See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281823160

A REVIEW ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE AND STRATEGY OF BIDDING

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
2 2,725

3 authors, including:

Dr. Jayeshkumar Pitroda

Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya Engineering College
285 PUBLICATIONS   668 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Feasibility Report on Recycle and Reuse of Wind Turbine Blade Waste View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Jayeshkumar Pitroda on 16 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

A REVIEW ON COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE AND STRATEGY OF BIDDING

RAJU PRAJAPATI*
JAYESHKUMAR PITRODA**
PROF.J.J.BHAVSAR***

*Student of final year M.E (C.E & M), B.V.M Engineering College, Vallabh Vidyanagar
**Assistant Professor & Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, B.V.M. Engineering College, Vallabh
Vidyanagar-Gujarat-India
***Associate professor, P.G. Coordinator of Construction Engineering Management, B.V.M Engineering College, Vallabh
Vidyanagar -Gujarat-India

ABSTRACT
Companies must have the capability to deal with various bidding situations successfully in
today's highly competitive construction market. Whether to bid or not to bid when they received a
tender invitation is the first step. The contractors' decision is affected by various factors and
influences. This decision is highly reliant to the specific project and the macro environment. It
is difficult to make this crucial decision in a short time frame by the management team. The
development of the construction industry has led to an increase in the number of criteria
imposed by project clients for selecting contractors. Previous research efforts have been
devoted to finding solutions for helping clients to select a contractor when multiple project
objectives are considered. Traditionally, the evaluation of contractors has emphasized on the
tender price, with less attention given to evaluating a contractor’s performance attributes
Nevertheless, the recognition that a high-quality service cannot be obtained if only the lowest
tender is accepted has led to a growing urge for a shift from the ‘lowest-price wins’ to the
‘multi criteria selection’ practice in the contractor selection process. Here, there arises a need
to study the competitive Bidding process and development of bid strategy in the construction
industry.

KEY WORDS: Competitive Market, Competitive Bidding Process, Bid Strategy

INTRODUCTION
The search for greater choice and value for money leads to more purchases being
made by competitive methods. The perceived benefits of these methods have resulted in a
phenomenal rise in the number of bids and tenders. Even quite simple purchases, which
previously may have been stock replacement, are put out to competitive tender. No one
therefore who has worked extensively in a competitive purchasing environment take it
lightly. Competition can bring real benefits and knowing when and how to buy using
competitive methods is down to the skill of purchasing Manager. There is in the same

84
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

position; knowing when how to participate in competition depends on the skill of the bid
Manager.
The development of the construction industry has led to an increase in the number of
criteria imposed by project clients for selecting contractors. Previous research efforts have
been devoted to finding solutions for helping clients to select a contractor when multiple
project objectives are considered. Traditionally, the evaluation of contractors has emphasized
on the tender price, with less attention given to evaluating a contractor’s performance
attributes Nevertheless, the recognition that a high-quality service cannot be obtained if only
the lowest tender is accepted has led to a growing urge for a shift from the ‘lowest-price
wins’ to the ‘multicriteria selection’ practice in the contractor selection process. The
evaluation of contractor competence should consider a wide range of factors such as financial
soundness, technical ability, management capability, reputation and safety performance. A
clear relationship between bidding decisions and the competitiveness trend is shown by many
researchers. To cover the concept, the study will investigate the both areas in parallel.
Contracting projects are the norm in a wide range of business activities. A significant amount
of engineering construction work is let through competitive bidding. Direct competition
through bidding is the most common method of job distribution in the construction industry.
Contractors need to make strategic decisions in respect of: (i) project selection whether or not
to bid for a job; and (ii) determination of bid price if contractors choose to bid. With limited
response time to different bidding opportunities, contractors need to strive for projects that
put them at an advantage in terms of pricing efficiency. In examining the ‘right’ price in
construction bids.
In this research, the study will focus on the bidders' competitiveness strategies during the
procurement stage in the project life cycle.

COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE

The competitive bidding procedure for a contracting organization is a systematic process
shown in figure 1.

85
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

Figure 1: Competitive Bidding procedure from contractor’s perspective Courtsey: Jha Kumar
Neeraj(2011) “Construction Project Management’’: Theory and Practice Pearson Education
India

FACTOR AFFECTING BIDDING DECISION

Factor affecting bidding decision as follows in figure 2.

