The use of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods in contractor selection within the construction industry has gained significant traction. This is due to the fact that contractor selection is a multifaceted problem that is complex in nature. The choice of the MCDM method can significantly influence the ranking of contractors in construction projects. Each MCDM technique has its unique approach to evaluating and prioritizing alternatives based on the various criteria, leading to potential variations in the final rankings. For instance, while analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is based on pairwise comparisons to determine the relative importance of criteria and the performance of each contractor, the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) focuses on the geometric distance of each contractor from a positive- and a negative-ideal solution. Consequently, mixing different MCDM techniques must account for differences among the methods in evaluating alternative criteria and contractors. This paper utilizes a case-study from literature to test the mixed AHP-TOPSIS MCDM technique under combined pairwise-crisp evaluations per benefit and cost criteria. Results obtained clearly show that changing the MCDM technique and/or changing the evaluation method may change the rankings of the contractors. Compared to the case-study, results show that the case-study’s selected contractor came fifth using AHP only, and they came fourth and fifth using AHP-TOPSIS with different evaluations methods of crisp values.