Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:14:07.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Small business participation procurement policy: Subcontracting vs Allotment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

François Maréchal
Affiliation:
CRESE, University of Franche-Comté, [email protected]
Get access

Summary

Allotment and subcontracting are the two procedures enabling small businesses to participate in procurement. We compare these two procedures in the context of a procurement contract awarded by a first-price sealed-bid auction. We assume that the public buyer wishes to fulfil two different goals: to minimize expected costs of the contract for the public buyer and to maximize small businesses' profit. We show that, under specific cost-technology conditions we determine, the allotment procedure not only enables extensive participation by small businesses but also can achieve the goal of minimizing expected total costs for the public buyer.

L'acces des PME à la commande publique peut s'effectuer par voie de soustraitance ou par un allotissement des marchés. Cet article propose une comparaison de ces deux procédures dans le cadre d'un marché public attribué par un appel d'offres au premier prix sous plis cachetés. Nous analysons deux objectifs à première vue contradictoires qu'un acheteur public peut poursuivre: la minimisation du coût total espéré du marché et la maximisation des profits des PME. Nous déterminons les conditions sur les fonctions de coûts des firmes selon lesquelles la procédure d'allotissement des marchés permet de satisfaire simultanément les deux objectifs de l'acheteur public.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, I. and Cramton, P. (1932) “Deficit Reduction Through Diversity: How Affirmative Action at the FCC Increased Auction Competition”, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 761815.Google Scholar
Gale, I. L., Hausch, D. B. and Stegeman, M. (2000) “Sequential Procurement with Subcontracting”, International Economic Review, Vol. 41, pp. 9891020.Google Scholar
Kamien, M.I., Li, L. and Samet, D. (1989) “Bertrand Competition with Subcontracting”, Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 553567.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, S. and McMillan, J. (1987) “The Design of Contracts: Evidence from Japanese Subcontracting”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Vol. 1, pp. 327349.Google Scholar
Klemperer, P. D. (1999) “Auction Theory: A guide to the literature”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 13, pp. 227286.Google Scholar
Krishna, V. (2002), Auction theory, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Laffont, J.J. and Tirole, J. (1993), A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maréchal, F. and Morand, P-H. (2003) “Pre vs Post Award Subcontracting Plan in Procurement Bidding”, Economics Letters, Vol. 81, pp. 2330.Google Scholar
Morand, P-H. (2003) “SMEs and Public Procurement Policy”, Review of Economic Design, Vol. 8, pp. 301318.Google Scholar
Schottmuller, C. (2011) “Adverse Selection without Single Crossing”, Working paper.Google Scholar
Yildirim, H. (2004) “Piecewise procurement of a large-scale project”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 22, pp. 13491375.Google Scholar
Yun, M. (1999) “Subcontracting Relations in the Korean Automotive Industry: Risk Sharing and Technological Capability”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 17, pp. 81108.Google Scholar
Zheng, C. (2002) “Optimal Auction with Resale”, Econometrica, Vol. 70, pp. 21972224.Google Scholar