Shash, A A (1998) Bidding practices of subcontractors in Colorado. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(3), pp. 219-231. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Despite their significant role in construction projects, subcontractors have not been given fair attention by industry researchers. The literature contains very few studies focusing on subcontractors' bidding practices. Subcontractors were contacted via a questionnaire to collect information revealing these bidding practices. This study details knowledge of actual subcontractors' bidding practices including the invitation to bid, bid submission, pre- and postbid negotiation, and the relationship with contractors. The results show that contractors' bid invitations are poorly prepared and contain very abstract information. Upon acceptance, a subcontractor prepares and submits quotations to all inviting contractors just a few hours before the main bid opening time. Some subcontractors attempt to induce contractors to divulge other subcontractors' quotations, but the majority of contractors refuse to release such information. On the other hand, some contractors shop for bids after the award of the main contract. All contractors negotiate with subcontractors after the award of the main contract. Timely payments and price fluctuations are the major elements of the negotiations. Suggestions are presented to contractors and subcontractors for improving subcontractors' bidding practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | negotiation, subcontractor, bidding, construction project, refuse, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | bidding, practitioner, waste management, data collection methods, conflict resolution, production management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Procurement |
| 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