Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 13 results ...

Abu‐Hijleh, S F and Ibbs, C W (1993) Systematic Automated Management Exception Reporting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 87–104.

Beliveau, Y J, Dixit, S S, Dal, T and Morad, A A (1993) Multitask Motion Planning for Material Handling in Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 180–91.

Diaz, C F and Hadipriono, F C (1993) Nondeterministic Networking Methods. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 40–57.

Everett, J G and Slocum, A H (1993) CRANIUM: Device for Improving Crane Productivity and Safety. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 23–39.

Federle, M O, Rowings, J E and DeVany, T S (1993) Model of Career Choice for Craftworkers. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 105–14.

Ioannou, P G and Leu, S (1993) Average‐Bid Method—Competitive Bidding Strategy. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 131–47.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Bids; Construction industry; Models; Contracts; Probability;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0733-9364
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)119:1(131)
  • Abstract:
    The major drawback of the low‐bid method, often used for competitive bidding in the U.S. construction industry, is the possibility of awarding a construction contract to a contractor that submits, either accidentally or deliberately, an unrealistically low bid price. Often, such an occurrence works to the owner's and contractor's detriment by promoting disputes, increased costs, and schedule delays. To address this problem, other countries have adopted the average‐bid method and award the contract to the contractor whose price is closest to the average of all bids submitted. This paper presents a competitive bidding model for the average‐bid method and explores its merits relative to the low‐bid method. The bidding process is analyzed both mathematically and through Monte Carlo simulation. The final results of the average‐bid model, as well as Friedman's low‐bid model, are presented in four nomographs that can be used to analyze a competitive situation without the need for any mathematical or numerical manipulation. A comparison of the two methods reveals that the average‐bid method and its variations have the potential to improve contracting practices both for the owner and the contractor and deserve the industry's increased attention.

Jeljeli, M N, Russell, J S, Meyer, H W G and Vonderohe, A P (1993) Potential Applications of Geographic Information Systems to Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 72–86.

Johnson, K D and Tatum, C B (1993) Technology in Marine Construction Firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 148–62.

Kelley, M N (1993) Second Roebling Lecture 1991. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 1–5.

Murtaza, M B, Fisher, D J and Skibniewski, M J (1993) Knowledge‐Based Approach to Modular Construction Decision Support. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 115–30.

Sanders, S R and Thomas, H R (1993) Masonry Productivity Forecasting Model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 163–79.

Stewart, M G (1993) Modeling Human Performance in Reinforced Concrete Beam Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 6–22.

Touran, A (1993) Probabilistic Cost Estimating with Subjective Correlations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 119(01), 58–71.