Exploring the Bidding Situation for Economically Most Advantageous Tender Projects Using a Bidding Game
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 132, Issue 10
Abstract
Most open tendering procedures in the real world are highly complex, uncertain, and costly. With an increasing emphasis on the quality and value of procurement, economically most advantageous tender (EMAT) has been widely adopted as an alternative contract-awarding criteria, which has changed competitive strategies in the construction industry. A conceptual model of competitive bidding in EMAT is first established to reflect the credibility of the bidding situation. A bidding game for EMAT projects is performed by 24 participants to partially test the conceptual model. The result reveals that the game has the potential to reveal important factors in the bidding situation, simulate competitive bidding behaviors, and explore competitive advantages in the EMAT bidding process. The learning effect from the game should be useful for contractors who are preparing to deliver optimal tenders in EMAT projects.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers are grateful for the valuable comments and encouragement of the anonymous referees. Their detailed comments helped to improve the clarity and focus of this paper. Funding from the National Science Council of Taiwan (R.O.C.) under Project No. NSCTNSC 93-2211-E-011-039 has enabled the continuation of this research and the dissemination of these results.
References
Ahmad, I. (1990). “Decision–support system for modeling bid/no-bid decision problem.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 116(4), 595–608.
Ahmad, I., and Minkarah, I. (1988). “Questionnaire survey on bidding in construction.” J. Manage. Eng., 4(3), 229–243.
Chua, D. K. H., and Chan, W. T. (2001) “Case-based reasoning approach in bid decision making.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127(1), 35–45.
Chua, D. K. H., and Li, D. (2000) “Key factors in bid reasoning model.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 126(5), 349–357.
Cordova, D. I., and Lepper, M. R. (1996). “Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice.” J. Educ. Psychol., 88, 715–730.
Dikmen, I., and Birgönül, M. T. (2003). “Strategic perspective of Turkish construction companies.” J. Manage. Eng., 19(1), 33–40.
Dozzi, S. P., AbouRizk, S. M., and Schroeder, S. L. (1996). “Utility theory model for bid markup decisions.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 122(2), 119–124.
European Commission (EC). (2000). “A proposed methodology that permits award to the economically most advantageous tender.” Final Rep., Economically Most Advantageous Tender Task Group ⟨http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/construction/alo/emat/ematfin.htm⟩.
Fayek, A. (1998). “Competitive bidding strategy model and software system for bid preparation.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124(1), 1–10.
Fu, W. K., Drew, D. S., and Lo, H. P. (2003). “Competitiveness of inexperienced and experienced contractors in bidding.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 129(4), 388–395.
The Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). (2004). ⟨http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/gproc_e/gp_gpa_e.htm⟩.
Hegazy, T., and Moselhi, O. (1994). “Analogy-based solution to markup estimation problem.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 8(1), 72–87.
Holt, G. D., Olomolaiye, P. O., and Harris, F. C. (1995). “Applying multi-attribute analysis to contractor selection decisions.” Eur. Purch. Sup. Manage., 1(3), 139–148.
Leemkuil, H., Jong, T., and Ootes, S. (2000). Review of educational use of games and simulations, KITS consortium, The Netherlands.
Latham, M. (1994). “Joint review of procurement and contractual arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry.” Constructing the Team: Final Rep., HMSO, London.
Ngai, S. C., Drew, D. S., Lo, H. P., and Skitmore, M. (2002). “A theoretical framework for determining the minimum number of bidders in construction bidding competitions.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 20, 473–482.
Runeson, G., and Skitmore, M. (1999). “Tendering theory revisited.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 17, 285–296.
Shash, A. A. (1993). “Factors considered in tendering decisions by top UK contractors.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 11, 111–118.
Thurman, R. (1993). “Instructional simulation from a cognitive psychology viewpoint.” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 41(4), 75–89.
Wanous, M., Boussabaine, A. H., and Lewis, J. (2000). “To bid or not to bid: A parametric solution.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 18(4), 457–466.
Wishart, J. (1990). “Cognitive factors related to user involvement with computers and their effects upon learning from an educational computer game.” Comput. Educ., 15, 145–150.
Wong, C. H., Holt, G. D., and Cooper, P. A. (2000). “Lowest price or value? Investigation of UK construction clients’ tender selection process.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 18(7), 767–774.
Xu, T., and Tiong, R. L. K. (2001). “Risk assessment on contractors’ pricing strategies.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 19, 77–84.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 132 • Issue 10 • October 2006
Pages: 1037 - 1042
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Oct 19, 2005
Accepted: Jan 26, 2006
Published online: Oct 1, 2006
Published in print: Oct 2006
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.