Farid, F and Boyer, L T (1985) Fair and reasonable markup (FARM) pricing model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 111(4), pp. 374-390. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The Fair and Reasonable Markup (FaRM) is the smallest markup that satisfies the Required Rate of Return (RRR) of the contractor for the particular (or at least the general risk-class of) project at hand. The model is based on reasonable and easily-accessible information, and will result in a Minimum Acceptable Price (MAP). The firm cannot accept the project at a price below this MAP without diminishing the “equityholders' wealth.” A modified version of the FaRM Pricing Model for certain contracts under which home-office overhead expenses must be recovered through FaRM is also presented. Once the FaRM Pricing Model has been implemented, contractors can make more intelligent pricing decisions. Instead of using a subjective markup, which may ignore the cash-flow differences of various jobs, contractors using FaRM Pricing Model can bid lower on projects which are more attractive and become more competitive while satisfying their RRR. This should result in lower costs to owners. Conversely, by bidding higher on the less-attractive jobs, contractors will still maintain their RRR should they obtain the contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | owner, pricing, bidding |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, sociology, bidding |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here