovery. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 93-107.
Nejad S., Keshtkar M. M., (2018) INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTIVE PARAMETERS ON ENTROPY GENERATION IN A SQUARE ELECTRONIC PACKAGE, Frontiers in Heat and Mass Transfer (FHMT), 10, pp. 42-47.
Pohekar, S., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, vol. 8, no.4, p. 365-381.
Powers, G., Ruwanpura, J. Y., Dolhan, G., & Chu, M. (2002). Simulation based project selection decision analysis tool. Paper presented at the Simulation Conference, 2002, Proceedings of the Winter.
Roszkowska, E., Brzostowski, J., & Wachowicz, T. (2014). Supporting ill-structured negotiation problems Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences (p. 339-367): Springer.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, vol. 1, no.1, p. 83-98.
Sun, C.-C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 12, p. 7745-7754.
Taylan, O., Bafail, A. O., Abdulaal, R. M., & Kabli, M. R. (2014). Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Applied Soft Computing, vol. 17, p. 105-116.
Viviana Ñañez Silva, M & Lucas Valdez, G.R (2017). Nivel de redacción de textos académicos de estudiantes ingresantes a la universidad . Opción, Año 33, No. 84 (2017): 791-817
Yong, D. (2006). Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 28, no. 7, p. 839-844.