Oo, B-L; Drew, D and Lo, H-P (2008) Comparing contractors' decision to bid in different market environments. Construction Economics and Building, 8(1), pp. 1-10. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
The competitive situations within the Australia,Hong Kong and Singapore constructionmarket environments are compared byobserving the contractors' decision to bidbehaviour according to two extreme marketconditions (i.e. booming and recession) anddifferent number of bidders scenarios (rangingfrom 4 to 30). Data were collected via adesigned experiment so as to make directcomparisons possible. This study providesevidence that contractors' decision to bidbehaviour varies in different marketenvironments. Inline with decreasingprobability of winning, the 'bid' responses ofthe three groups of contractors decrease asthe number of bidders increases. However, allAustralian respondents declined to bid whenthe number of bidders exceeded 10, even inrecession. This is in stark contrast to HongKong and Singapore where about 30% ofrespondents were willing to bid in competitionscontaining 30 bidders, even in boom periods.In addition, the 'bid' responses of Australiawere higher in booming than in recessiontimes when the number of bidders, N ≤ 4. TheHong Kong construction market environmentwas found to be the most competitive withconsiderably higher proportions of 'bid’responses; this was followed by the Singaporeand Australia, respectively.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bidding; decision to bid; Australia; Hong Kong; Singapore |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, number of bidders, bidding, Australia, bidder, Singapore, recession, experiment, decision to bid, construction market |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, market analysis, Geography, bidding, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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