Transparency in Buyer-Determined Auctions: Should Quality be Private or Public?

We study non-binding procurement auctions where both price and non-price characteristics of bidders matter for being awarded a contract. The outcome of such auctions critically depends on how information is distributed among bidders during the bidding process. As we show theoretically, whether it is in the buyer's interest to conceal or to disclose non-price information most importantly depends on how important the quality aspects of the good to be procured are to the buyer: The more important the quality aspects are to the buyer, the more interesting concealment becomes. We then empirically study the impact of a change in the information structure using data from a large European online procurement platform for different categories of goods. In a counterfactual analysis we analyze the reduction of non-price information available to the bidders. In the data we find that the choice of information structure indeed matters. Confirming the hypothesis obtained in our theoretical framework, we find that in auction categories where bidders' non-price characteristics are of little importance for the decisions of the buyers, concealment of non-price information decreases buyers' welfare by up to 6% due to reduced competitive pressure leading to higher bids. In contrast, for categories where bidders' non-price characteristics strongly influence buyers' decisions concealment of non-price information increases buyers' welfare by up to 15%.

[1]  Timo Heinrich Communication and Reputation in Procurement Auctions – Some Empirical Evidence , 2011 .

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

[3]  Hema Yoganarasimhan Estimation of Beauty Contest Auctions , 2014 .

[4]  Andrew Caplin,et al.  Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium , 1991 .

[5]  Wei Wei,et al.  Myopic Solutions of Homogeneous Sequential Decision Processes , 2010, Oper. Res..

[6]  D. Colucci,et al.  Information Disclosure in Procurement Auctions with Horizontally Differentiated Suppliers , 2011 .

[7]  Anthony J. Dukes,et al.  Optimal information revelation in procurement schemes , 2007 .

[8]  Yeon-Koo Che,et al.  An Experimental Study of Sponsored-Search Auctions , 2011, Games Econ. Behav..

[9]  Elena Katok,et al.  Collusion in Dynamic Buyer-Determined Reverse Auctions , 2016, Manag. Sci..

[10]  F. Branco The Design of Multidimensional Auctions , 1997 .

[11]  J. M. Villas-Boas,et al.  Endogeneity in Brand Choice Models , 1999 .

[12]  E. Haruvy,et al.  Increasing Revenue by Decreasing Information in Procurement Auctions , 2013 .

[13]  Izak Duenyas,et al.  Total-Cost Procurement Auctions: Impact of Suppliers' Cost Adjustments on Auction Format Choice , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[14]  Pradeep Chintagunta,et al.  Beyond the Endogeneity Bias: The Effect of Unmeasured Brand Characteristics on Household-Level Brand Choice Models , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[15]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Models for Iterative Multiattribute Procurement Auctions , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[16]  Jeannette E. Brosig-Koch,et al.  Reputation and Mechanism Choice in Procurement Auctions: An Experiment , 2014 .

[17]  Susan Athey,et al.  Chapter 60 Nonparametric Approaches to Auctions , 2007 .

[18]  John Asker,et al.  Properties of Scoring Auctions , 2004 .

[19]  Leonardo Rezende Biased procurement auctions , 2009 .

[20]  Damian R. Beil,et al.  RFQ Auctions with Supplier Qualification Screening , 2009, Oper. Res..

[21]  Sandy D. Jap An Exploratory Study of the Introduction of Online Reverse Auctions , 2003 .

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

[23]  K. Train,et al.  A Control Function Approach to Endogeneity in Consumer Choice Models , 2010 .

[24]  Elena Katok,et al.  When Does It Pay to Delay Supplier Qualification? Theory and Experiments , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[25]  R. Engelbrecht-Wiggans,et al.  A Comparison of Buyer-Determined and Price-Based Multiattribute Mechanisms , 2007 .

[26]  Sandy D. Jap Online reverse auctions: Issues, themes, and prospects for the future , 2002 .

[27]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  What is a Relationship Worth? Repeated Exchange and the Development and Deployment of Relational Capital , 2013, Organ. Sci..

[28]  Yeon-Koo Che Design competition through multidimensional auctions , 1993 .

[29]  A note on information revelation in procurement auctions , 2010 .

[30]  Martin Bichler,et al.  Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Ernan Haruvy,et al.  Interorganizational Relationships and Bidding Behavior in Industrial Online Reverse Auctions , 2008 .

[32]  J. Asker,et al.  Procurement When Price and Quality Matter , 2006 .

[33]  Martin Pesendorfer,et al.  Bidding behavior in a repeated procurement auction: A summary , 2000 .

[34]  Steven T. Berry,et al.  Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium , 1995 .

[35]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Best-response auctions , 2011, EC '11.

[36]  E. Krasnokutskaya,et al.  Identification and Estimation of Auction Models with Unobserved Heterogeneity , 2011 .

[37]  Natalia Santamaría An Analysis of Scoring and Buyer-Determined Procurement Auctions , 2011 .

[38]  Georg Weizsäcker Ignoring the Rationality of Others: Evidence from Experimental Normal-form Games , 2001 .

[39]  K. Small,et al.  Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models , 1981 .

[40]  V. Crawford,et al.  Job Matching with Heterogeneous Firms and Workers , 1981 .

[41]  Terry P. Harrison,et al.  Better, Faster, Cheaper: An Experimental Analysis of a Multiattribute Reverse Auction Mechanism with Restricted Information Feedback , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[42]  Chong Wang,et al.  Comparing Open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Evidence from Online Labor Markets , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[43]  Toshihide Mizuno,et al.  On the existence of a unique price equilibrium for models of product differentiation , 2003 .