Kelley, M N (1991) Ft. Drum estimating and bidding from contractor's point of view. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(3), pp. 565-571. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The Ft. Drum Project was a high-risk, large (over $500,000,000) project which the U.S. Corps of Engineers bid on a request-for-proposal (RFP) basis rather than the more conventional closed, competitive bid basis. This paper reviews how contractors view such high-risk projects and how they evaluate and pick joint-venture partners. It then reviews the RFP method of construction contracting, listing its advantages and disadvantages from the contractor’s point of view. From the contractor’s point of view, it finds a general lack of advantages to this type of contracting and at least four major disadvantages. It discusses the situation where the owner’s budget is significantly overrun and he wants to “improve the project cost” by the use of contractor-solicited “value engineering” advice. The stated Corps' objective with RFP’s is better prices and less claims, but the writer doubts that this will occur. The writer concludes by wondering if the award of a contract to other than the low bidder does not leave the Corps in the position of just prepaying its claims.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | value engineering, overrun, project cost, proposal, estimating, bidding, owner, engineer, bidder |
| Subjects: | project planning, bidding, financial and cost management, profession, value management, project controls, sociology, economics |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Cost Management, Project Management, Time Control |
| 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