Oo, B L; Drew, D S and Runeson, G (2010) Competitor analysis in construction bidding. Construction Management and Economics, 28(12), pp. 1321-1329. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Bidding strategies vary from contractor to contractor, each of which will have different degrees of sensitivity towards the factors affecting their bidding decisions. A competitor analysis using a linear mixed model is proposed for use by contractors as part of a more informed approach in identifying key competitors, and as a basis for formulating bidding strategies. The competitiveness between bids is examined according to: (i) project size, (ii) work sector; (iii) work nature; and (iv) number of bidders. The model was tested empirically by application to a bidding dataset obtained from a large Hong Kong contractor. Allowing for different degrees of sensitivity towards the four bidding variables across competing contractors (i.e. with the model parameters that varied across competing contractors), the results indicate that competitiveness in bidding of this contractor is generally greater than the majority of its competitors.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; competitiveness; competitor analysis |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, number of bidders, bidding, strategy, dataset, competitiveness |
| Subjects: | market analysis, Geography, bidding, data management, management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Digital Applications, Procurement, Geographical Context, Business Strategy |
| 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