Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 12 results ...

Abdelgawad, M and Fayek, A R (2010) Risk Management in the Construction Industry Using Combined Fuzzy FMEA and Fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1028–36.

Adriaanse, A, Voordijk, H and Dewulf, G (2010) Adoption and Use of Interorganizational ICT in a Construction Project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1003–14.

Bayraktar, M E and Hastak, M (2010) Scoring Approach to Construction Bond Underwriting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 957–67.

Hallowell, M R and Gambatese, J A (2010) Population and Initial Validation of a Formal Model for Construction Safety Risk Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 981–90.

Hwang, S (2010) Cross-Validation of Short-Term Productivity Forecasting Methodologies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1037–46.

Hwang, S and Liu, L Y (2010) Contemporaneous Time Series and Forecasting Methodologies for Predicting Short-Term Productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1047–55.

Ioannou, P G and Awwad, R E (2010) Below-Average Bidding Method. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 936–46.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Construction management; Contracts; Bids; Pricing; Models; Taiwan; Italy; Peru; Florida; Construction; Contracts; Bids; Pricing; Competition; Model; Simulation; Average bid; Below-average-bid; Low bid; Markup; Contingency; Probability; Innovation; Taiwan;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0733-9364
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000202
  • Abstract:
    The low-bid method, typically used for competitive bidding in the United States, may result in a contract with a firm that submits either accidentally or deliberately an unrealistically low-bid price. Such an occurrence hurts both the owner and the contractor by promoting disputes, increased costs, and schedule delays. To address this problem, other countries have adopted bidding methods based on the average of the bids submitted. One such approach is the below-average method where the winning bid is closest to but below the average of all bids. A competitive bidding model for the below-average-bid method is presented and its merits relative to the average-bid method and the low-bid method are explored. The below-average-bid process is investigated analytically and through Monte Carlo simulation. The results of bidding models for the below-average, the average, and the low-bid methods are presented in four easy-to-use nomograms which allow contractors to determine the optimal lump-sum bid price for each method without the need for complicated analysis. A comparison of the three methods provides information and insights to help owners with the difficult choice of a suitable bidding method for the project at hand.

Love, P E D, Mistry, D and Davis, P R (2010) Price Competitive Alliance Projects: Identification of Success Factors for Public Clients. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 947–56.

Sacks, R, Koskela, L, Dave, B A and Owen, R (2010) Interaction of Lean and Building Information Modeling in Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 968–80.

Serag, E, Oloufa, A, Malone, L and Radwan, E (2010) Model for Quantifying the Impact of Change Orders on Project Cost for U.S. Roadwork Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1015–27.

Wong, J M W, Chan, A P C and Chiang, Y H (2010) Modeling Construction Occupational Demand: Case of Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 991–1002.

Zhao, Z Y, You, W Y and Zuo, J (2010) Application of Innovative Critical Chain Method for Project Planning and Control under Resource Constraints and Uncertainty. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(09), 1056–60.