公开招标中供应商排序颠倒的选择

IF 6.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100744
Fredo Schotanus , Gijsbert van den Engh , Yoran Nijenhuis , Jan Telgen
{"title":"公开招标中供应商排序颠倒的选择","authors":"Fredo Schotanus ,&nbsp;Gijsbert van den Engh ,&nbsp;Yoran Nijenhuis ,&nbsp;Jan Telgen","doi":"10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>For supplier selection in the public sector, the Weighted Sum Model is often used in combination with relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal. With rank reversal we refer to a changed order in the ranking of bids leading to a new winner, after removing or adding a non-optimal bid that does not win the original tender. In practice, an important reason indicated by practitioners for using methods that allow rank reversal is that it would rarely occur in practice. Based on an analysis of 303 Dutch public tenders, this research shows this is not true. In about 1 out of 5 the tenders, rank reversal occurs after adding non-optimal fictional bids to tenders that do not have quality thresholds. After removing bids, the rate is about 1 out of 40 if a curved relative scoring method is used. In addition, the research shows that rank reversal rates increase when (i) there is no quality threshold, (ii) the number of bids increases, (iii) bid price variance increases, and (iv) price weights are not very low or high. We argue that relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal should not be used in public procurement, or otherwise only in exceptional cases, as it conflicts with public procurement principles and leads to reduced overall bid value.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management","volume":"28 2","pages":"Article 100744"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409221000832/pdfft?md5=a1113dcd204deb63a975b573545450d0&pid=1-s2.0-S1478409221000832-main.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supplier selection with rank reversal in public tenders\",\"authors\":\"Fredo Schotanus ,&nbsp;Gijsbert van den Engh ,&nbsp;Yoran Nijenhuis ,&nbsp;Jan Telgen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>For supplier selection in the public sector, the Weighted Sum Model is often used in combination with relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal. With rank reversal we refer to a changed order in the ranking of bids leading to a new winner, after removing or adding a non-optimal bid that does not win the original tender. In practice, an important reason indicated by practitioners for using methods that allow rank reversal is that it would rarely occur in practice. Based on an analysis of 303 Dutch public tenders, this research shows this is not true. In about 1 out of 5 the tenders, rank reversal occurs after adding non-optimal fictional bids to tenders that do not have quality thresholds. After removing bids, the rate is about 1 out of 40 if a curved relative scoring method is used. In addition, the research shows that rank reversal rates increase when (i) there is no quality threshold, (ii) the number of bids increases, (iii) bid price variance increases, and (iv) price weights are not very low or high. We argue that relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal should not be used in public procurement, or otherwise only in exceptional cases, as it conflicts with public procurement principles and leads to reduced overall bid value.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47950,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management\",\"volume\":\"28 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100744\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409221000832/pdfft?md5=a1113dcd204deb63a975b573545450d0&pid=1-s2.0-S1478409221000832-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409221000832\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1478409221000832","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

对于公共部门的供应商选择,通常将加权和模型与允许排名反转的相对评分方法结合使用。在排名反转中,我们指的是在删除或添加一个未赢得原始投标的非最优投标后,在投标排名中改变顺序,导致新的获胜者。在实践中,从业者表示使用允许等级反转的方法的一个重要原因是它在实践中很少发生。基于对303份荷兰公开招标的分析,这项研究表明,事实并非如此。在大约五分之一的投标中,在向没有质量门槛的投标中添加非最优虚构投标后,排名反转发生。在去除出价后,如果使用曲线相对评分方法,则比率约为1 / 40。此外,研究表明,当(i)没有质量门槛,(ii)投标数量增加,(iii)投标价格差异增加,以及(iv)价格权重不是很低或很高时,排名反转率增加。我们认为,允许排名反转的相对评分方法不应用于公共采购,或者仅在例外情况下使用,因为它与公共采购原则相冲突,并导致总体投标价值降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Supplier selection with rank reversal in public tenders

For supplier selection in the public sector, the Weighted Sum Model is often used in combination with relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal. With rank reversal we refer to a changed order in the ranking of bids leading to a new winner, after removing or adding a non-optimal bid that does not win the original tender. In practice, an important reason indicated by practitioners for using methods that allow rank reversal is that it would rarely occur in practice. Based on an analysis of 303 Dutch public tenders, this research shows this is not true. In about 1 out of 5 the tenders, rank reversal occurs after adding non-optimal fictional bids to tenders that do not have quality thresholds. After removing bids, the rate is about 1 out of 40 if a curved relative scoring method is used. In addition, the research shows that rank reversal rates increase when (i) there is no quality threshold, (ii) the number of bids increases, (iii) bid price variance increases, and (iv) price weights are not very low or high. We argue that relative scoring methods that allow rank reversal should not be used in public procurement, or otherwise only in exceptional cases, as it conflicts with public procurement principles and leads to reduced overall bid value.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
18.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management is to publish original, high-quality research within the field of purchasing and supply management (PSM). Articles should have a significant impact on PSM theory and practice. The Journal ensures that high quality research is collected and disseminated widely to both academics and practitioners, and provides a forum for debate. It covers all subjects relating to the purchase and supply of goods and services in industry, commerce, local, national, and regional government, health and transportation.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Improving supplier diversity and inclusion in supply chains Editorial Board From checking the box to driving impact – Perspectives on how to develop a supplier diversity program that is less narrowly scoped and more wholeheartedly adopted The circular business models of third-party loop operators: An activity-based view on performing activities internally or externally
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1