Select the most economically advantageus tenders in public works contracts: MCDA models and MACBETH used to analysis and comparison using a case study

In Member States Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, (2004/18/EC), provides that the commissioning body may base the choice of contractor of public works on two award criteria: • The lowest price; • The most economically advantageous tender. In Italy the Code of Public Contracts for works, services and supplies, Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and subsequent amendments (Legislative Decree No 163/2006) and its implementing decree, Presidential Decree No 207 of 2010 (P.D. 207/2010),) have transposed the requirements of 2004/18/EC. Legislative Decree No 163/2006, in accordance with european legislation, provides that decision by the commissioning body about award criteria must be made by applying the criteria and objectives, and by ensuring compliance with the principles of transparency, nondiscrimination and competition. In order to rank the different tenders for the award of public works contracts using the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, Legislative Decree No 163/2006 and P.D. No 207/2010 require the use of a Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model. The P.D. No 207/2010 suggests to use one of five MCDA models: - Weighted Sum Model (WSM); Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); - ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (ELECTRE); - EVAluation of MIXed criteria (EVAMIX); Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). But the possibility of using any of the methods to be found in scientific literature is also indicated. The aim of the text is to propose the application of a new MCDA model: the Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation TecHnique (MACBETH, Bana e Costa, Vansnick, 1994) has not yet been applied in the approximate evaluative field, in verifying either similarities/differences with other MCDA methods suggested by Italian legislation, or with reference to a case study, the advantages/disadvantages arising from the operational application of different MCDA methods considered.