Author
Listed:
- Derek Drew
- L. Y. Shen
- Patrick Zou
Abstract
Two-envelope fee bidding is used frequently in allocating commissions to willing consultants such as architects, engineers and surveyors. Consultant fees and technical scores are normally aggregated to form a total score. The consultant obtaining the highest total score is usually awarded the commission. The consultant's objective is to get the highest total score possible because this maximizes the chance of winning. Consultants can submit to the procurer any of a number of different technical proposals which is then converted to a technical score. Only one technical score+fee combination will result in the highest total score, i.e. the optimum technical score+fee combination. This paper offers consultants an approach to better identify their optimum technical score+fee combination. In using this approach consultants need to develop a total score continuum based on (1) the consultant's original technical proposal and fee, (2) the absolute lowest fee and corresponding technical score, and (3) the absolute highest technical score and corresponding fee. The total score becomes the dependent variable and the fee the independent variable. Since the total score continuum is regressed on three points it will almost certainly be curvilinear in shape. Given that the optimum total score is at the highest point of the continuum, the optimum fee can be determined through differentiation. The corresponding technical score can then be found. After adjusting the original technical proposal to reflect the corresponding technical score, the optimum fee and adjusted technical proposal can then be submitted to the procurer.
Suggested Citation
Derek Drew & L. Y. Shen & Patrick Zou, 2002.
"Developing an optimal bidding strategy in two-envelope fee bidding,"
Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 611-620.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:20:y:2002:i:7:p:611-620
DOI: 10.1080/01446190210160843
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:taf:conmgt:v:20:y:2002:i:7:p:611-620. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.