Pin, T H and Scott, W F (1994) Bidding model for refurbishment work. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(2), pp. 257-273. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper develops a simple statistical model for competitive bidding in the building industry. We take a statistical approach, using a large set of actual bids (1,350 renovation contracts) collected by the Builders' Conference in London, United Kingdom. The distribution of bids is fitted to a normal curve, from which one may estimate the distribution of the lowest of n bids (representing a given contractor’s competitors). Part of the study involves the estimation of various parameters, such as the coefficient of variation, which is a measure of the relative spread of bids. A simple formula is obtained for the bid that has a specified chance of success (e.g. 20%, 50%, or 90%), and the theory is tested on data from five contractors. A likely consequence of the adoption of the proposed models by the industry in general would be a tendency toward tighter bidding, i.e. the difference between the winning bid and the next lowest (which is, in a sense, a loss to the construction industry caused by variations in bids) would be reduced.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | competitive bidding, builder, United Kingdom, variation, bidding, estimation, refurbishment work, conference, London, building industry, renovation, statistical model, construction industry, estimate |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, bidding, data science, practitioner, research dissemination and communication, industry analysis, contractual condition, Geography, renovation and retrofit |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Cost Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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