Crowley, L G (1997) Robust statistical estimators for use within competitive bid data. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(1), pp. 53-63. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Location and scale estimates calculated from project bid data measures the consensus value from among the bidders along with their collective uncertainty about that value. Five robust statistical location and scale estimators are evaluated for their relative performance under competitive bidding conditions-small sample sizes with a high potential for spurious bids. Estimates are made for standard normal samples of three, five, seven, and nine observations using each estimator. Within each sample, one observation is systematically varied in a range of five standard deviations above and below the mean and the other observations are assigned their expected rank-order values. Sensitivity curves are used to illustrate the bias in each estimator caused by the placement of the errant observation. The median and normalized median absolute deviation were found to be the most effective of the five procedures analyzed for location and scale estimators, respectively. Applications of these robust procedures have use in improving legal guidance provided to the courts, enhancing procurement procedures, and providing more accurate bid evaluations. One application describes how robust statistics can be used to reconcile project bids.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | placement, competitive bidding, bias, estimator, sample size, deviation, bid evaluation, bidder, estimate, statistics |
| Subjects: | research design and methodology, mathematical modelling, profession, financial and cost management, bidding, probability and distributions, tendering, management |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Cost Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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