Drew, D S; Ho, L C Y and Skitmore, M (2001) Analysing a consultant's competitiveness in two-envelope fee tendering. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), pp. 503-510. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A method for analysing the competitiveness of a consultant's two-envelope fee tendering history is proposed and illustrated in an application to one of Hong Kong's larger quantity surveying practices. Separate measures for determining consultants' fee, quality score and overall competitiveness are considered to accommodate the special nature of the Hong Kong system, which makes cross-auction comparisons impossible. Maximum fee competitiveness is assumed to be the lowest submitted tender fee, while maximum quality score competitiveness is taken to be the highest quality score attained by a competing consultant. Fees and quality score are then expressed as separate competitiveness ratios relative to these maximums and aggregated for determining overall competitiveness. In analysing bidding performance it was found that this consultant's fee, quality score and overall competitiveness are all above the competitor average. These competitiveness measures reveal large differences in variability between quality score and fees, with quality score variability being considerably lower. Such a large imbalance in competitiveness variability effectively discounts quality and promotes the influence of the fee, since competitiveness ratio differences between fees are much larger than the competitiveness ratio differences between quality scores.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; competitiveness; consultant; fee; quality; tendering |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, variability, competitiveness, fee tendering, quantity surveying practice, bidding, history |
| Subjects: | market analysis, statistical analysis, tendering, Geography, architectural and construction history, bidding, profession |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| 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