Su, Y and Lucko, G (2015) Synthetic cash flow model with singularity functions for unbalanced bidding scenarios. Construction Management and Economics, 33(1), pp. 35-54. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Construction contractors may utilize unbalanced markup bidding strategies, e.g. front-loading, to seek more beneficial cash flows, or even protect their target profits. A difference between ethical and unethical unbalanced bidding is whether the bid has been mathematically or even materially modified: the former may be allowable, but the latter should be rejected, as it fails to cover even the cost of later activities. Unbalanced bidding adds to the complexity of cash flow models and requires a new model that can calculate different scenarios accurately and efficiently. Basic new theory is explored for unbalanced bidding in cash flow models by employing the range-based class of singularity functions. First, a new synthetic balanced cash flow model that can accurately consider the time value of money (TVM) and retainage is derived to serve as the foundation; second, various unbalanced markup functions including two-phase, linear, and non-linear types are defined both cumulatively and non-cumulatively; third, the performance of the extended synthetic cash flow model for unbalanced bidding is investigated mathematically.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; cash flow analysis; cash flow management; singularity functions; unbalanced bidding |
| Index terms: | profit, cash flow, strategy, complexity, bidding, cash flow analysis, loading, unbalanced bidding, construction contractor, cash flow management |
| Subjects: | systems engineering, financial analysis, construction operations, economic analysis, bidding, management, practitioner, financial management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Site 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