Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
MEGARON, cilt.16, sa.2, ss.255-270, 2021 (ESCI)
Realizing a restoration project is different than new construction projects, however there is no difference between them in a public tender procedure. Contracts are awarded based only on the lowest price criteria in public tenders. Awarding a restoration contract based on lowest price criteria creates low quality. That's why this paper is studying if there are any viable possibilities to involve non-price criteria in public tenders for restoration. The aim of this study is to evaluate the possibilities of using non-price contract award criteria within the scope of the current legislative restrictions in public restoration tenders. Also to seek ways of involving scientific methods for restoration contractor selection. To achieve these goals, comparison, case discovery and consultation methods were used. The possibilities of the legislation are investigated for contract awarding and the legislation in Turkey is compared with the legislation of EU. As a result of this comparison, how the non-price contract award criteria included in both regulations can be used in the restoration tenders in our country has been evaluated. Contract awarding criteria are listed using the Berlin Neues Museum example. The list is compiled hierarchically under the main and sub-criteria and a comparison survey study was done with twenty conservation specialists all with at least ten years of academic experience in the field. Results of the survey evaluated by using the AHP method to determine the weights of criteria. Within the scope of this study, the opinions of experts were taken on the determination of the weights of the contractor selection criteria using the AHP method. Further studies can be done with other stakeholders in a conservation project to see their perspective on contractor selection criteria. For example, employers, users and administrators of the subject can be evaluated using similar methods. Furthermore, mixed expert groups consisting of different stakeholders can be formed and studies can be conducted to determine what the contractor selection criteria can include and how the weights are distributed. The non-price criteria evaluated in this study are limited to those used in the Neues Museum. Since there is no limitation for non-price criteria in legislation, future studies with different criteria can be produced for the use of non-price criteria in heritage field and can be compared with the results here. In general, quantitative criteria are proposed for contractor selection. However, each heritage project is unique. For this reason, the selection criteria of the contractor in heritage projects should include qualitative characteristics compatible with the project. Past experience is not included in the contractor selection criteria in some previous studies. According to the results of our paper, past experience is seen as a very important criterion by experts. It will be appropriate to use past experience quality criterion in contractor selection. However, in the selection of the contractor, the bid price is required to be included among the criteria by the legislation. This paper shows selection criteria and weights of criteria may change according to the case. That's why, rather than a model focused on quantitative criteria of contractor, a method can be developed in which the weight of qualitative criteria is sufficient to increase the quality. Awarding the contract at the lowest price for heritage projects is considered problematic.