86
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

Figure 2: Factor affecting bidding decision

Need for work
1. Current workload of projects, relative to the capacity of your firm
2. Availability (number and size) of other projects within the market
3. Current financial situation of the company
4. Need for continuity in employment of key personnel and workforce
5. Current workload in bid preparation
Strength of firm
6. Ability to fulfill tender conditions imposed by the client
7. Financial status of your company (working cash requirement of project)
8. Experience and familiarity of your firm with this specific type of work
9. Possessing enough qualified technical staff to do the job
10. Possessing enough required plant and equipment to do the job
11. Having qualified subcontractors
12. Having qualified material suppliers

87
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

13. Amount of work to be subcontracted relative to the total volume of work

14. Amount of equipment that needs to be hired and the hire rates in the market
Project conditions contributing to the profitability of the project
15. Project size (total bid value)
16. Terms of payment
17. Project type
18. Profits made in similar projects in the past
Job uncertainty
19. Uncertainty related to the construction site condition
20. Completeness of the bid documents (drawings, specifications, etc.)
Job complexity
21. Technological difficulty of the project being beyond the capability of the firm
22. Management of similar size projects in the past
Risk creating jobs and contract conditions
23. Rigidity of specifications
24. Allowed project duration being enough
25. Penalty conditions for not being able to complete the project on time
26. Payment conditions of the project creating a risky environment
27. Allowed duration for bid preparation being enough
Client and consultant of the project
28. Current financial capability of the client
29. History of client's payments in past projects (considering delays, shortages)
Availability of resources within the region
30. Availability of required qualified labour within the region
31. Availability of the required materials within the region
32. Availability of the required plant within the region
Competition (considering only the current project)
33. Possible number of competitors passing the requirements
34. Desire of qualified contractors to bid and win the project
Foreseeable future market conditions & firm's financial situation
35. Market's direction (whether it is declining, expanding, etc.)
36. Amount of possible upcoming profitable projects out for tender in near future
37. Existing financial conditions indicating a financial risk in near future

88
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

38. Ratio of your firm's current market share to the expected or aimed share
Client (considering long-term gains/losses)
39. Amount of work the client carries out regularly
40. Amount of repeat business level that the client been following
Project (considering long-term gains and losses)
41. Possible contribution to increase the contractor firm's classification
42. Possible contribution to increase the firm's identity and brand strength
43. Possible contribution in increasing firm's market share and dominance in market
44. Possible contribution in building long-term relationships with other key parties
45. Contribution in maintaining long-term relations with important influence markets
46. Possible contribution in improving your firm's staff expertise
47. Possible contribution to break into a new market with productive future
48. Contribution to firm's future due to value of the completed project to the public
Consultant firm (considering long-term gains and losses)
49. Amount of construction work the consultant has been carrying out regularly

PREVIOUS RESEARCH REVIEW OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF

BIDDING STRATEGY
Ahmad et al. (1988) studied that bidding decisions are greatly influenced by subjectively
evaluated criteria, such as type of job, location, size of job, need for work, Owner,
subcontractors, degree of hazard, and degree of difficulty. Competition and profitability,
although significant, are not the top ranked factors.(3)
Moselhi et al. (1991) estimated an optimum mark up value and predicts the probability of
winning the job at such level of profit, in response to the project risk pattern. The system then
optimally unbalances the final bid, in an effort to improve the contractor's cash flow while
maintaining his competitiveness. The hybrid system facilitates decision making, allowing
detailed pre-bid estimates of cost and duration performed with minimal redundancy and in a
timely manner, improving the efficiency of the bid preparation process. (28)
Drew and Skitmore et al. (1992) examined the relationship between the competitiveness of
contract bids entered by individual bidders through the variables of bidder size, contract value
and project type. Large bidders seem to be more competitive on large contracts. In addition
there is evidence to suggest that medium and small bidders are more competitive on smaller
contracts. These typical factors, which provide guidance for contractors in identifying better

