CHAEPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The assessment of bidders and award of contract project procurement system is widely seen as

one of the greatest barriers to improvement. In Nigeria, like many other countries including the

U.S., it is mandated by legislation that construction contracts for public work projects be

procured using a competitive sealed bidding process and awarded using assessment of bidders

system. Under this assessment of bidders system, contractors submit bids based on plans and

specifications prepared by the public agency or a private engineering firm hired by the agency

and except under extraordinary circumstances, the contractor submitting the lowest responsive

bid is awarded the construction contract. In all but a few cases, experience levels of the

contractor, quality issues, and other criteria are not taken into consideration in awarding these

contracts. While the assessment of bidders procurement system has a long-standing legal

precedence and has promoted open competition and a fair playing field, a long-standing concern

expressed by owners and some of their industry partners is that a system based strictly on the

lowest price provides contractors with an incentive to concentrate on cutting bid prices to the

maximum extent possible (instead of concentrating on quality enhancing measures), even when

a higher cost product would be in the owner’s best interest, which makes it less likely that

contracts will be awarded to the best-performing contractors who will deliver the highest quality

projects. As a result, the assessment of bidders system may not result in the best value for

money expended or the best performance during and after construction. Moreover, the

traditional assessment of bidders approach tends to promote more adversarial relationships

1
rather than cooperation or coordination among the contractor, the designer and the owner, and

the owner generally faces increased exposure to contractor claims over design and

constructability issues.

In today’s construction climate, public sector owners are finding themselves under

increasing pressure to improve project performance, complete projects faster, and reduce the cost

of administering their construction programs. In response to these pressures, the global

construction industry has experimented with alternative procurement and contracting methods.

Many construction owners in the U.S., for instance, are implementing (Alexanderson, G. and

Hulten, S. 2006). procurement to improve project quality and enhance performance. In essence,

best-value procurement incorporates factors other than just price into the selection process to

improve performance or achieve other specific project goals.

The aim of the research presented in this project is to assess the impact of assessment of

bidders on performance of major work projects (in terms of schedule, cost, quality and safety) in

Nigeria construction industry. The study will form the baseline for developing a proposal for

implementing best-value procurement system for the construction industry of Nigeria.

This project is focus on the designing of a contract Bidding System of the Nigeria institute of

Leather and Science Technology (NILEST) Samaru Zaria Kaduna State with the case study of

works Department, The manual system faces a lot of problems in accuracy of information as

everything is done manually and many others. The computerized system will be easy to handle

and can eradicate most of the problems encounter in the Manual method.

2
1.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY AREA.

The Nigeria Institute of Leather and Science Technology, Samaru Zaria was established in 1964

following the request of the then Northern Region Government to Federal Ministry of

Agriculture and Natural Resource. It was name Hide and Skin Demonstration and Training

Project. The food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and United Nations were commission to

commence a feasibility study on the development of the abundant raw Hide and Skin in the

country. In 1971, the U submitted a technical report which among other thing proposes the

upgrading of the center to a research Institute that will carter for the Leather, Leather product

and other allied field. Before then, the name of the center was Federal Leather Institute, Zaria

and was offering in service training for certificate and Diploma in Hide and Skin Improvement

Technology.

A year after 1973, the Institute was changed to Leather Research Institute become a division of

the National Science Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) which was later transformed

to the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology in 1988, the institute evolved yet again by the

expanded mandate and inclusion of Chemical Technology, which resulted to the change of name

to National Research Institute for Chemical Technology (NARICT) with the Headquarter in

Basawa, Zaria. In 1991, samara center attained semi-autonomous status and was named Federal

Collage of Leather and Science (FCLT) Samaru, Zaria. The name was change to Federal Collage

of Chemical and leather Technology (CHELTECH) Samaru, Zaria in 1992. Following the

Resolution at the National Science and Technology summit at Minna in 2006, the Research

mandate on Leather in NARICT and all extension centers (Sokoto, Kano, Maiduguri and Jos)

were officially on the 26th June, 2009 Transfer to CHELTECH, thus reverting back the status of

the research Institute. On 1st April, 2011, the name of the Collage was changed to Nigeria

3
Institute of Leather and Science Technology (NILEST) to properly position it in the line with its

mandate, mission and vision.

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Below are some of the problem encounter in the manual system of bidders and assessment of

contract in NILEST.

i. Inaccuracy of information since everything is done manually.

ii. Delay in the process of the application either as a contractor or consult Zant as

the application is done manually.

iii. Inconveniences by both the applicant and the staffs of works department Nigeria

Institute of Leather Science Technology (NILEST) in terms of transportations

since everything is done manually.

iv. It is time consuming, stressful and creates room for error which in turn makes it

easier for data mismanagement and misinformation.

1.4 MOTIVATION

My motivation for written this project is in my desire to impact in the institution by using

computer Technology such as PHP, CSS, HTML to design the software that will correct the

mistake and the inaccuracy in data management of contractors bidding for Contract in Nigerian

Institute of Leather and Science through the works department.

4
1.5 AIM

The aim this project is to design and implementation of an online contract bidders system with

the case study of works department Nigeria Institute of Leather and Science Technology

(NILEST) Samaru Zaria Kaduna State.

1.6 OBJECTIVES

i. To Design the software using different programming Language such as HTML, CSS,

PHP, bringing them together to design the Contract Bidding System for Automation

in other to correct the inaccuracy of the manual system.

ii. The information of the manual system will be needed to build up the system

iii. The software will carry out the process of contract.

iv. It will accept the data of the bidders and previous licecse of the previous contract.

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Is the appreciation of the role of computer to improve works department Nigeria Institute of

Leather and Science Technology (NILEST) Samaru Zaria, Kaduna state and services rendered to

the contractors and consultants as a whole.

Also, the automated Assessment of Bidders for Awards of Contract it will be of no doubt an

acceptable phenomenon for Making work simple and easy access of information for bidder of

contract, in the works department NILEST.

1.8 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

To prepare a set of automation that can help to improve the bidding and procurement practices.

These study will be conducted through observation and interviewing exercise. It targeted the

5
works department who are responsible for conceiving and funding the project. To identify the

problem involve in the bidding and procurement existing in the construction and bidders of

contract in Nigeria Institute of Leather and Science Technology (NILEST) Samaru Zaria Kaduna

State.

1.9 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

i. The system wills not be the one to award the contract.

ii. Time was a constrain to make it optimal to standard.

iii. Due to lack of finance i will not be able to host the system design online.

iv. The system will have a data base to store all data of the bidders, for the admin to

access for proper processing.

1.10 OPERATIONAL DEFINATION OF TERMS

Contract: An agreement between two or more parties, to perform a specific job or work order

often temporary or of fixed duration and usually governed by a written agreement.

Bidder: someone who bid at an auction for something that is valuable.

