Quality of tender documents: case studies from the UK

Tendering is one of the stages in construction procurement that requires extensive information and documents exchange. However, tender documents are not always clear in practice. The aim of this study was to ascertain the clarity and adequacy of tender documents used in practice. Access was negotiated into two UK construction firms and the whole tender process for two projects was shadowed for 6-7 weeks in each firm using an ethnographic approach. A significant amount of tender queries, amendments and addenda were recorded. This showed that quality of tender documentation is still a problem in construction despite the existence of standards like Co-ordinated Project Information (1987) and British Standard 1192 (1984 and 1990) that are meant to help in producing clear and consistent project information. Poor quality tender documents are a source of inaccurate estimates, claims and disputes on contracts. Six recommendations are presented to help in improving the quality of tender documentation. Further research is needed into the recommendations to help improve the quality of tender documents, perhaps in conjunction with an industry-wide investigation into the level of incorporation of CPI principles in practice.

Commercial reviews in the tender process of contractors

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show the extent to which clients amend standard form contracts in practice, the locus of the amendments, and how contractors respond to the amendments when putting together a bid. Design/methodology/approach – Four live observational case studies were carried out in two of the top 20 UK construction firms. The whole process used to review the proposed terms and conditions of the contract was shadowed using participant observation, interview and documentary analysis. Findings – All four cases showed strong evidence of amendments relating mostly to payment and contractual aspects: 83 amendments in Case Study 1 (CS1), 80 in CS2, 15 in CS3 and 29 in CS4. This comprised clauses that were modified (37 per cent), substituted (23 per cent), deleted (7 per cent) and new additions (33 per cent). Risks inherent in the amendments were mostly addressed through contractual rather than price mechanisms, to reflect commercial imperatives. “Qualifications” and “clarifications” were included in the tender submissions for post-tender negotiations. Thus, the amendments did not necessarily influence price. There was no evidence of a “standard-form contract“ being used as such, although clients may draw on published “standard-form contracts” to derive the forms of contract actually used in practice. Practical implications – Contractors should pay attention to clauses relating to contractual and financial aspects when reviewing tender documents. Clients should draft equitable payment and contractual terms and conditions to reduce risk of dispute. Indeed, it is prudent for clients not to pass on inestimable risks. Originality/value – A better understanding of the extent and locus of amendments in standard form contracts, and how contractors respond, is provided.

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.

Subcontract and supply enquiries in the tender process of contractors

In the tender process, contractors often rely on subcontract and supply enquiries to calculate their bid prices. However, this integral part of the bidding process is not empirically articulated in the literature. Over 30 published materials on the tendering process of contractors that talk about enquiries were reviewed and found to be based mainly on experiential knowledge rather than systematic evidence. The empirical research here helps to describe the process of enquiries precisely, improve it in practice, and have some basis to support it in theory. Using a live participant observation case study approach, the whole tender process was shadowed in the offices of two of the top 20 UK civil engineering construction firms. This helped to investigate 15 research questions on how contractors enquire and obtain prices from subcontractors and suppliers. Forty-three subcontract enquiries and 18 supply enquiries were made across two different projects with average value of 7m. An average of 15 subcontract packages and seven supply packages was involved. Thus, two or three subcontractors or suppliers were invited to bid in each package. All enquiries were formulated by the estimator, with occasional involvement of three other personnel. Most subcontract prices were received in an average of 14 working days; and supply prices took five days. The findings show 10 main activities involved in processing enquiries and their durations, as well as wasteful practices associated with enquiries. Contractors should limit their enquiry invitations to a maximum of three per package, and optimize the waiting time for quotations in order to improve cost efficiency.

Risk accountability in the tender process of contractors in Ghana and UK

The process of how contractors take account of risk when calculating their bids for construction work is investigated based on preliminary investigations and case studies in Ghana and UK. Ghana and UK were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, for the purpose of case studies, and to test the idea that there are systematic differences between the approaches in different places. Clear differences were found in the risk pricing approaches of contractors in the two countries. The difference appeared to emanate from the professional knowledge and competence of the bid team members, company policy, corporate accountability and the business environments in which the contractors operate. Both groups of contractors take account of risk in estimates. However, risk accountability was found to be higher on the agenda in the tender process of UK contractors, documented more systematically, and assessed and managed more rigorously with input from the whole bid team. Risk accountability takes place at three levels of the tender process and is dictated strongly by market forces and company circumstances.