The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1472-5967.htm

Competitive
Assessment of competitive tendering
tendering methods of procuring methods
educational building projects
81
in Nigeria
O.A. Adedokun and O.T. Ibironke
Department of Quantity Surveying, The Federal University of Technology,
Akure, Nigeria, and
S.O. Babatunde
Department of Quantity Surveying, Obafemi Awolowo University,
Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess educational building projects with a view to
determining the level of utilization of competitive tendering methods, factors influencing their choice
and predisposition to risk factors, in order to ensure effective construction project delivery.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper assessed the level of utilization of competitive
tendering methods, the factors influencing their choice and finally the predisposition of each of the
methods to risk factors, adopting survey method which involved primary data, obtained by using
multiple-choice questionnaire administered to the respondents (architects, quantity surveyors,
builders, structural engineers, civil engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers).
Findings – It was found that the usage of open competitive tendering methods outweighed selective
tendering method of procurement as a result of accountability and price competition involved, which
made it predisposed to not only financial risk factors, but also political and logistics factors.
Research limitations/implications – Multiple-choice questionnaire administered to the respondents
(architects, quantity surveyors, builders, structural engineers, civil engineers, mechanical and electrical
engineers) was limited to selected institutions in the southwestern zone of Nigeria.
Practical implications – The most widely adopted method (open competitive tendering method)
suffers from risk factors such as selective but high premium being placed on financial and logistic risk
factors in order to achieve hitch-free construction project delivery. These measures will help the
stakeholders in assessing degrees of project complexity and better manage the potential risks that
might be induced to different levels of competitive tendering methods of project procurement in
relation to educational building projects.
Originality/value – This empirical investigation provides strong evidence on the procurement of
educational building projects in response to due process policy. The findings provided insightful
perspectives to define and understand project complexity. For stakeholders, understanding and
addressing the complexity help to improve project planning and implementation.
Keywords Nigeria, Construction industry, Tendering, Competitive tendering, Due process,
Educational building, Procurement, Risk factors
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Facilities Management

Vol. 11 No. 1, 2013
Introduction pp. 81-94
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The promulgation of the use of competitive tendering as a means of procuring goods 1472-5967
and services for public projects in 1999 which according to Ade-Ojo (2008) emanated DOI 10.1108/14725961311301484
JFM from economic reform going on in Nigeria. It became expedient to achieve sanity in the
11,1 public sector procurement via procurement reform and the budget monitoring and
implementation unit (BMPIU) was set up for the monitoring and implementation of the
procurement reform which is being referred to as the “Due Process” certification
(Ezenwa, 2004; Wahab, 2006).
The clamour for competitive tendering as a means of public sector procurement
82 system is not only peculiar to Nigeria because competitive bidding according to
Christodolou (2010) has remained the most widely used method in the procurement of
construction industry’s contracts. The competitive bidding as a requirement for the
procurement of construction project in Nigeria is a response technique to the risks that
are incurred due to the unguarded and uncoordinated way in which public projects
were awarded in Nigeria. The underlining factor to this is “the contractor’s
prequalification”.
The use of competitive bidding for contract award is a laudable development in the
construction industry but risk management techniques like in other fields are yet to be
well developed in the construction industry (Bing et al., 1999). Therefore, bidding
decisions are based on intuition, experience and emotional response to pressures
(Dulaimi and Shan, 2002). In Nigeria, the situation is rather undesirable considering the
economic background in which the construction industry emanates from, risks
associated with a given construction project are not adequately identified and quantified
at the pre- and post-contract stage. And more often than not, to maintain the competitive
edge in tendering, contractors do not always price all known risks adequately. This
usually result in a loss to either the contractor or the client, depending on the contractual
arrangement employed when the project is executed (Odeyinka and Iyagba, 2000;
Onukwube, 2002; Nwosu, 2003).