Assessment: The act of assessing or an amount of tax, levy, or duty or the Appraisal or

evaluation.

Design: A plane with more or less detail for the structure and function of an artifact, Building or

system.

Award: The paper containing the decision of arbitrators; that which is awarded.

Implementation: The process of moving an idea from concept to reality, in business,

engineering and to other fields. It can also be the building process rather than the design process.

Prequalification: The contractor needs to be qualified before the submission of bid.

6
Post-qualification: Only the lowest responsive bidder is qualified for the State transportation

department’s determination of responsibility.

Performance bonding: Reliance on the surety industry to identify qualified contractors.

Contractor licensing: State-sponsored program to ensure that only qualified contractors can bid

for a contract based on licensing requirements.

Website: is a collection of public accessible, interlink web pages that shear a single domain

name.

Web pages: Is a hypertext document for the World Wide Web that is identified by a unique

information Resources Locator (URL)

7
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The performance-based contractor prequalification programs detailed in the cooperative

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 390 (2002), reduce a marginal contractor’s

bidding capacity in various ways, and thereby avoid “subsidizing” poor performance, interviews

and those cited in NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002). Program eliminated performance bonding

altogether over 20 years ago.

Since the cost of furnishing a performance bond is passed on to the State transportation

department in the contractor’s bid, adjustment of the portion of a project value that requires a

performance bond seems a logical approach to bonding modification within a performance-based

contractor prequalification system. For example, a top performing contractor might only be

required to furnish a bond on 50 percent of the contract amount, whereas less qualified

contractors or contractors new to the State transportation department would need to bond 100

percent of the contract amount. A reduction in the percentage of the project value that requires a

bond, based on a contractor’s past performance, would create an incentive for superior

performers by reducing their bid price, U.S. performance bond rates run between 1 and 3 percent

of the total bid amount, so this change in bid prices would be significant. These savings would be

passed on directly to State transportation departments because they would secure lower

construction costs for projects.

8
2.1.1 PREVIOUS CONTRACTOR PREQUALIFICATION RESEARCH

The literature on this subject is both extensive and thorough, which underscores the interest and

potential value of performance-based approaches to the transportation industry. (Dowle and

DeStephanis 2014) found that State transportation departments rely on the following four

strategies to qualify construction contractors to bid:

a. Prequalification: The contractor needs to be qualified before the submission of bid.

b. Post-qualification: Only the lowest responsive bidder is qualified for the State

transportation department’s determination of responsibility.

c. Performance bonding: Reliance on the surety industry to identify qualified contractors.

d. Contractor licensing: State-sponsored program to ensure that only qualified contractors

can bid based on licensing requirements.

The authors of literature on this subject believe that the qualifications of a given contractor can

have a marked impact on the success of the projects it executes. Prequalification in its simplest

form is an assessment of financial responsibility, which often mirrors what sureties look for in

making their underwriting decisions relating to issuance of bonds for public works projects. It

also may include other factors such as demonstrated ability to perform a certain type of work.

Whether by prequalification or other methods, public owners are increasingly exploring ways to

include non-price factors, both qualitative and quantitative, in the procurement process to

motivate contractors not only to improve their performance during construction, but equally as

important, to build value into the end products of construction.

9
Once again, the merits of using prequalification to add value to the construction process are

underscored. The idea of using performance-based prequalification as a means to motivate

contractors to improve their performance during construction is also expressed by the authors of

this project. The authors note that this idea ultimately leads to the benefits of enhanced

construction quality and reduced administrative burden. The “New South Wales” (NSW)

Australia prequalification manual, which calls the process the “scheme,” describes the benefits of

a performance-based prequalification process as follows:

a. It “allows the NSW Government as a major buyer of construction related services to

more effectively implement continuous improvement initiatives in the construction

industry to achieve better project outcomes.

b. It results in significantly reduced tender assessment times and simplified contract

administration because prequalified tenders [bidders] have already demonstrated an

understanding of and compliance with NSW ( New South Wales) Government construction

industry benchmarks, with management procedures and systems requirements.

c. It is in line with the NSW (New South Wales) Government’s direction to do business with

the best of the private sector, the Scheme provides for incentives for good performance

and also for the application of restrictions or sanctions in the event of poor performance

as measured against the respective scheme requirements.”

2.1.2 Review of Prequalification Studies

The subject of contractor qualification has generated a significant amount of research in the past

decade, including five studies that specifically examine performance-based contractor

10
prequalification. These studies are briefly summarized below (Dowle, W.J., and DeStephanis, A.

(2014).).

2.1.3 Kentucky Transportation Center Report, (Kelley, M.N. 2000)., Quality Based

Prequalification of Contractors, reports the results of an analysis of the effectiveness of the

Kentucky Department of Highways’ (KDOH) contractor performance rating system and its

incorporation into the prequalification process. It recommends the inclusion of a given

contractor’s past project quality performance record as an integral part of the prequalification

process.

2.1.4 Wisconsin Department of Transportation Synthesis Report, Contractor Prequalification

Quality-Based Rating reports the practices of 35 State transportation departments that responded

to a survey on the topic. The report found that majority of both contractors and State

transportation department respondents believed that performance-based prequalification can be

implemented in a fair and equitable manner.

2.1.5 Manchester School of Management Report, Applying Evidential Reasoning to

Prequalifying Construction Contractors was conducted in the United Kingdom and essentially

proposes a logic-based mathematical model to optimize the contractor prequalification process.

NCHRP Synthesis 390, Performance-Based Construction Contractor Prequalification,

benchmarked the state of the practice using a survey of 41 U.S. State transportation departments

and 7 Canadian provincial ministries of transportation. The synthesis proposed a three-tiered

model for performance-based contractor prequalification that will be discussed in detail in a

subsequent section of this project.

11
2.1.6 Review of Studies on Alternative Project Delivery that Included Prequalification

As part of the research associated with alternative project delivery, a fair amount of information

has been published related directly to prequalification of contractors. Each of the relevant studies

most specifically assessed the contribution of contractor qualifications to the project selection

and award process. A summary of the major studies is provided below.

a. AASHTO Guide for Design-Build Procurement (Ioannou, P.G. and Leu, S.S. (2000))

provides a comprehensive set of the qualifications and experience requirements that have

successfully been included in project-specific prequalification for design-build contracts.

b. NCHRP Synthesis 376 (Ioannou, P.G. and Leu, S.S. 2000), Quality Assurance in Design-

Build Projects, analyzes the impact of design-build contractor prequalification and

experience on final project quality.

c. Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 131 (Ahmed, I. 1993),

Guidebook for the Evaluation of Transit Project Delivery Methods, presents a

comprehensive list of qualifications and experience requirements that have successfully

been used on the project-specific prequalification of contractors from transit projects

delivered using alternative project delivery methods, such as DB, CMGC, etc.

d. Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 21 (Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. R.

