IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Auctions for Split-Award Contracts



The buyer of a homogeneous input employs split-award contracting to divide his input requirements into two contracts that are awarded to different suppliers. The buyer uses a sequential second-price auction to award a larger primary contract and a smaller secondary contract. With a fixed number of suppliers participating in the auctions, we find that the buyer pays a higher expected price than with a sole-source auction. The premium paid to the winner of the secondary contract must also be paid to the winner of the primary contract as an opportunity cost of not winning the secondary contract. With fixed costs of participating in the auction, we identify the conditions under which a secondary contract can increase the number of suppliers and lower the expected price paid by the buyer. An optimal secondary contract can internalize the cost reductions from the new industry capacity and extract the rents of the suppliers. An optimal secondary contract can be particularly beneficial when the number of suppliers is limited by high fixed costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin K Perry & Jozsef Sakovics, 2001. "Auctions for Split-Award Contracts," ESE Discussion Papers 90, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
  • Handle: RePEc:edn:esedps:90

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Eeckhoudt, Louis & Gollier, Christian, 1995. "Demand for Risky Assets and the Monotone Probability Ratio Order," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 113-122, September.
    2. Krishna, Vijay, 2009. "Auction Theory," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 2, number 9780123745071.
    3. Lebrun, Bernard, 1998. "Comparative Statics in First Price Auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 97-110, October.
    4. Susan Athey, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(1), pages 187-223.
    5. Klemperer, Paul, 1999. " Auction Theory: A Guide to the Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(3), pages 227-286, July.
    6. Simmons, P., 1996. "Seller surplus in first price auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-5, January.
    7. Paul R. Milgrom, 1981. "Good News and Bad News: Representation Theorems and Applications," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(2), pages 380-391, Autumn.
    8. Shorrocks, Anthony F, 1983. "Ranking Income Distributions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 50(197), pages 3-17, February.
    9. Milgrom, Paul R & Weber, Robert J, 1982. "A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(5), pages 1089-1122, September.
    10. Milgrom, Paul, 1989. "Auctions and Bidding: A Primer," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 3-22, Summer.
    11. Atkinson, Anthony B., 1970. "On the measurement of inequality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 244-263, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Gong, Jiong & Li, Jianpei & McAfee, R. Preston, 2012. "Split-award contracts with investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 188-197.
    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. Roman Inderst & Greg Shaffer, 2007. "Retail Mergers, Buyer Power and Product Variety," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(516), pages 45-67, January.
    4. Sarah Parlane & Ying-Yi Tsai, 2013. "Optimal Contract Orders and Relationship-Specific Investments in Vertical Organizations," Working Papers 201316, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    5. Bergman , Mats A. & Granlund, David & Rudholm, Niklas, 2016. "Squeezing the last drop out of your suppliers: an empirical study of market-based purchasing policies for generic pharmaceuticals," Umeå Economic Studies 921, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    6. Milliou Chrysovalantou, 2008. "Technological Proximity and Exclusive Buyer-Supplier Relationships," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, July.
    7. Alcalde, José & Dahm, Matthias, 2013. "Competition for procurement shares," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 193-208.
    8. Bergman, Mats & Granlund, David & Rudholm, Niklas, 2016. "Squeezing the last drop out of your suppliers: an empirical study of market-based purchasing policies for generic pharmaceuticals," HUI Working Papers 116, HUI Research.
    9. repec:bla:obuest:v:79:y:2017:i:6:p:969-996 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Alcalde, Jose & Dahm, Mathias, 2016. "Dual Sourcing with Price Discovery," QM&ET Working Papers 16-1, University of Alicante, D. Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory.
    11. Bichler, Martin & Schneider, Stefan & Guler, Kemal & Sayal, Mehmet, 2011. "Compact bidding languages and supplier selection for markets with economies of scale and scope," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 67-77, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Milliou, Chrysovalantou, 2004. "Exclusive dealing and compatibility of investments," UC3M Working papers. Economics we044919, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:edn:esedps:90. 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: (Research Office). General contact details of provider: .

    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.