Tendering: Optimization and rationality

Green, S D (1989) Tendering: Optimization and rationality. Construction Management and Economics, 7(1), pp. 53-63. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

There have been various techniques published for optimizing the net present value of tenders by the use of discounted cash flow theory and linear programming. These approaches to tendering appear to have been largely ignored by the industry. This paper utilizes six case studies of tendering practice in order to establish the reasons for this apparent disregard. Tendering is demonstrated to be a market orientated function with many subjective judgements being made regarding a firm's environment. Detailed consideration of 'internal' factors such as cash flow are therefore judged to be unjustified. Systems theory is then drawn upon and applied to the separate processes of estimating and tendering. Estimating is seen as taking place in a relatively sheltered environment and as such operates as a relatively closed system. Tendering, however, takes place in a changing and dynamic environment and as such must operate as a relatively open system. The use of sophisticated methods to optimize the value of tenders is then identified as being dependent upon the assumption of rationality, which is justified in the case of a relatively closed system (i.e. estimating), but not for a relatively open system (i.e. tendering).

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: closed system; environment; estimating; open system; rationality; tender unbalancing; tendering
Index terms: systems theory, estimating, cash flow, rationality, discounted cash flow, case study, linear programming, net present value
Subjects: algorithms, decision-making and reasoning, theoretical framing, financial management, financial analysis, data collection methods, financial and cost management, economic analysis
Topics: Digital Applications, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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