IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v18y2016i04ns021919891650016x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Procurement (Reverse) Auctions Where Service Providers have Official Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Yigal Gerchak

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel)

Abstract

We consider service providers (e.g., contractors) who bid for undertaking a large project — reverse auctions. As there is a risk that the lowest bidder will not be able to complete the project on budget or time, the customer, often a government agency, wishes to incorporate prior information on the bidders reliabilities into the choice of winning bid. We consider the use of official ratings of bidders, which are common knowledge. The customer is assumed to select the bidder for which the ratio of bid to rating is the lowest. A bidder assumes that each other bidder’s bid is the sum of its private value, the ratio of this value to its rating and the inverse of the rating. We characterize the equilibrium bids of two bidders, of n symmetric bidders and of three nonsymmetric bidders, and provide comparative statics and examples. We also discuss a scenario where all ratings are known only to the customer, and each bidder knows only its own rating.

Suggested Citation

  • Yigal Gerchak, 2016. "Procurement (Reverse) Auctions Where Service Providers have Official Ratings," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(04), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:18:y:2016:i:04:n:s021919891650016x
    DOI: 10.1142/S021919891650016X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021919891650016X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S021919891650016X?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory E. Kersten, 2014. "Multiattribute Procurement Auctions: Efficiency and Social Welfare in Theory and Practice," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 215-232, December.
    2. Jens Leth Hougaard & Kurt Nielsen & Athanasios Papakonstantinou, 2013. "A Multi-attribute Yardstick Auction without Prior Scoring," MSAP Working Paper Series 02_2013, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, revised Mar 2014.
    3. Leonardo Rezende, 2009. "Biased procurement auctions," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 38(1), pages 169-185, January.
    4. Natalia Santamaría, 2015. "An Analysis of Scoring and Buyer-Determined Procurement Auctions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(1), pages 147-158, January.
    5. Zheng, Charles Z., 2001. "High Bids and Broke Winners," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 129-171, September.
    6. Wei-Shiun Chang & Bo Chen & Timothy C. Salmon, 2015. "An Investigation of the Average Bid Mechanism for Procurement Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1237-1254, June.
    7. Jens Leth Hougaard & Kurt Nielsen & Athanasios Papakonstantinou, 2016. "A Sealed-Bid Two-Attribute Yardstick Auction Without Prior Scoring," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 827-843, July.
    8. Wedad J. Elmaghraby & Elena Katok & Natalia Santamaría, 2012. "A Laboratory Investigation of Rank Feedback in Procurement Auctions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 128-144, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stefano Galavotti & Luigi Moretti & Paola Valbonesi, 2018. "Sophisticated Bidders in Beauty-Contest Auctions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Tunay I. Tunca & D. J. Wu & Fang (Vivian) Zhong, 2014. "An Empirical Analysis of Price, Quality, and Incumbency in Procurement Auctions," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 346-364, July.
    3. Karca D. Aral & Damian R. Beil & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2021. "Supplier Sustainability Assessments in Total‐Cost Auctions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(4), pages 902-920, April.
    4. Lamping, Jennifer, 2007. "The Value of Information in Auctions with Default Risk," MPRA Paper 24375, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Arve, Malin, 2014. "Procurement and predation: Dynamic sourcing from financially constrained suppliers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 157-168.
    6. Ottorino Chillemi & Claudio Mezzetti, 2014. "Optimal procurement mechanisms: bidding on price and damages for breach," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 55(2), pages 335-355, February.
    7. Lagziel, David, 2019. "Credit auctions and bid caps," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 416-422.
    8. Albano, Gian Luigi & Cipollone, Angela & Paolo, Roberto Di & Ponti, Giovanni & Sparro, Marco, 2024. "Scoring rules in experimental procurement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. John Asker & Estelle Cantillon, 2008. "Properties of scoring auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 69-85, March.
    10. A. Talman & Zaifu Yang, 2015. "An efficient multi-item dynamic auction with budget constrained bidders," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(3), pages 769-784, August.
    11. Burguet, Roberto & Ganuza, Juan-José & Hauk, Esther, 2012. "Limited liability and mechanism design in procurement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 15-25.
    12. Quintero Jaramillo, Jose E., 2004. "Liquidity constraints and credit subsidies in auctions," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb040604, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    13. Campo, Sandra, 2012. "Risk aversion and asymmetry in procurement auctions: Identification, estimation and application to construction procurements," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 168(1), pages 96-107.
    14. Niklas Klarnskou & Philippos Louis & Wouter Passtoors, 2024. "Feedback and Competition in Procurement e-Auctions," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 04-2024, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    15. Gerard van der Laan & Zaifu Yang, 2016. "An ascending multi-item auction with financially constrained bidders," The Journal of Mechanism and Institution Design, Society for the Promotion of Mechanism and Institution Design, University of York, vol. 1(1), pages 109-149, December.
    16. Domenico Colucci & Nicola Doni & Vincenzo Valori, 2015. "Information policies in procurement auctions with heterogeneous suppliers," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 211-238, April.
    17. Meng Zhang & Shulin Liu, 2022. "Effects of risk aversion in auctions without and with default," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(3), pages 731-737, April.
    18. Selcuk, Cemil, 2011. "Trading mechanism selection with budget constraints," MPRA Paper 36227, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ingebretsen Carlson, Jim & Wu, Tingting, 2022. "Shill bidding and information in eBay auctions: A Laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 341-360.
    20. Wei-Shiun Chang & Timothy C. Salmon & Krista J. Saral, 2016. "Procurement Auctions With Renegotiation And Wealth Constraints," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1684-1704, July.

    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:wsi:igtrxx:v:18:y:2016:i:04:n:s021919891650016x. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    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.