South Korea’s urban residential redevelopment and reconstruction sectors are facing a widening market divide, with a select few top-tier builders capturing the lion's share of high-value contracts. Industry data indicates that Hyundai Engineering & Construction (Hyundai E&C) and Samsung C&T together account for half of all major maintenance project orders valued over 1 trillion Korean won ($730 million) this year.

Market observers point out that a shrinking volume of competitive bidding has allowed these two leading contractors to cherry-pick lucrative projects, while rival builders increasingly avoid direct competition against the industry heavyweights.

The Rise of the "Big Two" Market Share

According to data compiled from top domestic construction firms, Hyundai E&C recorded 13.33 trillion won in cumulative new orders through October, while Samsung C&T reached 10.47 trillion won. This marks the second consecutive year for Hyundai E&C to cross the 10-trillion-won threshold, and a first-time milestone for Samsung C&T.

Combined, the two builders secured approximately 23.8 trillion won worth of projects, representing 50.1% of the total 47.52 trillion won garnered by the top 10 builders. This concentration has escalated rapidly from 33.0% in 2024 and 41.2% last year.

The surge in total order values has been propelled by major redevelopment initiatives in Seoul’s prime districts—collectively dubbed "Aps-Yeo-Mok-Seong" (Apgujeong, Yeouido, Mok-dong, and Seongsu)—which selected their primary contractors this year. Overall order volumes for the top 10 builders rose by over 8.1 trillion won compared to the previous year, with the Big Two capturing 93% of that growth, leaving the remaining eight major firms to share a meager 2.5% expansion.

Of the 11 major projects exceeding 1 trillion won, the two companies secured six. Notable wins for Hyundai E&C included Apgujeong District 3 (valued at 5.56 trillion won) and Mok-dong Complex 10, while Samsung C&T secured Yeouido Sibeam Apartment and Apgujeong District 4.

Why Competitive Bidding is Fading

While corporate reputation and long-standing builder rankings heavily influence these outcomes, analysts emphasize that a broader structural shift—specifically a drop in competitive bidding and an increase in private contracts via single-bid submissions—is driving the current trend.

Statistics from the first seven months of the year reveal that among 25 Seoul maintenance project sites that selected contractors, only three involved genuine competitive bidding (including Apgujeong District 5 and Seongsu District 4).

Industry professionals explain that the simultaneous flood of large-scale projects across Seoul has diversified corporate options, reducing the incentive for aggressive bidding. Furthermore, escalating construction expenses and squeezed profit margins have made builders cautious. Entering a bidding war requires substantial upfront deposits and promotional spending, which can translate into heavy sunk losses if a bid fails. Consequently, firms are opting for strict risk management through selective bidding.

Brand Value and Rival Setbacks

Brand recognition remains a critical determinant for homeowners, who often associate specific builders with superior future asset appreciation and better financial terms, such as low-interest relocation loans.

At the same time, setbacks among competitor firms have inadvertently accelerated the market polarization. For instance, POSCO E&C slipped from second to fifth place following prior safety incidents, while Hyundai Engineering suspended new housing contract operations following infrastructure mishaps, leaving it without new residential orders for two consecutive years.

Growing Concerns Among Homeowners

Despite the efficiency of securing proven contractors, the decline of competitive bidding has sparked anxiety among local housing associations. Without competing bids, homeowners lose leverage to compare costs, financial packages, and construction terms, forcing them to accept the single bidder's conditions as presented.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]