International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
Digitizing Fitout Procurement: Primavera-Driven Bid Evaluation and Negotiation Framework for High-Value Interiors
Vijay H Ahire1 , Paras Kumar2
1Research Scholar, Mewar University, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
2Assistant Professor, Civil Engg. Department, Mewar University, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
Abstract - This study presents a comprehensive and scalableframeworkforevaluatingbidsandselectingvendors in high-value office fitout projects, incorporating multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques, a structured negotiation model, and Primavera-based schedule simulations.Traditionallowest-bid(L1)procurementoften leads to suboptimal performance, especially in projects demanding highcustomization, rapid delivery, and quality adherence.Throughacase-basedapproachinvolvingtheABC CorporateOfficefitoutprojectinMumbai,India,thisresearch demonstrates the efficacy of a Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) model combined with digital project management simulations. Technical and financial assessments, visualized via dashboards and Gantt chart comparisons,enablebalanced,data-backeddecision-making. Post-selection negotiation and post-award vendor performance tracking further strengthen the framework’s robustness. The methodology proposed bridges the gap between theoretical procurement models and practical implementation,offeringstandardizedtemplates,evaluation matrices,andvisualanalyticsforbroaderindustryadoption.
Key Words: Bid Evaluation, Vendor Selection,Primavera P6, Office Fitout, QCBS
1.INTRODUCTION
Vendor selection in commercial office fitout projects has grown increasingly complex due to the demand for rapid, high-quality, and cost-sensitive execution. Traditional procurement methods relying on L1 (lowest cost) bidding frequentlyresultinchallengessuchasqualitycompromise, execution delays, and disputes. The rising expectations of clientsandcomplexitiesofinteriorprojectscopenecessitate the developmentofa framework thatistransparent,datadriven,andscalable.
This research aims to address the inefficiencies in traditional bidding systems by designing a comprehensive bidevaluationandvendorselectionframeworkspecifically for office fitout projects. Using Primavera P6 for schedule simulation and incorporating structured negotiation templates, the proposed system facilitates strategic procurementdecisions.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Areviewofinternationalstudiesrevealedlimitationsin existingmodelsofprocurementandvendorevaluation:
Perera et al. (2009) and Waara & Brochner (2006) emphasized the value of multi-criteria frameworks.
Al-Harbi (2001) and Ng & Tang (2010) applied AHP-based models, though complexity limits implementation.
Love et al. (2008) and CBRE India (2021) highlightedfitout-specificrisks.
Zhang et al. (2018) and Naqvi et al. (2021) examined BIM and Primavera tools for project forecasting.
These studies provided valuable insights into methods such as MCDM, FAHP, risk-based selection, and digital procurement modeling, but rarely integrated these techniques holistically within a single procurement frameworktailoredtoofficefitouts.
Table 1: Summary of Literature Gaps
Theme Key Findings Gap Identified
Bid Evaluation Multi-criteria scoringenhances accuracy Noreal-time visualizationofimpact
Vendor Selection AHP&FAHP methodsused NotappliedtoIndian fitoutsector
Negotiati on Adhocprocesses leadtoambiguity Lackof templates/checklists
Primaver aUse Usedinplanning Notintegratedinbid selection
3. METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative tools (interviews, expert validation) and quantitative analytics (technical & financial matrices,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net
Primaverasimulations).Themethodologyencompassesthe followingsteps:
Developmentofaweightedbidscoringframework
Shortlistingthroughprequalificationfilters
Primavera-based simulation of vendor-submitted schedules
Post-evaluationnegotiationandcostrefinement
Case-basedapplicationandvalidationthroughreal projectdata
Thecasestudyselectedisalivecommercialinteriorproject inMumbai,allowingreal-timedatacapture,practicaltesting of the proposed framework, and implementation of PrimaveraGanttsimulations.
4. Case Study Overview
Client:ABCFinancialPvt.Ltd.
Location:Mahalaxmi,Mumbai
Scope: 20,000 sq. ft. full-service fitout (interiors, HVAC,electrical,data)
Project Budget:₹12Crore
Timeline:6.5months
Procurement Mode: Two-envelope (technical + financial)
Evaluation Committee:PMC,Architect,andClient Representatives
5. Result and Analysis
5.1 Vendor Prequalification
Five vendors passed the prequalification stage based on experience,certifications,turnover,andclientreferences.
Table 2: Vendor Prequalification Summary
Vend or Experie nce Turno ver
5.2 Technical Evaluation
Technical scores were assigned based on experience, methodology,resources,financialstability,certifications,and references.
