Gates' bidding model (revisited)

Ballesteros-Pérez, P; Skitmore, M; Cerezo-Narváez, A; Otero-Mateo, M and Pastor-Fernández, A (2023) Gates' bidding model (revisited). Construction Management and Economics, 41(7), pp. 576-586. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Gates' (1967) bidding model was one of the earliest proposed for construction bidding. Its most celebrated formula allows for calculating the probability of any bidder submitting the lowest bid when competing against several known competitors. This model has been shown to outperform many recent bidding models. However, it also suffers from important limitations that keep it from being applied in wider contexts. In this paper, we overcome two of such limitations. First, we extend Gates' model to calculate the probability of a bidder ending in any position other than the first (lowest). Second, we propose an approach for extrapolating the probabilities of all bidders underbidding each other, even in those situations of limited access to historical bidding information. Overcoming these limitations significantly enhances Gates' model in two ways. First, it allows anticipating the probabilities of winning an auction in best value auctions where bidders who submitted a competitive but not necessarily the lowest bid can still win. Second, our extension allows applying Gates' formula in situations of incomplete information. This is especially interesting when some bidders have not met in previous auctions and there is no information from them individually underbidding each other.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: auction; bidding; gates; probability; tendering
Index terms: bidder, best value, bidding
Subjects: bidding
Topics: Procurement
Descriptive scope: 1 C

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