IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2005035.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Renegotiating government procurement contracts

Author

Listed:
  • PAUWELS, Wilfried
  • KORT, Peter M.

Abstract

The paper considers a public authority wishing to carry out a major public project. As a result of competitive bidding the project is assigned to the firm with the lowest bid. The cost of the project is uncertain in the sense that it can be low or high. After the bidding process the firm observes the true cost, while the government remains uninformed. After learning about the true cost, the firm can start to renegotiate the contract by proposing an increase of the price. Such an increase is only justified in case costs are high. If the government rejects the new price proposal, a law suit follows. This problem is modeled as a signaling game. If the prior probability of the costs being low is low (high), a pooling (separating) equilibrium occurs. In the pooling equilibrium the government always accepts the firm’s proposal. In the separating equilibrium the government can apply a mixed strategy when costs are high. Then it goes to court with a certain probability. Compared to a pure strategy, the mixed strategy has the advantage that legal costs are lower. In our economic analysis we compare the American and the English rule for sharing the litigation expenses. A main result is that under the American rule the legal expenses are lower and welfare is higher in the mixed strategy equilibrium. We also study the importance of the firm’s commitment to its new price proposal.

Suggested Citation

  • PAUWELS, Wilfried & KORT, Peter M., 2005. "Renegotiating government procurement contracts," Working Papers 2005035, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2005035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/554d0e/d76c3e64.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2000. "Does information about competitors' actions increase or decrease competition in experimental oligopoly markets?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 39-57, January.
    2. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2009. "Cooperation in Experimental Games of Strategic Complements and Substitutes," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 1125-1147.
    3. van Damme, E.E.C. & Potters, J.J.M. & Rockenbach, B. & Sadrieh, A., 2003. "Collusion under Yardstick Competition : An Experimental Study," Discussion Paper 2003-009, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    4. Rotemberg, Julio J, 1994. "Human Relations in the Workplace," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(4), pages 684-717, August.
    5. Martin, Stephen, 1996. "R & D joint ventures and tacit product market collusion," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 733-741, April.
    6. Potters, Jan & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "Collusion under yardstick competition: an experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 1017-1038, September.
    7. Altavilla, Carlo & Luini, Luigi & Sbriglia, Patrizia, 2006. "Social learning in market games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, pages 632-652.
    8. Jorge Restrepo & Michael Spagat & Juan Vargas, 2004. "The Dynamics of the Columbian Civil Conflict: A New Dataset," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, pages 396-429.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:ant:wpaper:2005035. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joeri Nys). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ftufsbe.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.