Bayraktar, M E and Hastak, M (2010) Scoring approach to construction bond underwriting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(9), pp. 957-967. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper introduces a conceptual scoring-based contractor evaluation system to address the problems created by the subjective nature of surety underwriting process. The methodology presented in this paper provides the surety underwriters with an objective tool for estimating the probability that the evaluated contractor would perform in a satisfactory manner with respect to the main decision factors considered in the bond underwriting process. The proposed model could be used by decision makers to prescreen contractors and make underwriting decisions. The paper first discusses the construction bond underwriting process and provides a brief introduction to the scoring technique as the modeling environment used in this paper. Then, the three steps included in the development of the proposed scoring system are presented in detail followed by an example demonstrating the application of the final product.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contract bonds; scoring technique; surety |
| Index terms: | modelling, estimating, methodology, surety, scoring approach |
| Subjects: | evaluation methods, analytical methods, financial and cost management, warranties, research methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Quality Management, Cost Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| 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