Hyari, K H (2016) Handling unbalanced bidding in construction projects: Prevention rather than detection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(2): 04015060, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Unbalanced bidding is a common practice associated with both unit price and lump sum contracts. This practice is not usually in the owner's best interests and is used in different forms by contractors for various reasons. Bid evaluation practices try to identify unbalanced bids and may reject the lowest bid if it is perceived to be unbalanced. Previous research on this topic focused on either helping contractors unbalance their bids or detecting imbalance in bids in order to reject them. This paper proposes a model based on a prevention, rather than detection, approach to handling unbalanced bidding. The proposed model balances all the bids submitted for a project and thereby neutralizes the impact of manipulating bid prices to obtain undeserved payments from owners. This approach protects the interests of the owners while maintaining the essence of competitive bidding by awarding the project to the bidder who submitted the lowest bid in a fair competitive process. Two examples, representing the bidding results of two projects, are analyzed to demonstrate the capability of the model in handling various forms of unbalanced bidding. Use of the model by owners will help protect them from the negative consequences of unbalanced bidding. It is also expected that, as owners begin to use the developed model, contractors will be less motivated to practice unbalanced bidding since it will not be possible to attain the desired objective by manipulating bid prices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | balanced bid; bidding practices; competitive bidding; contracting; contractor behavior; unbalanced bidding; unit price contract |
| Index terms: | owner, prevention, bidding, bidder, competitive bidding, bid evaluation, construction project, unbalanced bidding, unbalance |
| Subjects: | bidding, production management, sociology, tendering, analytical methods, financial risk |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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