89
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

competition strategies by considering their own strengths and client selection criteria
collectively. Contractors should consider the advantages embodied in different types of
competition strategies to improve the possibility of winning in competition.(11)
Eastham et al. (1993) examined construction companies' project selection decisions, with
particular reference to the bid/no bid decision, from a portfolio theoretic viewpoint. A method
is proposed by which objective decisions may be made considering the risks involved. (14)
Drew and Skitmore (1997) found the nature and form of the competitive arena for the
contractor in construction contracting is largely determined by the client and/or advisors. The
choice of bidding system coupled with bidder selection practices has a direct bearing on the
degree of competition since it affects both the number and identities of bidders competing for
a particular contract. (12)
Mills et al. (1999) examined that contractors do work for mainly private sector clients and
contractors doing work for mainly private sector clients, and construction prequalifies
(clients). The results show that both clients and contractors have divergent opinions on the
importance and value of the criteria in use. The possible reasons for these differences are
discussed and the likely implications for future research in the topic. (23)
Wanous et al. (1999) presented a new method of making the bid/no-bid decision by
quantifying the subjective evaluations of the bidder. The model is very flexible in the sense
that attributes can be changed; some may be added and others could be deleted. No bidding
model can guarantee perfect outcomes. The proposed model will be extended to enable the
recommendation of a mark-up percentage, in the event of a decision to bid for a new project.
(34)
Leu et al. (2000) found that that basic advantage of the average bid method, from an owner’s
perspective, is that it safeguards against signing a construction contract for an unrealistically
low bid price that almost certainly will lead to adversarial relationships during construction.
(22)
Skitmore et al.(2001) offered a bidding strategy model for use by contractors as part of a
more informed approach in selecting which contracts to bid for, and as a basis for
determining the most appropriate mark-up level for various types and sizes of construction
work and client types.(13)
Skitmore et al. (2001) analyzed the difference between the lowest and second lowest bids, or
bid-spread, in a ‘lowest wins’ auction is of possible value in strategic bidding; providing an

90
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

indication of mistakes in bids; determining a justifiable amount of bid security; and a means
of providing some insight into the consequences of non-traditional auction arrangements. (30)
Lin et al. (2003) suggested that the ideal competitive bidding system is only effective when
contractor’s opportunistic bidding behaviors are restrained. The emphasis on the
government’s policies should be placed on inhibiting the Opportunistic Bidding, as it is the
leverage point to improve the efficiency of the public construction market.(9)
Fu et al. (2003) tested that the assertion that experienced contractors are more competitive
than inexperienced contractors by measuring the effect of experience on bidding
competitiveness for building contracts procured by a regular client. Contractors are grouped
into experienced and inexperienced contractors, and two levels of contractors’ experience are
identified bidding experience only and bidding plus construction experience. (17)
Martin et al. (2004)suggested that in auction bidding has largely been carried out without any
real supporting data. In the context of construction contract auction bidding, it has been
doubted that sufficient data can be mustered for each bidder for any effective predictions to
be made. (32)
Bagies et al. (2006) resulted from the past research, as yet the bid/no bid decision has
attracted less attention and has not been considered as a way to achieve the company’s
business strategy. The usual research studies are to make the “bid/no bid” and the mark-up
decisions on the basis of correlation of each other. That is because of the strong link existing
between factors affecting both decisions. The numerous surveys that have been carried out in
many countries with the aim of identifying the important bidding decision’s factors show the
differences of the potential factors. (7)
Hassen et al. (2007) expected that the proposed model helps a project manager, select the best
contractors to execute the project within budget, on schedule, and in accordance with the
standards and specification. The success of the method heavily depends on the way the
decision problem is structured and how the pair wise comparisons are carried out. (33)
Banki at el. (2008) found that increasing the number of bidders will result in decreased
project bid prices. The current research studied the deviation between the low bid and the
prebid estimate, compared to the number of bidders, since in the earlier studies, these were
the metrics that were evaluated. The established relationship of this work is between the low
bid offer, and the number of bidders. (8)
Mochtar et al. (2010) discovered that Indonesian contractors tend to be more market-based as
they know more about the "owner's characteristics", "competitors' characteristics", and

