Urquhart, S and Whyte, A (2018) Contractor tendering research: Going beyond bid/no-bid and markup models. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 170(6), pp. 255-262. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Within a wider research programme into the effectiveness and efficiency of the tendering procedures of construction contractors (CCs), a content analysis of tender research published in 27 journals between 2010 and 2016 found that CC tendering procedure research remains a low-focus area. CC-related tender research commonly focuses on factors influencing ‘bid/no-bid’ and markup decisions, often combined with developed decision modelling. Comparing the content analysis results with semi-structured interviews with 20 Australian civil engineering CCs (including some of Australia’s largest contractors, and with eight involved in international operations), it was found that the industry remains largely unaware and unsupportive of such developed tender decision tools. Instead, CCs suggest tender research should focus on efficient tendering procedures, encouraging clients to use standard rather than bespoke contracts, and improved quality and risk transfer in tender documents. The combined semi-structured interview findings and content analysis results provide researchers with contemporary tender research themes that civil engineering CCs, and potentially more general contractors, are more likely to embrace, thereby advancing the efficiency of construction tendering and contractors’ work procurement management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting/corporate responsibility/tendering |
| Index terms: | tender document, corporate responsibility, bid/no-bid, interview, procurement management, modelling, construction contractor, content analysis, programme, efficiency, effectiveness, general contractor, journal, Australia |
| Subjects: | practitioner, business, tendering, data collection methods, bidding, performance management, data analysis and analytics, Geography, research dissemination and communication, procurement strategy, project controls, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Time Control, Geographical Context, Procurement, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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