Risk management as a qualitative evaluation criterion in public procurement of construction works

Abstract

This paper focuses on the application of risk management as a qualitative criterion for evaluating public construction contracts using the Best Value Approach (BVA). This method is being progressively implemented in the Czech Republic as a strategic tool to enhance the quality and efficiency of public procurement. The primary objective is to present the “Risk Assessment Plan” criterion and its role in improving project preparation. The analysis is based on practical experience gained from construction contracts executed by a specific public institution. The study examines the principles, parameters, and evaluation process of the “Risk Assessment Plan” criterion, assessing its functionality and effectiveness within the real-world context of the Czech public procurement environment. The criterion proved to be an effective tool, providing the contracting authority with direct insight into bidders’ capabilities to identify, describe, and manage project risks. Key findings include verification of the professional readiness and expertise of suppliers, effective transfer of market knowledge and experience into the project preparation process, a significant increase in the project’s readiness for the implementation phase and enhanced transparency and objectivity in the bid evaluation process. The article also highlights critical pitfalls and common mistakes made by both bidders and contracting authorities –notably the confusion between project-specific risks and general supplier risks, insufficient documentation structure, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the criterion’s purpose. Based on these observations, the paper provides methodological recommendations for the correct definition of the criterion, scoring mechanisms, and its subsequent use during project execution. The results confirm that a well‐structured risk management criterion is essential for more effective project delivery and overall higher standards in public construction works.

1 Introduction

Public contracts for construction work represent one of the most economically important areas of public expenditure and at the same time belong to the segments that are exposed to an increased incidence of risks in the long term. These contracts are characterized by a high level of funding, long lead times, technical and organizational complexity and the involvement of many participants with different interests and responsibilities. As a result, construction projects awarded by contracting authorities are often burdened with problems such as delays in implementation, budget overruns, degradation of the quality of the work or the emergence of contractual disputes between the contracting authority and the contractor.

Risks are a natural part of any construction project, and their existence does not in itself constitute a failure. Risks become a problem if they are not identified in time, properly understood and systematically managed. However, in the public procurement environment, risk management is often perceived as a technical or administrative matter that is solved only during the implementation of the project or formally enshrined in the contractual terms and conditions without a real connection to the management of the project. This approach significantly limits the possibilities of preventing the negative impacts of risks and increases the likelihood of crisis situations.

The traditional model of public procurement of construction works in the Czech Republic and in a few other European countries is still predominantly based on the evaluation of bids according to the lowest bid price. Although the legal framework of public procurement allows for the use of multi-criteria evaluation and emphasizes the economic advantage of the tender, in practice the price criterion often remains the decisive factor. This approach can lead to the selection of suppliers who are not able to implement the project in the required quality and time, or who underestimate the risks of the project to succeed in the price competition.

Experience from practice shows that extremely low bid prices are often associated with subsequent problems in implementation, such as additional work, changes in contractual conditions or an effort to transfer risks back to the contracting authority. The risks of the project are thus not addressed preventively, but become the subject of additional negotiations, which may lead to increased costs and deterioration of relations between the contracting parties. In this context, the price alone is not a sufficient indicator of the contractor’s ability to successfully manage a complex construction project. Niewerth et al. (2022) states that the inclusion of qualitative criteria in the evaluation processes of public procurement does not cause a significant increase in acquisition costs, but it does bring a clear positive effect in the form of a higher quality of implementation and a lower incidence of additional work. On the contrary, a one-sided focus on price, often motivated by the pursuit of immediate fiscal savings, leads to higher risks, additional costs and reduced quality of results (Dorée, 2024) (the so-called “race to the bottom”). A properly set multi-criteria evaluation allows you to select better-quality offers without necessarily increasing your overall spending. Citaldo et al. (2022) emphasizes that focusing exclusively on the lowest price is not a guarantee of the quality of the work carried out or the reliability of the contractor. Based on the analysis of specific cases, it concludes that the victory of the supplier with the lowest bid price can often lead to non-compliance with contractual obligations, additional costs and project delays. Especially around construction contracts, where technological expertise and high quality of performance are crucial, these risks are very pronounced.

One of the key problems of the current practice of public procurement is the fact that the ability of the bidder to manage the risks of the project is not systematically assessed at the tender stage. Although risks are often identified on the part of the contracting authority as part of the preparation of the project, the bidders themselves are not motivated to actively demonstrate their competence in the field of risk management. This misses the opportunity to use the knowledge and experience of suppliers at an early stage of the project.

The Best Value Approach (BVA) method is an alternative approach to public procurement that seeks to address and overcome these deficits. The basic principle of the BVA method is to shift the emphasis from control and detailed specifications to the evaluation of the contractor’s expertise and ability to take responsibility for achieving the desired project objectives. The method assumes that a real expert is able not only to identify the risks of the project, but also to actively manage them and minimize their negative impacts.

Several scientific publications deal with the use of BVA in public procurement. The article (Wondimu et al., 2020) explains findings from a May 2023 study on above threshold public procurement in the Czech Republic. The survey provides an overview of current procurement methods, funding, cost aspects and time allocation. It identifies key trends and challenges and examines issues such as method selection, documentation preparation, communication with bidders and handling appeals.