2001), A Guidebook for the Selecting Airport Capital Project Delivery Methods, provides

a comprehensive list of qualifications and experience requirements that has successfully

been used on project-specific prequalification of contractors for airport projects delivered

using the alternative project delivery methods, as covered in TCRP Report 131.

12
 e. NCHRP Synthesis 402 (Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. R. (1997), Construction Manager-

at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs, analyzes the impact of contractor

prequalification on final project quality for project delivery using Construction Manager-

at-Risk (CMR).This report found that a major advantage of CMR project delivery was the

ability to utilize project-specific contractor performance-based prequalification that

allowed the State transportation department to match the contractor’s qualifications with

the technical requirement of the project.

2.1.7 Components of a Performance-Based Prequalification Program

The literature summarized above suggests that most performance-based contractor

prequalification programs consist of the same set of components, which are described as follows:

a. A completed questionnaire/application furnished by the contractor that details the

following information: financial data, available equipment and plant, construction

experience for a specified period, names and backgrounds of key personnel, and

classes/types of work for which qualification was requested.

b. A formula/algorithm that converts financial data into a rated capacity, which establishes

the maximum amount of work that a given contractor can be awarded in a given period.

c. A contractor project performance evaluation system that focuses on ratings of contractor

work quality and timeliness on a specific standard form.

d. A formula/algorithm to adjust the rated financial capacity based on the accumulated

record of project performance evaluations.

13
 e. An appeals process for a contractor that believes it has been unfairly or improperly rated.

From a paper by (Hancher and Lambert, 2005), that details the KDOH’s “performance-based”

contractor prequalification process. The process combines the calculation of total maximum

financial capacity with a performance-based evaluation through the assignment of an “annual

eligibility rating,” which is used to adjust the contractor’s “maximum eligibility amount.” This

value equals the amount of work a contractor may be awarded in a given year. Using the

formula, “lower-quality work will reduce the allowable work volume, whereas high-quality work

will increase the allowable work volume” for a contractor.

Several authors have conducted research that evaluates the relative importance of the various

components listed above. One early study included a survey of construction professionals from

both project-owner and contractor organizations and asked them to rank order 20 prequalification

factors by importance. Both rated financial stability, past project performance, and personnel

availability and experience as the “key decision variables relevant for a generic contractor

prequalification knowledge base.” NCHRP Web Document 38 also found project

management/control skills, personnel experience, quality of final project, and experience with

project type to be the most important, according to a similar group of survey respondents. When

these two studies are put together, the results of one’s contractor questionnaire/application and

the other’s contractor project performance evaluation match one another, which validate the

importance of these program components to a prequalification process based on two independent

research efforts.

Evaluating contractor performance, then integrating these evaluations into the performance-

based contractor prequalification system, provides a tangible means by which to reward good

14
contractors and a disincentive for marginal contractors to perform badly. Other countries have

been motivated to implement performance-based contracts for reasons that should resonate in the

United States. The motivation for the evaluation of contractor performance in New Zealand has

been explained as follows:

The concept of performance-based contracts originated from a consideration of four factors,

namely: the increasing lack of personnel within the national road departments, the frequency of

claims, the need to focus more on customers’ satisfaction by seeking to identify the outcomes,

products, or services that the road users expect to be delivered, and by monitoring and paying for

those services on the basis of customer-based performance indicators; and the need to shift

greater responsibility to contractors throughout the entire contract period as well as to stimulate

and profit from their innovative capabilities.

As demonstrated in (NCHRP 38, 2003) these factors also motivate State transportation

departments in the United States to look for methods by which to create efficiencies through

contractor performance evaluations, as well as methods to mitigate the potential risk created by

the trend toward the increased use of contractor QC in the project acceptance process. State

transportation departments’ performance evaluation programs have to pass the tests for both

fairness and equity, which are essentially reflected in the types of information the State

transportation departments collects in regard to past performance.

An attention to fairness should ensure that the evaluation system is transparent and furnishes a

mechanism by which contractors can appeal a negative rating. Transparency can be achieved

when the evaluation system and all its components are published in advance of the evaluation

and when the State transportation department performs the evaluation in line with what has been

15
published (Herbsman and Ellis 1992). The inclusion of guidelines for the ratings used for

individual components also contributes to consistency and minimizes biases. Furnishing an

appeals process demonstrates to the contracting industry that the State transportation department

is open to the challenges of its evaluation system through the use of due process, before a

contractor is penalized by a negative rating (Dowle and DeStephanis, 199). If implemented, these

two elements can greatly ameliorate negative perceptions of potential harmful impacts of a new

contractor performance evaluation system (Hardy 1978).

To further increase fairness in the process, KDOH allows contractors to rate KDOH’s

performance at the same time KDOH rates the contractor. These contractor ratings are used by

KDOH to “determine quality improvements needed, personnel training needed, and topics for

discussion at the annual meetings with the contractor associations and for evaluations of

personnel and other uses, as deemed appropriate (Mosissa 2006).

A contractor’s ability to appeal to have a negative rating changed or removed can also serve as a

means by which to further ensure fairness .(NCHRP Report 561, 2007) notes that fairness

demands a contractor have recourse to “due process (Mosissa 2008). While a State transportation

department may not want to create a separate formal disputes resolution system for performance

evaluations, it should furnish within its evaluation framework a mechanism whereby a contractor

has the ability to protest what it believes is an unfair assessment of its performance. Such a

mechanism can be as simple as allowing the contractor to add rebuttal comments to the

evaluation form and then charging the chain of command above the evaluator to investigate to

determine if the contractor’s protest has merit before the final evaluation is entered into the

system. Some jurisdictions have a formal board or committee that will hear and decide appeals

16
on qualification matters. The inclusion of such elements of independence can significantly

contribute to both the fairness and, equally as important, the perceived fairness of the system.

2.1.8 Federal Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System

The Federal Lands Highway Divisions utilize the Department of Defense Construction

Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) (Photoi 1993). An NCHRP study reports of the

CCASS (Photois 2003).

The Federal Government and a number of State agencies have for many years maintained a

database of contractor evaluations on past projects and often use this resource as a means to

measure the contractor’s track record. Despite certain drawbacks, this appears to be the best

means of assessing past performance as it allows contractors the opportunity to appeal negative

ratings.

The CCASS evaluation system has been in use for decades and serves not only to record actual

contractor performance, but also as a means for Federal agencies to make a decision on the

“responsibility” of bidders for a DBB project. In this system, a low bidder with several

unsatisfactory ratings can be found “not responsible,” and consequently, not be awarded the

contract. CCASS requires that the agency evaluate the contractor’s performance in five areas:

quality control, timely performance, compliance with safety standards, the effectiveness of

management, and compliance with labor standards.

