Li, G; Chen, C; Zhang, G and Martek, I (2020) Bid/no-bid decision factors for Chinese international contractors in international construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(7), pp. 1619-1643. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Factors affecting bid/no-bid decisions of international projects are more complex than those of domestic projects. The purpose of this paper is to identify and rank decision factors considered by variously sized Chinese international contractors (CICs) and categorize those groups of factors important to experienced practitioners. Design/methodology/approach: The analysis of factors identified by a literature review is conducted based on data derived from questionnaire results received from 119 CIC project and bidding managers. The relative importance of factors is measured by mean value and standard deviation. The discrepancy in rank and importance value perceived by variously sized CICs are explored by ranking disparity analysis, non-parametric test and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test. Finally, factor analysis is used to categorize the underlying groups of factors considered by CICs. Findings: In sum, 41 factors are identified through the literature review as having an impact on the bid decision. Significant disparities in ranking and importance are found in several factors, which partially affect the consistency of the ranking of factors perceived between large and small-medium CICs. Ultimately, nine major factors are identified as impacting the bidding decision, with “contractor’s capability” and “country risk of the host country,” being the most important. Research limitations/implications: The weight of a factor considered in a decision varies across contractors as a function of contractor size. Whether using models or subjective judgment in making decisions, it is beneficial to fully understand the main groups of factors influencing the decision. Vulnerability to country risk emerges as the first criterion accessed in the bid decision. Originality/value: A comprehensive set of factors is established for CICs, including both general factors common to domestic projects, and international factors unique to international projects. All factors are grouped by inferential analysis from the perspective of contractors, which reveals the underlying mechanism of the bid decision-making process. While the data were collected from CICs, the methodology in exploring factors, along with implications, is determined to be applicable internationally.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | international construction; project management; questionnaire survey; strategic management |
| Index terms: | bidding, bid/no-bid, international construction project, international project, questionnaire, vulnerability, practitioner, strategic management, methodology, survey, literature review, relative importance, manager, project management, disparity, international construction, factor analysis, deviation, decision-making process, judgment |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, environmental hazards, social justice, decision analysis, project management theory and practice, management, research methods, data analysis and analytics, bidding, financial and cost management, dispute resolution, practitioner, risk assessment, strategic management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Sustainability, Legal Issues, Ethics, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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