The authors (Matějková, 2024) analyze the use of the Best Value Approach (BVA) in roofing projects and compare BVA with Best Value Procurement. They tested whether BVA can ensure successful delivery of specialized roofing systems using a case study of a 70,000 sq ft industrial roof project in Phoenix. The study confirms that BVA is suitable for such projects, despite its recent sustainability concerns.

The contribution (Bills, 2017) focuses on reducing costs and increasing project value through BVA. The authors argue that a client centered, price-based approach causes inefficiencies. If clients request proposals and utilize supplier expertise, project performance improves. The BVA model is applied to procurement of cleaning services for the City of Colorado.

According to the authors of contribution (Kashiwagi et al., 2022), construction firms have recently lost millions due to poor project management. BVA is one of the few systems proving performance improvement, applied in over 2,000 projects with 98% client satisfaction in cost, time, effort and quality. It is also the most licensed technology at Arizona State University.

The article (Kashiwagi and Kashiwagi, 2022) examines the efficiency of public construction procurement in Norway, where projects often face delays and cost overruns. Although the industry is moving toward collaboration, achieving cooperative relationships remains difficult. The study explores how BVA can support collaboration between client and main contractor, based on a case study of the Omsorgsbygg project.

The Norwegian construction sector struggles with cost overruns, delays and quality issues. The study analyses how BVA can assist clients in supplier selection and identifies its benefits and challenges. A pilot project at Nye Veier serves as the case study (Gunnarsson, 2019).

Highway construction projects have long relied on lowest price procurement, raising doubts about achieved value. BVA offers an alternative by evaluating technical proposals alongside price. The study investigates best practices for transparent BVA-based selection using four case studies (Hamre, 2017).

Vietnam’s construction industry faces risks leading to delays, cost overruns and low client satisfaction. The study evaluates industry performance and examines the potential of BVA to improve outcomes. Data were collected through a survey covering 23 common risk factors identified by 103 Vietnamese construction professionals (Kolli, 2015).

The contribution (Le, 2019) identifies barriers to replacing the principal agent relationship with a stewardship model through BVA, which builds calculative trust using metrics and alignment of goals. Using agency and stewardship theories, the authors analyze data from four Dutch highway case studies.

The research (Snippert et al., 2015) identifies a lack of understanding of owners’ and users’ strategic goals and insufficient methods for translating them into functional buildings. A framework developed from surveys, interviews, case studies and workshops proposes principles for creating value throughout the project lifecycle.

Supplier ability to prepare competitive bids is essential for survival. The study (Haddadi et al., 2017) addresses pricing strategies in Czech public construction procurement. Data from a supplier survey was analyzed using statistical methods.

The selection of the most economically advantageous tenders (MEAT) in public procurement procedures is presented in the paper (Anelli et al., 2025).

The paper (Jacques de Sousa et al., 2023) concludes that the award criteria are not correlated with final project performance and that multifactor assessment criteria do not necessarily lead to better performance. However, high-value projects awarded solely with the price award criterion tend to perform worse than those awarded with the multifactor assessment.

The BVA method uses qualitative evaluation criteria to assess bids in terms of expertise, experience, approach to project management and ability to work with risks.

One of these criteria is the Risk Assessment Plan, which allows you to evaluate how the bidder perceives the risks of a particular contract and what measures it proposes to eliminate or mitigate them. Unlike the general description of risks, it is a structured document that is directly linked to the responsibility of the supplier and the subsequent management of the project in the implementation phase.

The BVA risk assessment plan not only serves as a basis for the evaluation of bids but also creates the basis for continuous work with risks during the project implementation. The identified risks and proposed measures become part of the project management and are further developed through tools such as the Weekly Risk Report. This approach makes it possible to link the tender phase with the implementation phase of the project and to ensure that risk management does not become just a formal activity, but a real tool for prevention crisis situations. The paper aims to explain the principles of setting up the Weekly Risk Report, describe the logic of its evaluation, identify the most common mistakes of bidders in its processing and show the connection between risk assessment in the tender procedure and their management during the project implementation.

2 Materials and methods

Identifying and then effectively managing the risks of construction projects has a direct impact on the actual project costs, deadlines and the overall quality of construction work. Construction project risk is an event that is likely to deviate from the expected development and cause damage. In construction projects, it is therefore a possibility of deviation from the planned quality, time, cost or safety (Smejkal and Rais, 2010).

The first step in risk management is to identify them. The goal is to identify threats that can negatively affect the project and record them. Subsequently, it is necessary to focus mainly on those risks that may have a major impact on the project outputs. Risk analysis conceived in this way is a key input for risk management. It allows you to anticipate problems and reduce their impact. It typically involves three steps: determining assets, threats, and vulnerabilities (Smejkal and Rais, 2010).

An asset is anything that has value for a project or organization–e.g., real estate, finance, technology or know-how. Loss or damage to assets can have a negative impact on the achievement of the goals of the project or organization.

Threats can be different, often overlapping, and their significance depends on the specific project. According to standards (e.g., ČSN EN 62198), threats in construction are divided into the following main types: financial (e.g., price increases, payment delays), time (delivery delays, climatic conditions), technical and technological (errors in documentation, software failures), legal (changes in legislation, disputes with entities), environmental (weather conditions, natural disasters), human and social (lack of qualifications, strikes), supplier (unreliable subcontractors, bankruptcy), health and safety (accidents, OHS), logistical (disruption of transport and supplies) and political (changes in subsidy or construction policy) (ČSN EN 62198, 2014).