The FHWA requires that the contractor be notified if the State transportation department believes

it is not performing at a satisfactory level. This kind of mandated communication between the

contract owner and the contractor provides the contractor with the ability to both correct the

17
defect found by the contract owner and, if applicable, to refute or clarify the perceived defects.

The CCASS process requires that the State transportation department forward all its ratings to

the evaluated contractor and give that entity 30 days to comment on the rating Nmez, M. S., and

YANG, J. B.(2003). The State transportation department then reviews the contractor’s comments

and determines whether or not to adjust the final rating.

CCASS evaluations are filed and remain in the contractor’s record for six years. They are used as

part of the prequalification process on DB and other types of negotiated contracts, as well as to

determine responsibility on DBB contracts. This is accomplished by adding the following

requirement—that the contractor have no unsatisfactory performance evaluations on file in

CCASS—to the Federal definition of a “responsible bidder” (Farooqui 2008).

Based on the Federal Lands Highway Divisions experiences, it appears that using some form of

evaluation of a given contractor’s actual CQC performance is perceived as having a positive

impact on final project quality. If these perceptions are accurate, this approach to evaluation

should be part of a performance-based contractor prequalification program (Bedford 2009).

2.1.9 Performance-Based Prequalification Implementation

Can performance-based construction contractor prequalification be implemented in a way to

reward good contractors and encourage poor contractors to improve performance?” The

Canadian province of Ontario has also successfully implemented and sustained a system that

encourages good performance. Contractors are rated in five work classifications: general road,

structures, electrical, structural coating, and general maintenance. Both rated and new contractors

need to be demonstrate satisfactory experience in a given classification to be awarded their full

18
“basic financial rating,” which is an MTO term for the maximum amount of awarded work a

given contractor can have ongoing at any given point in time. It is similar to a surety’s bonding

capacity and is determined in much the same way. If constructors do not have MTO experience,

their experience with other public road agencies is considered and their “basic financial rating”

may be reduced in accordance with a published formula Bedford, T. (2009). Additionally, a fully

qualified contractor’s “basic financial rating” is reduced by the amount of its ongoing work to

determine an available financial rating. This subtraction parallels the approach used to determine

bonding capacity in the United States.

A contractor’s “available financial rating” is determined at the point in time when a bid is

tendered, and it needs to equal or exceed the contract rating. For example, a contractor with a

basic financial rating of $100 million that has $80 million worth of awarded, ongoing work at the

time of the bid has a $20 million available financial rating. If the estimated value of the contract

being bid is less than or equal to $20 million, then this contractor is allowed to submit a bid. If

the contract value is greater than $20 million, then the contractor is unqualified to bid on this

particular project, due to insufficient financial rating or capacity. Contractors with a record of

poor performance may also be required to equal or exceed the maximum workload rating

(MWL) for the project. The contractor performance index (CPI) is calculated from the

contractor’s previously approved contract performance ratings (CPR) for each project and is used

to determine if a contractor needs to satisfy the contract rating and the contract maximum

workload rating (Farooqui, 2008).

Based on the CPI, a contractor is categorized into one of the three following “zones”:

a. Green Zone: When CPI ranges from 70 to 100.

19
 b. Yellow Zone: When CPI is greater than 55 and less than 70.

c. Red Zone: When CPI is greater than 35 and less than 55.

d. A contractor with a CPI of less than 35 would not be deemed qualified to bid.

Green Zone contractors are allowed to bid on work up to their “financial basic rating” without

adjustment for performance. Yellow zone contractors may have to meet the contract “maximum

workload rating,” and may have their MWL reduced by a factor of up to 20 percent. Finally, Red

Zone contractors will have their MWL reduced by a factor “calculated linearly 20 percent and

100 percent depending on their position in the zone (20 percent at 55 and 100 percent at 35). A

contractor’s MWL is defined as the highest annual total dollar value of work awarded to a

contractor in one of the five fiscal years preceding the current fiscal year.

The MTO includes an integrated infraction report system in the calculation of an adjusted

financial rating that accounts for a contractor’s record of infractions issued against it. An

infraction is defined as a serious breach of contract Gazeta. F. G. (2004), and includes, but is not

limited to, the following specific behaviors:

a. Failure to abide by tendering requirements.

b. Incomplete or inaccurate tender declarations.

c. Failure to abide by General Conditions of Contract.

d. Serious issues that affect safety or the environment.

e. The unsatisfactory timeliness of the completion of the work and services.

20
 f. The issuance of any Notice of Default.

g. The manner of the unsatisfactory resolution of any disputes and whether such disputes

were resolved, in accordance with the prescribed provisions of the contract.

h. When an Infraction Report is issued, the Qualification Committee may take no action,

issue a warning letter, or reduce the contractor’s available financial rating for a specified

period.

The infraction report becomes a very serious matter for contractors who wish to compete for

work in Ontario, and the imposition of sanctions (adverse contract actions, such as termination)

may create a severe hardship for an Ontario-based company, which then needs to leave the

province to seek work. In the case of contractor exclusion (debarment), provisions in the policy

create a distinct disincentive to immediately seek redress in the court system; if a contractor sues

MTO, it may not do business with (e.g., award a contract to) that contractor. The infraction

report also creates an incentive to complete MTO projects in a timely manner and in a fashion

that is satisfactory to the MTO. Table 3 and table 4 shows how five contractors distributed across

the three zones that have the same “basic financial rating” and “maximum workload rating”

would be affected by this system (Hardy 1978).

The third and final question addressed by NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002) is the following:“ Can

performance-based construction contractor prequalification add value to the completed

construction project?” Both the synthesis survey and its contractor interviews found that the

implementation of performance-based contractor prequalification was perceived as having a

positive impact on the quality of various components of a project, thereby enhancing the value of

that project. Since Ontario has a rigorous prequalification process and has consequently omitted

21
the performance bond requirement for contractors, it has freed up savings in bonding costs,

improved project quality, and potentially reduced contract administration effort that can be

applied to other projects, which demonstrates the potential that performance-based construction

contractor prequalification has to add value to the public transportation construction program.

2.1.10 Literature on Adjusting Bidding and Bonding Capacity

The performance-based contractor prequalification programs detailed in NCHRP Synthesis 390

(2002), reduce a marginal contractor’s bidding capacity in various ways, and thereby avoid

“subsidizing” poor performance (see the Minchin and Smith 2004) interviews and those cited in

NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002)). MTO’s program eliminated performance bonding altogether over

20 years ago.

Since the cost of furnishing a performance bond is passed on to the State transportation

department in the contractor’s bid, adjustment of the portion of a project value that requires a

performance bond seems a logical approach to bonding modification within a performance-based

contractor prequalification system. For example, a top performing contractor might only be

required to furnish a bond on 50 percent of the contract amount, whereas less qualified

contractors or contractors new to the State transportation department would need to bond 100

percent of the contract amount. A reduction in the percentage of the project value that requires a

bond, based on a contractor’s past performance, would create an incentive for superior

performers by reducing their bid price UK. Abatemam, A. (2006).” U.S. performance bond rates

run between 1 and 3 percent of the total bid amount, so this change in bid prices would be

significant. These savings would be passed on directly to State transportation departments

because they would secure lower construction costs for projects. In fact, Florida, Maine,

22
Virginia, and Washington have all experimented with using bonding for less than the entire

contract amount (Ahmed 1993).

