Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJeffrey S. Russell
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T21:19:24Z
dc.date.available2017-05-08T21:19:24Z
dc.date.copyrightOctober 1990
dc.date.issued1990
dc.identifier.other%28asce%291052-3928%281990%29116%3A4%28360%29.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/47034
dc.description.abstractIn the public sector, contract awards are typically made to the “lowest responsible bidder.” This term is defined by many contract‐awarding authorities as the contractor with the lowest bid who provides the bonds required by contract. Numerous professionals believe this approach is an inefficient and ineffective means to procure construction services. This paper provides a description of the competitive‐bid process along with a more complete definition of lowest responsible bidder. The definition incorporates bid responsiveness and bidder responsibility—criteria to measure both are outlined. A review of surety bonding is presented. Agencies have been dissatisfied with contractors' performance and quality of work under traditional procurement procedures. As a result, they have investigated and developed prequalification procedures. The potential role of these procedures are presented along with a comparison between surety bonding and owner contractor prequalification. A brief discussion of prequalification versus postqualification is also described.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleSurety Bonding and Owner‐Contractor Prequalification: Comparison
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume116
dc.journal.issue4
dc.journal.titleJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1990)116:4(360)
dc.treeJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering:;1990:;Volume ( 116 ):;issue: 004
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record