The final step is to assess the likelihood of the threat and the impact on vulnerable assets. Two factors are important: criticality (the asset’s importance to the project) and sensitivity (the asset’s susceptibility to damage). This combination determines the level of risk and helps to set appropriate measures. Risk analysis can be carried out in two approaches, qualitative and/or quantitative.

The qualitative approach uses subjective assessment of the probability of occurrence and impact of risks using classification scales. Qualitative risk analysis methods are widely used, especially in the early stages of projects and where there is a lack of quantitative data. They help to identify and sort out risks without complex calculations. The advantage of qualitative methods is speed, simplicity and the possibility of using it even in the absence of data, while the disadvantage is subjectivity, dependence on the experience of evaluators and possible ambiguity of conclusions (Korecký and Trkovský, 2011). The most used techniques include Risk Matrix, Delphi Method, Brainstorming, “What Happens When…” (What If) and Analysis of Modes and Consequences of Failures (FMEA) (Fotr and Hnilica, 2014).

Quantitative risk analysis uses precise mathematical and statistical tools to determine the probability of risks occurring and their financial or other impacts. It provides objective and numerical outputs, especially suitable where detailed input data is available. The advantage of quantitative methods is accuracy and decision support, the disadvantage is higher demands on data, time and expertise. The most used quantitative methods include Monte Carlo Simulation, Markov Analysis, Event Tree Analysis (ETA). The output of all methods is to find out which risks need to be addressed, and which can be accepted. It is advisable to use the 80/20 principle, namely, that 80% of impacts arise from 20% of risks. Focusing on key risks allows for more efficient management and resource savings. After assessing the risks, a risk management strategy is chosen. The aim is to reduce risks to an acceptable level. Possible approaches are acceptance, elimination, transfer, mitigation or backup plans.

The authors of the article focus on the use of risk management knowledge in the tender for the contractor of a public construction contract using the Best Value Approach (BVA) method. The fact that the BVA method emphasizes risk management already in the offer is very important. Bidders identify risks and propose their treatment, which shows the contracting authority their competence. A suitable tool for evaluation is the above-mentioned qualitative analysis, developed in the form of a risk matrix, which is clear and mutually understandable. The authors then also focus on the operational phase of the project and risk management in this phase using the proposed outputs. The BVA method builds on two key theories–the Information Measurement Theory (IMT) and the Kashiwagi Solution Model (KSM). These theories form the basic framework for identifying and effectively using information in risk management and problem solving in projects. IMT focuses on a logical approach to events, where the use of relevant information minimizes subjective decision-making and contributes to predictability. KSM theory then applies the principles of IMT to individuals, dividing personalities according to their ability to perceive and apply information, thus creating different types of roles needed for successful project management.

IMT allows you to identify risks and predict their impacts more accurately using quality work with information. A key conclusion from IMT is that an increased level of decision-making increases the risks of the project. This principle, expressed as “If a decision making goes up, risk goes up”, emphasizes that the more the project (Kashiwagi, 2016).

Each person is unique, and therefore their ability to perceive and use information differs. KSM thus shows how differences between people affect project management and decision-making processes.

For further design, KSM works with extremes–type A and type C. Type A achieves a higher level of information faster and focuses on the so-called left-sided properties (LS). He is efficient, an independent expert, adapts quickly and minimizes risks. He perceives and effectively uses the maximum amount of information, knows the limits and believes in his knowledge, measures performance, continuously improves and minimizes risks. It is autonomous, efficient, and does not need management or control. Type C remains at a lower level and tends towards the so-called right-sided traits (RS). He is rather rigid, follows the rules and has difficulty accepting He is unoriented, easily uncertain, does not anticipate, does not plan, perceives changes as a risk. He resorts to control and transfers responsibility to others.

The KSM model is used to identify key people in project management. Having Type A people on the team–experts who use information effectively and use logic and common sense in everything they do–is key to success, especially in the construction industry. By applying IMT principles, they ensure smooth progress and successful completion of the project. They solve things simply, adapt and minimize risks. They believe in a “win-win” state. They are leaders, not “programmed managers.” (Kashiwagi, 2016).

The Best Value Approach method deals with the search for the right experts (persons and subjects) with the highest quality, with maximum experience and the ability to communicate.

An illustrative description of the Industry Structure model is shown in the following Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Most public procurements in the Czech Republic, from the point of view of their analysis of the convened evaluation criteria and the course of the procurement procedure, fall into the first quadrant, where the emphasis is on low price, which, according to the above methodology, is the most risky in terms of contract outcomes. The contracting authority announces a tender with the only evaluation criterion of the economic profitability of the bid, namely, the “lowest bid price” (Matějková, 2024). This statement is based on the authors’ findings from the analysis of a dataset of 40,319 public contracts awarded in the Czech Republic in 2015–2022, the input data was drawn from the source “data.open.contracting.org”, an organization that provides data on public contracts in individual countries in Europe. The research sample showed that on average 78.8% of contracts are evaluated “Price only” (Hašek, 2026). The expected quality is ensured indirectly (by reference) by qualification requirements for suppliers. The supplier is at a disadvantage, often saving at the expense of quality. The contracting authority takes on the role of an “expert”, which increases the emergence of possible risks. These problems can be reduced by moving to the second quadrant, by increasing the number of evaluated criteria, which also includes the BVA method (Citaldo et al., 2022). If there is a multi-criteria evaluation, it is a time criterion (construction time, reduction of construction time), warranty and service (length of warranty period, service conditions), people (experience of the implementation team, qualification of the construction manager) or technical solutions (materials used, innovations, environmental impacts - recycling, ecological disposal). One of the important criteria that can shift the “focus on price” towards the “focus on quality” is the use of the criterion “Risk Assessment Plan” in the form of the presentation of the Weekly Risk Report, the detailed analysis of which forms the core of this paper.

