Crowley, L G and Hancher, D E (1995) Risk assessment of competitive procurement. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(2), pp. 230-237. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A method is proposed to evaluate the risk of cost growth in competitively procured construction projects. It uses computer records of past bid data and an inferential statistical technique to simultaneously assign projects into two risk categories. One category is based on the observed disagreement between the winning bid and the other submitted bids. The other is based upon the observed bias in the bidding pattern of the winning bidder. Results verify differences in cost growth for both risk categories. Projects awarded to the most extreme bids are seven times more likely to experience excessive cost growth than a project awarded to a more reasonable bid. Similarly, projects awarded to extreme bidders have average cost growths 3.5-4 times higher than if awarded to more reasonable bidders. This risk-assessment method would prove useful in the bid-evaluation procedures of public agencies. It appears from these results that agencies that make bargains based upon competitive procurement, often do not receive the bargain that had been anticipated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | risk assessment, bidder, construction project, bias, agency, bidding |
| Subjects: | bidding, sociology, production management, financial risk, probability and distributions |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement |
| 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