Risk and price in the bidding process of contractors

Formal and analytical risk models prescribe how risk should be incorporated in construction bids. However, the actual process of how contractors and their clients negotiate and agree on price is complex, and not clearly articulated in the literature. Using participant observation, the entire tender process was shadowed in two leading UK construction firms. This was compared to propositions in analytical models and significant differences were found. 670 hours of work observed in both firms revealed three stages of the bidding process. Bidding activities were categorized and their extent estimated as deskwork (32%), calculations (19%), meetings (14%), documents (13%), off-days (11%), conversations (7%), correspondence (3%) and travel (1%). Risk allowances of 1-2% were priced in some bids and three tiers of risk apportionment in bids were identified. However, priced risks may sometimes be excluded from the final bidding price to enhance competitiveness. Thus, although risk apportionment affects a contractor’s pricing strategy, other complex, microeconomic factors also affect price. Instead of pricing in contingencies, risk was priced mostly through contractual rather than price mechanisms, to reflect commercial imperatives. The findings explain why some assumptions underpinning analytical models may not be sustainable in practice and why what actually happens in practice is important for those who seek to model the pricing of construction bids.

How contractors price risk in bids: theory and practice

Formal and analytical models that contractors can use to assess and price project risk at the tender stage have proliferated in recent years. However, they are rarely used in practice. Introducing more models would, therefore, not necessarily help. A better understanding is needed of how contractors arrive at a bid price in practice, and how, and in what circumstances, risk apportionment actually influences pricing levels. More than 60 proposed risk models for contractors that are published in journals were examined and classified. Then exploratory interviews with five UK contractors and documentary analyses on how contractors price work generally and risk specifically were carried out to help in comparing the propositions from the literature to what contractors actually do. No comprehensive literature on the real bidding processes used in practice was found, and there is no evidence that pricing is systematic. Hence, systematic risk and pricing models for contractors may have no justifiable basis. Contractors process their bids through certain tendering gateways. They acknowledge the risk that they should price. However, the final settlement depends on a set of complex, micro-economic factors. Hence, risk accountability may be smaller than its true cost to the contractor. Risk apportionment occurs at three stages of the whole bid-pricing process. However, analytical approaches tend not to incorporate this, although they could.

Risk pricing practices in finance, insurance and construction

A review of current risk pricing practices in the financial, insurance and construction sectors is conducted through a comprehensive literature review. The purpose was to inform a study on risk and price in the tendering processes of contractors: specifically, how contractors take account of risk when they are calculating their bids for construction work. The reference to mainstream literature was in view of construction management research as a field of application rather than a fundamental academic discipline. Analytical models are used for risk pricing in the financial sector. Certain mathematical laws and principles of insurance are used to price risk in the insurance sector. construction contractors and practitioners are described to traditionally price allowances for project risk using mechanisms such as intuition and experience. Project risk analysis models have proliferated in recent years. However, they are rarely used because of problems practitioners face when confronted with them. A discussion of practices across the three sectors shows that the construction industry does not approach risk according to the sophisticated mechanisms of the two other sectors. This is not a poor situation in itself. However, knowledge transfer from finance and insurance can help construction practitioners. But also, formal risk models for contractors should be informed by the commercial exigencies and unique characteristics of the construction sector.

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the UK

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD UK database over the period 1981 to 2003 than normally distributed risk models. This finding mirrors results in the US and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroskedastic, but the characteristic exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time – yet it may vary by property type. Asset diversification is far less effective at reducing the impact of non‐systematic investment risk on real estate portfolios than in the case of assets with normally distributed investment risk. The results, therefore, indicate that multi‐risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite‐variance statistics are ineffective in the real estate context

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the U.K.

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD database over the period 1981 to 2003 than Normally distributed risk models, which mirrors results in the U.S. and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroscedastic, but the Characteristic Exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time yet may vary by property type. Asset diversification is far less effective at reducing the impact of non-systematic investment risk on real estate portfolios than in the case of assets with Normally distributed investment risk. Multi-risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite-variance statistics are ineffectual in the real estate context.

