Download - Tendering System

Transcript
  • 8/11/2019 Tendering System

    1/5

    ,

    () . .

    ,

    . .

    .

    .

    ().

    , .

    ,

    .

    . ,

    .

    , ,

    ..

    .

    . , . .

    :

    1.

    2.

    3. (, , , , )

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    .

    .

    , , , ,

    .

    1

  • 8/11/2019 Tendering System

    2/5

    ,

    ,

    . ,

    , .

    ,

    .

    Advantages Disadvantages

    There can be no charge of favouritism as

    might be brought where a selected list is

    drawn up

    Can result in a large number of unsuitable

    firms tendering for the work

    An opportunity is provided for a capable

    firm to submit a tender, which might not be

    included on a selected list

    Can result in wasted time and effort in the

    selection process, and therefore, it can

    increase the total cost of tendering

    It is a competitive process, therefore the

    employer may get the best prices

    There is a danger that the lowest or best

    tender may be submitted by an

    inexperienced contractor

    There is no guarantee for the chosen

    contractor is sufficiently capable of

    financially stable

    ,

    .

    .

    2

    .

    ,

    . , . , .

    :

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    ,

    . ,

    , .

    .

    Advantages Disadvantages

    It tends to reduce time and effort, and

    eventually will reduce the cost of tendering

    process

    The submit prices will be higher since there

    being less competition and also due to the

    higher caliber of the tenderers

    It ensure that only capable and suitablecontractors submit their tenders

    Has produced problems of ringing(contractors phone the employer or

    consultants in order to get the project)

  • 8/11/2019 Tendering System

    3/5

    , .

    .

    , .

    , .

    , , . , .

    . ,

    .

    . ,

    ,

    . ,

    .

    ,

    , ,

    ,

    .

    , , ..

    .

    ,

    .

    3

    Advantages Disadvantages

    The system is useful where other systems

    cannot attract sufficient tenders or realistic

    prices, where a special expertise is required

    or where project costs can be reduced as a

    result of the contractor already being

    established on site

    The submit prices will be higher since there

    being less competition and also due to the

    specialist nature of the tenderers

    Modest savings in time can be achieved

    using this system

    .

    , .

    .

    . ,

    . , , ,

    .

  • 8/11/2019 Tendering System

    4/5

    .

    , , , .,

    . , ,

    .

    ,

    , .

    ( )

    .

    ,

    . .

    Advantages Disadvantages

    Avoids the need to dismantle experienced

    project teams after the completion of one

    project and allows their accumulated

    knowledge and expertise to be utilized on

    the subsequent stages

    This system can only be used if the

    employer has a substantial and an on-going

    building program where the individual

    projects are sufficiently similar in design

    Tender prices are able to be reduced as

    contractors are given continuity of work

    4

    , .

    . .

    , , , ,

    , .

    .

    ,

    , ( ).

    ( ).

    Advantages Disadvantages

    Saving in time can be achieved, early start Less competition

    Contractors early involvement will open

    more advices from practical knowledge to

    be implemented in the project

    The employer can be vulnerable to any

    change in the level of contractors pricing

    from that contained within the first stage

    tender (employer does not obtain the best

    price)

  • 8/11/2019 Tendering System

    5/5

    ,

    .

    , , .

    Cost Time Quality Performance

    Open Tendering A C C CSelective Tendering B B B B

    Negotiated Tendering B B A A

    Serial Tendering B A A A

    Two Stage Tendering C A B A

    :

    :

    :

    .

    .

    .

    , .

    , . ,

    5

    .

    ,

    .

    ,

    ,

    .

    , ... 1996. . : & .

    , ., , ., , . 2006. . :

    .


Top Related