91
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

"market demand". To maximize the benefits of market-based pricing strategies, the bidding
procedure change should be explored by all parties involved in the Indonesian construction
industry.(25)
Enshassi et al. (2010) researched that the factors influencing bid/no bid and markup size
decisions were investigated to the overall contractors surveyed which were 77 contractors.
The contractors then classified according the company size to small size contractors, which
were 25 contractors out of the 77, and medium size contractors, which were 52 contractors
the objective of this classification was to test the relationship between the company sizes and
bid/no bid and mark up size decisions.(1)
Ravanshadnia et al. (2011) discussed that bidding is a strategic decision that helps contractor
firms to survive. Traditionally, bidding behaviors are highly unstructured in construction
companies. (29)
Enshassi et al. (2011) The results illustrate that, the financial capability of the contractors, the
reputation of the clients, the financial capability of the clients, the financial values of the
project, the availability of construction raw materials in the local markets, and the stability of
the construction industry were the most critical factors affecting the contractors bid-no bid
decisions. This study suggests that contractors and clients should improve their financial
systems and capabilities in order to stay in business.(2)
Enyinda et al. (2011) studied that the contractor selection criteria considered include
experience, financial stability/soundness, available manpower resources, and relevant
equipment criteria. However, selecting the most appropriate contractor fora construction
project can be a daunting challenge for any private or public client. Contractor Selection
represents a crucial decision which can affect the progress and success of any government
construction project.(10)
Huang et al. (2011) analyzed that the relevant theoretical methods for contractor evaluation
and examined the actual criteria for the selection of contractors. (37)
Mohammad et al. (2012) proposed an empirical framework for making the bid/no-bid
decision. The proposed framework consists of two consecutive components. Component 1
determines key bidding factors that are considered by contractors when evaluating bids,
whereas component 2 utilizes DEA (data envelopment analysis) to make the bid/no-bid
decision. (26)
Ajayi et al. (2012) identified that the process of selecting contractors for a proposed project is
a major decision which may influence the progress and success of any construction project.

92
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

Selecting an inappropriate contractor for a project could therefore lead to project behind
schedule, price changes and substandard work. The decision is made by the client or his
representative directly or indirectly affect the success or otherwise of a project outcome. (4)
Sool et al. (2013) studied that importance to contractors and clients, particularly in
formulating bidding or procurement strategies to take advantage of or to mitigate the effects
of market demand.(6)
Ali et al. (2014) identified factors are the existence of an advance payment in the contract,
cash flow requirements of the project, the reputation of the client regarding his commitment
for making timely payments, identity of the consultant, the amount of work that is regularly
carried out by the consultant, and reputation of the consultant regarding his independence in
making "fair determinations" between the contracting parties. Future extension of this work
includes examining the relationship between bidding factors and the bid/no-bid decision.
Such examination requires the larger scope of data collection that utilizes a database of real
life bidding decisions along with their associated factors. Plans are underway to build the
required database.(24)
Alptekn et al. (2014) examined that quite critical to select a qualified contractor because they
have big influences upon projects and their successes. A competent construction contractor is
one of the indispensable conditions of a proper process and completion of a construction
project. There are several theoretical frameworks or models applied in the evaluation of
contractors. In this paper, Analytic Hierarchy Process which is one of the most widely used
multi-criteria decision making tools is used for contractor selection problem.(21)
Based on previous research review, Historical development related to strategy bidding is
shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Historical Development of strategy of bidding

93
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

CONCLUSION
The following things have been identified related to the bidding strategy as follows:
1. The competitiveness of a contractor is determined by a large number of factors. It is
difficult to satisfy all the factors at the same time as management practices always have
to face limited resources such as money, manpower, time, and management efforts. (16)
2. In today’s highly competitive construction environment, one of the most important
decision that have to be done by any contractor, competing in the market, is which price
to bid for when a serious invitation has been received. (15)
3. It is not the end desire of the clients to obtain a reasonable number of bids, but the most
important objective that is strongly integrated with the participation process is to
achieve the competitive bids that satisfy the clients' requirements and needs. (5)
4. A high-quality service cannot be obtained if only the lowest tender is accepted has led
to a growing urge for a shift from the ‘lowest-price wins’ to the ‘multicriteria selection’
practice in the contractor selection process. (18,19,35)
5. The evaluation of contractor competence should consider a wide range of factors such
as financial soundness, technical ability, management capability, reputation and safety
performance. (18,19,35)
6. The contractors need to make strategic decisions in respect of project selection—
whether or not to bid for a job and determination of bid price if contractors choose to
bid. (27)
7. Contractors’ abilities to win the ‘right’ project and determine the ‘right’ price level are
of equal importance for survival of their organizations and subsequently making a
profit. (36)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Authors thankfully acknowledge to Dr. C. L. Patel, Chairman, Charutar Vidya Mandal,
Er.V.M.Patel, Hon.Jt. Secretary, Charutar Vidya Mandal, Mr. Yatinbhai Desai, Jay Maharaj
construction, Dr.F.S.Umrigar, Principal, B.V.M. Engineering College, Dr. L.B.Zala, Headand
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Prof.C. M. Vyas, Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department, A.D. Patel Institute of Technology, New Vallabh Vidyanagar,
Gujarat, India for their motivations and infrastructural support to carry out this research.

