Rational under-pricing in bidding strategy: a real options model
Under-pricing in construction tenders is a common phenomenon and is commonly explained by the need of cash flows and penetration strategy. However, these explanations involve profit cutting and therefore are not plausible in explaining a long-term persistent phenomenon of under-pricing. A real options model is proposed and using the binomial lattice method a real-life construction project tender was analysed to examine how management flexibility and uncertainty provide real options value. When uncertainties of cost items in a tender exist and choices are available to defer and switch modes of construction, then a valuable option is available to the bidders. It amounts to about 4% of the lump sum tendered in our case. The under-priced portion is the options value which the bidder is willing to pay for the flexibility and the uncertainty. These findings enable contractors to be more competitive and to estimate construction costs more accurately in devising their bid strategies.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (2006)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Krishna Mochtar & David Arditi, 2001. "Pricing strategy in the US construction industry," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 405-415.
- Michael Garvin & Charles Cheah, 2004. "Valuation techniques for infrastructure investment decisions," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 373-383.
- Sarkar, Sudipto, 2003. "The effect of mean reversion on investment under uncertainty," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 377-396, November.
- Kim, In-Gyu, 1998. "A model of selective tendering: Does bidding competition deter opportunism by contractors?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 907-925.
- Tien Foo Sing, 2002. "Time to build options in construction processes," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 119-130.
- Gjolberg, Ole & Guttormsen, Atle G., 2002. "Real options in the forest: what if prices are mean-reverting?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 13-20, May.
- Tirole, Jean, 1986.
"Procurement and Renegotiation,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(2), pages 235-259, April.
- Jean Tirole, 1985. "Procurement and Renegotiation," Working papers 362, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Kwong Wing Chau, 1997. "Monte Carlo simulation of construction costs using subjective data: response," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 109-115.
- Black, Fischer & Scholes, Myron S, 1973. "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 637-654, May-June.
- C. Perry & I. D. Greig, 1975. "Estimating the Mean and Variance of Subjective Distributions in PERT and Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(12), pages 1477-1480, August. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)