2.1 Risk assessment during the construction project

A systematic literature review and future research agendas in construction risk management and stakeholder management are presented in the paper (Xia et al., 2018).

2.2 Evaluation of risk assessment plan

The logical framework and risk analysis within the feasibility study are very important elements of the construction project analysis, but they are mainly intended as support in the decision-making process on the implementation or non-implementation of the project. The pre-investment phase of the project, and therefore the above-mentioned analyses, are therefore not subject of this article. The subject of the paper is the evaluation of the issue of taking risks into account in the management of the implementation phase of the project.

The aim of the Risk Assessment Plan evaluation criterion is to verify the ability of applicants to identify key project risks and propose their mitigation. The criterion tests the candidate’s expertise and experience in risk management, thus complementing the assessment of the quality of both the organization (Expert Level) and the individual (Key Person Interview). In contrast to these criteria, the Risk Assessment Plan brings additional value–the bidder shares specific opinions and proposals for managing the risks of the project, which allows the contracting authority to obtain practical suggestions for project management before the start of implementation. The key to allocating points for the risk assessment plan criterion is displayed on following Table 1.

Experience from the Czech Republic and abroad shows that the optimal weight of the Risk Assessment Plan criterion is up to 5%, up to a maximum of 10%. The main factors for selection should remain the Professional Level and the Offer Price. A higher weight for the risk criterion can lead to confusing offers and a loss of objectivity in the evaluation, as bidders are often unable to clearly identify key risks.

It is also important to choose the method of scoring. It can be a simple allocation of points according to the recognition of the relevance of the risk, but it can be very subjective. In the Dutch BVA models, which served as a source of information for the introduction of the BVA method at BUT, all qualitative criteria, including the Risk Assessment Plan (RA), are evaluated subjectively and relatively simply using a scale of 1-6-8-10. A value of 1 means the opposite effect, i.e., that the bidder has shown that he does not understand the contract and the specific area and his proposal may damage the entire contract. A value of 6 means a neutral assessment, which can also be obtained for an incomplete form, or naming a risk and measure that is not a risk, is not relevant to the contract, etc. Values of 8 and 10 are assigned for identifying risks, the elimination of which can have a very good or excellent effect on the implementation of the project.

Unlike the Dutch 1–6–8–10 scoring system, VUT introduced a broader and more descriptive scale of 0–3–6–8–10, which is clearer for both bidders and evaluators and creates larger point differences between bids. This reduces impressions that the final results are too close. The change was based on feedback from the 2019 contract “Reconstruction of the Palacký Dormitory Building,” where even bidders submitting irrelevant risks received 6 points, while high-quality risks were scored only 8 or 10. This led to insufficient differentiation between some bids (Marvan et al., 2023).

The key for awarding points for the Risk Assessment Plan criterion is given in following Table 2. This or a very similar key has been used so far for seven BUT contracts involving competitions within construction projects.

The use of the scale is illustrated below in two case studies.

2.3 Methods used

3 Findings - practical insights and proposed framework

When using the BVA method, the issue of risks can be encountered within the tender in the form of a Risk Assessment Plan and within the implementation phase of the project in the form of a Risk Management Plan and a Weekly Risk Report.

3.1 Case studies

The proposal of procedures and solutions according to the objectives of the presented research, in addition to the analysis of the current state of procedures and solutions in the case of taking into account the issue of risks when selecting a contractor and the subsequent implementation of a construction contract, is also based on projects already implemented by the entity (BUT in Brno) in the role of the client and investor.

3.1.1 Case study 1 – faculty of mechanical engineering reconstruction, section 1

The project involves the complete reconstruction of two seven-story educational buildings designated A3 and KH3. This is a contract with an estimated value of CZK 140 million excluding VAT (€ 5.6 million) awarded in 2021. A total of seven bids were evaluated; two bids were submitted by a two-member association. Nine medium-sized and large construction companies were therefore involved in the public contract.

Within the criterion “Risk assessment plan”, the bidders received 54 points out of 140 possible, i.e., an average of 3.86 points out of 10 for each potential risk. Three bidders received a zero rating for both risks. Only one bidder received the full 20 points.

Some risks presented by the candidates were not accepted by the commission because they were facts already known from the tender and project documentation, including proposed solutions (e.g., floor repairs or the presence of protected animals). Some risks were formulated too generally, without a description of the impacts or proposed measures (e.g., force majeure, general safety of the premises). In other cases, the probability and impact of the risk were negligible, and the costs of the measures corresponded to the risk itself, so they did not bring any effect. The candidates thus did not present relevant or beneficial risk management, and therefore 0 points were assigned in all cases.