94
www.jiarm.com
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

REFERENCES
1. Adnan E. and Sami N. “Factors Considered in Bidding Decisions by Small and Medium size Contractors
”, The Islamic University Journal (Series of Natural Studies and Engineering), ISSN 1726-6807,Vol.18,
No.2,2010, 23 – 72.
2. Adnan E., Sherif M., Ala'a E. “Factors Affecting Bid/No Bid Decision in The Gaza Strip Contractors`
Perspectives”, Revista Ingeniería de Construcción, ISSN 0718-5073, Vol.26, No.1, 2011, 41-60.
3. Ahmad I. and Minkarah, I. "Questionnaire Survey on Bidding in Construction", Journal of Management
in Engineering, ISSN 0742-597X/88/0003-0229,Vol.4, No. 3, July 1988,229-243.
4. Ajayi, O.M. And Ogunsanmi, O.E. “Decision Maker’s Perceptions on Contractor Prequaification
Criteria” Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, ISSN 2073-7122, Vol 4, No 6,
October 2012, 174-203.
5. Ala'a A., El K. , M.Sc. thesis “Factors Affecting Bidders’ Participation in The Construction Tenders”,The
Islamic University of Gaza-Palestine ,August, 2008.
6. Alexander S., Bee Lan O. “The Effect of Construction Demand on Bidders” Mark-up Decision”,
Preceeding construction industry economics,May 2013, 71-84.
7. Bagies A. and Chris F. “Bid/ No-Bid Decision Modelling for Construction Projects” ,In: Boyd, D (Ed)
Procs 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, Birmingham, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction
Management,September 2006,511-521.
8. Banki M.T., Esmaeeli B., Ravanshadnia M. “ The Assessment of Bidding Strategy of Iranian
Construction Firm” ,International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, ISSN
1750-9653, Vol. 4 ,No. 2, June 2008,153-160.
9. Chien-Liang L., Wei L., Min-Ren Y. “Exploring Contractor’s Opportunistic Bidding Behavior and its
Impacts on Construction Market” International system dynamic,2003, 1-17.
10. Chris I. Enyinda, Alphonso O. Ogbuehi, Godwin U. “A Decision Support Model for Contractor Selection
in a Government Procurement Supply Chain: Evidence from an Emerging Market” ,Journal of
Management Policy and Practice, ISSN 2333-6048, Vol. 12(7), 2011,9-17.
11. Drew D.S, and Skitmore R.M., Martin S., "Competitiveness in Bidding : A Consultant's Perspective",
Construction Management and Economics,ISSN0144-6193, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1992 227-247.
12. Drew D.S. and Skitmore R.M., Martin S., "The Effect of Contract Type and Size on Competitiveness in
Bidding", Journal of Construction Engineering Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154 ,Vol. 15,
No. 5, 1997 ,469-489.
13. Drew D. S., Lo H. and Skitmore R. “The Effect of Client nd Type and Size of Construction Work on A
Contractor Is Bidding Strategy”, Building and environment 36(3):pp. 393-406,2001
14. Eastham, Rodney A. and Skitmore R., Martin S. "Construction Contractor's Project Selection: Decision
Making Within A Portfolio Framework.” In Proceedings International Seminar on Optimum Systems for
Construction Management" (ISOSCM '93), 1993,1-10.
15. Egemen M. and Mohamed A. “A Framework for Contractors to Reach Strategically Correct Bid/No Bid
and Mark-Up Size Decisions”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2007,1373-1385.
16. Fellows R., and Liu A., "Research Methods for Construction", Third edition, Blackwell Science
Ltd.,2008.
17. Fu W., Drew D., and Lo H. "Competitiveness of Experienced and Inexperienced Contractors in Bidding",
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ISSN: 0733-9364, Vol. 129, No. 4, 2003,388–395.
18. Jennings E. and Holt G. "Prequalification and Multi-Criteria Selection – A Measure of Contractor’s
Opinions",Journal of Construction Engineering Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154 , Vol. 16,
No. 6, 1998, 651-660.
19. Hatush Z. and Skitmore M., "Criteria for Contractor Selection", Journal of Construction Engineering
Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154 , Vol. 15, No. 1, 1997, 19– 38.
20. Kumaraswamy M., and Walker D. “Multiple Performance Criteria for Evaluating Construction
Contractors’’, Procurement Systems A Guide to Best Practice in Construction” , 2000,228–251.
21. Ioannou G. “Bidding Models Symmetry and State of Information” ,Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, ISSN: 0733-9364,Vol. 114, No. 2, 1997,214-232.
22. Ioannou G., Sou-Sen L. “Average Bid Method A Competitive Bidding Strategy” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ISSN: 0733-9364 ,Vol. 199, No.1, 2000,131-147.
23. Mills A. and Skitmore, Martin R. “ A Comparison of Client and Contractor Attitudes to Prequalification
Criteria” , Proceedings The International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation
(CIB) "Portable Partneringin Construction and Procurement", 1999, 699-708.
24. Mohammad S. El-Mashaleh, Ashraf Al-Jundi , Saed M. , Rayan A. and Jamal A. “Understanding Key
Bidding Factors Considered by Top Jordanian Contractors” Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, ISSN
1993-0461,Vol 8, No.4. 2014,455-464.
25. Mochtar K. “Pricing Strategy of Indonesian Contractors, Indonesia” , Construction Engineering