Table 3: Technical Scores
Vendor TS
VendorX 88
VendorY 87
VendorZ 82
VendorA 73
5.3 Financial Evaluation
Financialbidswerenormalizedusingtheinverse-cost method:
Table 4: Financial Evaluation
Figure 1: Overall Methodological Flow
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
5.4 QCBS Final Evaluation
Table 5: Final Combined Score (40% TS + 60% FS)
Vendor FinalScore
VendorZ 92.80
VendorX 92.39
VendorY 91.25
VendorA 84.96
DespiteVendorZ’spriceadvantage,Primaverasimulations andpost-bidnegotiationsfavoredVendorX.
5.5 Primavera Simulation Results
Table 6: Primavera-Based Task Simulation
Task VendorX VendorZ VendorY
Mobilization 10 8 12
CivilWorks 25 28 30
HVAC 15 17 16
Electrical 20 18 22
Furniture 18 20 19
Handover 10 9 11
Total Project Duration:VendorX:98days,VendorZ:100 days,VendorY:110days
Figure 2: Primavera Gantt Chart – Vendor Comparison
VendorXachievedmilestoneefficiencywithlowerfloatand bettersequencing.
5.6 Negotiation Outcomes
VendorXreducedtheirbidto₹11.6Crpost-negotiation. Materialbrands,paymentterms,anddeliverysequences wererealigned.
Table 7: Key Negotiation Adjustments
Item Pre-Negotiation Post-Negotiation
Price ₹11.85Cr ₹11.6Cr
HVACBrand LG Carrier(client-preferred)
PaymentTerms 10/70/10/10 20/60/10/10
6. Discussion
TheproposedframeworkprovedsuperiortotraditionalL1 methodsinthefollowingways:
Transparency: Scoring matrices and dashboards weresharedwithallstakeholders.
Data-Backed Decisions: Primavera simulations addedcredibilitytoselection.
Negotiation Leverage: Structured negotiation enabledcostoptimizationandclarifiedscope.
Client Satisfaction:Post-projectfeedbackindicated a93%satisfactionrate.
7. Industry Implications
Domain Impact
PMC Reduced evaluation time, improved process documentation
Clients Enhancedvisibility,bettervendoroutcomes
Contractors Clearerexpectationsandfeedbackmechanism
8. Conclusions
This research offers a scalable, technology-driven, and balancedprocurementframeworktailoredforofficefitouts.It integratescostandqualityassessmentthroughQCBS,visual scheduling via Primavera, and post-bid negotiations for commercialalignment.TheABCCorporateOfficecasestudy validatesitspracticality,relevance,andvalue.
9. Future Work
Inclusion of earned value and resource loading in Primavera
2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 | ISO 9001:2008
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 12 Issue: 05 | May 2025 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
Real-timevendorratingdashboards
BIM-QCBSintegration
Cross-sectorapplications(retail,healthcare)
DevelopmentofanAI-basedbidadvisormodule
REFERENCES
1. Al-Harbi,K.M.A.(2001).ApplicationoftheAHPin projectmanagement. InternationalJournalofProject Management, 19(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00038-1
2. Perera,B.,Rameezdeen,R.,Chileshe,N.,&Hosseini, M. R. (2009). Enhancing the transparency and accountability of procurement decision-making in construction. International Journal of Project Management, 27(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.001
3. Zhang,X.,Shen,L.,&Love,P.E.D.(2018).BIM-based designandprocurementforgreenbuildingprojects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.174
4. Ng, S. T., & Tang, Z. (2010). Labour-intensive contractor selection: A decision support system using case-based reasoning. Automation in Construction, 19(3), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.11.013
5. Waara,F.,&Bröchner,J.(2006).Priceandnon-price criteria for contractor selection. Journal of ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,132(8), 797–804. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2006)132:8(797)
6. Love,P.E.D.,Smith,J.,&Li,H.(2008).Doeswalkthroughinspectionreducedesignerrors? Journalof ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,134(7), 513–520. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339364(2008)134:7(513)
7. Naqvi, H. A., Ahmad, T., & Zubair, H. (2021). A Primavera-based simulation for delay analysis in public sector projects. Journal of Construction EngineeringandProjectManagement,11(1),12–21.
8. CBRE India. (2021). India Fit-Out Cost Guide 2021 CBRE Research. Retrieved from https://www.cbre.co.in
9. Choudhry, R. M., & Iqbal, K. (2013). Cost and schedule risk analysis of building construction projectsinPakistanusingMonteCarlosimulation. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(4), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-0006-0
2025, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 8.315 |
10. Hendrickson, C., & Au, T. (2008). Project managementforconstruction:Fundamentalconcepts for owners, engineers, architects, and builders. Prentice-Hall.
11. Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. (1998). Contractor selection using multi-criteria utility theory: An additivemodel. BuildingandEnvironment,33(2–3), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03601323(97)00017-2
12. Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, C. W. (2000). Project delivery method and contracting strategy for minimizing constructiondisputes. JournalofProfessionalIssues inEngineeringEducationandPractice,126(3),158–164. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)10523928(2000)126:3(158)