The impact of uncertain precipitation data on insurance loss estimates using a flood catastrophe model

Catastrophe risk models used by the insurance industry are likely subject to significant uncertainty, but due to their proprietary nature and strict licensing conditions they are not available for experimentation. In addition, even if such experiments were conducted, these would not be repeatable by other researchers because commercial confidentiality issues prevent the details of proprietary catastrophe model structures from being described in public domain documents. However, such experimentation is urgently required to improve decision making in both insurance and reinsurance markets. In this paper we therefore construct our own catastrophe risk model for flooding in Dublin, Ireland, in order to assess the impact of typical precipitation data uncertainty on loss predictions. As we consider only a city region rather than a whole territory and have access to detailed data and computing resources typically unavailable to industry modellers, our model is significantly more detailed than most commercial products. The model consists of four components, a stochastic rainfall module, a hydrological and hydraulic flood hazard module, a vulnerability module, and a financial loss module. Using these we undertake a series of simulations to test the impact of driving the stochastic event generator with four different rainfall data sets: ground gauge data, gauge-corrected rainfall radar, meteorological reanalysis data (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis-Interim; ERA-Interim) and a satellite rainfall product (The Climate Prediction Center morphing method; CMORPH). Catastrophe models are unusual because they use the upper three components of the modelling chain to generate a large synthetic database of unobserved and severe loss-driving events for which estimated losses are calculated. We find the loss estimates to be more sensitive to uncertainties propagated from the driving precipitation data sets than to other uncertainties in the hazard and vulnerability modules, suggesting that the range of uncertainty within catastrophe model structures may be greater than commonly believed.

A comparison of three different models for estimating relative risk in meta-analysis of clinical trials under unobserved heterogeneity

We focus on the comparison of three statistical models used to estimate the treatment effect in metaanalysis when individually pooled data are available. The models are two conventional models, namely a multi-level and a model based upon an approximate likelihood, and a newly developed model, the profile likelihood model which might be viewed as an extension of the Mantel-Haenszel approach. To exemplify these methods, we use results from a meta-analysis of 22 trials to prevent respiratory tract infections. We show that by using the multi-level approach, in the case of baseline heterogeneity, the number of clusters or components is considerably over-estimated. The approximate and profile likelihood method showed nearly the same pattern for the treatment effect distribution. To provide more evidence two simulation studies are accomplished. The profile likelihood can be considered as a clear alternative to the approximate likelihood model. In the case of strong baseline heterogeneity, the profile likelihood method shows superior behaviour when compared with the multi-level model. Copyright (C) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assembling spatially explicit landscape models of pollen and spore dispersal by wind for risk assessment

Models of windblown pollen or spore movement are required to predict gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops and the spread of fungal diseases. We suggest a simple form for a function describing the distance moved by a pollen grain or fungal spore, for use in generic models of dispersal. The function has power-law behaviour over sub-continental distances. We show that air-borne dispersal of rapeseed pollen in two experiments was inconsistent with an exponential model, but was fitted by power-law models, implying a large contribution from distant fields to the catches observed. After allowance for this 'background' by applying Fourier transforms to deconvolve the mixture of distant and local sources, the data were best fit by power-laws with exponents between 1.5 and 2. We also demonstrate that for a simple model of area sources, the median dispersal distance is a function of field radius and that measurement from the source edge can be misleading. Using an inverse-square dispersal distribution deduced from the experimental data and the distribution of rapeseed fields deduced by remote sensing, we successfully predict observed rapeseed pollen density in the city centres of Derby and Leicester (UK).

Risk assessment of UK skylark populations using life-history and individual-based landscape models

Abstract: Following a workshop exercise, two models, an individual-based landscape model (IBLM) and a non-spatial life-history model were used to assess the impact of a fictitious insecticide on populations of skylarks in the UK. The chosen population endpoints were abundance, population growth rate, and the chances of population persistence. Both models used the same life-history descriptors and toxicity profiles as the basis for their parameter inputs. The models differed in that exposure was a pre-determined parameter in the life-history model, but an emergent property of the IBLM, and the IBLM required a landscape structure as an input. The model outputs were qualitatively similar between the two models. Under conditions dominated by winter wheat, both models predicted a population decline that was worsened by the use of the insecticide. Under broader habitat conditions, population declines were only predicted for the scenarios where the insecticide was added. Inputs to the models are very different, with the IBLM requiring a large volume of data in order to achieve the flexibility of being able to integrate a range of environmental and behavioural factors. The life-history model has very few explicit data inputs, but some of these relied on extensive prior modelling needing additional data as described in Roelofs et al.(2005, this volume). Both models have strengths and weaknesses; hence the ideal approach is that of combining the use of both simple and comprehensive modeling tools.

