Cost-Benefit Analysis of Bid Protests: A Representative Bidder Model

Received: 12 Feb 2020, Revised: 14 Feb 2020, Accepted: 09 June 2020, Available online: 18 June 2020, Version of Record: 18 June 2020

Francois Melese

Abstract


The goal of any procurement process is to obtain ‘value for money.’ Bid protest systems are intended to help. The U.S. Department of Defense, NATO, the EU, UN, OECD, and WTO, all authorize losing bidders to protest public procurements. The threat of a protest is meant to increase government accountability, and encourage vendor participation. An extensive legal and regulatory literature discusses intended benefits of protests, but is surprisingly silent about the costs. The goal of this study is to examine both costs and benefits. Military acquisition offers an illustration. The dual objective is to minimize corruption, and maximize competition. Sadly, protest systems can inadvertently discourage both. Moreover, past protests by defense companies have generated significant costs, and triggered dangerous delays of critical defense equipment, materiel, services, and supplies required for national security. The static, probabilistic, micro-economic, partial equilibrium, representative bidder model presented in this paper offers a cautionary tale for defense organizations, government agencies, countries, and international institutions that authorize bid protests. The model reveals multiple potential deficiencies of protest systems, and recommends analysis of portfolios of alternatives to eliminate fraud and favoritism, and increase competition, to improve procurement outcomes.
KEYWORDS:



Description



   

Indexed in scopus

https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=6602651382
      

Article metrics

10.31763/DSJ.v5i1.1674 Abstract views : | PDF views :

   

Cite

   

Full Text

Download

Conflict of interest


“Authors state no conflict of interest”


Funding Information


This research received no external funding or grants


Peer review:


Peer review under responsibility of Defence Science Journal


Ethics approval:


Not applicable.


Consent for publication:


Not applicable.


Acknowledgements:


None.