Issues in Measuring Cost Growth

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen W. Tyson ◽  
Stephen J. Balut ◽  
Neang I. Om ◽  
Stephen K. Welman
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara R. Collins Collins ◽  
David C. Radley Radley ◽  
Sophie Beutel Beutel ◽  
Munira Z. Gunja Gunja
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Drezner ◽  
J. M. Jarvaise ◽  
R. W. Hess ◽  
P. G. Hough ◽  
D. Norton

Author(s):  
Larry G. Crowley ◽  
Jared L. Madewell

Public agencies generally let construction contracts to the lowest responsible, responsive bidder. In following this practice, agencies recognize there are higher risks of cost growth in awarding to either unusually low bids or to certain “claim-conscious” bidders. Despite this awareness, there are few documented studies supporting or quantifying the presence of these perceived competitive procurement risks. This research undertakes that specific task. First, bids and bidders on a sample of Alabama highway projects are grouped into risk categories by information available at the project bid opening—well in advance of any potential contract award— and without considering actual project performance data. Second, the cost growth experiences of these projects are statistically analyzed based upon these risk groupings. The results indicate that cost growth on Alabama highway projects is significantly more likely when projects are awarded to unusually low bids or to certain bidder types. A similar study performed earlier on Texas highway projects provides nearly identical results. This type of analysis and the derived information can be used by public agencies to amend the procurement process and objectively disqualify unusually low bids or questionable bidders without abandoning competitive procurement principles.


2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 559-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Branch ◽  
Mike Robinson ◽  
Glyn Jones ◽  
Nigel Mason ◽  
Jim Dixon

10.7249/mg588 ◽  
2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Obaid Younossi ◽  
Mark Arena ◽  
Robert Leonard ◽  
Charles Roll ◽  
Arvind Jain ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen J. DeNeve ◽  
Erin T. Ryan ◽  
Jonathan D. Ritschel ◽  
Christine Schubert Kabban
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark McClellan

This paper focuses on a broad movement toward a fundamentally different way of paying healthcare providers. The approach reaches beyond the old dichotomies about whether healthcare providers are reimbursed on a fee-for-service or a “capitated” or per-person payment. Instead, these reforms seek to create direct linkages between payments to healthcare providers and measures of the quality and efficiency of care. After an overview of payment reforms for healthcare providers and their welfare implications, this paper discusses a range of empirical studies. These often small-scale studies suggest that provider payment reforms in conjunction with greater attention to improving measurements of care quality and outcomes can have a significant impact on quality of care and, in some cases, resource use and costs of care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document