Many State transportation departments perceive that the purpose of bonding is to protect the

State against contractor default (Kelley 1991). However, the majority of U.S. and Canadian

survey respondents to the NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002) survey stated that a performance bond

was not sufficient evidence of contractor prequalification. A rigorous performance-based

prequalification system in place allows contractors who fail to complete a project to be penalized

via a reduction in their performance rating or by their ultimate removal from the bidding list.

A rigorous performance-based prequalification system can carry more financial weight than a

purely financial bonding system. As stated previously, MTO has a long history of not requiring

bonds from their contractors. MTO’s annual construction program is approximately C$2.1

billion. Based on the U.S. 2007 to 2009 national average, the average performance/payment

bond costs would be 1.139 percent of the total contract cost (Farooqui, 2008). Thus, the

estimated savings (not accounting for any possible contract defaults) is approximately

C$24 million per year in bond costs. MTO utilizes a three-component system to thoroughly

review the stability of its bidders:

a. Administrative prequalification.

b. Performance prequalification.

c. Infraction system.

23
MTO stresses that the success of the system lies in the interrelationships between the

components. While certain components of the system can function independently, the program

works best when all the components are integrated.

2.1.11 The NCHRP Synthesis 390 Three-Tiered Prequalification System

NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002), proposes a three-tiered performance-based contractor

prequalification system. This approach was developed, based on the study’s comprehensive

literature review, including the survey responses recorded from 41 U.S. State transportation

departments and 7 Canadian provincial transortation ministries, a content analysis of solicitation

documents from 35 State transportation departments, and interviews with 10 construction

contractors from firms ranging in size from a local chip seal contractor to a major national Heavy

Civil contractor.

2.1.12 Review Of State Prequalification Evaluation Procedures

A survey conducted for NCHRP Web Document (2002) 38 found that 29 States used some type

of contractor prequalification process. According to Study of Most Effective Practices for

Determining Construction Contractors’ Eligibility to Bid on Construction Projects, the major

factors used to arrive at a contractor’s prequalification rating are financial resources, experience,

availability of necessary equipment, and past performance. MDOT is one example of a State that

uses a prequalification procedure. In MDOT’s current procedure, all prime contractors and

subcontractors who intend to bid on projects, as well as those who request prequalification, need

to be prequalified before they can submit a bid. The prequalification process follows the Bureau

of Finance and Administration’s classification and rating of bidders’ administrative rules. MDOT

24
currently requires a bid guarantee from all prime contractors bidding on a project. A performance

bond is required from all prime contractors before they can begin work on MDOT projects, and

MDOT requires that contractors renew their qualifications on an annual basis. Due to a recent

change to the administrative rules, all contractors with a financial rating of more than $10 million

can now renew their qualification every two years.

Post-qualification practices are also used by numerous State transportation departments (Sweet

1989). These typically involve consideration of a contractor’s qualifications after the contractor

has been selected on a low-bid basis. These qualifications are submitted in response to a State

transportation department questionnaire to verify compliance with requirements of the contract.

Post-project performance evaluation practices that impact contractor eligibility are in use at

many State transportation departments. An conducted a survey of U.S. States in 2008 and found

that 28 States rely on some form of post-project evaluation. The New York State Department of

Transportation and the Rhode Island Department of Transportation both currently use post-

qualification for contractor selection. Neither State currently has a specific performance-based

rating evaluation scale for contractors. They rely on post-qualification instead of performance

evaluations (Winch 2000).

State transportation departments generally review multiple factors in order to prequalify or post-

qualify contractors. They typically assign a maximum amount of work a contractor can perform

and the type of work they are allowed to perform, based on qualification determinations. The

factors most commonly used by State transportation departments to evaluate contractors are as

follows:

a. Past experience of contractor (87 percent).

25
 b. Financial capability (75 percent).

c. Equipment and plant (72 percent).

d. Past performance evaluations (72 percent).

e. Past illegal behavior (72 percent).

f. Detailed financial analysis (66 percent).

g. Qualifications (resumes) (66 percent).

h. Bonding capacity (60 percent).

i. Calculated capacity factor (57 percent).

j. Level of subcontracting (40 percent).

Not only may State transportation departments rely on different factors, but they may also

require slightly different forms of documentation as proof from contractors (Wubishet 2004).

The actual amount of effort required for review by each State transportation department depends

on the factors evaluated and the type and amount of proof required and reviewed.

State transportation department prequalification and post-qualification practices share certain

similarities and differences across States. A majority (25 out of 33) of the States surveyed in Dye

Management Group’s eligibility practices reported that they only use prequalification methods to

prequalify prime contractors. In addition, most States prequalify contractors in different work

categories to ensure that the prequalification process accurately accounts for the fact that

construction disciplines are varied and require different skills (Mechegiaw 2012). The number of

26
work classifications used varies by State transportation department. Most States (31 of 48

surveyed in NCHRP Synthesis 390, (2001), and 7 Canadian ministries of transportation) monitor

contractor performance on projects, though the information obtained through monitoring is not

used in the prequalification/eligibility determination process in all States. While some State

transportation departments change a contractor’s prequalification status based on their project

performance, others do not. Policies regarding how to modify State limits are well documented

and standardized in some State transportation departments, while others use a more subjective,

less standardized approach.

Most State transportation departments use a combination of methods to determine contractor

eligibility. The results of 40 State transportation department surveys, as presented in Dye

Management Group’s report, along with information from NCHRP Synthesis 390 (2002), show

that performance bonding and bid bonding/guarantee are the most widely used methods to

determine the eligibility of contractors, followed by general prequalification. Any contractors

that do not submit a bond/guarantee is almost always disqualified (Bedford 2009).

 2.1.12 Review Of State Contractor Bidding Procedures

Most States (45 of 50) require that performance bonds be used in conjunction with other

contractor eligibility evaluation methods. Most States also require that performance bonds be

secured for contracts over a specific dollar amount, typically $25,000, although the minimum

contract amount ranges from any dollar value (in California) to much higher values (in Indiana,

where the minimum is $200,000) Nmez, M. S., and YANG, J. B.(2003). The dollar amount of

the required performance bond also varies by State, ranging from a percentage of the contract

27
amount to the full contract amount. Performance bonding requirements may also extend to

subcontractors.

