4.4 Article

Estimating Damages of Bid-Rigging in Design-Build Contracts Based on Simulation Model

期刊

KSCE JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 1568-1577

出版社

KOREAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-KSCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12205-021-1571-y

关键词

Bid-rigging damage; Design-build; Competitive situation; Counterfactual competitive price; Expected return rates; Simulation model

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [2019R1A2C2010794]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019R1A2C2010794] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an alternative approach to estimating damages from bid-rigging in design-build construction projects, utilizing a simulation model based on historical bidding data. The feasibility of the proposed model was demonstrated through a case study on a real railway construction project. This model can also be used to determine optimal bid prices for DB construction projects.
Bid-riggings have persisted as an issue in the construction industry with its estimated damages being the most troublesome element. This study identifies the current limitations in estimating these damages and proposes an alternative approach to estimate the damages from bid-rigging in design-build (DB) construction projects. This study investigated a hypothetical competitive scenario that reflected the pricing model in DB contracts aimed at both winning the project and making profits. The alternative approach utilized a simulation model based on each bidder's historical bidding data that could reproduce competitive bidding in DB-delivery. The feasibility of the proposed model was demonstrated with a case study conducted on a real railway construction project. This proposed model can also be used in determining an optimal bid price for DB construction projects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据