Cattell, D W; Bowen, P A and Kaka, A P (2010) The risks of unbalanced bidding. Construction Management and Economics, 28(4), pp. 333-344. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Unbalanced bidding models have largely ignored the risk aspect of item pricing. Many researchers have acknowledged that there are considerable risks associated with unbalancing a bid but little has been done to describe these risks, let alone model them. A new framework is proposed by which all of these risks can be assessed. It identifies that these risks comprise the risk of rejection, the risk of reaction, and the risk of being wrong. It is further proposed that the value-at-risk ('VaR') method of measuring risk is a convenientay by which to combine all of these risks into one composite assessment. This quantified assessment serves to describe the extent of risk generated by each level of each item's price. Previous related research has proposed an unbalanced bidding model that has likewise provided a measurement of the expected reward generated by each level of each item's price. By doing a summation of these, keeping in mind that the prices applied to all of a project's component items must add up to the overall bid price, the contractor is able to assess both the risks as well as the rewards of all possible item price combinations.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; cost modelling; mark-up; risk analysis; risk management |
| Index terms: | risk management, composite, unbalanced bidding, risk analysis, bidding, pricing, modelling, mark-up |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, price determination, bidding, materials science, analytical methods, environmental hazards, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Procurement, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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