IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/msm/wpaper/2012-02.html

Best Value for Money in Procurement

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Dimitri

    (Professor of Economics, University of Siena (IT) and Research Fellow, Maastricht School of Management (NL))

Abstract

Recent years witnessed a gradual change on how to evaluate successful procurement, in both the private ad the public sector. Indeed from a price-only criterion for measuring success, decisions shifted to a multi-criteria approach where various dimensions of quality, as well as price, are considered. The most common way to express such shift is to say that procurement should deliver “best value for money” (BVM). That is, to award the contract, both monetary and non-monetary components of an offer are to be considered. Whether in competitive bidding or negotiations BVM is typically formalized by a scoring formula, namely a rule for assigning dimensionless numbers to different elements of an offer, often expressed in different units of measurement. The contract would then be awarded according to the total score obtained by an offer. This paper discusses the notion of BVM and some typical forms of scoring rules, as a way to formalize the procurer’s preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Dimitri, 2012. "Best Value for Money in Procurement," Working Papers 2012/02, Maastricht School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:msm:wpaper:2012/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://web2.msm.nl/RePEc/msm/wpaper/MSM-WP2012-02.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernando Branco, 1997. "The Design of Multidimensional Auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 63-81, Spring.
    2. John Asker & Estelle Cantillon, 2008. "Properties of scoring auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(1), pages 69-85, March.
    3. Krishna, Vijay, 2009. "Auction Theory," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 2, number 9780123745071.
    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. Arvate, Paulo Roberto & Barbosa, Klênio & Gambardella, Dante, 2013. "Generic-branded drug competition and the price for pharmaceuticals in procurement auctions," Textos para discussão 333, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).

    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. Seung Han Yoo, 2017. "Optimal Design for an Informed Auctioneer," Discussion Paper Series 1702, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    2. Takahashi, Hidenori, 2015. "Strategic design under uncertain evaluations : structural analysis of design-build auctions," Working Papers 15-08, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    3. Mares, Vlad & Swinkels, Jeroen M., 2014. "On the analysis of asymmetric first price auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 1-40.
    4. Awaya, Yu & Fujiwara, Naoki & Szabo, Marton, 2025. "Quality and price in scoring auctions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    5. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2015. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts under the threat of early exit: the case of conservation auctions," Working Paper Series 2015:6, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    6. Peng Hao & Jun-Peng Guo & Eoghan O’Neill & Yong-Heng Shi, 2023. "When Will First-Price Work Well? The Impact of Anti-Corruption Rules on Photovoltaic Power Generation Procurement Auctions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Chandel, Shivangi & Sarkar, Shubhro, 2023. "Corruption in multidimensional procurement auctions under asymmetry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Jorge González Chapela, 2019. "Weight Values, Scoring Rules and Abnormally Low Tenders Criteria in Multidimensional Procurement: Effects on Price," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 228(1), pages 55-81, March.
    9. Zhe Chen, 2021. "The bid orchestration and competitions in scoring procurement auctions," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(7), pages 1718-1729, October.
    10. Onderstal, Sander, 2009. "Bidding for the unemployed: An application of mechanism design to welfare-to-work programs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 715-722, August.
    11. Krishnendu Ghosh Dastidar, 2014. "Scoring auctions with non-quasilinear scoring rules," ISER Discussion Paper 0902, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    12. Miguel Vazquez & Michelle Hallack, 2017. "Efficiency versus transaction costs in multidimensional auctions: the case of Brazilian oil and gas lease auctions," IEFE Working Papers 94, IEFE, Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics and Policy, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    13. Takeshi Nishimura, 2012. "Scoring Auction by an Informed Principal," Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series gd11-224, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    14. Wang, Hong, 2020. "Quality manipulation and limit corruption in competitive procurement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 1124-1135.
    15. Xiao, Fei & Wang, Haijun & Guo, Shuojia & Guan, Xu & Liu, Baoshan, 2021. "Efficient and truthful multi-attribute auctions for crowdsourced delivery," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    16. Riccardo Camboni Marchi Adani & Paola Valbonesi, 2016. "Favouritism in scoring rule auctions," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0210, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
    17. Heinrich, Timo & Brosig-Koch, Jeannette, 2015. "Promises and Social Distance in Buyer-Determined Procurement Auctions," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112892, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Stoll, Sebastian & Zöttl, Gregor, 2012. "Information Disclosure in Open Non-Binding Procurement Auctions: an Empirical Study," Discussion Papers in Economics 13112, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. 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.
    20. Jason Allen & Robert Clark & Brent Hickman & Eric Richert, 2019. "Resolving Failed Banks: Uncertainty, Multiple Bidding & Auction Design," Staff Working Papers 19-30, Bank of Canada.

    More about this item

    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:msm:wpaper:2012/02. 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: Maud de By The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Maud de By to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msmmmnl.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.