4.6 Article

Bidding Strategy in Construction Public Procurement: A Contractor's Perspective

Journal

BUILDINGS
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings11020047

Keywords

bidding strategy; construction project; contractor; cost estimation; public procurement

Funding

  1. Brno University of Technology [FAST-S20-6383]
  2. University of Rijeka [uniri-pr-tehnic-19-18]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Czech contractors predominantly rely on cost-oriented pricing for their multicriteria bidding strategy in public construction procurement, considering factors like risks and tender attractiveness. The Czech construction market is seen as favoring low costs with a prevalence of abnormally low bids. The findings of this study provide insights for contractors to enhance their bidding strategies in the public construction procurement process.
A contractor's ability to prepare a competitive bid for a construction tender is crucial for its survival on the market. The bid price estimation strategy should promote the probability of winning a sufficient amount of tenders but, at the same time, ensure the economic stability and development of the company. This paper aims to address this issue in the area of Czech public construction procurement. The opinions, experiences and practices of contractors were collected through a questionnaire survey, and the data were evaluated with the support of statistical methods. This revealed that Czech contractors mostly base their multicriteria bidding strategy on cost-oriented pricing while considering various aspects such as the risks and attractiveness of the tender. The Czech construction market is generally perceived as oriented toward low costs, and with a relatively common occurrence of abnormally low bids. The findings presented in this paper may help contractors improve their current bidding strategies in public construction procurement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available