Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Risk and price in the bidding process of contractors

By Samuel Laryea and Will Hughes

Abstract

Formal and analytical risk models prescribe how risk should be incorporated in construction bids. However, the actual process of how contractors and their clients negotiate and agree on price is complex, and not clearly articulated in the literature. Using participant observation, the entire tender process was shadowed in two leading UK construction firms. This was compared to propositions in analytical models and significant differences were found. 670 hours of work observed in both firms revealed three stages of the bidding process. Bidding activities were categorized and their extent estimated as deskwork (32%), calculations (19%), meetings (14%), documents (13%), off-days (11%), conversations (7%), correspondence (3%) and travel (1%). Risk allowances of 1-2% were priced in some bids and three tiers of risk apportionment in bids were identified. However, priced risks may sometimes be excluded from the final bidding price to enhance competitiveness. Thus, although risk apportionment affects a contractor’s pricing strategy, other complex, microeconomic factors also affect price. Instead of pricing in contingencies, risk was priced mostly through contractual rather than price mechanisms, to reflect commercial imperatives. The findings explain why some assumptions underpinning analytical models may not be sustainable in practice and why what actually happens in practice is important for those who seek to model the pricing of construction bids

Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
Year: 2011
OAI identifier: oai:centaur.reading.ac.uk:8158

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1992). A and N.H. Abdul-Hadi doi
  2. (2000). A survey of current cost estimating practices,
  3. (1994). A survey of indirect cost estimating in practice, doi
  4. (1971). Bidding Contingencies and Probabilities,
  5. (2010). Construction Engineering and Management. Submitted February 4, 2009; accepted September 13, 2010; posted ahead of print
  6. (2006). Construction price formation: full-cost pricing or neoclassical microeconomic theory? doi
  7. (2006). Construction project risks: further considerations for constructors‟ pricing in Hong Kong, doi
  8. (2006). Discussion of modeling a contractor‟s markup estimation,
  9. (2002). Elements of estimating, London:
  10. (1986). Estimating and tendering for building work,
  11. (2004). Estimating and tendering for construction work, 3ed,
  12. (1978). Estimating for builders and surveyors, 2ed,
  13. (1994). Estimating processes of smaller builders, doi
  14. (2002). Evaluation of Florida General Contractor‟s risk management practices,
  15. (1993). Factors considered in tendering decisions by top UK contractors, doi
  16. (2007). How all risk cover works, Construction News,
  17. (2000). Incorporating uncertainty in competitive bidding,
  18. (1997). Information technology in contractors' firms in Saudi Arabia, doi
  19. (2004). Planning for claims: an ethnography of industry culture, doi
  20. (1977). Practical builders’ estimating,
  21. (1993). Pricing construction risk: fuzzy set application, doi
  22. (2007). Research methods for business students,
  23. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction,
  24. (1991). Risk and need-for-work premiums in contractor bidding, doi
  25. (1994). Risk perception: main issues, approaches and findings in subjective probability,
  26. (1996). Security analysis and portfolio management,
  27. (1999). Small to medium contractor contingency and assumption of risk, doi
  28. (1929). Some notes on taking off quantities.
  29. (1994). Subjective probability, Chichester: doi
  30. (2010). Submitted February 4, 2009; accepted September 13, 2010; posted ahead of print
  31. (1990). Systematic risk management approach for construction projects,
  32. (1999). Tendering theory revisited, doi
  33. (2007). The Good Research Guide,
  34. (1996). The two-dimensionality of project risk, doi
  35. (2003). Using research instruments,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.