Kangari, R and Bakheet, M (2001) Construction surety bonding. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(3), pp. 232-238. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The qualification process in the construction bond business is very complicated, labor-intensive, and time-consuming. The construction bond underwriting processes contain subjective judgments that require human involvement to reach decisions. Thus, underwriting evaluations are bound to be very difficult, ambiguous, and have potentially great losses. This paper identifies and classifies quantitative and qualitative risk factors impacting construction bond underwriting, to improve the quality of the evaluation analysis and to reduce the highly unstructured environment and the subjectivity of the bond evaluation in underwriting. The methodology provides a systematic information analysis for the heuristic knowledge of the construction surety bonds underwriting process, provides better control over the risk assessment process by providing independent judgments for the major decision factors and an overall judgment for the final contractor's risk assessment decision, and reduces the time and effort required of the current evaluation process to reach a certain decision and to simplify the complicated nature of this process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | risk factor, risk assessment, judgment, heuristic, qualification, methodology, surety, subjectivity |
| Subjects: | environmental hazards, educational resources, research methods, financial risk, warranties, risk assessment, human factors and perception, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Education, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Risk Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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