Large Infrastructure Projects (LIPs) are essential to fulfill the needs of Indonesia. These LIPs have a substantial impact on not only the society but also the economy. The Indonesian government intends to accelerate infrastructure provision by selecting complex LIPs to be assisted by a government body, KPPIP (Committee for Acceleration of Priority Infrastructure Delivery). The selection is difficult due to the limited information in the early-phase of a project and creates uncertainty for the Decision-Makers (DMs). Besides, KPPIP does not have a structured approach in selecting the projects in Indonesia. Another challenge is the non-comprehensive list of KPPIP selection criteria. The process cannot generate good decisions. Therefore, the problem statement is formulated as “KPPIP does not have a tool to handle the uncertainty of the DMs to deal with the selection of LIPs based on the project complexity.” This study has three objectives. First, generate a list of selection criteria. Second, propose a decisionmaking method to manage LIPs selection issues. Lastly, check the suitability and usefulness of the method. The research question is formulated as: “How do decision-makers select LIPs based on the project complexity giving the uncertainty of DMs?” Two relevant topics are synthesized from a systematic literature review: first, the selection of LIPs. Second, two Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods, i.e., Best-Worst Method (BWM) and Evidential Reasoning (ER) approach. This research proposes a methodology that comprises three main processes. First, a set of selection criteria is created. Secondly, criteria weights are obtained with Belief-Based Best-Worst Method (B-BWM). Lastly, projects’ scores are acquired by an ER approach. The findings show significant changes in the weights and various preferences on the critical criteria among four sectors compared to those obtained from KPPIP’s current assessment. The weights from four sectors are computed as the group weights and more reliable because it considers the reliability of the DMs. The results show that the previously critical criteria are not considered as necessary in the new assessment and discover several criteria to be added to the existing criteria set. The projects’ score demonstrates the non-comprehensiveness of the existing criteria set. The sensitivity analysis shows a less sensitive result on the group weights and higher robustness of Group B-BWM due to the use of interval collective weights. The weights’ change implies a biased understanding of the criteria’s importance and shows the non-comprehensiveness of the criteria in KPPIP current assessment. The application of Belief Structure (BS) form in both the B-BWM and ER approach can handle the non-quantifiable criteria which cannot be managed in the KPPIP method. The challenges in the selection of LIPs are identified: the complexity of LIPs, the uncertainty of the DMs, non-comprehensiveness of KPPIP current criteria, and limitation of KPPIP current methods. Five confirmed important criteria are found: “Project Development Fund support,” “determination of funding scheme,” “executive direction,” “technological newness/innovation of the project/products,” and “availability of people, material, and resources due to sharing.” A procedure comprises of Group B-BWM and ER approach is proposed and offers some advantages, such as considering the reliability of DMs, flexibility, compatibility, and more robust methods. The proposed methodology is confirmed to be fit-for-purpose in LIPs selection. Four recommendations for the selection of LIPs are proposed: Establish comprehensive criteria set, implement Group B-BWM and ER approach, and set the grades definition. For future research: Use a project complexity criteria framework from literature, conduct group project scoring, conduct multiple case studies, use more samples, and conduct concurrent validity.