Optimizing subcontractor selection: a dual-model AHP framework for aligning client and contractor priorities in construction

Purpose The construction industry depends on a multi-layered subcontracting system, where subcontractors account for nearly 80% of project value and significantly impact outcomes. However, the priorities of contractors and clients in subcontractor selection often diverge, and the client’s perspective is underrepresented. This study aims to address the gap by identifying key selection factors and developing dual analytic hierarchy process (AHP) models that explicitly capture client and contractor perspectives. Design/methodology/approach A total of 16 structured interviews were conducted to capture detailed qualitative data. Qualitative inputs were synthesized using constant comparative analysis and consolidated into thematic categories. Kendall’s Tau correlation was applied to assess alignment between client and contractor rankings. Delphi surveys with another 16 experts were then used to derive weighting criteria for AHP models, which were validated through two real-world case studies. Findings A total of 17 key factors of subcontractor selection were identified and categorized into seven main themes. Correlation analysis revealed moderate but non-significant alignment (t = 0.42), indicating systematic divergence in priorities. The client-side AHP model emphasized quality (weight = 0.202), followed by risk and safety (0.165), while the contractor-side model prioritized cost and resources (0.240), followed by time and scheduling (0.183). Case validation showed that actual subcontractor choices reflected these distinct priorities, confirming the predictive validity of the dual-model approach. Originality/value Theoretically, the proposed AHP models advance the subcontractor system literature by introducing dual perspectives that aid in evaluating subcontractor selection. Practically, the dual AHP models provide managers with targeted decision support. Contractor-led tenders can be strengthened through financial audits and resource checks, whereas client-led evaluations benefit from quality reviews.