Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines

Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month of Sept. 1854, signed by S.D. Woodruff, Oct. 1854.

Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines

Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines during the month ending Oct. 31, 1854.

Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month of Oct. 1854

Estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month of Oct. 1854, signed by S.D. Woodruff, Nov. 1854.

Chart of estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month ending Dec. 1, 1854

Chart of estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month ending Dec. 1, 1854, signed by S.D. Woodruff, Jan. 1855.

An estimate of work done by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors on sections 1, 2 and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the months of April and May 1855

Scrap of paper that has been burned almost completely. Only the header of the document is intact. It is an estimate of work done by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors on sections 1, 2 and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the months of April and May 1855.

Chart of estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines

Chart of estimate of work done on the Port Dalhousie and Thorold Railway by Messrs. Brown and McDonell, contractors, on sections 1, 2, and 3 ending at St. Catharines for the month of Oct., 1855. This document is water damaged and full of holes. The list of prices is almost completely illegible. The document is signed by S.D. Woodruff, Nov. 1855.

Schedule of prices for Brown and McDonell, contractors, for sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Port Dalhousie Thorold Railway

Schedule of prices for Brown and McDonell, contractors, for sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Port Dalhousie Thorold Railway (1 page, handwritten), Sept. 24, 1856.

Letter to S.D. Woodruff regarding a resolution passed that the engineer be requested to examine the fence built by the contractors alongside of the Henry Vandenburgh Farm

Letter to S.D. Woodruff regarding a resolution passed that the engineer be requested to examine the fence built by the contractors alongside of the Henry Vandenburgh Farm and report to the secretary as to whether this is a lawful fence, completed according to Williams’ contract. This is signed by Duncan McFarland, president. There is a reply written by S.D. Woodruff at the bottom of the letter stating that the fence is not built in accordance with the contract, Dec. 18, 1856.

Estimatesfor clearing done by the contractors including Alexander Cook, Andrew Mains, Frederick Holmes, Louis Clements and Thomas Baird

Estimatesfor clearing done by the contractors including Alexander Cook, Andrew Mains, Frederick Holmes, Louis Clements and Thomas Baird. This document is signed by S.D. Woodruff. This is complete with an envelope made out to S.D. Woodruff, April 28, 1855.

Receipt from E. Riddle and Sons, Contractors of Masonry, St. Catharines

Receipt from E. Riddle and Sons, Contractors of Masonry, St. Catharines for work done, Mar. 13, 1887.

Letter to T. H. Wiley from J.J. Nichols and Sons, Mason Contractors and Plasterers, St. Catharines

Letter to T. H. Wiley from J.J. Nichols and Sons, Mason Contractors and Plasterers, St. Catharines regarding tenders for the proposed lily pond, May 12, 1916.

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.

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.