The recognized risks, on the other hand, mainly concerned possible complications that were not fully addressed by the project documentation and could affect the course of construction. Two candidates correctly identified the risk of user ignorance of working with the BIM model and CDE on the client’s side and offered systematic training, for which they received 8 points. Another bidder pointed out unresolved collision routes between the construction and the movement of people in the area and proposed specific organizational and technical measures - this identification was rated 10 points. The risk related to the existing electrical installations and antenna systems on the roof, which could slow down the work and were not sufficiently described in the project, was also positively assessed. The client subsequently responded to these relevant risks either before the start of the work or addressed them during the construction with the selected contractor.

3.1.2 Case study 2 – faculty of mechanical engineering reconstruction, section 2

As in the case of Case Study 1, this is a complete reconstruction of two seven-story educational buildings. The scope of construction work, construction period, documentation for the construction, tender and contractual conditions and the requirements of the contracting authority for the execution of the work were almost identical to those in the previous case study concerning buildings A3 and KH3. The estimated value of the contract is 190 million CZK excluding VAT (7.6 million €) awarded in 2022. A total of six bids were evaluated; one bid was submitted by a two-member association. Seven medium-sized and large construction companies were therefore involved in the public contract.

Within the criterion “Risk assessment plan”, the bidders received a total of only 19 points out of 120 possible, i.e., an average of only 1.58 points out of 10 for each potential risk. Three bidders received a zero rating for both risks. None of the bidders received the full points, see Table 3. Significantly fewer points were awarded for this criterion than for a similar contract concerning the reconstruction of buildings A3 and KH3, advertised a year earlier.

For example, the evaluation committee did not recognize the risk related to the possible poor condition of the horizontal distribution lines of the sanitary installation and heating system, because their condition was known to the contracting authority, they were functional and their reconstruction was not part of the subject of the contract. In addition, the proposed measure significantly exceeded the impact of the risk estimated by the bidder. Similarly, the risk of endangering workers when moving between two locations of the construction site equipment was not recognized, because it was a short route in a commonly used area and the bidder set a very low probability and impact, so that a significant effect of the measure was not achieved. Other bidders stated vaguely formulated risks associated with traffic restrictions or the movement of people, which were not specified, the causes, consequences or effect of the measure were not described - the committee therefore assessed them as mere hazards, not risks. In one case, the risks were described more specifically, including the identification of collision points and the proposal for a measure, however, the shift in the level of significance was small, and therefore the bidder received only 3 points. Another risk, concerning the alleged possibility of changing the contracting authority’s requirements for plaster repairs, was not recognized by the commission as irrelevant, since the method of repair was clearly specified in the project documentation. The claim about the alleged “outdated” solution of structured cabling was also not considered a risk - the bidder should have resolved any question during the tender procedure, not only in the offer. Another bidder only described general possible problems with the reconstruction and the different age of the documentation documents, but did not offer a specific risk scenario or solution. The claim that the contracting authority would not respond to change procedures in a timely manner was also unsuccessful, because anticipating the breach of obligations of the contracting parties cannot be considered a contract risk. The risk of the alleged possible defect of the existing roof was also found to be unfounded, since the detected leak was not related to the roof structure and the building demonstrably had a new, high-quality roof. In general, zero ratings were given to risks that had already been addressed in the project or tender documentation, were only hypothetical and unlikely statements, or were not sufficiently described, including causes, impacts and proposed measures. In several cases, bidders vaguely copied risks from a previous contract, but without proper identification, quantification and explanation, so it was not clear what the real risk was or how it should be managed.

On the other hand, relevant and scored risks included mainly technical problems that could have realistically affected the course of the reconstruction and were not fully eliminated by the project documentation. The bidder correctly pointed out the risk of possible deformations of the building caused by the relief of structures during demolition and subsequent additional loading during new construction, which was relevant and professionally justified given the historical static problems of the building–it received 8 points. The same rating was also given to the bidder who identified the risk associated with the possible necessity of more extensive renovation of existing floors, while supporting his conclusions with technical arguments and impacts on time and costs. The client subsequently actively addressed all these risks: it ensured the adjustment of the organization of the movement of people and mechanization in critical areas, carried out a timely sounding of the floor layers and already at the beginning of the construction verified the actual condition of the screeds, which ultimately did not require additional interventions. Also, during the demolition work, increased attention was paid to the supporting structures and the structural engineer carried out their inspection, which did not confirm any defects. Although the identified risks did not occur in practice, their early recognition allowed the client to prepare measures, allocate resources and ensure a smooth construction process.

3.1.3 Conclusion on the case studies

In the case of both case studies, it can be briefly summarized that in the case of risks for which no points were awarded, these were cases where the risk should have been a fact properly described in the project or tender documentation, or only a hypothetical scenario of possible situations with a low probability of occurrence was described, or a dysfunctional system of measures was proposed at the level of a general statement. Alternatively, the risks were insufficiently described and explained, e.g., it was a general statement of the possible influence of force majeure on the execution of the work.

