Xu, T and Tiong, R L K (2001) Risk assessment on contractors' pricing strategies. Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), pp. 77-84. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In a competitive tender, pricing strategies are often used by contractors to facilitate their cash flows. Usually, the decisions are based on contractors' experience, intuition, and personal bias. The existing mark-up or cash-flow forecasting models simulate the pricing strategies in a simplified manner which may depart from real situation and therefore could lead to inaccurate cash-flow forecasting. There is a lack of practical models that could quantify risks associated with pricing strategies. For construction projects, the quantity values of break-down cost items are random variables. A new approach to the risk assessment of contractors' pricing strategies is presented. By using the quantities as random variables, the approach developed in this paper enables the contractor to find the global optimal pricing through the stochastic programming model. The risks caused by contractors' pricing strategies are then assessed in a quantitative manner. A real case analysis using the approach is demonstrated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk assessment; construction costs; optimal pricing; pricing strategies; stochastic programming; tendering |
| Index terms: | construction project, forecasting, construction cost, mark-up, programming, bias, strategy, cash flow, risk assessment, intuition, pricing |
| Subjects: | production management, financial and cost management, probability and distributions, cognitive psychology, economic analysis, management, prediction and forecasting, financial risk, price determination, financial management, programming |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Cost Management, Project Management |
| 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