Several States do not always require performance bonds for the full value of the project. FDOT

requires that the secured performance bond value be equal to the contract price, except for

contracts greater than $250 million (an amount in excess of which is generally too great for a

single performance bond to be issued), or if the State otherwise finds that a bond in the amount

of the contract is not reasonably available, in which case the bond amount will be set at the

largest amount reasonably available. For contracts greater than $250 million, the State

transportation department can use a combination of bonds equal to a portion of the contract

amount, along with an alternative means of security applied to the remaining portion, such as

letters of credit, U.S. bonds and notes, parent company guarantees, and/or cash collateral to

replace bond requirements (Ubaid 1991).

For design-build contracts, States need to include the cost of design and other non-construction

services in the bond amount in order for the bond to be conditioned on performance of those

services and for the persons who perform those services to be protected by the bond (Aitah

1988). In Illinois, the Public Construction Bond Act requires only one bond for the completion

of a contract; this includes performance, payment, subcontractors used, and all labor performed.

In Louisiana, the performance and payment bond needs to be issued either by a U.S. Treasury, a

listed bonding company, or by a Louisiana insurer with a Best’s credit rating of “A-” or better.

. In each case, a performance bond may be waived or the contractor may provide a substitute

type of security, such as a cashier’s check for 100 percent of the contract amount.

28
 CHAPTER THREE

SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

3.1 INRODUCTION

System analysis can be define as the study of already existing system, its current and future

requirement objectives and procedures in order to inform a basic for the system and the design.

(Jeffery .L. 2004) This chapter will focus on the analysis of the system and design of the

application that will enable the works Department and the institute management of NILEST to

store and retrieve data of all bidders of contract applying for any contract and to reduce the stress

and also to reduce cost

3.2 SYSTEM STUDY

Data are often collected in the normal course of administration and not specification for the

statistical purpose. There are various method by which this project or research can gather

information for research purpose. Combination of method chosen and use depends on the method

research design. Below are some of the possible method that can be use.

i. Interview method: This is a face to face conversation between the researchers who is

also called interviewer and the respondent who ask question and get answer from the

respondent.

ii. Observation method: This method entails the researchers going to the case study of

the case study research area to get or record the actually happened, is happening,

when it is happening.

29
 iii. Questioner method: this is a tool for information gathering were the researchers’

shears form with question requiring the respondent fill the analyzed answered

questioners.

iv. Telephone: This is a avenue were where the researchers ask the respondent question

through the phone.

v. Documentation: This s research tool that use Already existing material for

researched purposed.

The method use can be both primary and secondary source of data, it May be call library search.

The written document used may be publish or unpublished material which the researcher read

and analyze

The method that are use for this project work are:

a. Observation method: I will be going to the works department of NILEST to observe

how woks or contract are been manage or procured.

b. Interview: I will as well interview some of the staff of the works department of NILEST

to help in getting making this project a reality.

c. Documentation: I consulted some pass research works, handout, textbooks and past

project, internet libraries and academic.

3.3 ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

In this phase, I have decide to pursue the feasibility study future to learn how exactly the

existing system operates, to determine and document what the system should do. It also included

recommendation and improvements on the existing system.

30
3.4 PROBLEM OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM

The manual process for the assessment of bidding of contract in Nigeria Institute of leather and

science Technology Zaria have been in existence since the establishment of the institution, which

has brought so much disorderliness and misplacement of contractors bidding for contract,

proposal and document. Some of the problems encountered are as follow;

1. Time wastage

2. Lack of security

3. Crowd staff

4. Wastage of fund

5. Mistake of employing unqualified staff

3.5 PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM

A new system will be designed in such a way that the problems been encountered in the old

system will be solved. The system is designed in modules such that each operation is adequately

taken care off.

The technology use to design the new system design are HTML, PHP and CSS

The processing of new system will involve management of the online contract bidding system by

using PHP as the database. A relational database using wamp server PHP my Admin.

31
3.6 FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Feasibility study or analysis is designed for the activity by which the potential outcome of the

project is measured and accessed. Feasibility measures how the development of an information

system would be to an organization or the society. Also, feasibility analysis is the activity by

which the potential outcome of a project is measured and accessed.

While feasibility measures and how beneficial the development of an information system would

be to an organization or the society (Whitten, etal 2014)

A system is said to be feasible if goals and requirement can be satisfied within the constraint of

available resources and technology using a particular strategy. In order to know whether this

project is feasible or not, four major feasibility test were carried out as stated below.

3.6.1 Technical Feasibility studies

The assessment of technical feasibility is based on the outline design of system requirement in

terms of input, output, files, programs and procedures. It measures the expertise. Technically, the

project is feasible because the experts and technical resources needed are available in the

organization, technical solution are been provided to resolve any problem.

3.6.2 Operational Feasibility studies:

The test involves how the system will work when it is installed and the assessment environment

in which it is implemented. It measures how well the solution will work in the given organization

and how user feels about it. Operationally, the project would be feasible because it has been

analyzed that both the staff and the students in works Department using the system should be

32
computer literate. The following questions were asked during operational feasibility test in order

to ascertain the feasibility of the project using this acronym.

PICES which stand for the following:

a. Performance: would this new system be designed provide adequate output and time

response? YES, this new system will provide adequate output and time response.

b. Information: would this system provide managers and end users with accurate,

useful, and timely information to make use of it always? The system provides

administrative officers and users with accurate, useful and timely information to make

use of it always.

c. Control: does the system offer adequate control to protect against fraud and to

guarantee the accurate and security of accurate data and information? YES, the new

system offer adequate control against fraud and guarantee accurate security of

information, thereby all any contractor bidding for a contract will have a secrete pin

before accessing any information.

d. Efficiency: would this new system minimize delay in its data processing thought

optimization of speed? YES, it will minimize delay in its data processing through

optimization of speed.

e. Service: would this system provide service as at when needed with good measure of

flexibility and expandability therefore, provides desirable and reliable services to

those who need it.

3.6.3 Economy feasibility studies:

This measure the cost of effectiveness of the project or solution provided. The project is

economically feasible because if it involves hosting, it may be annually or bi-annually as the case

33
may beat the rate the works Department can afford. Having considered and carried out the four

major feasibility test mentioned above for this project, I can Say that this project is feasible.

3.6.4 Schedule feasibility studies

This measure how reasonable the project time will be. Is the time frame given feasible for the

project? For the purpose of this project, it is the duration given that determines the feasibility of

the project.