Competitive bidding
Competitive bidding is the means by which pricing of various services takes place
(Seydel, 2003). Bidding is the act of offering to do something or provide goods and
services for particular price (Ade-Ojo, 2008). It is also a process by which the
construction cost for a given construction work is determined. Competitive bidding
however is a situation in which more than one bid is accepted for assessment in the
award of construction contract; the award is expected to be given to the “lowest
responsible bidder”. It was the tradition for the award of public projects until 1980s when
the use of criteria began to emerge (Singh and Tiong, 2005). The circular from the Federal
Ministry of Finance of 27 June 2001 and 5 July 2002 stipulated the adoption of
competitive bidding for the award of public projects in Nigeria (Ezenwa, 2004).
Competitive bidding in the procurement of public works is meant to prevent fraud,
collusion, favouritism and improve confidence in administering public businesses.
It is expected that the public should receive the benefit of the greatest possible value for
the least expenditure (Ade-Ojo, 2008). There have been various arguments in favour of
and against the use of competitive bidding for construction projects. The bone of
contention is that it does not adequately assess engineering and consultancy projects.
Also, it is believed to place more emphasis on the lowest tender price while other
parameters are given second place in tender adjudication. This is said to be responsible
for project delivery problems. However, recent thoughts on the award of construction
contracts are advocating a shift from fee-based award criteria to value-based criteria Competitive
(Singh and Tiong, 2005). tendering
Prequalification
methods
Waara and Brochner (2006), identified prequalification as the only possible way of
protecting the capable and established firms with the client getting a more economical
job. Prequalification is usually required for large or complex works like public projects. 83
It ensures that invitation to bid is only given to the firms who have adequate
capabilities and resources to execute the project (Ade-Ojo, 2008; Aje, 2012). The
effective implementation of competitive bidding is dependent on contractors
prequalification as this serves to prevent fronting and window dressing. The
different government circulars on the implementation of the due process certification,
was summarised by Ezenwa (2004). He pointed out that the call for prequalification is
one of the major criteria for the certification of any public projects awarded. Going by
the Inter-America Development Banks Report (1997); prequalification depends on the
“ability of the potential contractors to carry out the works in satisfactory manner”. The
criteria for prequalification included in the report are: past experience and results in
similar projects, contractor’s personnel and equipment available, financial capability of
the contractor, other contracts presently being undertaken, any litigation or arbitration
from previous contracts in the last five years.

Tendering practices
Tendering is a process whereby quotation is submitted by a contractor when so
required by the client for renovation works or execution of part or complete project or
for the materials and components to be supplied by a supplier (Doloi, 2011). Tendering
is a system whereby interested parties or companies offer to build, sell goods or render
services for a consideration, in response to an invitation to do so. Generally, the whole
essence of tendering procedure according to Eriksson and Westerberg (2011) is to
select a suitable contractor at a time appropriate to the circumstances and to obtain
from him at the appropriate time, an acceptable tender or offer upon which a contract
can be let.
Tendering originated from pre-contract communication between architects and
builders (Adewoyin, 2010). By the end of the eighteenth century, the architect’s role
was consolidated into construction designer and “leader” of the project coalition, hence
establishing traditional procurement. These formative years played a leading role in
the evolution of tendering practice, affecting both the architect and the builder in terms
of preparation of pre-contract documents, evaluation of tenders and the manner of
estimating cost, time allowed and method of tender submission, respectively. Early in
the nineteenth century, the bill of quantities (BOQ) was introduced thereby becoming
the means of providing a common basis upon which contractors could compile their
bids (Chou, 2011). Holt et al. (1995) gave an account of pre 1950s construction contracts,
which were typically traditionally procured and assigned via the open tendering
system.
The report of Simon Committee (1944) recommended that tenders should only be
called from a limited number of firms carefully selected as being capable of, and likely
to do the work to standard, as it has been noted that open tendering often lead to
unscrupulous builders being awarded contracts. It was also observed that the open
JFM system of tendering was conducive to the purchase of inferior materials and speeding
11,1 up of the work, making good craftsmanship impossible. The Simon committee initiated
the move away from the open tendering and encouraged the prequalification of
contractors. The advent of the standing list therefore commenced and in the
committee’s view, formed a satisfactory basis for selecting contractors to tender.
The Latham’s (1994) report recommended that clients should base her choice of
84 contractor on value for money with proper weighting of selection criteria for skill,
experience and previous performance rather than accepting the lowest tender
(Holt et al., 1995). Holt et al. (1995) stated that 87 per cent of clients base their selection
decisions on price. They also pointed out that bid selection is nearly always based on
lowest tender but this may not always be the most economical solution in the long
term. The tender process should obtain for the client the most competitive price for the
construction at prevalent market condition (Williamson et al., 2004).

Tendering methods
Ramus and Phil (2006) opines that the selection of a contractor to carry out a
construction project is an important matter requiring careful thought. The selection
process itself is not an easy task as the decision may result in the success or failure of
the entire project. A particular contracting organisation will be geared to work for a
particular size or price range and will be unsuitable or uneconomical for the contracts
outside that range. In Nigeria, it is generally believed that wrong tendering practice is a
major contributor to the construction industry’s inefficiency (Ayeni, 1997).

Open tendering
Open tendering is usually initiated by the client making advertisement in local
newspapers and or technical press; inviting contractors to apply for tender in documents
and to tender in competition for carrying out the work (Mathonsi and Thwala, 2012).
In order to reduce the number of tenderers and to discourage frivolous applications,
a condition: that is a sum of money, which is non-refundable, is to be deposited (Ayeni,
1997). The deposit is also intended to cover the cost of producing the tender documents.
In Nigeria, the basic situations where open tendering methods are used are on
government or parastatals projects which are financed with public money; hence they
are advertised and tendered for. Adewoyin (2010) and Ngai et al. (2002), opined that
open tendering system gives room for accountability and eliminates the charge of
favouritism as might be brought where selected list is drawn up.
The account of open tendering as posited by Ayeni (1997), places all unknown
contractors on the pedestal of becoming known, culminated with the fact that there is a
wide range of selection which forces the price down (Chang and Ivy, 2002). It also
eliminates the formation of ring or cartels among the contractors tendering (Chinyo, 2011).
This type of tendering also guarantees public accountability and it is an opportunity to
get genuine tenderers who are actually interested in the project (Chinyo, 2011).
Open tendering system increases the total cost of tendering as all tenderers would
have to recoup their cost eventually through those tenders that are successful. The
result can be an increase in the general level of construction costs. There is also the
danger that the lowest tender may be submitted by a firm in-experienced in preparing
tenders (particularly if bills of quantities are used) and whose tender is only lowest as a
consequence of having made the most of the largest errors.
Selective tendering Competitive
The practice here is to draw up a short list of contractors who are considered subject to tendering
carry out the proposed project, while three or four may be sufficient for a small job
(Adewoyin, 2010; Aje, 2012), others may require up to six or more on larger jobs. The methods
number of contractors should be limited to between five and eight depending on the
size of the contract. The three ways in which selective tendering lists could be drawn
up are: 85
(1) an advertisement may produce several interested contractors and suitable firms
are selected to tender;
(2) the consultant may contact those they wish to put on an ad hoc list; and
(3) many local authorities and national bodies keep approved lists of contractors in
certain categories such as type of work and cost range.

Ofong (1999) suggests that in drawing up list of tenderers (which should be reviewed
periodically); attention should be paid to the character and size of the project. It is also
desirable to look at the following aspect of the firms:
.
the standard of workmanship;
.
the equipment, such as plant and machineries possessed by the firm, the size of
the pay roll and the degree to which the firm sub-lets part of their previous work;
. the business records and standards – for example, whether the completion dates
are met and whether there is any regular difficulty over supervision of quality or
final settlements;
.
the financial stability and the length of time in business;
.
the capacity available in relation to current work load; and
.
the willingness to tender.

Selective tendering makes good many of the deficiencies of open tendering (Adewoyin,
2010), especially as it provides a restricted but adequate list of technically suitable and
sound firms of comparable standing, capable of carrying out the projects in a reliable
manner. Also, the standard of the firms and that of their workmanship and
performance will on the average be higher and the aggregate cost of tendering is
reduced. There is also, a basic standard since contractors must have met the
prequalification requested before being invited to tender (Huang, 2011).
With selective tendering, Ofong (1999) opined that high tender quotations may be
obtained, apparently being less competitive among the selected few. Tenders may also
be “rigged” and inflated by collusion if the firms get to know the probable limits of
tendering list in a particular area. High tendering may also occur if the selected firms
consider it impolite to decline the invitation to a tender and as a result put in tenders
which are either so high as to put them out of the running list or sufficiently high
enough to ensure that if they secure the job, they will do so on really attractive terms.

Risks connected with competitive bidding

Bidding is the act of offering to do something or to provide something: services or goods
for a particular price as noted by Ade-Ojo (2008). Bidding is also a process by which the
construction cost for a given construction work is determined. In the preparation of a bid,
JFM the estimated cost is adjusted by the addition of mark-up to cater for risks, overheads
11,1 and profit (Harris and McCaffer, 1995), the assessment of these conditions vary from
company to company. The difference in mark-up determines the bidding outcome and
subsequently the survival, growth and profitability of the contracting organisation
(Hou et al., 2011). Bidding decisions on intuition, past experiences and profitability is
usually risky and do not ensure reliable bidding and profitability. Perng et al. (2006)
86 opined that the use of the “Economically Most Advantageous Tender” (EMAT) offers
cost competition which usually produces lower mark-up resulting in lower profit to the
contractor.
A bid is competitive enough as long as its mark-up is such that will qualify it for the
award of the contract (Harris and McCaffer, 1995). The competitiveness of a bid (i.e. the
ability to win the contract at a profit) depends on the level of accuracy of the estimate
and the number of competitions involved. Shen et al. (2006) identified five major groups
of competitive indicators. A summary of the key indicators was presented as social
influence, technical ability and accounting status, marketing ability, management
skills, organizational structure and operations. The bidding process is basically the
determination of a contractors mark-up or margin. One major factor in the
determination of the bid is the degree of risk inherent in the project. The riskiness of a
construction contract depends on the form of contract adopted by the client. The bid is
not only dependent on the cost of labour, plant and materials but also according to the
degree of responsibility the contract places on the contractor and the terms of payment.
Therefore, the degree of risk borne by the parties is determined by the contractual
arrangement (Ade-Ojo, 2008).

Research methods
The study adopted the survey method and data were collected from both primary and
secondary sources. The primary source of data collection was achieved through
structured questionnaires that were administered to all the professionals within the
study area while the secondary was accomplished via consultation made to
documentary evidences such as original bills of quantities, valuation certificates and
the final certificates relating to the completed educational building projects that were
procured under competitive tendering due to great deal of technical information
required in relation to cost and time. Statistical tools used included percentiles, mean
item score, correlation and t-test.

Data presentation and analysis

Out of the 40 questionnaires administered, 27 were filled and returned out of which
25 were found fit for analysis in order to obtain homogeneity of results and this
represented 62.50 per cent of the total questionnaire sent out which is considered
sufficient for the study base on the assertion of Oke and Ogunsemi (2009) that the
result of a survey could be considered biased and of little significance if the return rate
was lower than 20-30 per cent.
From Table I, it can be seen that majority of the respondents in this case are quantity
surveyors with 24 per cent and was closely followed by 20 per cent quota, represented by
the structural engineers. The architects represented 16 per cent, while mechanical,
electrical engineers and builders are 12 per cent each and least represented was civil
engineer with 4 per cent. The breakdown of each of the respondents shows that six of the
 Competitive
Category Classification Frequency %
tendering
Profession of respondents Quantity surveying 6 24.00 methods
Architecture 4 16.00
Building 3 12.00
Engineering 12 48.00
Total 25 100.00 87
Year of working experience 0-5 2 8.00
6-10 11 44.00
11-15 5 20.00
16-20 3 12.00
21-30 4 16.00
Mean 12.56 Total 100.00
Professional body of affiliation NIQS 6 24.00
NIA 4 16.00
NIOB 3 12.00
NSE 12 48.00
Total 25 100.00
Professional membership type Probationer 4 16.00
Corporate 21 84.64
Fellow 0 0.00
Total 25 100.00
Highest academic qualification obtained HND 1 4.00
BSc/BTech/BEng 10 40.00
Pgd 6 24.00 Table I.
MSc/MTech 8 32.00 Summary of
PhD 0 0.00 characteristics of
Total 25 100.00 respondents

quantity surveyors are affiliated to the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS),
48 per cent representing 12 numbers of the engineers are affiliated to Nigerian Society of
Engineers (NSE) while four numbers of the architects and three of builders are to
Nigerian Institute of Architect (NIA) and Nigerian Institute of Building (NIOB),
respectively. 84 per cent of the respondents are corporate members of their respective
professional bodies while the remaining 16 per cent are still probationer member.
Analysis of Table I further reveals that the respondents holding BSc/BTech/BEng
qualification took 40 per cent and closely followed by respondents with additional
higher qualification of MSc representing 32 per cent, while the third category has Pgd
certificates as their highest qualification obtained with 24 and 4 per cent having HND
as highest qualification.
As for the years of working experience possessed by the respondents, it can be seen
that most of the respondents are within six to ten years of experience. On the average,
none of the respondents is having less than 13 years of working experience and the
information supplied by this category of professionals are considered adequate and
reliable for this analysis.
Table II shows that six of the respondents which amounted to 24 per cent have
executed projects above 18, 20 per cent of them as well recorded 13 projects awarded
and 12 per cent accounted for more than three projects. On the whole, 16 projects have
been executed by the respondents under open competitive tendering methods.
JFM From Table III, it can be inferred that six of the respondents which amounted to
11,1 24 per cent have executed three projects, 12 per cent of them as well recorded eight
projects awarded and 8 per cent accounted for 25 projects. On the average, nine
projects have been executed by the respondents under selective competitive tendering
methods.
From Table IV, it shows that of the two competitive tendering methods under study,
88 open tendering methods were given credence as its level of utilization is ranked first
(mean score ¼ 4.52) while selective tendering ranked second (MS ¼ 2.76).
At the instance of Table V, it reveals that quality level, enhances accountability and
price competition ranked first, second and third as the germane bases for choosing and
adopting open competitive tendering method on construction projects execution as
against quality level, speedy execution of the project and responsibility in adopting
selective competitive tendering method while the least ranked factors according to the
analysis of the response from the respondents show flexibility for change in the design
and construction, complexity of the project and risk avoidance are tenth, 11th and 12th
(MS ¼ 3.32, 3.20 and 3.04), respectively, under open tendering methods and the factors;
enhances value for money, innovative ideas from consultants and flexibility for
change in the design and construction for projects under selective tendering method.

Project range Mid-point Frequency Percentage

1-5 3 3 12.00
6-10 8 3 12.00
11-15 13 5 20.00
Table II. 16-20 18 6 24.00
Number of projects 21-25 23 2 8.00
awarded under open Over 25 25 6 24.00
competitive tendering Mean 16.08
method Total 25 100.00

Project range Mid-point Frequency Percentage

1-5 3 6 24.00
6-10 8 3 12.00
11-15 13 1 4.00
16-20 18 1 4.00
Table III. 21-25 23 0 0.00
Number of projects Over 25 25 2 8.00
awarded under selective Mean 9.46
competitive tendering Missing values 48.00
methods Total 13 100.00

Table IV. Competitive tendering methods Mean Rank

Level of utilization of
competitive tendering Open tendering 4.52 1
methods Selective tendering 2.76 2
 Competitive
Competitive tendering methods
Open Selective tendering
Factors Mean Rank Mean Rank methods
Quality level 4.20 1 3.80 1
Enhances accountability 4.04 2 3.44 7
Price competition 4.04 3 3.60 4 89
Responsibility 3.96 4 3.68 3
Enhances value for money 3.96 5 3.24 10
Speedy execution of project 3.72 6 3.80 1
Certainty over the cost of project completion 3.68 7 3.48 5
Innovative advice from consultants 3.60 8 3.28 11
Avoidance of dispute and arbitration 3.40 9 3.36 8 Table V.
Flexibility for change in the design and construction 3.32 10 3.00 12 Factors influencing the
Complexity of the project 3.20 11 3.48 5 choice of competitive
Risk avoidance 3.04 12 3.36 8 tendering methods

Despite all the differences, quality is vital to the two competitive tendering methods as
it ranked first in both cases.
On the bases for choosing competitive tendering methods, the following hypothesis
was tested:
Null hypothesis (H0). There is no significant difference on the bases for
choosing open and selective tendering methods.
Alternative hypothesis (H1). There is significant difference on the bases for
choosing open and selective tendering methods.
Decision. From the forgoing analysis carried out in Table VI, t-critical , t-cal
( p-value , 0.05), hence the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis
which states that there is a significant difference on the bases for choosing open and
selective tendering methods is accepted.
Account of Table VII shows that open tendering methods are frequently susceptible
to financial, political and logistics risk factors as they ranked first, second, and third
with mean score of 3.08, 3.00 and 2.84, respectively, while selective tendering method is
more predisposed to financial, logistics and contractual risk sources as the first three

Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 3.68 3.46

Variance 0.1402 0.0557
Observations 12 12
Pearson correlation 0.510180423
Hypothesized mean difference 0
Df 11
t-stat. 2.3436 Table VI.
P(T # t) one-tail 0.0195 Test of significance for
t-Critical one-tail 1.7959 the basis for choosing
P(T # t) two-tail 0.0389 competitive tendering
t-Critical two-tail 2.2010 methods
JFM germane risk (MS ¼ 3.04, 2.80, and 2.64), respectively. The least occurring risk factor:
11,1 physical, under open tendering ranked seven (MS ¼ 2.60) and this tied with selective
tendering method but with MS ¼ 2.40.
On the bases of susceptibility of competitive tendering methods to risk factors, the
following hypothesis was tested:
Null hypothesis (H0). There is no significant difference on the susceptibility
90 of open and selective tendering methods to risk factors.
Alternative hypothesis (H1). There is significant difference on the susceptibility of
open and selective tendering methods to risk factors.
Decision. From the forgoing analysis carried out in Table VIII, t-critical , t-cal
( p-value , 0.05), hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis
which states that there is a significant difference on the susceptibility of open and
selective tendering methods to risk factors is accepted.

Discussion of findings
Table IV shows that of the two tendering methods identified, the level of utilization for
open tendering is far higher than selective tendering on educational building projects
and this closely followed the assertion of Adewoyin (2010), Ngai et al. (2002), Ade-Ojo
(2008), Ezenwa (2004) and Wahab (2006) that they are used on government projects
which are financed with public money such that there could be accountability and

Competitive tendering methods

Open Selective
Factors Mean Rank Mean Rank

Financial 3.08 1 3.04 1

Political 3.00 2 2.60 4
Logistic 2.84 3 2.80 2
Table VII. Environmental 2.80 4 2.44 6
Proneness of risk Contractual 2.76 5 2.64 3
factors to competitive Legal 2.68 6 2.60 4
tendering methods Physical 2.60 7 2.40 7

Variable 1 Variable 2

Mean 2.8229 2.6457

Variance 0.0287 0.0477
Observations 7 7
Pearson correlation 0.7308
Hypothesized mean difference 0
Df 6
Table VIII. t-stat. 3.1368
Test of significance P(T # t) one-tail 0.0101
for susceptibility of t-Critical one-tail 1.9432
competitive tendering P(T # t) two-tail 0.0201
methods to risk factors t-Critical two-tail 2.4469
eliminates the charge of favoritism. On the average, 16 construction projects were Competitive
awarded using open tendering method while under selective arrangement; average of tendering
nine construction projects was awarded.
For projects awarded under open tendering method, the basis upon which it was methods
chosen includes, quality level, enhancement of accountability and price competition
(Table V) because these factors were highly ranked by the respondents and all these
are in line with USAID (2001) that procurement reform for public goods and services 91
should have distinct considerations for integrity, accountability, national interest and
effectiveness while Wittig (1999) and Wahab (2006) added that such procurement
policies should include competition and transparency. Selective tendering methods
should as well ensure speedy execution of project, quality level and responsibility.
Despite the fact that the two tendering methods have quality level in common, it was
revealed that there is a significant difference in the basis of choosing the type of
competitive tendering methods (Table VI).
Analysis of Table VII indicated that financial risk factor is germane to both open
and selective tendering methods and could impair any construction projects. Dada
(2010) also ranked financial risk factor first in affecting effective construction project
delivery after reviewing myriad of authors. Others included political and logistics for
open tendering method while logistics and contractual are peculiar to selective
tendering method. These risk factors could be internal or external (Wang and Liu,
2004; Adedokun, 2012) or controllable and non-controllable (Windapo et al., 2010;
Adedokun, 2012). The perception of the respondents are such that there is significant
difference on degree of occurrence of risk factors on construction projects procured
under any of open or selective tendering methods as in Table VIII.

Conclusion
This paper assessed the predisposition of educational building projects to competitive
tendering methods of project delivery in Nigeria upon which the following conclusions
were made.
The use of open tendering was given high preference over selective tendering
method during the award and execution of educational building projects in the study
area.
Second, the factors influencing the choice of competitive tendering methods
included: quality level, accountability, price competition, speedy execution of projects
and responsibility.
Third, construction projects procured under any of the competitive tendering
methods are predisposed to financial, political and logistics risk factors.

Recommendations
From the outcome of the study, it is hereby recommended that despite wide acceptance
and high level of utilization accorded open tendering method in the procurement of
public projects, selective tendering method should also be considered so as to know the
level of compliance of each with the enabling policy in Nigeria.
The use of quality level, accountability, price competition, speedy execution of
projects and responsibility should not only be considered in choosing the tendering
method to be adopted but the totality of other factors as they can as well bear on the
overall project delivery.
JFM Risk factors in construction projects should be well analyzed before embarking on
11,1 any construction projects and adequate attention must be paid not only to financial
risk factors as it cuts across the two competitive tendering methods but also political
and logistics risks.

92 References
Adedokun, O.A. (2012), “Evaluation of risk analysis techniques in selected large construction
companies in Nigeria”, An unpublished Mtech thesis Submitted to Department of Quantity
Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Ade-Ojo, C.O. (2008), “Assessment of risks associated with construction projects under the due
process policy in Nigeria”, An unpublished Mtech thesis Submitted to Department of
Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Adewoyin, A.E. (2010), “Evaluation of procurement methods in Nigerian construction industry”,
PGD thesis Submitted to the Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University,
Akure, Nigeria.
Aje, I. (2012), “The impact of contractor’s prequalification on construction project delivery in
Nigeria”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 159-72.
Ayeni, J.O. (1997), Principles of Tendering and Estimating, 2nd ed., Builders Magazine, Lagos.
Bing, B.L., Tiong, R.L., Fan, W.W. and Chew, D.A. (1999), “Risk management in international
construction joint ventures”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
July/August, p. 227.
Chang, C. and Ivy, G. (2002), “Rethinking the multi-attribute utility approach based procurement
route selection technique”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 275-84.
Chinyo, E. (2011), “The cost of tendering”, Proceedings of Engineering Project Organizations
Conference, Estes Park, Colorado on August 9-11, pp. 1-19.
Chou, J. (2011), “Cost simulation in an item based project involving construction engineering and
management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 706-17.
Christodolou, S. (2010), “Bid mark-up selection using artificial neural networks and an entropy
metric”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 424-39.
Dada, O.J. (2010), “Strategies for mitigating risk in construction projects”, The Proceedings of the
40th Annual General Meeting/Conference, Organized by the Nigerian Institute of Building,
Asaba, Delta State, July 7-11.
Doloi, H.K. (2011), “Understanding stakeholder’s perspective of cost estimation in project
management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 622-36.
Dulaimi, M.F. and Shan, H.G. (2002), “The factors influencing bid mark-up decisions of large and
medium-size contractors in Singapore”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20,
pp. 601-10.
Eriksson, P.E. and Westerberg, M. (2011), “Effects of cooperative procurement procedures on
construction project performance: a conceptual framework”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 29, pp. 197-208.
Ezenwa, O.F. (2004), “Project procurement method in due process on how to execute capital
projects effectively”, paper presented at the Technical Meeting of the Department of
Physical Planning and Development, Abuja.
Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (1995), Modern Construction Management, 3rd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Holt, G.D., Olomolaiye, P.O. and Harris, F.C. (1995), “A review of contractors selection practice in Competitive
the UK construction industry”, Building and Environment, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 553-61.
tendering
Hou, W., Shan, X. and Ye, X. (2011), “A model for bidding mark-up decisions making based-on
agent learning”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 80, pp. 642-5. methods
Huang, X. (2011), “An average analysis of the selection of project contractor in the construction
management process”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 184-9. 93
Inter-America Development Banks Report (1997), Annual Report of the Evaluation Office for
1997, available at: www.iadb.org/cont/evo/re/re230e-97/re230eindex.htm (accessed
January 22, 2012).
Latham, M. (1994), “Constructing the team. Joint review of procurement and contractual
arrangements in the United Kingdom construction industry”, available at: www.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Latham_Report (accessed September 7, 2011).
Mathonsi, M.D. and Thwala, W.D. (2012), “Factors influencing the selection of procurement
systems in the South African construction industry”, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 3583-94.
Ngai, S.C., Drew, D.S., Lo, H.P. and Skitmore, M. (2002), “A theoretical framework for
determining the minimum number of bidders in construction bidding competitions”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 473-82.
Nwosu, C.C.C. (2003), “‘High cost of building in Nigeria’ factors responsible and remedies”,
The Quantity Surveyor, Vol. 44, p. 18.
Odeyinka, H.A. and Iyagba, R. (2000), “Risk management in construction to avoid cost overrun”,
The Quantity Surveyors, Vol. 31, pp. 14-21.
Oke, A.E. and Ogunsemi, D.R. (2009), “Competencies of quantity surveyors as value managers in
a developing economy”, The Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal
Institutions of Chattered Surveyor, pp. 23-38.
Onukwube, H.N. (2002), “An evaluation of factors which influence tender prices of building
works in Nigeria”, The Quantity Surveyor, Vol. 40, p. 28.
Perng, Y., Juan, Y. and Chien, S. (2006), “Exploring the bidding situation for economically most
advantageous tender projects using a bidding game”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 132 No. 10, pp. 1037-42.
Ramus, J. and Phil, G. (2006), Contract Practice for Surveyors, 4th ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Seydel, J. (2003), “Evaluating and comparing bidding optimization effectiveness”, Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 285-92.
Shen, L., Lu, W. and Yam, M.C.H. (2006), “Contractor key competitiveness indicators: a China
study”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 4, pp. 416-24.
Simon Committee (1944), available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470758526.
fmatter/summary (accessed January 25, 2012).
Singh, D. and Tiong, R.L.K. (2005), “A fuzzy decision frame work for contractor selection”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 62-70.
USAID (2001), “Economic management and capacity building (EMCAP)”, available at: www.
usaid.gov/pubs/bj2001/afr/ng (accessed June 19, 2011).
Waara, F. and Brochner, J. (2006), “Price and non-price criteria for contractor selection”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 8, pp. 797-804.
JFM Wahab, K.A. (2006), “Federal government economic reforms, human development and due
process”, paper presented at the 1st Annual Lecture of the School of Environmental
11,1 Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria.
Wang, J.Y. and Liu, C.L. (2004), Risk Management for Construction Projects, China Water
Publication, Beijing.
Williamson, M., Wilson, O.D., Skitmore, R.M. and Runeson, G. (2004), “Client abuses of the
94 competitive tendering system: some general principles and a case study”, Journal of
Construction Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Windapo, A.O., Omeife, C. and Wahab, L.A. (2010), “Stakeholder’s perception of key risks in oil
and gas construction projects”, The Proceedings of the 40th Annual General
Meeting/Conference, Organized by the Nigerian Institute of Building, Asaba, Delta State,
July 7-11.
Wittig, A.W. (1999), “Building value through public procurement: a focus on Africa”, papers
presented at the 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Geneva, Switzerland,
available at: www.transparency.or/iacc/9th-iacc/papers (accessed August 7, 2011).

Corresponding author
O.A. Adedokun can be contacted at: fisayoadedokun@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints