Kashiwagi, D; Parmar, D and Savicky, J (2004) Traditional low-bid procurement system versus performance information procurement system (pips) in construction industry. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The past decade has brought about a lot of changes in the construction industry. But the low bid system has remained the most popular procurement system. Many users have documented the poor performance and poor quality of contractors that have been procured using the low-bid. The low bid process is a price-based environment. Research testing has shown that performance may be increased in moving to a performance based environment. A survey was conducted to collect data on delivery systems falling under both the price-based environment and the performance based environment from testers of a performance based system named PIPS. This data was used to statistically compare the performance of both these systems, namely PIPS, a performance based system, and low bid, a price based system. Results from the two-sample t-test gave indications of better results for the performance-based system than the price based system.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | price-based; non-performance; performance-based; minimize risk |
| Index terms: | performance-based, testing, construction industry, procurement system, survey |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contractual arrangements, professional practice, performance measurement, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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