Ngai, S C; Drew, D S; Lo, H P and Skitmore, M (2002) A theoretical framework for determining the minimum number of bidders in construction bidding competitions. Construction Management and Economics, 20(6), pp. 473-482. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
A theoretical framework is proposed for determining the minimum number of bidders in competition for projects in the construction industry. This is based on the neo-classical micro-economic theory for price determination in construction and the assumption of random contractor-selection. Empirical analysis of the Hong Kong data set not only illustrates the applicability of the framework, but also supports the relevance of the microeconomic model for construction price determination. The main implication for clients is that, in order to obtain the most competitive bids for projects in the most cost-efficient way, they should vary the minimum number of bidders in competition according to market conditions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction economics; construction price determination; number of bidders; tendering theory |
| Index terms: | competition, construction economics, bidding, number of bidders, market condition, construction industry, Hong Kong, economic theory, price determination |
| Subjects: | Geography, tendering, industry analysis, financial analysis, market analysis, economic and policy analysis, bidding, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Procurement |
| 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