Matthewson, C (1992) The relationship between tactical management and contract procurement in the North American competitive lump sum bidding process. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Abstract
The object of this thesis is to present an in-depth exploratory analysis of the estimating and bidding procedures used in the competitive lump sum estimating and bidding process in the United States (U.S. ) construction industry. The focus of the research in on tactical management elements contained within this contract procurement system, their utilization by construction management, and their impact on the bidding:contract procurement ratio. Six major divisions of the process are critically examined to establish and evaluate their impact on contract procurement. They are: 1. The Decision to Bid 2. Construction Method Choice 3. Subcontractor Selection 4. Overhead Analysis 5. Fee Assessment 6. Bid Closing.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; construction method; contractor selection; estimating; subcontractor; United States |
| Index terms: | decision to bid, subcontractor, estimating, bidding, subcontractor selection, United States, construction method, procurement system, construction industry, contractor selection |
| Subjects: | practitioner, organization, contractual arrangements, bidding, financial and cost management, Geography, tendering, industry analysis, building construction |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Site Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Cost Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| 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