Perng, Y H; Juan, Y K and Chien, S F (2006) Exploring the bidding situation for economically most advantageous tender projects using a bidding game. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), pp. 1037-1042. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Most open tendering procedures in the real world are highly complex, uncertain, and costly. With an increasing emphasis on the quality and value of procurement, economically most advantageous tender (EMAT) has been widely adopted as an alternative contract-awarding criteria, which has changed competitive strategies in the construction industry. A conceptual model of competitive bidding in EMAT is first established to reflect the credibility of the bidding situation. A bidding game for EMAT projects is performed by 24 participants to partially test the conceptual model. The result reveals that the game has the potential to reveal important factors in the bidding situation, simulate competitive bidding behaviors, and explore competitive advantages in the EMAT bidding process. The learning effect from the game should be useful for contractors who are preparing to deliver optimal tenders in EMAT projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bids; computer models; economic factors |
| Index terms: | competitive strategy, bidding, competitive bidding, economic factor, construction industry, competitive advantage |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, bidding, economic concepts, industry analysis, market analysis |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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