Is Negotiation a Good Bargain: A Study in Public Procurement in India

S. Sharma
{"title":"Is Negotiation a Good Bargain: A Study in Public Procurement in India","authors":"S. Sharma","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2790784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the issues in public procurement is whether the supplier selection process should be based only on competitive bidding (auction) alone or it should use negotiations. Relative efficiency of auction vs negotiation has been studied in economics literature. First price sealed bid auctions (conventional open competitive tenders) have been used successfully in public procurement. The present regulatory frame-work in India identifies negotiation as exception rather than the rule. This paper analyses circumstances in which competitive procedures or auctions work or do not work. The paper further argues that procurement policy of “No Negotiation\" does not always produce optimal outcomes. If the procurement is complex and high value, auctions are likely to achieve sub-optimal outcomes. Negotiation with L1 does not help in addressing auction failures and therefore it might be better to ‘Not Negotiate’ at all rather than Negotiating with L1. Multi-stage auctions may provide opportunity to address some of the challenges that regular auctions face. It concludes that Negotiation is an effective tool to achieve allocative efficiencies and there is a strong case of permitting negotiations in high value complex public procurements.","PeriodicalId":277248,"journal":{"name":"Negotiation Applications eJournal","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Negotiation Applications eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2790784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the issues in public procurement is whether the supplier selection process should be based only on competitive bidding (auction) alone or it should use negotiations. Relative efficiency of auction vs negotiation has been studied in economics literature. First price sealed bid auctions (conventional open competitive tenders) have been used successfully in public procurement. The present regulatory frame-work in India identifies negotiation as exception rather than the rule. This paper analyses circumstances in which competitive procedures or auctions work or do not work. The paper further argues that procurement policy of “No Negotiation" does not always produce optimal outcomes. If the procurement is complex and high value, auctions are likely to achieve sub-optimal outcomes. Negotiation with L1 does not help in addressing auction failures and therefore it might be better to ‘Not Negotiate’ at all rather than Negotiating with L1. Multi-stage auctions may provide opportunity to address some of the challenges that regular auctions face. It concludes that Negotiation is an effective tool to achieve allocative efficiencies and there is a strong case of permitting negotiations in high value complex public procurements.
谈判是一笔好交易:印度政府采购研究
公共采购中的一个问题是供应商选择过程是否应仅以竞争性招标(拍卖)为基础,还是应采用谈判。经济学文献对拍卖与谈判的相对效率进行了研究。首价密封拍卖(传统的公开竞争性招标)已成功地应用于公共采购。印度目前的监管框架将谈判视为例外,而非规则。本文分析了竞争性程序或拍卖在何种情况下起作用或不起作用。本文进一步论证了“无谈判”采购政策并不总是产生最优结果。如果采购是复杂的和高价值的,拍卖可能会取得次优结果。与L1谈判无助于解决拍卖失败问题,因此与其与L1谈判,不如“不谈判”。多级拍卖可能为解决常规拍卖面临的一些挑战提供了机会。它的结论是,谈判是实现分配效率的有效工具,在高价值复杂的公共采购中允许谈判是有充分理由的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信