3.2 Risk assessment plan

The risk assessment plan as an evaluation criterion has already been presented by the authors of the article in the publication (Marvan et al., 2023). The “Results” section therefore presents the results of follow-up research on this criterion, especially regarding its use for risk management during the actual implementation of the project.

When assessing risks using the BVA method, it is crucial to distinguish between “risk” and “hazard”. Whereas risk is a practical concern with a real probability of occurrence, requiring active management. A hazard is then an event that falls more at the level of theoretical considerations and its probability of occurrence is so low that it should not be considered essential in the evaluation. Typical examples are a plane crashing on a construction site, an earthquake in an otherwise quiet area, or a fire caused by an unforeseen event. Although these situations may occur, their extremely low probability makes them irrelevant for the BVA risk assessment.

Including improbable hazards in the ranking is inefficient–not only do applicants not get any points (due to low scores in the risk-matrix), but it distracts from the real threats. Therefore, contracting authorities should clearly define that only risks with a real impact are evaluated. This will improve the quality of the tenders and the effectiveness of the evaluation, as the committee will not be burdened with irrelevant information.

The recommendations listed are in accordance with the principles of the BVA method and are identified based on normative recommendations found from a literature search.

The recommendations listed are in accordance with the principles of the BVA method and are identified based on normative recommendations found from a literature search.

Based on experience gained from completed projects it is recommended to require a reasonable number of risks according to the size and nature of the contract. For smaller projects, one is enough, for larger ones two or more. The scope of the requirement should consider the level of readiness of the project–the more detailed the documentation is, the less room is left for further identification of risks by the bidders. However, in the case of Design & Build contracts, it is advisable to consider a higher number of possible risks.

The risk assessment plan drawn up by the tenderers at the competitive stage of the public contract allows the contracting authority to gain expert insight into the possible risks thanks to the experience of all tenderers, including the unsuccessful ones. The information obtained in this way expands the client’s knowledge of potential threats and contributes to better preparation for implementation.

The contracting authority can thus not only manage the course of the project more effectively but also modify the tender documentation or the project itself if the identified risks indicate serious deficiencies. This approach allows the contract to be reworked or cancelled before the contract is signed, thus reducing the risk of project failure.

Thus, the risk assessment plan is not just an evaluation criterion, but an active tool for detecting, understanding and managing risks throughout the project lifecycle. At the same time, it helps the client to gain a deeper understanding of their own project and its risk profile.

An example of a risk relevant to the subject and purpose of the public contract was the potential supplier’s warning of possible user ignorance of working with the BIM model and CDE among the client’s employees and offering training for all responsible people. The commission assessed this positively and the bidders received 8 points. Another bidder then pointed out the potential and unresolved proximity of the construction routes and the routes of students and employees in the construction organization project and proposed organizational and technical measures that would eliminate this risk. For which he received 10 points.

3.3 Basic instructions for filling in and evaluating the offer

The BVA model used at BUT can be used to show the optimal approach to completing and evaluating the Risk Assessment Plan. It is a recommendation on how bidders should prepare their bids and how they should evaluate it–emphasis is placed on the quality of risk identification, the effectiveness of measures and the transparency of the process.

3.4 The most common mistakes in the creation of the risk assessment plan

3.5 Weekly Risk Report

In the BVA method, the contracting authority’s goal is to clearly define what is to be achieved by implementation. The needs and strategic objectives of the contracting authority are specified in the tender documentation and are reflected in the evaluation criteria–quality, time, safety, sustainability, innovation, etc. (Marvan et al., 2023).

It is the presentation of a plan for managing the specific risks of a construction project by the contractor of the public contract as part of its investment phase. The main challenge in creating a risk management plan is to truly understand and accurately define the scope of risk management, which is often much broader than is commonly assumed. This shortcoming stems, among other things, from the historical approach to contracting in the public sector, where contract terms have traditionally been focused on formal compliance with the rules rather than achieving specific performance (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003).

The risk management plan is monitored in the construction phase based on the Weekly Risk Report (WRR), which thus becomes one of the key tools for managing a construction project. It is applicable not only to contracts using the BVA method, but also to projects assigned as standard. It serves as a communication bridge between the contracting authority, the supplier and other participants. The aim is to continuously monitor the status of the project, deviations from the planned procedure and to identify risks in time along with proposals for measures. The draft report is submitted by the applicant in the verification phase of the selection procedure, and its final form is agreed before the contract is signed. After the start of construction, the WRR is prepared and handed over every week until the work is completed.

The structure of the WRR is formulated based on information found in the literature review. The subsequent procedures, rules and recommendations are subsequently based on the authors’ experience associated with previous project implementations used for the preparation of case studies.

3.5.1 Content of the Weekly Risk Report

3.5.2 Preparation of the Weekly Risk Report and its distribution

The WRR is prepared by the supplier and regularly sent to all interested parties. It can have a relatively simple, non-technical, clear and legible form so that even people who do not have technical education can understand it. A structured form in the form of individual tables (e.g., in XLS format) is optimal, so that it does not take more than 15 min of time for the supplier to fill it in. Individual messages should be distributed using a suitable communication tool, optimally through a shared data environment (CDE). If CDE is not in place for the project, then simply by sending it to email addresses.

The report is mainly a monitoring tool and is intended to contain information that provides a clear overview of the status and possible development of the project. However, it should not be the only communication and replace meetings or other communications, such as holding regular review days.

