Moral Hazard, Incentive Contracts and Risk: Evidence from Procurement

Deadlines and late penalties are widely used to incentivize effort. Tighter deadlines and higher penalties induce higher effort, but increase the agent's risk. We model how these contract terms affect the work rate and time-to-completion in a procurement setting, characterizing the efficient contract design. Using new micro-level data on Minnesota highway construction contracts that includes day-by-day information on work plans, hours worked and delays, we find evidence of ex post moral hazard: contractors adjust their effort level during the course of the contract in response to unanticipated productivity shocks, in a way that is consistent with our theoretical predictions. We next build an econometric model that endogenizes the completion time as a function of the contract terms and the productivity shocks, and simulate how commuter welfare and contractor costs vary across different terms and shocks. Accounting for the traffic delays caused by construction, switching to a more efficient contract design would increase welfare by 22.5% of the contract value while increasing the standard deviation of contractor costs—a measure of risk—by less than 1% of the contract value.

[1]  Tong Li,et al.  Entry and Competition Effects in First-Price Auctions: Theory and Evidence from Procurement Auctions , 2006 .

[2]  Georgia Kosmopoulou,et al.  The Impact of Public Information on Bidding in Highway Procurement Auctions , 2007 .

[3]  Gregory Lewis,et al.  Procurement Contracting with Time Incentives: Theory and Evidence , 2009 .

[4]  A report on the functioning of public procurement markets in the EU : benefits from the application of EU directives and challenges for the future 03 / 02 / 2004 , 2004 .

[5]  Canice Prendergast The Provision of Incentives in Firms , 1999 .

[6]  Katja Seim,et al.  Bid Preference Programs and Participation in Highway Procurement Auctions , 2011 .

[7]  Martin Pesendorfer,et al.  Estimation of a Dynamic Auction Game , 2001 .

[8]  Ricard Gil,et al.  The Role of Repeated Interactions, Self-Enforcing Agreements and Relational [Sub]Contracting: Evidence from California Highway Procurement Auctions , 2009 .

[9]  Pierre-André Chiappori,et al.  Testing for Asymmetric Information in Insurance Markets , 2000, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Elena Krasnokutskaya,et al.  Identification and Estimation in Highway Procurement Auctions Under Unobserved Auction Heterogeneity , 2004 .

[11]  M. Weitzman Prices vs. Quantities , 1974 .

[12]  Steven Tadelis,et al.  Incentives Versus Transaction Costs: A Theory of Procurement Contracts , 2001 .

[13]  E. Maskin,et al.  Public-Private Partnerships and Government Spending Limits , 2008 .

[14]  J. Laffont,et al.  A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation , 1993 .

[15]  O. Bandiera,et al.  Social preferences and the response to incentives: Evidence from personnel data , 2005 .

[16]  Lixin Ye,et al.  Deciding Between Competition and Collusion , 2003, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[17]  R. Porter,et al.  Detection of Bid Rigging in Procurement Auctions , 1992, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  David Martimort,et al.  To build or not to build: Normative and positive theories of public-private partnerships , 2008 .

[19]  Raj Chetty,et al.  Adjustment Costs, Firm Responses, and Micro vs. Macro Labor Supply Elasticities: Evidence from Danish Tax Records. , 2011, The quarterly journal of economics.

[20]  H. Hong Increasing Competition and the Winner's Curse: Evidence from Procurement , 2002 .

[21]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  Multitask Principal–Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design , 1991 .

[22]  J. Laffont,et al.  Using Cost Observation to Regulate Firms , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[23]  Emmanuel Saez,et al.  Do Taxpayers Bunch at Kink Points? , 1999 .

[24]  Justin Marion Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway procurement auctions , 2007 .

[25]  R. Preston McAfee,et al.  Bidding for contracts: a principal-agent analysis , 1986 .

[26]  Jean Tirole,et al.  Auctioning Incentive Contracts , 1987, Journal of Political Economy.

[27]  Paul R. Milgrom,et al.  AGGREGATION AND LINEARITY IN THE PROVISION OF INTERTEMPORAL INCENTIVES , 1987 .

[28]  Susan Athey,et al.  Information and Competition in U.S. Forest Service Timber Auctions , 1999, Journal of Political Economy.

[29]  Steven Tadelis,et al.  Contracting for Government Services: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Cities , 2007 .