Kiang, Q L (1992) Comparative variability in tender bids for refurbishment and new build work. Construction Management and Economics, 10(3), pp. 263-269. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a comparative analysis of the variability in tender bids for refurbishment and new work. The investigation has been prompted by a suggestion by a large body of UK Contractors that they were subjected to higher risks in refurbishment work and that this was reflected in the tender bids for such work. Utilizing the premise that the risks in submitting a tender is related in some way to the dispersion in the tenders submitted by competitors, it was found that the variability in tender bids for refurbishment work was consistently higher than that for new build work, thereby supporting the Contractors' claims. Risks in the context of this investigation means both uncertainty and the results of uncertainty, and will include both the lack of predictability with regard to outcomes and all elements of the problem structure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | new build work; risks; refurbishment work; tender variability |
| Index terms: | comparative analysis, tender variability, refurbishment work, new build, variability, investigation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, renovation and retrofit, construction integration, tendering, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Procurement, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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