Ballesteros-Pérez, P; Skitmore, M; Pellicer, E and González-Cruz, M C (2015) Scoring rules and abnormally low bids criteria in construction tenders: A taxonomic review. Construction Management and Economics, 33(4), pp. 259-278. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In the global construction context, the best value or most economically advantageous tender is becoming a widespread approach for contractor selection, as an alternative to other traditional awarding criteria such as the lowest price. In these multi-attribute tenders, the owner or auctioneer solicits proposals containing both a price bid and additional technical features. Once the proposals are received, each bidder’s price bid is given an economic score according to a scoring rule, generally called an economic scoring formula (ESF) and a technical score according to pre-specified criteria. Eventually, the contract is awarded to the bidder with the highest weighted overall score (economic + technical). However, economic scoring formula selection by auctioneers is invariably and paradoxically a highly intuitive process in practice, involving few theoretical or empirical considerations, despite having been considered traditionally and mistakenly as objective, due to its mathematical nature. This paper provides a taxonomic classification of a wide variety of ESFs and abnormally low bids criteria (ALBC) gathered in several countries with different tendering approaches. Practical implications concern the optimal design of price scoring rules in construction contract tenders, as well as future analyses of the effects of the ESF and ALBC on competitive bidding behaviour.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; competitiveness; international comparison; scoring rule; tendering |
| Index terms: | bidding, international comparison, competitive bidding, proposal, competitiveness, construction contract, bidder, global construction, best value, becoming, contractor selection, owner |
| Subjects: | contract type, strategic management, data analysis and analytics, project planning, bidding, tendering, sociology, market analysis, philosophical process |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, International Construction |
| 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