Yu, W D; Wang, K W and Wang, M T (2013) Pricing strategy for best value tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(6), pp. 675-684. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Unlike the traditional price-focused lowest bid (LB), the best value (BV) tendering process selects the contractor that offers a product or service that is most beneficial to the procurement entity in various aspects. Existing pricing models, including cost-based probabilistic models and market-based neoclassical microeconomic theory, were developed for LB. Very few operational models exist for BV tenders due to the difficulty of measuring the price differences with respect to the variance of product or service quality. This paper proposes a price elasticity of quality (PEQ) model that provides useful tools to measure the PEQ of a product or service offered by contractors in a tendering process. Based on the proposed model, a bidding zone is suggested for the contractor in light of competitiveness and profitability. Two working examples are used to show the applicability of the proposed method.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | best value; competitive bidding strategy; price elasticity; tendering |
| Index terms: | strategy, competitive bidding, bidding, best value tender, service quality, tendering process, pricing, variance, competitiveness, profitability, best value |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, bidding, measurement and scaling, market analysis, tendering, management, performance measurement |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management |
| 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