3.5.3 Basic rules for working with the Weekly Risk Report

3.5.4 Effective communication with the Weekly Risk Report

WRR is designed to monitor deviations from plans and risk developments. However, it should not be used to record all the minor problems that lead to micromanagement (Kashiwagi and Kashiwagi, 2012). Although WRR can be an administrative burden, modern tools allow it to be efficiently filled, distributed and evaluated. The importance of WRR lies in ensuring continuous information and timely response to deviations. Research confirms that regular risk monitoring with WRR increases the chance of successful completion of projects. The report must also clearly identify the person responsible and deadlines for the solution, so that risks are not only identified, but also eliminated (Wadsamudrakar and Raj, 2018).

3.5.5 Draft of the Weekly Risk Report and risk management plan template documents

The draft of the Weekly Risk Report is displayed in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

3.6 Risk management plan

The risk management plan that forms part of the Weekly Risk Report has a clear table structure (e.g., in XLS format) and can function as a separate document. It contains key information such as project identification, number and date of the report, description of individual risks including impacts, risk level assessment (probability × impact) using scores and color code, proposal of measures and responsible persons, risk status (e.g., resolved).

The significance of project risks (R) was divided into 6 categories, see Figure 3. It was determined based on the product of the project risk impact intensity (I) and its occurrence probability (p) with a five-interval scale of both variables according to the following relation:

FIGURE 3

A simple 3 × 3 matrix is recommended for risk assessment, which allows for a quick and understandable evaluation. Compared to more detailed models (e.g., 5 × 5), it is less time-consuming and administrative, clearer for all project participants and suitable for regular weekly reporting.

This type of assessment makes it easy to determine the level of risks and their severity for a project based on a combination of probability and impact, see Figure 4.

FIGURE 4

The Risk Management Plan was designed based on the authors’ experience in managing projects used for case studies.

3.7 Summary of the Weekly Risk Report and risk management plan

The draft Weekly Risk Report, including the Risk Management Plan provides a clear and clear template that allows the contractor to work quickly and efficiently when filling it out and the contracting authority to quickly understand the status of the project. The design has a structured form in the form of individual ones in XLS format. It takes about 15 min of time for the supplier to fill out both documents. Even so, for a project that has a 1-year duration, it can be 780 min, which corresponds to 13 h of work. That is, almost two working days spent just filling out the report.

The weekly report is used to confirm compliance with the plan and to identify any deviations, thus providing an up-to-date overview of the status of the project. At the same time, it promotes transparency, accountability and continuous updating of risks. Weekly feedback strengthens open communication between parties and contributes to the prevention of misunderstandings. WRR is thus a tool that should be a standard part of every construction project.

4 Discussion

This article focuses on the analysis of the possibilities of introducing qualitative evaluation criteria into public procurement, with particular emphasis on risk management of construction projects through the BVA method. It aims to present a structured framework for the application of the Risk Assessment Plan as part of the supplier selection process, to analyze the impact of this approach on the implementation of construction projects and to recommend procedures for subsequent risk monitoring through the Weekly Risk Report.

At the same time, it tries to explain how the use of qualitative evaluation criteria and emphasis on risk management translates into a higher quality of project preparation, implementation and minimization of negative impacts during the project life cycle. At the same time, the article points out the key challenges associated with the application of qualitative criteria–especially concerns about the subjectivity of the evaluation, the risk of incorrect implementation of the methodology and the need for continuous education and sharing of good practice between contracting authorities and bidders.

5 Conclusion

The introduction of qualitative evaluation criteria, especially by the Best Value Approach, is associated with a few challenges. The main obstacles include the fear of subjectivity of evaluation, which can be overcome by building transparent methodologies, open communication and education.

It is important to show that even subjective evaluation can be effective and fair if the process is set up professionally. The Risk Assessment Plan criterion provides the contracting authority with a direct insight into the bidders’ ability to manage project risks and brings valuable market insights into the project preparation.

This element forms a bridge between the selection of the supplier and the implementation of the project. It allows you to use not only the winner’s output, but also an overview of risks from other bidders. The contracting authority can thus modify the tender documentation before signing the contract and minimize the risks.

The risk assessment plan is not just a passive evaluation criterion, but an active management tool that provides a long-term overview of risks and their mitigation throughout the project.

It is important to note that the BVA is not the only way to improve the quality of public procurement. Its principles can be combined with traditional procedures or applied selectively. An open and pragmatic approach that encourages even small advances is key.

Although the BVA’s uniform practice is not realistic, it makes sense to share experiences and examples of good practice. Open communication and mutual inspiration contribute to the gradual improvement of the quality and cultivation of public procurement.

Attention and support deserve attention and support for any efforts to introduce standardization and innovation in the preparation and management of investment projects, even if they are efforts that move and improve the situation only slightly and with little impact. In this respect, the situation in the Czech Republic is gradually improving thanks to initiatives emerging at various levels–from ministries and agencies, through regional and municipal governments, to large public buyers, universities and academia, consulting companies and responsible suppliers.

One example of these positive efforts is the use of the Best Value Approach method, which aims to select a quality supplier, eliminate extremely low prices, mitigate risks and create a mutually beneficial relationship.

