Contracting inside an organization: An experimental study

In this paper we propose and test a contracting mechanism, Multi-Contract Cost Sharing (MCCS), for use in the management of a sequence of projects. The mechanism is intended for situations where (1) the contractor knows more about the true costs of various projects than does the contracting agency (adverse selection), and (2) unobservable effort on the part of the contractor may lead to cost reductions (moral hazard). The proposed process is evaluated in an experimental environment that includes the essential economic features of the NASA process for the acquisition of Space Science Strategy missions. The environment is complex and the optimal mechanism is unknown. The design of the MCCS mechanism is based on the optimal contract for a simpler related environment. We compare the performance of the proposed process to theoretical benchmarks and to an implementation of the current NASA ‘cost cap’ procurement process. The data indicate that the proposed MCCS process generates significantly higher value per dollar spent than using cost caps, because it allocates resources more efficiently among projects and provides greater incentives to engage in cost-reducing innovations.

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

[2]  Bart J. Wilson,et al.  Differentiated product competition and the Antitrust Logit Model: an experimental analysis , 2005 .

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

[4]  Stuart Mestelman,et al.  What have we learned from emissions trading experiments , 1998 .

[5]  Ken Binmore,et al.  The Biggest Auction Ever: the Sale of the British 3G Telecom Licenses , 2002 .

[6]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The Dynamics of Law Clerk Matching: An Experimental and Computational Investigation of Proposals for Reform of the Market , 2001 .

[7]  Sergei Severinov,et al.  Mechanism Design and Communication Costs , 2001 .

[8]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Gaming against Managers in Incentive Systems: Experimental Results with Chinese Students and Chinese Managers , 1999 .

[9]  J. Ledyard,et al.  The allocation of a shared resource within an organization , 1996 .

[10]  Rafael Tenorio,et al.  To Spin or Not to Spin? Natural and Laboratory Experiments from 'the Price is Right' , 2002 .

[11]  Charles R. Plott,et al.  Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: An Experimental Approach , 1982 .

[12]  Peter Bohm,et al.  Emission Quota Trade among the Few: Laboratory Evidence of Joint Implementation among Committed Countries The Complete Version , 1998 .

[13]  C. Plott,et al.  The Allocation of Landing Rights by Unanimity among Competitors , 1981 .

[14]  Charles N. Noussair,et al.  Allocating priority with auctions An experimental analysis , 1992 .

[15]  C. Noussair,et al.  Bidding Behavior in the Price is Right Game: an Experimental Study , 2004 .

[16]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[17]  James C. Cox,et al.  Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection in Procurement Contracting , 1996 .

[18]  C. Plott,et al.  A BINARY CONFLICT ASCENDING PRICE (BICAP) MECHANISM FOR THE DECENTRALIZED ALLOCATION OF THE RIGHT TO USE RAILROAD TRACKS. , 1996 .

[19]  A. Roth,et al.  The Redesign of the Matching Market for American Physicians: Some Engineering Aspects of Economic Design , 1999, The American economic review.

[20]  Yan Chen,et al.  School Choice : An Experimental Study ∗ , 2004 .

[21]  Steven J. Kachelmeier,et al.  Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China , 1992 .

[22]  J. Banks,et al.  Allocating uncertain and unresponsive resources: an experimental approach. , 1989, The Rand journal of economics.

[23]  Ronald R. King,et al.  The Robustness of Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Stock Markets , 1993 .

[24]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  REWARDS, EXPERIENCE AND DECISION COSTS IN FIRST PRICE AUCTIONS , 1993 .

[25]  Stefan Reichelstein Constructing incentive schemes for government contracts : an application of agency theory , 1992 .

[26]  John O. Ledyard,et al.  A Market-Based Mechanism for Allocating Space Shuttle Secondary Payload Priority , 2000 .

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

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

[29]  Charles W. Polk,et al.  Subcomponent Innovation and Moral Hazard: Where Technological Progress Meets the Division of Labor , 1994 .

[30]  Theodore Groves,et al.  Limited Communication and Incentive-Compatibility , 1987 .