IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i2p105-d1062645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agent-Based Modeling of Construction Firms’ Organizational Behavior in Public Tenders

Author

Listed:
  • Valeriya Gladkikh

    (Department of Construction Engineering and Materials Science, Perm National Research Polytechnic University, 614990 Perm, Russia)

  • Aleksandr Alekseev

    (Administrative Directorate for Organization of Scientific Research, Perm National Research Polytechnic University, 614990 Perm, Russia)

Abstract

A key problem of construction firms’ management and economy is organization of effective participation in public tenders. The direct executor, who determines the price of the contract, may be interested in obtaining as many contracts as possible. It means that his strategic behavior in tender may be to undervalue each individual offer. At the same time, such a strategy can be a source of risk of project loss because the actual costs may be lower than the price of the contract won. The management of the construction organization is not interested in this. On the other hand, overpricing strategy may lead to a reduction in the number of contracts won, which may not seem effective either for the head or for the executor of such an organization. The article discusses whether the profits of a construction firm can increase by using a more precise method of calculating the estimated cost. The second question is—which staff of a construction firm will benefit from using such methods? The aim of this work is to test these hypotheses with the instrumentality of agent-based modeling. Profit values of construction firms were obtained by the computer simulation of the construction firms’ strategic behavior in public tenders. Results of 1500 computer experiments are presented as a decision tree. It can be seen that when using a more precise method, construction firms win tenders almost two times less often. However, they incur losses many times less than with an inaccurate method. If a construction firm made a profit from the contracts won, the profit margin was almost always greater when using the more precise method. Moreover, the results of game-theoretic modeling are given. Values of the objective functions of the executor and head of the construction firm were obtained, taking into account the reward for contracts won and penalty for miscalculating the cost of work. It has been proved that using more precise methods for calculating the estimated cost is beneficial to both the head and the executor. It can be concluded that both hypotheses were confirmed and a precise method for calculating the cost increases the efficiency of a construction firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Valeriya Gladkikh & Aleksandr Alekseev, 2023. "Agent-Based Modeling of Construction Firms’ Organizational Behavior in Public Tenders," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:105-:d:1062645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/105/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/105/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falagario, Marco & Sciancalepore, Fabio & Costantino, Nicola & Pietroforte, Roberto, 2012. "Using a DEA-cross efficiency approach in public procurement tenders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 523-529.
    2. Dodd, Peter & Ruback, Richard, 1977. "Tender offers and stockholder returns : An empirical analysis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 351-373, December.
    3. Cotter, James F. & Zenner, Marc, 1994. "How managerial wealth affects the tender offer process," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 63-97, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Etienne Redor, 2016. "Board attributes and shareholder wealth in mergers and acquisitions: a survey of the literature," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 20(4), pages 789-821, December.
    2. Linda Allen & Julapa Jagtiani & Stavros Peristiani & Anthony Saunders, 2002. "The role of bank advisors in mergers and acquisitions," Staff Reports 143, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    3. Dennis Mueller, 1996. "Antimerger policy in the United States: History and lessons," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 23(3), pages 229-253, October.
    4. Ryngaert, Michael, 2000. "Editor's Note," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 111-115, July.
    5. Anand S. Desai & Roger D. Stover, 1985. "Bank Holding Company Acquisitions, Stockholder Returns, And Regulatory Uncertainty," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, June.
    6. Denis, David J. & Serrano, Jan M., 1996. "Active investors and management turnover following unsuccessful control contests," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 239-266, February.
    7. Denis, David J. & Denis, Diane K. & Sarin, Atulya, 1997. "Ownership structure and top executive turnover," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 193-221, August.
    8. Elaine Hutson & Graham Partington, 1994. "Takeover Bids, Share Prices, and the Expected Value Hypothesis," Working Paper Series 36, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    9. De, Sankar & Fedenia, Mark & Triantis, Alexander J., 1996. "Effects of competition on bidder returns," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 261-282, February.
    10. Schwert, G. William, 1996. "Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 153-192, June.
    11. Karyn L. Neuhauser & Wallace N. Davidson & John L. Glascock, 2011. "An analysis of failed takeover attempts and merger cancellations," International Journal of Managerial Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(4), pages 347-376, September.
    12. Li, Lin & Tong, Wilson H.S., 2018. "Information uncertainty and target valuation in mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 84-107.
    13. Mehmet Ali Köseoglu & John A. Parnell & Melissa Yan Yee Yick, 2021. "Identifying influential studies and maturity level in intellectual structure of fields: evidence from strategic management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1271-1309, February.
    14. Lefanowicz, Craig E. & Robinson, John R. & Smith, Reed, 2000. "Golden parachutes and managerial incentives in corporate acquisitions: evidence from the 1980s and 1990s," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 215-239, July.
    15. Kanungo, Rama Prasad, 2021. "Uncertainty of M&As under asymmetric estimation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 774-793.
    16. Darren Henry, 2005. "Directors’ Recommendations in Takeovers: An Agency and Governance Analysis," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1‐2), pages 129-159, January.
    17. Niamh Brennan, 1999. "Voluntary Disclosure of Profit Forecasts by Target Companies in Takeover Bids," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(7‐8), pages 883-917, September.
    18. Antonios Antoniou & Philippe Arbour & Huainan Zhao, 2008. "How Much Is Too Much: Are Merger Premiums Too High?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 14(2), pages 268-287, March.
    19. Bates, Thomas W. & Lemmon, Michael L., 2003. "Breaking up is hard to do? An analysis of termination fee provisions and merger outcomes," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 469-504, September.
    20. Christoph Schmidhammer & Sebastian Lobe & Klaus Röder, 2016. "The day the index rose 11 %: a clinical study on price discovery reversal," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 79-106, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:105-:d:1062645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.