34
3.7 NEW SYSTEM DESIGN

The system will be design using the following data

LOGIN FLOW CHART

START

HOME YES
DO HOME

NO
ABOUT YES DO ABOUT US
U
NO
CONTACT US YES
DO CONTACT US

NO
ADMIN LOG YES
DO ADMIN LOGIN

NO
LOGIN YES DO LOGIN
LOGOUT

NO
SIGN IN YES DO SIGN IN
QUIT

END

QUIT

Figure 3.1 Flow chart Diagram

35
 Database structure Table for Admin

Field Name Data Type Length Description

User Name Text 30 The Admin Username
Password Text 15 The Admin Password
Table 3.1: Database Structure Table for Administrator

Data structure Table for Contractor Login

File Name Field type Field Length

User name Text 25
Password Text 15
Table 3.2: Database Structure for contractor Login

Database Structure Table for contractor profile

Field Name Field Type Field Length Description

Company name Text 300 Company name
email CharText 70 Email address
Phone number Num 11 Phone Number
Address Text 70 Company address
Table 3.3: Database Structure Table for contractor’s profile.

3.8 SYSTEM REQUIREMENT

The system requirement needed for the newly proposed system is as follows:

36
3.8.1 HARDWARE REQUIREMENT

The following basic hardware require for the newly developed system to perform

maximally are:

a) Monitor with screen size “14 inches”

b) Processor - Pentium (R) dual Core T4500

c) Speed - 2.40GHz

d) Hard disk drive - 500GB

e) Run - 4GB

3.8.2 SOFTWARE REQUIREMENT

The software mention below will be installed on a computer system and will be used to develop

the program, they are as follow:

a) HTML(Hypertext Markup Language)

b) CSS( Cascading Style Sheet)

c) PHP (Preprocessor)

d) Wamp server

e) Visual studio text Editor

f) Chrome browser or Mozilla Firefox

CHAPTER FOUR

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT, IMPLIMENTATON AND DOCUMENTATION

37
4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes and critically defines all the necessary functions and features that can be

rendered by assessment of bidders for the award of contract, excluding the administrative

functions. The work actually considers all the stream of services that are rendered when a

contractor or consultant looking for contract in this institution need to considered. Few of these

numerous services will be examined to see how and what kind of data is required in each form

that represents them.

4.1.1 CREATE NEW ACCOUNT: This function handles the capturing of the

consultant/contractor detailed information such as the Organization-Username, Organization-

Logo, Organization- Email, and Organization-Address.

4.1.2 RESULT: The system is designed such that the following are carried out during its use:

4.1.3 USER VALIDATION: to be able to use the software, organization are to registered by

themselves using their preferred username and password on the first login to the software as

shown below.

4.2 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

There is a need to have a computer environment prepared in this phase were the program

software will be tested. I am able to develop the software for this system to make it successful

and easier, there are needs for a fully equip computers for easy accessibility and testing.

4.3 SYSTEM IMPLIMEMTATION

38
This refers to the changing from the existing system to the new system. There are different ways

of converting system (changing over) mentioned below:

1. Direct change over

2. Parallel change over

3. Pilot change over

4.3.1 PROGRAM MODULE

MODULE FUNCTION
1. Password This module restrict the program (software) only for

authorized persons
2. File Creation It will shows or display the file created for different

customers
3 Exit This will completely quit the program

39
Fig 4.1 Home page

The home page gives the user the room to select options such as login, sign up, as well as the

Admin login For the next steps to be taken, either sign up as a new user, or Log In as an already

existing User with his or her User Name and Password, or the Admin Login to view applicant or

bidders bidding for a contract.

40
Fig4.2: User Log

This page gives the user who has already sign up to login with his or her password to access

information about the available contract as well as to view his profile as follows below.

Fig 4.3 uploaded profile

41
This page views the users credentials uploaded for access by the admin

Fig 4.4 credential name

This pages allows the user with user name and Password to access the available Contract for

bidding.

Fig 4.5 Search contract Available

42
Fig 4.6 uploaded Credential

The user have the room to upload new credentials for upgrading of profile.

Fig 4.7 Home page to sign up page

43
The page above gives the user with User name and password to login to access the available

contract.

Fig 4.8 user registration

This page allow user to register his or her fields or information for accurate information of the

contractor to bid for a contract..

44
fig 4.9 Home Page for admin login

this Page allow the Admin to login to access information about the potential contractors to bid

for contracts as well as to upload and post the available contract for potential bidders.

Fig 4.10 Admin login page

45
Fig 4.11 inside admin Log Page

This page will allow the admin to contract vacancies, view contractors applicant, delete contract

vacancy, as well as view contract vacancies.

46
Fig 4.12 Add Contract Vacancy Page

A page to allow the admin to add contract to be accessible by the Bidders.

Fig 4.13 View available Contract Page

This page allows the admin view the contract uploaded by him to be access by contractors.

47
fig 4.14 Delete Contract Vacancy Page

This Page above allow the Admin to Delete contract not available.

Fig 4.15 View Contract Vacancy

48
T he Admin can view all the uploaded credentials, uploaded by various organizations and is able

to assess all they uploaded, most especially OTHER REQUIREMENTS. The developed software

application is run on the system and found to operate as expected.

Once the user is able to login, the main dashboard appears. The main dashboard has five menus,

namely; view credentials, search contract, upload credential and logout. On clicking the upload

credential menu, the user will view all information uploaded about their organization and can be

able to edit the information with the exception of Logo. And also when you click on the upload

credential, those credential you uploaded will be view, More so when search contract is click the

contract available will be displayed and the you the contractor or applicant will apply by clicking

on the apply button system will prompt you that it is successful. Lastly when you click on the

logout menu it will take you to the previous interface.

Similar windows exist for Admin and organization registration. Dropdown menu is provided to

allow for easy selection of items on the Homepage. Also available are some text fields. These do

not have dropdown menus and desired text need to be typed in.

4.5 USER GUIDE AND SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION

4.5.1 SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION

Program Author Reg No;

ABASHIYA BAWAIMARAK STEPHEN NDCS/2016-330

Department

COMPUTER SCIENCE

49
Program Title: Design and implementation of an online contract bidding system

Program purpose: To automate the contract bidding system here in the Nigeria Institute of

Leather and science Technology, case study of works department. NILEST

Program year:

MARCH 2019

Interface Form

a) Home form

b) Registration form

c) contractor login form

d) Admin login form

e) Company registration form

50
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 SUMMARY

This research is therefore carried out to automate the contract Bidding System under work

department Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology Samaru Zaria Kaduna State.

The main method of data collection used in this research is the interview method. This was done

by confronting, director of works Nigerian Institute of Leather And Science Technology

(NILEST) and asking several question that relate to the operation (manual) and how lovely they

are going to feel when the automated system is been developed.

5.2 CONCLUSION

Taking a look at this project, we would see that there is quite clear-cut between the

manual and the automated system. The automated system carried more advantages than the

manual system. Also by referring to the world of today where every system needs to be

automated. I hereby advise the management of Nigeria Institute of Leather And Science

Technology Samaru Zaria Kaduna State to try and see that they implement the automated system

of contract bidding system to enable them carryout their job efficiently and successful.

5.3 RECOMMENDATION

The Management of Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology (NILEST) should

send staff of works department out for training to learn modern practices or where there is

automated system of works department. Staff should be notified and be trained on any

51
amendment or modification that is carried out in the system in order to increase the long life

cycle of the system.

