...
首页> 外文期刊>Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building >Determining the Optimal Fee-Technical Proposal Combination in Two Envelope Fee Bidding
【24h】

Determining the Optimal Fee-Technical Proposal Combination in Two Envelope Fee Bidding

机译:确定两个信封式招标中的最佳费用-技术提案组合

获取原文
           

摘要

Two envelope fee bidding is a mechanism used by construction clients to allocate commissionsto willing consultants such as architects, engineers and surveyors. In two envelopefee bidding the client scores the competing consultants’ fees and technical proposals.The fee and technical proposal scores are weighted and aggregated and the consultantobtaining the highest aggregated score normally wins the commission. The consultant’sobjective in bidding, therefore, is to obtain the highest aggregated score possible since thismaximizes the chance of winning the commission. Given that fee and technical proposalscores are to some extent correlated, consultants can submit any one from a number ofdifferent fee—technical proposal combinations, ranging from a low fee—low scored technicalproposal combination to a high fee—high scored technical proposal combination.Only one possible combination will result in the highest aggregated score. Drew et al(2002b) offered consultants a model to determine this optimum fee-technical proposalcombination for any given commission. This paper tests the proposed model using datacollected from a leading Hong Kong consultant. The analysis, based on 51 bidding attempts,indicates that had the consultant adopted the proposed optimization model, theoverall average improvement on the consultant’s original total scores was 7.07%. The optimumstrategy was to aim for an absolute low fee—low scored technical proposal on 20occasions, absolute high scored technical proposal—high fee on 21 occasions and somewherebetween these two extremes on the remaining 10 occasions. The extent to whichfees scores and technical scores vary relative to each other has an important influence onthe optimum fee—technical proposal combination. However, the client’s change from a70/30 to a 50/50 predetermined weighting appears to have little effect on the consultant’soptimum bidding strategy.
机译:两次信封招标是建筑客户用来分配佣金给愿意的顾问(例如建筑师,工程师和测量师)的一种机制。在两次信封竞标中,客户对竞争顾问的费用和技术建议进行评分。费用和技术建议的分数经过加权和汇总,获得最高汇总分数的顾问通常会赢得佣金。因此,顾问的目标是获得可能的最高综合得分,因为这可以最大程度地赢得佣金。鉴于费用和技术建议核心在某种程度上是相关的,因此顾问可以从多种不同的费用(技术建议组合,从低费用,低评分技术建议组合到高费用,高评分技术建议组合)中提交任何一个。可能的组合将导致最高的综合得分。 Drew等人(2002b)为顾问提供了一个模型,用于确定任何给定佣金的最佳收费技术建议组合。本文使用从领先的香港顾问那里收集的数据对建议的模型进行了测试。该分析基于51个竞标尝试,表明该顾问采用了建议的优化模型,该顾问原始总得分的总体平均改善为7.07%。最佳策略是针对绝对低费用(20个场合低分的技术建议,绝对较高分数的技术建议),高要求21次,而其余10次介于这两个极端之间。费用分数和技术分数相对变化的程度对最佳费用(技术建议组合)有重要影响。但是,客户将预定权重从70/30更改为50/50似乎对顾问的最佳出价策略影响不大。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号