IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/20082.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Split-award auctions and supply disruptions

Author

Listed:
  • Fugger, Nicolas
  • Laitenberger, Ulrich

Abstract

Problem Definition: We consider a buyer that needs to source a fixed quantity. She faces several potential suppliers that might fail to deliver. The buyer conducts a procurement auction to determine contract suppliers and can choose between single-sourcing and multi-sourcing. If contract suppliers fail to deliver, the buyer tries to source from non-contract suppliers but has little bargaining power due to time pressure. Academic/Practical Relevance: The mitigation of supply risks plays an important role in procurement practice but attracted little attention in the academic analysis of procurement auctions. Academic research on multi-sourcing procurement auction typically analyzes these auctions as stand-alone events. In contrast, we investigate the influence of the auction design on the post-auction market structure and identify an effect favoring multi-sourcing. The insights provide procurement managers guidance for their sourcing decisions. Methodology: We apply game-theoretical methods to analyze a stylized model in which a cost-minimizing buyer needs to source from profit-maximizing suppliers who might fail to deliver. The buyer conducts a procurement auction to determine contract suppliers and can choose between single-sourcing and multi-sourcing. If contract suppliers fail to deliver, the buyer tries to source from a non-contract supplier. We assume that in this situation, the non-contract supplier has almost all the bargaining power. Results: First, we show that in such a setting multi-sourcing does not only reduce the supply risk but might also yield lower prices than single-sourcing. The sourcing decision affects the post-auction market structure such that being a non-contract supplier becomes less attractive in case of multi-sourcing. Second, if suppliers are heterogeneous regarding their disruption probabilities, less reliable suppliers will bid more aggressively than their more reliable competitors causing an adverse selection problem. Furthermore, we show that attracting an additional supplier can be risky as it can increase the auction price and the buyer's total expenses. Managerial Implications: Our analysis reveals a pro-competitive effect of multi-sourcing. This effect is especially important if the buyer's value for the item is substantially larger than suppliers' production costs and for intermediate disruption probabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Fugger, Nicolas & Laitenberger, Ulrich, 2020. "Split-award auctions and supply disruptions," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-082, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:20082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/228443/1/1743522428.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yeon-Koo Che, 1993. "Design Competition through Multidimensional Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(4), pages 668-680, Winter.
    2. Gong, Jiong & Li, Jianpei & McAfee, R. Preston, 2012. "Split-award contracts with investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 188-197.
    3. Martin K. Perry & József Sákovics, 2003. "Auctions for Split‐Award Contracts," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 215-242, June.
    4. Anton, James J. & Brusco, Sandro & Lopomo, Giuseppe, 2010. "Split-award procurement auctions with uncertain scale economies: Theory and data," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 24-41, May.
    5. Volodymyr Babich & Apostolos N. Burnetas & Peter H. Ritchken, 2007. "Competition and Diversification Effects in Supply Chains with Supplier Default Risk," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-146, October.
    6. Engelbrecht-Wiggans, Richard, 1988. "Revenue equivalence in multi-object auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 15-19.
    7. Dasgupta, Sudipto & Spulber, Daniel F., 1989. "Managing procurement auctions," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 5-29.
    8. Chaturvedi, Aadhaar, 2015. "Procurement auctions with capacity constrained suppliers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 987-995.
    9. Aadhaar Chaturvedi & Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz, 2011. "Optimal Procurement Design in the Presence of Supply Risk," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 227-243, May.
    10. Sudhindra Seshadri & Kalyan Chatterjee & Gary L. Lilien, 1991. "Multiple Source Procurement Competitions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 246-263.
    11. Wambach, Achim, 2002. "A simple result for the revenue in share auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 405-408, May.
    12. Robert Wilson, 1979. "Auctions of Shares," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(4), pages 675-689.
    13. Yu, Haisheng & Zeng, Amy Z. & Zhao, Lindu, 2009. "Single or dual sourcing: decision-making in the presence of supply chain disruption risks," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 788-800, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bru, Lluís & Cardona, Daniel & Sákovics, József, 2023. "Block sourcing plus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(3), pages 1130-1140.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2019. "Dual sourcing with price discovery," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 225-246.
    2. Jose Alcalde & Matthias Dahm, 2016. "Proportional payoffs in legislative bargaining with weighted voting: a characterization," Discussion Papers 2016-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    3. Aadhaar Chaturvedi & Damian R. Beil & Victor Martínez-de-Albéniz, 2014. "Split-Award Auctions for Supplier Retention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1719-1737, July.
    4. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2013. "Competition for procurement shares," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 193-208.
    5. Lauton, Felix & Rothkopf, Alexander & Pibernik, Richard, 2019. "The value of entrant manufacturers: A study of competition and risk for donor-funded procurement of essential medicines," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 292-312.
    6. Tunay I. Tunca & Qiong Wu, 2009. "Multiple Sourcing and Procurement Process Selection with Bidding Events," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 763-780, May.
    7. Jie Xiang & Juliang Zhang & T. C. E. Cheng & Jose Maria Sallan & Guowei Hua, 2019. "Efficient Multi-Attribute Auctions Considering Supply Disruption," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 36(03), pages 1-28, June.
    8. Zhibin (Ben) Yang & Göker Aydın & Volodymyr Babich & Damian R. Beil, 2012. "Using a Dual-Sourcing Option in the Presence of Asymmetric Information About Supplier Reliability: Competition vs. Diversification," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 202-217, April.
    9. Armstrong, Mark & Sappington, David E.M., 2007. "Recent Developments in the Theory of Regulation," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1557-1700, Elsevier.
    10. Mats A. Bergman & David Granlund & Niklas Rudholm, 2017. "Squeezing the Last Drop Out of Your Suppliers: An Empirical Study of Market-Based Purchasing Policies for Generic Pharmaceuticals," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(6), pages 969-996, December.
    11. Gong, Jiong & Li, Jianpei & McAfee, R. Preston, 2012. "Split-award contracts with investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 188-197.
    12. Thomas Giebe & Paul Schweinzer, 2015. "Probabilistic procurement auctions," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(1), pages 25-46, March.
    13. Kenju Akai & Shigehiro Serizawa, 2009. "Auctions for Public Construction with Corner-cutting," ISER Discussion Paper 0740r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Jul 2010.
    14. Gian Luigi Albano & Federico Dini & Roberto Zampino, 2008. "Bidding for Complex Projects: Evidence From the Acquisitions of IT Services," Working Papers 2008.86, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Lawrence M. Ausubel & Peter Cramton & Marek Pycia & Marzena Rostek & Marek Weretka, 2014. "Demand Reduction and Inefficiency in Multi-Unit Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1366-1400.
    16. Shanshan Guo & Lei Zhao & Xiaowei Xu, 2016. "Impact of supply risks on procurement decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 241(1), pages 411-430, June.
    17. Giebe, Thomas, 2014. "Innovation contests with entry auction," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 165-176.
    18. Lea Cassar, 2014. "Optimal contracting with endogenous project mission," ECON - Working Papers 150, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2014.
    19. Yim, Andrew, 2010. "Quality Cost and Failure Risk in the Choice of Single versus Multiple Sourcing," MPRA Paper 27858, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Gao, Long, 2015. "Collaborative forecasting, inventory hedging and contract coordination in dynamic supply risk management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 133-145.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Adverse selection; auctions; multi-sourcing; supply disruptions; procurement;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:zewdip:20082. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.