The Risk Management of the Owner in the Bidding Process under the 2013 Edition of the Valuation Mode of Bill of Engineering Quantity

Article Preview

Abstract:

Taking the perspective of the owners,we analyze the major valuation risk which is based on the theory of the project risk management under the version of 2013 code of valuation with bill quantity of construction works when the owner want to bid to identify the possible risk factors. And in this article we propose some specific measures of the risk control about the imperfect of construction drawing design,the quatity problems of tender documents,unbalanced quote of the bidders,the price changing of the building materials and equipments and various rates of change in order to achieve active control risk and avoid exceeding the cost and provide a theoretical basis for the owner (or the tender agent) to bid.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

4670-4673

Citation:

Online since:

November 2014

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2014 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] Ministry of Hosing and Urban-Rural Development. GB50500-2013. Code of Valuation with Bill Quantity of Construction works[S]. Beijing: Chinese Plan Publishing House, (2013).

Google Scholar

[2] Shao Liang, Li Zhijian. Quantitative Risk Analysis of Water Project Investment under the Current Valuation Models of Engineering Quantity Bill. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute[J]. 2013, 30(1), 86-89.

Google Scholar

[3] Xinyan. Discussion on bidding risk management under the mode of bill of quantity. Shanxi Architecture[J]. 2013, 39(17): 226.

Google Scholar

[4] Yu Lianyue, Zeng Xiaoquan. Risk and Prevention in Mode of Valuation with Bill of Quantities. Communications Standardization[J]. 2008, (10), 47-49.

Google Scholar

[5] Huang Xiaoyan, Zhang Lingyun. Analysis of Construction Engineering pricing contracts risk allocation. Fujian Architecture Construction[J], 2013, (2), 112-114.

Google Scholar