95
www.jiarm.com
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 2, Issue 12, January 2015

Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154,Vol.19,2010,405-415.

26. Mohammad S. El-Mashaleh “An Empirical Framework for Making the Bid/No-Bid Decision” Journal of
Management in Engineering.ISSN 1943-5479, 2012,1-21.
27. Oo B. , Drew D., and Lo H. "Applying A Random Coefficients Logistic Model to Contractors' Decision
to Bid", Journal of Construction Engineering Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154, Vol. 25,
No. 4, 2007,387-398.
28. Osama m., Tarek H. and Paul F. “A Hybrid Neural Network Methodology for Cost Estimation” Centre
For Building Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada H3G 1M8,519-528.
29. Ravanshadnia M., Rajaie H. and Abbasian H. “A Comprehensivebid/No-Bid Decision Making
Framework For Construction Companies” ,International Journal of Science & Technoledg ISSN 2321
919X,Vol. 35, No. C1, 2011,95-103.
30. Skitmore R. and Drew D. and Ngai S. “Bid-spread” Journal of Construction Engineering Management,
ISSN: 0733-9364,Vol.127(2), 2001,149-153.
31. Skitmore R. “Identifying Non-Competitive Bids in Construction Contract Auctions” OMEGA:
International Journal of Management Science,ISSN:2310-2829,Vol.30(6), 2002,443-449.
32. Skitmore R.,Martin S. “Predicting The Probability of Winning Sealed Bid Auctions: The Effects of
Outliers On Bidding Models”, Construction Management and Economics, ISSN 1756-5154,Vol. 22(1),
2004,101-109.
33. Samiaah M. Hassen M. Al-Tmeemy, Prof. Dr. Hamzah Abdul- Rahman ,Associate Prof. Dr. Zakaria
Harun,2007,1-16.
34. Wanous, M., Boussabaine, H. A., and Lewis, J., (1999), " A Qualitative Bidding Model", Association of
Researchers in Construction Management,Vol.2, 1999,625-34.
35. Waara F. and Bröchner J. “Price and Nonprice Criteria for Contractor Selection” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ISSN: 0733-9364,Vol. 132, No. 8, pp.797-804, 2006
36. Wallwork J. "Is There A Right Price in Construction Bids?", Journal of Cost Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 2,
1999,41–53.
37. Xiaohong Huang (2011) “An Analysis of the Selection of Project Contractor in the Construction
Management Process”, International Journal of Business and Management, ISSN 1833-3850,Vol. 6, No.
3,2011,184-189.

96
www.jiarm.com

View publication stats