Calibration of uncertain flood inundation models using remotely sensed water levels

A traditional method of validating the performance of a flood model when remotely sensed data of the flood extent are available is to compare the predicted flood extent to that observed. The performance measure employed often uses areal pattern-matching to assess the degree to which the two extents overlap. Recently, remote sensing of flood extents using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and airborne scanning laser altimetry (LIDAR) has made more straightforward the synoptic measurement of water surface elevations along flood waterlines, and this has emphasised the possibility of using alternative performance measures based on height. This paper considers the advantages that can accrue from using a performance measure based on waterline elevations rather than one based on areal patterns of wet and dry pixels. The two measures were compared for their ability to estimate flood inundation uncertainty maps from a set of model runs carried out to span the acceptable model parameter range in a GLUE-based analysis. A 1 in 5-year flood on the Thames in 1992 was used as a test event. As is typical for UK floods, only a single SAR image of observed flood extent was available for model calibration and validation. A simple implementation of a two-dimensional flood model (LISFLOOD-FP) was used to generate model flood extents for comparison with that observed. The performance measure based on height differences of corresponding points along the observed and modelled waterlines was found to be significantly more sensitive to the channel friction parameter than the measure based on areal patterns of flood extent. The former was able to restrict the parameter range of acceptable model runs and hence reduce the number of runs necessary to generate an inundation uncertainty map. A result of this was that there was less uncertainty in the final flood risk map. The uncertainty analysis included the effects of uncertainties in the observed flood extent as well as in model parameters. The height-based measure was found to be more sensitive when increased heighting accuracy was achieved by requiring that observed waterline heights varied slowly along the reach. The technique allows for the decomposition of the reach into sections, with different effective channel friction parameters used in different sections, which in this case resulted in lower r.m.s. height differences between observed and modelled waterlines than those achieved by runs using a single friction parameter for the whole reach. However, a validation of the modelled inundation uncertainty using the calibration event showed a significant difference between the uncertainty map and the observed flood extent. While this was true for both measures, the difference was especially significant for the height-based one. This is likely to be due to the conceptually simple flood inundation model and the coarse application resolution employed in this case. The increased sensitivity of the height-based measure may lead to an increased onus being placed on the model developer in the production of a valid model

Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications

A wide variety of exposure models are currently employed for health risk assessments. Individual models have been developed to meet the chemical exposure assessment needs of Government, industry and academia. These existing exposure models can be broadly categorised according to the following types of exposure source: environmental, dietary, consumer product, occupational, and aggregate and cumulative. Aggregate exposure models consider multiple exposure pathways, while cumulative models consider multiple chemicals. In this paper each of these basic types of exposure model are briefly described, along with any inherent strengths or weaknesses, with the UK as a case study. Examples are given of specific exposure models that are currently used, or that have the potential for future use, and key differences in modelling approaches adopted are discussed. The use of exposure models is currently fragmentary in nature. Specific organisations with exposure assessment responsibilities tend to use a limited range of models. The modelling techniques adopted in current exposure models have evolved along distinct lines for the various types of source. In fact different organisations may be using different models for very similar exposure assessment situations. This lack of consistency between exposure modelling practices can make understanding the exposure assessment process more complex, can lead to inconsistency between organisations in how critical modelling issues are addressed (e.g. variability and uncertainty), and has the potential to communicate mixed messages to the general public. Further work should be conducted to integrate the various approaches and models, where possible and regulatory remits allow, to get a coherent and consistent exposure modelling process. We recommend the development of an overall framework for exposure and risk assessment with common approaches and methodology, a screening tool for exposure assessment, collection of better input data, probabilistic modelling, validation of model input and output and a closer working relationship between scientists and policy makers and staff from different Government departments. A much increased effort is required is required in the UK to address these issues. The result will be a more robust, transparent, valid and more comparable exposure and risk assessment process. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.