Uher, T E and Runeson, G (1984) Pre-tender and post-tender negotiations in Australia. Construction Management and Economics, 2(3), pp. 185-192. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
One of the main features of the Australian building industry is the high level of subcontracting of building works. This paper reports on a survey of 43 subcontractors regarding various aspects of the relationship between subcontractors and general contractors. In particular it reports on the practice of'bid shopping' in which the general contractor in various ways attempts to reduce the subcontractor’s price below that of the tender. Generally the subcontractors were strongly against bid shopping attempts to tie with general contractors and negotiations in general. However, the strength of the responses was determined by the size of the firms. The larger firms were more open to negotiations and deals than the smaller firms. The overall benefits to the general contractors who 'shop' are doubtful, most subcontractors adjust their mark up by up to 20 % to allow for such negotiations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bid-shopping; general contractors; price negotiations; subcontractors; tendering |
| Index terms: | subcontracting, Australia, negotiation, building industry, general contractor, survey, mark-up, subcontractor |
| Subjects: | practitioner, organization, data collection methods, price determination, industry analysis, conflict resolution, Geography |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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