52
REFERENCES

Alexanderson, G. and Hulten, S. (2006). Predatory Bidding in Competitive Tenders: A Swedish

Case Study, European Journal of Law and Economics, 29-36.

Dowle, W.J., and DeStephanis, A. (1990). “Preparing bids to avoid Claims.”, Construction

Bidding Law, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Gazeta. F. G. (2004). The Pakistan Federal Government Public Procurement Regulatory

Authority SRO 432(I) / 2004.

Hardy, S.C. (1978). “Bid evaluation study for the World Bank, Vol 1”, The University of

Manchester, Institute for Science and Technology, UK. Abatemam, A. (2006).”Delays in

Public Building

Construction Projects & Their Consequences.” M.S. thesis, Univ. of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Hatush, Z. and Skitmore, M. R. (1997), Criteria for contractor Selection. Construction

Management and Economics, Copyright 1997 Taylor & Francis.

Herbsman, Z. and Ellis, R. (1992). “Multiparameter Bidding System-Innovation in Contract

Administration”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management., 118(1).

Ioannou, P.G. and Leu, S.S. (1993) “Average Bid Method- Competitive Bidding Strategy”, Journal

of Construction Engineering and Management., 119(1).

Ahmed, I. (1993). Alternative Bid-Evaluation and Contract-Award Systems, Department of

Construction Management, College of Engineering and Design, Florida International

53
 University, Miami, Florida.

Kelley, M.N. (1991). “Estimating and Bidding from Contractor’s Point of View”, Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management., 117(3).

Mosissa, L. (2006). Alternative Project Delivery Methods for Public Constructions, Cases in

Oromiya Region.

Photois G. I. (1993). “Average-Bid Method-Competitive Bidding Strategy”, Journal of

Construction Engineering

and Management,119(1).

Farooqui, R. U. (2008). “An Assessment Of General Trends Adopted For Bidding And

Procurement In The

Construction Industry Of Pakistan.” Proc., First International Conference On Construction In

Developing Countries (ICCIDC–I): Advancing And Integrating Construction Education

Research & Practice, NED Univ., Karachi, 151- 160.

Sweet, J. (1989). Legal Aspects of Architecture, Engineering, and the Construction Process, West

Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. Tarricon, P. (1993) Deliverence, J. Civil Engineering.

Bedford, T. (2009). Analysis of the Low-Bid Awards System in Public Sector Construction

Procurement, Graduate Department of Civil Engineering Univ of Toronto.

Winch, G.M. (2000). Institutional Reform in British Construction, Partnering and Private

Finance, Building Research information.

54
Wubishet J.M. (2004). Performances for Public Construction Projects in Developing Countries,

Doctoral Thesis at NTNU 2004:45, Norwegian Univ of Science and Technology.

Herbsman, Z. J., and Ellias, A. M., and Cosma, C. (1997). “Buying Time- An Innovative

Procurement Concept for Transportation Project.”, Department of Civil Engineering,

Univ of Florida.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, (2012). 138(3), 323-330.

Garrison, T. (2010.) It's Time to Abandon the Low-Bid System, Posted by Ted at CDT.

Nmez, M. S., and YANG, J. B.(2003). “Addressing the contractor selection problem using an

evidential reasoning approach.”Manchester School of Management, UMIST, and The

Built Environment Research Unit, Univ of Wolverhampton, West Midlands, UK.

Hatush, Z., and Skitmore, M. R. (1997) “Assessment and evaluation of contractor data against

client goals using pert approach”. Construction Management and Economics, 15(4).

Gobali, K. H. (1994). “factors considered in contractor prequalification process in saudi Arabia.”

M.S. thesis, King Faisal Univ, Saudi Arabia.

Aitah, R. A. (1988). “Performance study of the lowest bidder bid awarding system in

government projects - saudi Arabia.” M.S. thesis, King Faisal Univ, Saudi Arabia.

Ubaid, A. G. (1991). “factors affecting contractor performance.” M.S. thesis.

Mechegiaw, L. (2012). “Performance study of lowest bidder bid awarding system in public

construction projects.” M.S. thesis, Addis Ababa Univ, Ethiopia.

55
APPENDIX

CODES

<!DOCTYPE html>

<!-- ADMNI REGISTERATION FORM-->

<html class="no-js">

<head>

<meta charset="utf-8">

<title>Nigerian Institute Of Leather and Science Technology (NILEST Samaru Zaria)</title>

<meta name="description" content="">

<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

</head>

<body>

<?php

//ORGANIZATION LOGIN PROCESS FILE.

session_start();

$servername = "localhost";

$username = "root";

$password = "";

$dbname = "works";

// Create connection

$conn = new mysqli($servername, $username, $password, $dbname);

if ($conn->connect_error) {

die("Connection failed: " . $conn->connect_error);

56
if(isset($_POST['submit'])){

$_SESSION['password']=$_POST['password'];

$_SESSION['username']=$_POST['username'];

$sql="SELECT * FROM org_reg WHERE org_password='".$_SESSION['password']."'";=

$result = $conn->query($sql);

if($result->num_rows> 0){

while($rows = $result->fetch_assoc()) {

$pass= $rows['org_password'];

$path= $rows['path'];

$image= $rows['org_username'];

if( $_SESSION['password']==$pass && $_SESSION['username']==$image){

echo "<imgsrc='$path' style='width:200px;height:150px; margin-

left:1000px'; >";

echo "<b style='width:200px;height:150px; margin-

left:1000px';>Username:$image</b>";

include('test.html');

} else{ echo "you are not a user";

?>

<?php

/*session_start();

$_SESSION['username']=$_POST['username'];

57
$_SESSION['password']=$_POST['password'];*/

if($_POST){

$servername = "localhost";

$username = "root";

$password = "";

$dbname = "works";

$conn = new mysqli($servername, $username, $password, $dbname);

// Check connection

if ($conn->connect_error) {

die("Connection failed: " . $conn->connect_error);

if (isset($_POST['login'])) {

$username=mysql_real_escape_string($_POST['username']);

$password=mysql_real_escape_string($_POST['password']);

//$validatelogin = "SELECT org_password,org_username FROM adminreg ";

if($username && $password){

// Create connection

$sql="SELECT * FROM adminreg WHERE

org_password='$password'";

$result = $conn->query($sql);

if($result->num_rows != 0){

while($rows = $result->fetch_assoc()) {

$dbpassword= $rows['org_password'];

$dbusername= $rows['org_username'];

if($dbusername==$username ){

58
 include("screen.php");

echo $rows['org_username']."<br/>";

}else{

echo "INCORRECT USERNAME";

}else{

echo "INCORECT PASSWORD.";

header("Refresh:4; url=loginAdminform.html");

?>

</body>

</html>

59