Drew, D S and Skitmore, M (2006) Testing Vickery's revenue equivalence theory in construction auctions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(4), pp. 425-428. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction work is often allocated to contractors via first price sealed bid auctions (FPA). American Nobel Prize winner and economist William Vickery, however, suggested that second price auctions (SPA) (i.e., the lowest bidder wins the contract at the second lowest price) may be more beneficial due to the revenue equivalence theory (RET). This implies that, upon certain conditions being met, clients can, in the long run, expect to pay approximately the same to contractors irrespective of whether contracts are awarded according to an FPA or SPA. At the same time, it is expected to be easier to bid in an SPA. In the absence of real world data, the likely effects of using SPA for construction were examined experimentally. This involved experienced respondents bidding on over 60 identical FPA and SPA. Contrary to expectations, the bids for the SPA were significantly higher, indicating that RET is unlikely to occur in practice in construction bidding.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bids; contracts; pricing |
| Index terms: | testing, bidding, revenue, construction work, pricing, bidder |
| Subjects: | operations management, economic analysis, professional practice, bidding |
| Topics: | Procurement, Project Management, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here