References

• 1

  AnelliD.MoranoP.AcquafreddaT.TajaniF. (2025). Structuring multi-criteria decision approaches for public procurement: methods, standards and applications. Syst. (Basel)13 (9), 777. 10.3390/systems13090777

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BillsA. (2017). An analysis of the best value approach for the delivery of roofing systems: how the best value approach differs from best value procurement. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Bv Pointer (2024). Bv Pointer. Available online at: https://bvpointer.com/en/ (Accessed October 21, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  CitaldoI.BanaitisA.SamadhiyaA.BanaitienėN.KumarA.LuthraS. (2022). Sustainable supply chain management in construction: an exploratory review for future research. J. Civ. Eng. Manag.28, 536–553. 10.3846/jcem.2022.17202

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  ČSN EN 62198 (2014). ČSN EN 62198 risk management in projects – guidelines for use. Prague, Czechia: ČAS.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  DoréeA. (2024). Collusion in the Dutch construction industry: an industrial organization perspective. Build. Res. & Inf.32, 146–156. 10.1080/0961321032000172382

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  FlyvbjergB.BruzeliusN.RothengatterW. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  FotrJ. A.HnilicaJ. (2014). Aplikovaná analýza rizika ve finančním managementu a investičním rozhodování (applied risk analysis in financial management and investment decision-making).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  GunnarssonS. A. (2019). Collaboration in a best value project: a case study of best value approach (BVA) in the Norwegian construction industry. Handelshøyskolen BI.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  HaddadiA.JohansenA.BjørbergS. (2017). “Best value approach (BVA): enhancing value creation in construction projects. Bus. Syst. Res.8, 84–100. 10.1515/bsrj-2017-0018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  HamreL. (2017). A best value approach (BVA) to supplier selection: a case study of best value procurement (BVP) in the Norwegian construction industry. Oslo, Norway: BI Norwegian Business School. Master thesis.

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  HašekJ. (2026). Effectiveness of public procurement in the construction sector in the Czech Republic and Portugal: a comparative analysis. Diploma thesis. Brno, Czech Republic: Brno Univeristy of Technology, Supervisor Jana Korytárová.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Jacques de SousaL.SimõesM. L.Poças MartinsJ.SanhudoL.Moreira da CostaJ. (2023). Statistical descriptive analysis of Portuguese public procurement data from 2015 to 2022. CivilEng4 (3), 808–826. 10.3390/civileng4030045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  KashiwagiD. T. (2016). Information measurement theory. Mesa, AZ: Performance Based Studies Research Group.

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  KashiwagiD.KashiwagiJ. (2012). A new risk management model. J. Risk Analysis Crisis Response2 (4), 233–248. 10.2991/jrarc.2012.2.4.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  KashiwagiJ.KashiwagiD. (2022). Implementing and sustaining the best value approach in an organization. IOP Conf. Ser, Earth Environ. Sci.1101 (8), 082021. 10.1088/1755-1315/1101/8/082021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  KashiwagiJ.KashiwagiI.ScottV.MelleckerT. (2022). The application of the best value approach in janitorial services. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.1101 (8), 82025. 10.1088/1755-1315/1101/8/082025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  KolliB. R. (2015). Best value approach to highway projects: transparency and innovation. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  KoreckýM.TrkovskýV. (2011). Management rizik projektů: se zaměřením Na projekty v průmyslových podnicích project risk management: with a focus on projects in industrial enterprises. Praha Grada Publishing. 584.

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  LeN. T. K. (2019). Identification of risk factors, success practices, and feasibility of the best value approach application to improve construction performance in Vietnam and other developing countries. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  MarvanP.HromádkaV.VítkováE. (2023). Risk management based on the best value approach and its application in conditions of the Czech Republic. Open Eng.13 (1), 1–12. 10.1515/eng-2022-0438

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  MatějkováJ. (2024). Assessing public works procurement in the Czech republic´s over-limit regime: survey results and recommendations for contracting authorities. Civ. and Environ. Eng. Rep.34 (2), 84–99. 10.59440/ceer/189313

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  NiewerthS.VogtP.ThewesM. (2022). Tender evaluation through efficiency analysis for public construction contracts. Front. Eng. Manag.9, 148–158. 10.1007/s42524-020-0119-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Report (2024). Weekly risk report online. Available online at: https://weeklyriskreport.online/ (Accessed October 21, 2024).

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  SmejkalV.RaisK. (2010). Řízení rizik ve firmách a jiných organizacích. Risk management in companies and other organizations. 3rd Edition. Praha, Czechia: Grada.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  SnippertT.WitteveenW.BoesH.VoordijkH. (2015). Barriers to realizing a stewardship relation between client and vendor: the best value approach. Constr. Management Economics33 (7), 569–586. 10.1080/01446193.2015.1078902

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  WadsamudrakarN. K.RajM. (2018). Risk management in construction Project. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res.2018 (03), 5. 10.31033/ijemr.8.3.22

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  WondimuP. A.KlakeggO. J.LohneJ.LædreO. (2020). Experiences with best-value procurement in Norway and the Netherlands. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.146, 20. 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001814

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  XiaN.ZouP. X. W.GriffinM. A.WangX.ZhongR. (2018). Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: a systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int. J. Proj. Manag.36 (5), 701–715. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar