Collaborative Dialogue During the Pre-Tendering Phase to Maximize Project Value Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction industry has widely adopted traditional project delivery methods, such as design-bid-build, to develop conventional construction projects, where only one main contractor is granted the project contract.Selecting only one main contractor for the project results in the waste of valuable ideas coming from the rest of the bidders who participated in the tendering process but did not win the bid.These ideas, coming from the contractors that lost the bid, are usually not considered during the project execution, even though they could increase the value of a project, shorten the schedule, and reduce costs.As an alternative to solve the current gap of lost creativity and ideas coming from contractors that were not awarded the project contract, this study will explore the workarounds to promote partnership between key stakeholders during the pre-tendering phase by involving multiple contractors instead of a single construction project, to develop innovative ideas that could maximize the value of a construction project.The importance of collaboration and co-creation of value is widely emphasized in lean construction.Experts in the construction industry with a background in collaborative delivery were surveyed and interviewed to understand their opinion on the proposed topic.The experts from both backgrounds concluded that involving multiple contractors instead of just one main contractor is a feasible idea, but it will take effort from all the stakeholders to compromise on this type of agreement.The benefits and constraints of implementing collaborative dialogue are further discussed in the following sections of this study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".