A Sealed-Bid Two-Attribute Yardstick Auction Without Prior Scoring

Abstract

We analyze a two-attribute single item procurement auction that uses yardstick competition to settle prices. The auction simplifies the procurement process by reducing the principal’s articulation of preferences to simply choosing the most preferred offer as if it was a market with posted prices. This is done simply by replacing the submitted sealed bids by yardstick bids, computed by a linear weighting of the other participants’ bids. We show that there is only one type of Nash equilibria where some agents may win the auction by submitting a zero price-bid. Using a simulation study we demonstrate that following this type of equilibrium behavior often leads to winner’s curse. The simulations show that in auctions with more than 12 participants the chance of facing winner’s curse is around 95 %. Truthful reporting, on the other hand, does not constitute a Nash equilibrium but it is ex post individually rational. Using a simulation study we demonstrate that truthful bidding may indeed represent some kind of focal point.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    For instance think of a procurement decision in a cooperative where different members’ interests have to be aggregated

  2. 2.

    In a first score auction, the bidder with the highest score wins and has to meet the highest score. In a second score auction, the bidder with the highest score wins and has to meet the second highest score.

  3. 3.

    Using the revenue equivalence theorem as it is presented in Riley and Samuelson (1981).

  4. 4.

    However, it is not given that the second score auction is the most preferred auction by the principal. Bogetoft and Nielsen (2008) show that it is possible for the principal to extract more informational rent while the auction remains efficient and strategy-proof.

  5. 5.

    The idea of a yardstick auction can also be found in Aparicio et al. (2008). They suggest an auction design for so-called combinatorial auctions based on the same type of yardstick principle.

  6. 6.

    Note that if the other bidders were allowed a higher degree of misreporting our results will be even stronger in the sense that there will be even fewer cases where the auction is won with a gain.

References

  1. Agrell PJ, Bogetoft P, Tind J (2005) DEA and dynamic yardstick competition in Scandinavian electricity distribution. J Product Anal 23(2):173–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aparicio J, Landete M, Monge J, Sirvent I (2008) A new pricing scheme based on DEA for iterative multi-unit combinatorial auctions. Top 16(2):319–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arrow KJ (1963) Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babcock B, Lakshminarayan P, Wu J, Zilberman D (1996) The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities: a study of CRP contracts. Am J Agric Econ 78(4):961–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Babcock BA, Lakshminarayan PG, Wu J, Zilberman D (1997) Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land Econ 73:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beil DR, Wein L (2003) An inverse-optimization-based auction mechanism to support a multiattribute RFQ process. Manag Sci 49(11):1529–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bichler M, Kersten G, Strecker S (2003) Towards a structured design of electronic negotiations. Group Decis Negot 12(4):311–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bogetoft P, Nielsen K (2008) DEA based auctions. Eur J Oper Res 184:685–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bogetoft P, Otto L (2011) Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bogetoft P, Otto L (2012) Benchmark Package for R. Tech. rep

  11. Burmeister B, Ihde T, Kittsteiner T, Moldovanu B, Nikutta J (2002) A practical approach to multi-attribute auctions. In: 13th International workshop on database and expert systems applications, 2002. Proceedings, pp 670–674

  12. Bushnell JB, Oren SS (1994) Bidder cost revelation in electric power auctions. J Regul Econ 6:5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chao HP (2002) Multi-dimensional procurement auctions for power reserves: robust incentive-compatible scoring and settlement rules. J Regul Econ 22(2):161–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Che YK (1993) Design competition through multidimensional auctions. RAND J Econ 24(4):668–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cripps M, Ireland NJ (1994) The design of auctions and tenders with quality thresholds: the symmetric case. Econ J 104(423):316–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of production efficiency. J R Stat Soc Series A 120:253–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karakaya G, Koksalan M (2011) An interactive approach for multi-attribute auctions. Decis Support Syst 51(2):299–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lai G, Li C, Sycara K, Giampapa J (2004) Robotics institute: literature review on multi-attribute negotiations. Tech. Rep. CMU-RI-TR-04-66, Carnegie Mellon University

  19. Milgrom P (2000) An economist’s vision of the b-to-b marketplace. Tech. rep

  20. Moulin H (1991) Axioms of cooperative decision making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parkes D (2005) Auction design with costly preference elicitation. Ann Math Artif Intell 44(3):269–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Parkes D, Kalagnanam J (2005) Models for iterative multiattribute procurement auctions. Manag Sci 51:435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Riley JG, Samuelson WF (1981) Optimal auctions. Am Econ Rev 71(3):381–392

    Google Scholar 

  24. Teich JE, Wallenius H, Wallenius J, Koppius OR (2004) Emerging multiple issue e-auctions. Eur J Oper Res 159:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Teich JE, Wallenius H, Wallenius J, Zaitsev A (2006) A multi-attribute e-auction mechanism for procurement: theoretical foundations. Eur J Oper Res 175:90–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tzeng GH, Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. Yang N, Liao X, Huang WW (2014) Decision support for preference elicitation in multi-attribute electronic procurement auctions through an agent-based intermediary. Decis Support Syst 57:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kurt Nielsen.

Additional information

Financial support from the Center for research in the Foundations of Electronic Markets (CFEM), funded by the Danish Council for Strategic Research is gratefully acknowledged.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hougaard, J.L., Nielsen, K. & Papakonstantinou, A. A Sealed-Bid Two-Attribute Yardstick Auction Without Prior Scoring. Group Decis Negot 25, 827–843 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9463-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multi-attribute auctions
  • Yardstick competition
  • Articulation of preferences